| Revision as of 01:48, 9 March 2009 editBarek (talk | contribs)83,022 edits →Bank: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:54, 9 March 2009 edit undoWFB (talk | contribs)43 edits →BankNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| How about "Wells Fargo Bank Customer". Is that ok? It's not really true because I don't have a bank account with them but I neither love them or hate them..no opinion actually. ] (]) 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | How about "Wells Fargo Bank Customer". Is that ok? It's not really true because I don't have a bank account with them but I neither love them or hate them..no opinion actually. ] (]) 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :There is no user by the name {{user|Bankofamerica}} (no edit hitory). Even if there were, that account would need to be reviewed independant of yours - "other stuff exists" is generally not a viable argument. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 01:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | :There is no user by the name {{user|Bankofamerica}} (no edit hitory). Even if there were, that account would need to be reviewed independant of yours - "other stuff exists" is generally not a viable argument. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 01:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == 3RR notice == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> --- | |||
Revision as of 01:54, 9 March 2009
|
Barek is tired of wikidrama, and has chosen to spend more time in the real world; but may still wander back online occasionally. During this time, replies to queries may be greatly delayed. |
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek. |
My talk page archives
| ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pioneer Courthouse Square
Your summary of all the different "lowering/raising the shields" on this article is a good one, as it neither names the vandal nor the contents of the vandalism, thus keeping ego-stroking to a minimum. Over at User talk:Tedder, we've been kicking around how to deal with this in the future. It seems like your writeup is an excellent item that immediately answers the question of why it's blocked. Maybe it could be formalized into a box at the top of the page, or maybe just as-is would be good. If you'd like to add any comments on Tedder's user page, feel free. Baseball Bugs 18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I actually almost regretted posting it once I had done so. It's impossible to guess the vandal's true motivations for this persistent behavior; but if he views it as a game at this point - then listing the protection too prominently could be a point of bragging rights for him. The single posting that will eventually move to the archive probably isn't too big of a deal; but making it prominently viewable could potentially just reinforce his behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- We've been talking about this on User talk:Tedder. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of simply telling anyone who asks (who's probably a sock anyway), to just read the history. And if they raise the slightest fuss (thus betraying that they're another sock), refuse further discussion with them and get them blocked. Baseball Bugs 21:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Costco
Where were you over a month ago when I first posted this notice? No disrespect, but it is very amusing that you all of a sudden show up. Elpablo69 (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a result of your edit warring on Sam's Club - I was reviewing your recent activity and saw the same pattern of edit warring against multiple other editors on that article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User talk:72.54.129.226
Would you please take a look at this and see if there is anything you can add. I felt bad about reverting these edits, and I don't want to discourage these contributors. /This arose from an edit at Pentwater, Michigan. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Stan
- I agree with your removal of the text. The person may feel strongly about the location; but the text that was added was highly promotional - more appropriate for a tourism commission website or the website of the local chamber of commerce. It's not really something that can really be reworded to a neutral point of view, so the best option left was to remove it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Booze sold to minors again at WHITEFISH MOUNTAIN RESORT
The Whitefish Mountain Resort owned bar once again has been cited for selling booze to minors. One more time and they'll lose the licence for 20 days. This might seem trivial to you in Seattle, but the law was created here in Montana to reduce the number of deaths due to underage drinking. The other establishments on the hill were able to comply with the law, it's just the resort owned bar that seems intent on breaking the law.
Please do not tell us how trivial this matter is.98.125.81.28 (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a non-notable employee problem, not particularly notable for a worldwide encyclopedia. Now if you can find a source that states that management instructs its staff to violate the law, that would be notable. Staff who violate the law despite activities of the police and management simply shows that the staff require better training and/or need to be released from employment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Bank
I tried to call myself "Bank of America" but I was prevented because there is a user called "Bankofamerica". He has been around for almost a year and nobody has complained. May I be given the same courtesy as extended to that user? Thank you. Please note that I have noted on my user name that I am not an official spokesman of the Wells Fargo Bank NA Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
How about "Wells Fargo Bank Customer". Is that ok? It's not really true because I don't have a bank account with them but I neither love them or hate them..no opinion actually. Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is no user by the name Bankofamerica (talk · contribs) (no edit hitory). Even if there were, that account would need to be reviewed independant of yours - "other stuff exists" is generally not a viable argument. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
3RR notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ---