Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:28, 6 February 2012

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.

Please click here to start a new message at the bottom of this page.
	If you post a message to me here, I will usually reply here - if you want a {{talkback}} notice, please request it. If I left a message for you on your talk page, I have it on my watchlist and will see replies made on your talk page. Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right at my discretion to remove uncivil comments from this page, as well as threads which are perceived by me to be disruptive. My alternate talkpage can be used to contact me if Misplaced Pages indicates that this page is protected due to vandalism.	Please note: This talk page is known to be monitored by talk page watchers. This means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot respond to quickly is appreciated. Server time (update): January 10, 2025 02:29 (UTC)
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages.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.

purge cache

My talk page archives
• 2007  • 2008  • 2009  • 2010  • 2011  • 2012  • 2013  • 2014  • 2015  • 2016  • 2017  • 2018  • 2019  • 2020  • 2021  • 2022  • 2023  • 2024

Request for your opinion

Hello Barek!
I am writing to you per a suggestion by Orlady to get a neutral Admin's POV (I found you by clicking randomly on the Category:Misplaced Pages administrators page). Would you please look at the discussion at User_talk:Doncram#December_2011 and add your thoughts? In this case I feel that the block of a certain (not very popular) editor is excessive given the circumstances. I am happy to answer any questions or discuss the matter and understand should you choose to decline. Thank you & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I can take a look, but as it appears to have quite a bit of history to it, it won't be until later tonight (maybe 6-12 hours from now). That said, I do need to give a couple disclaimers: the article that appears to be involved (Charles Coker Wilson) was already on my watchlist, although I haven't edited the article. I honestly can't recall why it was added to my watchlist, possibly due to something I may have read at some point on ANI, although I'm not sure. Also, I have had some interactions with the editor that appears to have been the other party in the dispute that resulted in the block (ie: SarekOfVulcan); those interactions have been minor and I don't feel they are significant enough to influence any neutrality on my part, but I wanted to be fully open and disclose those interactions (a scan through our talk pages can easily show the limited extent of much of that interaction). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's all fair, and I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. Sarek's been an Admin, so the number of other admins that have had no interaction with him is likely to be on the small side anyway. I think that everyone agrees that the length of Sarek's block doesn't have any bearing on Doncram's block, and that they both should have known better than their actions on that day. You might also want to check out User_talk:Markvs88#User_rights. Thanks again! Markvs88 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the user talk page, their contribution history, the history of this incident, the block log, and the prior ANI discussion that resulted in the earlier long block ... I will be keeping the discussion on my watch list, but won't comment over there as yet. The problem is that I'm somewhat torn - the block is a higher escalation than I would have done; but thus far, their comments to their talk page seem more focused on justifying their violation of WP:EW. Before I can support an unblock request (with or without conditions), I need to see evidence that the user is willing to take ownership for their own actions and that they have a plan for how to disengage in the future before their editing might again escalate to the same conclusion in a content dispute.

While I think that BWilkins' unblock condition is too extreme, I do agree with the points brought up (here) and (here). The fundamental question in any unblock request is if the reviewer believes that the behavior is likely to recur. I would like to think it won't, but I'm not seeing evidence as yet that the user will take steps to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I respect your opinion. As (I think!) I've made clear I wouldn't be doing this if it weren't for the circumstances and that I have seen how these two editors have battled -- for years. I agree, the escalatory block policy makes sense and is a great tool, but in this case is excessive. I am not sure if you've checked the history on that page, you can see that the edit warring began... 5 minutes after creation. Well, you've already read the other points anyway, so I'll cut it short here except to point out that if Doncram should edit war again after (say) a 6 week or a 6 month block, what's the difference? If he doesn't change his behavior he's going to be blocked for life eventually. He's been blocked at least half a dozen times before, and those were all fair (including the 3 month one), but this is one isn't... at least to the non-admins that have voted on his page. Best & thanks again, Markvs88 (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I wouldn't have escalated to the 6 month block myself ... thinking about it now, I probably would have placed a 3 month block. However, once the block is in place, any question of unblocking or reduction of a block begins to hinge around the question of if the behavior is likely to recur. If I see evidence that they are taking ownership for their own actions and can demonstrate their respect for site policies by suggesting behavior changes or even unblock conditions that would reduce the likelihood of their disrupting Misplaced Pages again in the future - then I would support reducing the block, possibly even removing it. The problem is that, as yet, I'm not seeing that on their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Steganography

Hi, can you tell me in brief where is the external link in what I am adding? This is a journal paper on Steganography and very highly cited. I failed to understand why do you call it inappropriate? What I added was:

Steganography, cryptography and watermarking could be differentiated based on their objectives, requirements, and the relation to the carrier file. Ref {{cite journal |title=Digital Image Steganography: Survey and Analysis of Current Methods |journal=Signal Processing |last= Cheddad |first=Abbas |coauthors=Condell J; Curran K; McKevitt P |volume=90 |issue=3 |pages=727-752 |year=2010}

Although, there is no link in the above addition I would like to quote here "Misplaced Pages:External links" policy:

"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, ..." --Cheddad (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what you are adding is:

A comparison between Steganography, Cryptography and Watermarking is provided in.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Digital Image Steganography: Survey and Analysis of Current Methods |journal=Signal Processing |last= Cheddad |first=Abbas |coauthors=Condell J; Curran K; McKevitt P |volume=90 |issue=3 |pages=727-752 |year=2010}}</ref>

While formatted as a ref, the structure is clear that this is used as an external link. The relevant guideline is WP:ELNO #6: "Links normally to be avoided ... #6 Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article"

Additionally, your username suggests that you have a conflict of interest in adding the link as it's the same as the primary author of the target document. Per WP:COI, it would be better if you brought up the link on the article talk page rather than adding it to the article yourself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hej Barek,

Thank you for the clarifications. I thought the topic is open for editing, a thing that features Misplaced Pages. I did not know that we needed to discuss this bit of addition prior to the posting. Anyhow, I drop it altogether, I don't want to bother you with it as it's not a big deal actually.

Good night! --Cheddad (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why did you undo my changes to the Royal Oak, MI page

People have a right to know, that the city is putting to death an innocent dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottaronbloom (talk • contribs) 03:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your addition failed multiple Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Misplaced Pages is not the place to soapbox over perceived wrongs. If that's your goal, locate a community forum elsewhere or register your own website. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Another why did you undo my changes

The information I added to Walmart International represents the UK division of Walmart (Asda) moving into new markets in the Middle East and the Channel Island. I don't see how that is an off subject tangent of Walmart International. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psion20 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your question supplies the answer. As you said, it's related to the Asda division specifically, and as such it belongs in the article for Asda - which you had already posted the material to that article as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've also replied at talk:Walmart where you had also posted a question about the removed content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fear of Flying

I am DESPERATELY trying to improve this article. I appreciate your input and deletion if you felt it was necessary. However, can you help me improve the article??? I am very knowledgeable about the subject. And the link you deleted is NOT a commercial site. It does not even accept donations. So why did you delete it? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help me improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The notice posted to your talk page already included the reasons and links to additional information at Misplaced Pages:External links to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#LINK. Specifically from those pages, the link you added takingflight.us/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2 fails WP:ELNO #10 "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it is not appropriate to template experienced Misplaced Pages users - especially users attempting to engage in a dialogue. Rklawton (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The templates were entirely appropriate. The user joined Jan 25th, and has been repeatedly attempting to add the link since that time despite multiple editors removing it, including having added it to the entirely unrelated subject in the article at Taking Flight. Misplaced Pages is not the place to attempt to advertise or promote their website which fails policies and guidelines related to both EL and RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

He's had an account since the 25th. He's been editing longer than that. Please read WP:DTR. If you wish to be effective, then engage him personally. Rklawton (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of the essay DTR, it's neither policy nor guideline, and I frequently ignore it - especially where it's both clear that the regular should know better and where the template is accurate in the message. As to their time on the project, I'll take your word for their having been here longer - although their actions and account log gave no indication of it.

As to engaging them, I replied to them on my talk page, and on the article talk page. Their own user talk page was redundant, already addressed in both the other locations - although I will concede that it would have been polite to provide a {{tb}} notice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see my questions and comments to you on my talk page. Should I have put them here instead. Or both. Thank You--Mt6617 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Also added some References and links on the talk page. Can you please review and see if they would be acceptable for use in the article? Thank you --Mt6617 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Raerev

Part of the extensive "clickbank" spam bank that Beetstra addressed to administrator's noticeboard a few days ago. I can provide more detail if you require. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I've been following it over at WT:WPSPAM - although I hadn't looked for update postings in a couple days, so will probably review to get caught back up again on recent evolution of the issue. Thanks for pointing me to the other noticeboard, I'll review there too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Paula Deen

Please dont vandalize my entries that contain factual data. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweatballs (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are not appropriate. I see you've already been blocked by another admin; but for more information on why your edits are not appropriate, see WP:BLP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Slander / Libel

You have set "tags" accusing www.takingflight.us as being a "spamming site". Please see the discussion here.