User talk:Barek

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 Wikipedia 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 (): November 20, 2024 10:33 (UTC)

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

How do propose I do this?

Will you show me how I should put this information about crooks who steal your money. I've experiences this problem personally and would like to warn people of such pieces of meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.20.16 (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia likely isn't the best venue for what you want to do. If there were reliable third party sources documenting the issues, then it could potentially be added to an article about the specific company - but it still wouldn't be appropriate for the more general articles about Modchips. Also, Wikipedia should not be used for soapboxing about person experiences/compaints about a company. You're better off going to consumer complaint websites, which are intended for that type of posting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also had to revert your edits; please review the suggestions on your talk page which discuss suggestions on how to effectively contribute to Wikipedia, as well as What Wikipedia is not. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

North American Game Warden Museum

Please take a look and lend a hand. Thanks. P.S., I went to WP:AIV and got your page vandal blocked. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

As always, you helped. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

User warnings

FYI. Any user can add the warning templates like {{uw-vandal}} or {{uw-vandal2}} to user talk pages. I have blocked one of the two new accounts that you have been dealing with since it appears to be created for the purpose of spamming a timeshare company's properties. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the warning templates, and will start using them from here on for users spamming the timeshare mention. I've also considered submitting a WP:SPI for the two users plus the IP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Hello. When you encounter users continuing to spam links to commercial sites I would just skip to final warning as spamming makes it very hard to assume good faith that the user is trying to improve an article rather than get profit for themselves. Triplestop x3 00:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mackinac Island State Park Commission

Any improvements would be appreciated. I have no experience editing governmental entity articles, so this is a new one on me. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

apparently now I am a spammer

Time for {{uw-spam1}}; odd that I somehow added the link, instead of removing it. tedder (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It was in the EL section twice (summary of both of our edits) ... you just missed one ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha- I couldn't figure out what happened at first glance. (I'm mobile and the lack of desktop screens makes it slightly tougher). I was just semi-amused. In any case, it's always nice running into you. tedder (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

updating a page to include more info is not spamming

Barek,

Please explain what exactly you find to be spamming. I have expanded the page to include addtional third party refferences, included two dozen internal wiki refferences, expanded the description of the company (which is the whole point of an encyclopedia). External link are used on MANY pages in the wiki project for informational purposes. Again, please do not threaten to block my access for a difference of oppinions. As I am new to the wiki community, I kindly ask for clarification and have not undone your last edits...

mabeza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabeza (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the spamming of commercial links. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. You have been repeatedly warned - and repeatedly provided links to Wikipedia policy and guidelines related to the issue - however, here are the main bigger issues:

Per WP:EL

• "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article."
• "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
• "In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site."
• "Links normally to be avoided ... Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject"

and per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY:

• "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"

The spamming of links to multiple organizations within the TripAdvisor Media Network umbrella is not appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to review WP:EL, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and WP:SPAM. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on the external links issue. I must have misudnerstood the guidelines. I will not include external links in the body article.

updating the history section

I undid your deletion of some elements of the history section. There are NO outside links in that section just pertinent information. On what grounds do you censor such information, such as dates and names of acquisitions?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabeza (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for advertising. I left in-tact the factual statements and the refs showing the companies acquired. Listing the websites opperated by those acquired companies is unnecesarilly verbose and is simply name-dropping for the purpose of advertising those sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. Including operating entities of a business provides greater detail and information and is not necessarily verbose and is no way used for advertising purposes. Would including the brands name such as GMC or Hummer in a wiki article about General Motors be advertising or inappropriate? I do not think so. Also, his section has no external links, just internal links for the operating companies that have wiki pages. I will undo your edits to this section. I appreciate your efforts to maintain informational integrity, but I think your efforts are starting to border on censorship... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabeza (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing advertisements from Wikipedia is not cencorship - and the article as a whole is quickly becoming a public-relations styled advertisement. Your comparison to GM is also flawed ... for one, GM and Hummer themselves meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and have their own articles because of their notability ... for another, GMC and Hummer would be comparable to the level of the organizations that were purchased by TripAdvisor, which I did not remove in my edit.

I haven't edited many of the advertising issues too strongly as yet, my edits to the history section were pretty minor compared to what needs to be done to fix the overall article - mainly because my primary focus has been on the linkspamming issues. One of the big issues is the "website features" section - this has been purged down in the article's past specifically because of advertisement issues. Do not be surprised if it is trimmed again by myself or others. Also, much of the wording in the "history" and "description" sections are in need of re-writing in order to eliminate their advertisement-like tones.

I would also like to recommend that you stop edit-warring over content when it is removed. Users have provided explainations for the removal of content in their edit summaries, and there are discussions started on the talk page of the article. When you've reverted changes, you have failed to provide adequate reasons and have not gotten involved in discussions. By not discussing and providing reasons, your edits can be viewed as disruptive editing, as well as giving the impression that you have ownership issues with the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Barek,

I appreciate your point of view, but I still disagree. The comparison to GMC and its sub brands is a fitting one as the companies I included in the history section receive media attention and tends of thousands of visitors per day and some of them have wiki pages. As to your second point regarding "website features" - this section included information about services that are available on the site, I have taken out many claims that could be perceived as advertising. Including site features and their description I believe is appropriate. The tone of such description is a matter for debate I respect your right of expression as I know you do mine. I will continue to be active regarding this page and others and will include my reasons for providing changes and undoes to better chronicle my reasoning.--71.184.246.79 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why ref link is spam

Barek, I noticed that you edited the [surety bond] page from the ref link that was added. Why is statistical information on bonding companies for the past several years spam? As of right now the article claims $3.5 billion in premium with no ref link on the stat. I am not looking to argue, but want to understand your line of thinking so I can better understand when ref links are appropriate.216.178.84.198 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Banoffi edit

I do believe my edits were more common knowledge than personal research or opinion. I am quite upset that my edit was deleted so quickly, and I am greatly discouraged from imparting further knowlegde onto wikipedia because of this. I would like my edits re-posted. XXX luvya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigeoin (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 July 2009

It was at best original research - that was being generous. More accurate may have been calling it non-encyclopedic content, or if I were to call a spade a spade then I would have simply labeled it vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

KK tnx babez