User talk:Barneca/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Barneca. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Re: RFA

Done. Sometimes I just think about running for adminship, and I usually want to do everything to succeed, that being one of them. Hopefully you understand. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Replying on your talk. --barneca (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Can you give me some advice on when to apply again? STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'll improve and be back in a while. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 23:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You should not need to blok your own socks..:)

I sent him to AVI but you beat the block request. Quick draw..:) Igor Berger (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just happened to be checking in for 2 minutes when they hit. It looks like Cometstyles sent him to WP:UAA too; good to have people watching my back! --barneca (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem that is what we hear for, to watch each other backs! But you are too popular with these Trolls..:) We will have to make an article on you being that you are becoming notable. Igor Berger (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You've got a fanclub :P SQL ^{Query me!} 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm playing hard to get. --barneca (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cranky admin, stop lying it. It is you, you! I am getting ready to file an ANI on you for being a sockpuppet of yourself..:) Igor Berger (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This redlink-category-cleaning-up thing....

...what do I need to do to get started? I've got a slow night planned....Gladys J Cortez 02:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could attack it in several ways, and there's no guarantee that this is the most efficient, but here's what I'm doing:

pick any non-crossed-out line at User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Sandbox
look at the category that was deleted
see if you can figure out what was intended (spelling error, etc.)
if the solution is obvious, fix it
if you don't know what the solution is (this happens to me alot, as I don't actually do much categorization work, and some of the rules are kind of arcane to me), at least revert BCBot so the link is red and someone else can come along and fix it
go to the sandbox again, cross that one out, and pick another.

Enjoy! --barneca (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

- Whoa, that talkback thing is kinda neat! I've not seen that before.... I'll take a whack at the list, anyhoodles. Thanks!Gladys J Cortez 02:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Auggghhh. I think I'm causing a bigger mess than I'm fixing...BOLD is one thing, inept is something else. I think I'm going to back slowly away from this mess, and see if there's something I can do in an area where I...you know, have a clue. Sorry about that.... bit off more than I could chew.Gladys J Cortez 03:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, ok. I took a look at what was causing you trouble and made my own guesstimate. But I just skip alot of them myself if I don't know. But if you're relatively confident, but not positive, trust yourself. It's a wiki; someone will be along shortly to fix any of your messes! I just boldly created a new category, and if i was wrong... well... someone will be happy to come and tell me what an idiot i am. Enjoy whatever you end up doing tonight. i really, truly honestly need to get off the computer now. --barneca (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Don't I Get Called Mean?

You get vandalism on your page tonight and all I've gotten is told I'll be going to hell for tagging an article about a non-notable reverend. I'm jealous. :P -WarthogDemon 06:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just mean, but "U R so Mean!" I must say, that hurt me to the core. Thanks for reverting it. See you in Hell. --barneca (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1337-speak always helps. :P Thank you! Happy Editing! -WarthogDemon 06:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ughh...

Ok, you need to relax, all of the info I put in my article was true, and you considered it vandalism the first time i put it on there, not after i reposted it. And it was not inappropriate, you know that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermintrules (talk • contribs)

The fact that we both started our edit summaries with "OMG" truly terrifies me. I think I'll hide now. -WarthogDemon 06:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You have met the enemy, and she is you! --barneca (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But I'm a male! Now I'm all confused... -WarthogDemon 06:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of a strech, but I have a vague, sneaking suspicion Peppermintrules might just possibly be a she, and it is her I'm referring to. --barneca (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably just me too. I'm falling asleep here and have a busy week ahead of me. I really ought to stop wasting my time here and get some shuteye. If you see edits being made by me after 30 minutes, block me temporarily and tell me to go to bed. :P -WarthogDemon 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to stop editing for over two hours, for much the same reason. Can't... break... addiction... --barneca (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk about waste of time! I am stuck in the quick sands of Wikipedia. It is very addictive. I may have to join WAA - Wikipidea Anonymous Association or just anon for short..:) Maybe Barneca will block me and set me free to go back to the real world not the virtual merry go around of Wikipedia! Igor Berger (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy

Hello, Barneca,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [1]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [2] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [3]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. That issue has kind of fallen off my radar. Has there been any interesting progress, or is it (as I suspect) just being ignored by TPTB? --barneca (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. No, nothing much happened in the interim, so I am trying to make sure that TPTB at least think about learning some lessons from this episode. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Barneca, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a nice vacation

And say hello to Micky Mouse for me..:) Igor Berger (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Igor. Fun but exhausting. Is it pathetic that one of the first things I do after coming back from vacation is to log in and see what's been going on in my absence? Yeah, I thought so. --barneca (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca

User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Lawrence § t/e 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I hereby revoke your 1000 Class-A shares in whatever the hell company I promised to give you shares in (I forget the specifics). --barneca (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Star of the Barn

		The Surreal Barnstar
		for the best ~~April Fools prank~~ work of the year. - Philippe 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, Philippe, it's been fun. Now you know my real reason for pursuing Jimboship; I've had a long barnstar drought. It worked! Thanks for playing along, and glad you enjoyed it as much as I did. --barneca (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A&M Entertainment

I completely agree with your rational here. Just wondering if there is a way for non-admins to review previously deleted articles to determine if an Afd or speedy delete is in order? Thanks. dissolve ^talk 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell, that's kind of a Catch-22; the only people who can see the content are admins; but if it's a repost of previously deleted material, they'd just go ahead and delete it, without using {{db}} tags. In the future, I think the best you can do is ask an admin to temporarily restore it. However, in this particular case, since the AfD was 2 years old, and numerous people had contributed to it over a relatively long time, it would have been a relatively safe bet that it wasn't identical to the deleted version.

Still, no harm, no foul. BTW, I've expanded a bit on my edit summary on the article talk page; I didn't realize notability issues had been raised back in January, so while a grace period would still be nice, I don't think you necessarily owe it to Hypursuit. --barneca (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah unfort. I didn't notice the previous Afd was 2 years ago before switching from Afd to speedy. I couldn't find any reliable sources to verify the article, but I'll still give it a couple days before taking it to Afd. Thanks for the info! dissolve ^talk 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA

[4] We must have edit conflicted, because I was doing the same thing right as you where. (Oh, I always leave little loose ends everywhere) *sigh* Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to step on your toes. I beat you to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/S‎ too. If it makes you feel any better, Rudget does the same thing to me all the time... --barneca (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I actually like how fast people get stuff down around here. I dont understand people who get all upset about edit conflicts, all it tells you is that the project is being worked on, people are doing stuff and quickly. You can just tell when things are getting done is when you get edit conflicted 4 times on a single page all in a row. Tiptoety ^talk 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What I want to know is, how you came to the conclusion that a level-2 warning was appropriate... Probably through a thorough review of my contribution history... --barneca (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, behave yourself otherwise we will have to take away your toys..:) Igor Berger (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd better hurry and indef block you and Jimbo right now, before the ability is taken away from me. :) --barneca (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Definetly Jimbo, he is the biggest vandal around..:) Igor Berger (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you overdid it

Hi! I think this diff [5] shows that you reverted too much. The first anon edit following 1234's was OK, and I (when I saw the multi-IP problem) reverted to that. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your are correct. I've fixed it now. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cranky admin

He actually looks like he is waiting around to block a sockpuppet or meatpuppet? Do you know this guy? Igor Berger (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks familiar, can't place the face tho. And I note with dispair that, even when prodded, you did not comment on my hilarious lull-cat pun. Is it more likely that my sense of humor is off, or that everyone in the world except me has a defective sense of humor? I suspect the latter. --barneca (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the Pun! But I am quite show you are not defected..:) Now this one is not funny at all here. It is your fault! Now I am Cranky..:) Igor Berger (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hatto

Without commenting on what should be done here, I note that Ward's last 3 warnings to Hatto HAVE BEEN IN ALL CAPS, AND BOLDED TOO. This is unlikely to engender a desire to do what you want him to do. --barneca 21:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look again. I did not bold the first three requests for each issue (minor edits and no edit summaries being separate issues). I only bolded the last request by me, and another editor made the fifth request. I think after several requests with no response and no change in edit pattern, he deserves bold to get his attention. If I bolded the first three requests I might agree with you, but I didn't. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really saying you did something horribly wrong, I'm just saying that capitalizing and bolding warnings to people doesn't really work; either they continue to ignore it, or it gets their back up, and makes them less likely to listen. I got the number of warnings wrong, I've fixed that. --barneca (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and I'm not upset with your comments, although I disagree with you on two points, with all due respect: It was only one request per issue that was bolded, and I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether bold does or does not work in getting a response. In this case it didn't, but in other cases it might. In any event, I think we can amicably disagree here, and I thank you for your attention to this issue. Ward3001 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, good, I'm glad I haven't accidently insulted you. As to the larger issue of what to do about this, I admit to being at a loss on the correct course of action; if they were bad edits, it would be easy. The edit summary thing is annoying, but the minor edit thing is probably a policy violation. But is it worth it to fight someone doing good work? No idea what the answer is. --barneca (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sandbox

I just think it's "cleaner" to start each sandbox article afresh. I am usually not troubled by waiting because I usually use Wikipedia during several short spans of time a day. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever suits you best; this system is obviously working well for you! Good luck! --barneca (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article you deleted

Sorry about earlier, not entirely sure what happened... Came in from school to find this message telling me you'd deleted an article I didn't know was up here...

Anyway, now changed my password, so whoever wrote it won't be writing anything like that ander my name again

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben54 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I never get it to remember my password...

Point is, all sorted, and no one knows the new password, so that should be fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben54 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, all is well. --barneca (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mayday2010

Good block, that - I was going to do it myself if he hadn't responded but got home to find you'd saved me the trouble :) Black Kite 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation, BK, good to know my instincts aren't too far out of touch. --barneca (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied on AN/I for a wider audience to see my comment but reply will here, too. The hacked account excuse was different from the original one he sent by email which I was almost completely sure was false, and decided not to unblock the ip address so the new account could edit. But when he found a different ip to use and left me a talk page post, I decided to not block the account because his first edits to articles looked okay. Thanks for blocking when it became obvious he was here to make trouble. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now, I was wondering how he did that. Thanks, and you're welcome. --barneca (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Need your help for State terrorism and the United States

User:64.118.111.137 User talk:64.118.111.137 is edit warring with all the editors conserned on the article. Reverting everyone for his POV. He has been reported to 3RR and warned by a few editors including me that he wil be bloacked. He is SPA account. Can you help. I asked admin User:VirtualSteve, but I do not know if he is around. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --barneca (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Igor Berger (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is your first admin action at 3RR, you're a quick learner! Keep it up. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It was, and thanks! (only took me 3 tries). Didn't actually know it was at AN3 until after I acted, but figured I'd try to mark it resolved. --barneca (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am guiding Barneca to higher grounds! He is a great admin and very NPOV. Igor Berger (talk)

Thank you, Master. --barneca (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No way, You are the smart one, I am just giving you a push in the right direction..:) You saved my Ass once, so I am indebted! Igor Berger (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think you good because of MastCell, he is a really smart guy! Igor Berger (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Won't argue there, though I note this is trending in the wrong direction: "great" --> "smart" --> "smart by osmosis". --barneca (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I like your sense of humor..:) Check out this animal User_talk:142.25.110.50 Igor Berger (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That kind of thing happens all the time at AIV. Dealt with rapidly. If I can turn serious for a minute, I suggest you not refer to vandals as animals; WP:DENY, WP:RBI and all that. Not an animal, just a dumb bored student somewhere. --barneca (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I never do, it is my first. And I only said this metaphorically. I never seen a vandal like this. It is like he is enjoying this. Igor Berger (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Watchtower headquarters.jpg

Hi - it's just housekeeping. I placed the OTRS ticket number on the image description page at Commons. I disabled the template on the image talk page here so that the talk page doesn't get categorized into the OTRS category. Hope I didn't cause you any undue concern! Kelly ^hi! 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you were right about the speedy. :) - Kelly ^hi! 01:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Spine World

Kudos to you for figuring out what on Earth was going on with that article and finding a place for a redirect. Erechtheus (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm relatively new at this, and paranoid about deleting something that shouldn't be deleted, so I checked the author's other contributions and pieced it together. Luck, really; my finger had been literally poised over the "Enter" key to delete when I decided to double check. Thanks! --barneca (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gracias

Thanks for the blocks on the IP and ID for 125.60.248.139, it is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's about my limit for the amount of rougeness I'm comfortable with this early in my admin career, but it was pretty obvious he was in it just to play a game, and was set to waste all kinds of time. Per Loren.wilson's edit on the ANI thread, I have no doubt this guy is here frequently. I don't know the perennial socks around here well enough to know who it feels like, but my spidey sense tells me this is a long-term troll. --barneca (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Milestone

Tooting my own horn: [6]. --barneca (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoot! Congrats :) Hope to be there myself, soon (that is, if bots don't count...) SQL ^{Query me!} 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Why did u block me? I promise I will be good now, so dont block me all the time i behave ok? if u say no i will vandalise WP everyday for the rest of my life (im 14). Thanks. Sammy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.206.164 (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Threatening someone in order to get them not to block you is not wise. If the IP you are using now vandalizes anything once, I'll block it. If it doesn't, I've got more important things to keep track of. But consider this a final warning. --barneca (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Dem5844‎

You blocked this user for persistent vandalism according to the blocking policy. This user vandalized twice, and even then, according to blocking policy, he should not be blocked, because two vandalism edits cannot be considered enough for a vandalism only account. Please reconsider your block. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? I fully support the block. If the first two edits were obvious vandalism we have no reason to wait for more before we block. If the blocking policy says something different then we need to re-write it to make it clear that new accounts that vandalize can be blocked immediately with little fuss. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected the policy does not say that. "and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning." Admins are expected to use their judgment. But blocking is the norm in these situations. If an admin chooses to go an extra mile by trying to dialog with a persistent vandal than i would not object. But since talking to vandals often encourages them, this approach is usually fruitless and should be the exception rather than the rule. If an user decides to make good contributions then they can write to the unblock list and make their case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the outside opinion, Flo. I usually err on the side of caution if there's any hint it might just be someone making rude test edits, but I'm slowly coming around to the opinion that people really do know that true vandalism is wrong, and much like no one gets a free pass and a warning before shoplifting, obvious vandals don't need to be told what they already know: that vandalism is wrong. Especially with Yamla's cool template that allows them to be unblocked if they contribute constructively in their own user space. --barneca (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dusti,

Give me a minute to look at the specific wording in the blocking policy, and I'll be back. I'm comfortable with my block even if it doesn't quite match the wording of the policy, but I want to avoid misquoting something. Back in a few. --barneca (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, found it. From WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning."

Now I usually go the level-1 thru level-4 route, but in this case an IP editor was adding misinformation to the article earlier today, "sourced" to a porn site. I gave the IP a final warning. Then this account was created, and inserted another porn site. This is not something you can do by "accident".

Further thoughts on this are on Yamla's talk page: [User talk:Yamla#Some feedback]]. The short version is: the vandal did something he knew was wrong, and he has a way to get unblocked if he's really interested in being unblocked. I'm comfortable with this block, but if you still have concerns, we can discuss it further here, or if i get pulled away by the real world and don't answer you in 5-10 minutes, i have no problem at all with you modifying the block however you feel best. --barneca (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on, two edits cannot say if a user is going to be a persistent problem. When I first joined Wikipedia, my first edits were vandalism, because I didn't know if it would actually show up....I thoght it was a hoax. Does anyone remember WP:BITE? Or how about WP:AGF?Dusti^{talk to me} 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, you read my explanation, right? The account is continuing behavior on an article being vandalized by "someone" in a similar way, and he has an easy way to be unblocked. --barneca (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What is that easy way of being unblocked? Dusti^{talk to me} 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To follow Yamla's directions when he declined the unblock: find an article, fix it on his talk page, and request unblocking again. If he wants to contribute, this is not unreasonable. if he doesn't want to, then the unblock makes sense. --barneca (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that. I will suggest it. Thanks for talking with me about this. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to, thank you too. --barneca (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, please don't tell me that you're OK with this here, and then badmouth my decision to the vandal. They just said (from their talk page, just now): "I have seen this happen alot that if somebody got blocked for vandalizing twice is usually a mistake". Translation: "I know exactly how this place usually works, and I want my four free vandalism edits!" Dusti, if you think I'm wrong, don't drop it because you "can't override an Admin's decision" (your words). Please take it up at ANI or somewhere. I'm amazed you think this guy has been treated poorly; if you really think that, you owe it to him to pursue this, and you shouldn't be telling me you're happy with it. If not, please don't badmouth my decison. Leaving for a bit, I'm slightly annoyed right now, probably best to go have a cup of tea. --barneca (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Barneca, I am somewhat happy with your decision now, looking in the fact that he was given an option to have his block lifted. I don't actually totally agree with the original block, but I do agree with the terms of the unblock, if that makes sense. I wasn't badmouthing you in saying that I cannot override an Admin's decision. I am comfortable enough with it now because he is showing that he doesn't want to correctly contribute to Wikipedia by doing what's asked in the comments. Also, if I were an Admin, I wouldn't unblock him unless he proved he deserved to be unblocked. Obviously, he doesn't want to be. And yes, I am watchlisting your page, sorry, got sidetracked. Cheers! Dusti^{talk to me} 18:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

by the way, concerning this vandal who wants my hide (as opposed to the other one): the tea worked; I'm OK if you're OK. If not, let me know. --barneca (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(refactoring for clarity)If the user was sincere he would not be leaving Trolling remarks as "Maybe try a bit of meditation or drink a few beers of something to loosen up i dunno". This is a pretty lame apology for an unblock. Igor Berger (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Igor, that's a whole other vandal that I recently blocked, who is now convinced I've done him a grave injustice. --barneca (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Open to recall

We may not be able to override an Admin's decision but we can request that your status as administrator is reconsidered. As an editor I would therefore like to propose that your administration rights, or at least your blocking rights, be re-considered on account that you seem to have recently cause much controversy with blocks made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.199.112 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note This IP is the same IP who was warned/blocked for vandalism earlier. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My criteria for recall are at: User:Barneca/Recall procedure. --barneca (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I would just like to say thanks for editing User:Addshore/AC and changing the CAT:AB cat link :). ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Every single time I copy something from one place to my user space, I forget to deactivate the categories myself. --barneca (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor

(I assume you weren't talking about Addshore above, but about my new friend, so refactoring again) You have to start saving all the nice comments that you are reverting. Maybe we can publish a book of them one day and get rich..:) You seem to get the best one's! I am jealous. Igor Berger (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The first time someone vandalized my page, I felt a little thrilled. It's no longer fun, but it's not really a problem. Just an extra 2 seconds out of my life hitting the rollback button. --barneca (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Galapagos

What would you think of a Galapagos WikiProject? Basketball110 _{pick away...} 23:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Basketball110 _{pick away...} 00:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dem5844

I protected the above user's talk page. You put in enough effort helping them, and they refused to take your advice to remedy the situation. Nothing more to be done now. KnightLago (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The last think I needed was someone saying later that I had no business protecting the page of someone complaining about me. --barneca (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI heads up

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I want to compile a list of unfair blocks by User:Barneca. Possibly trolling, but you still deserve a notice about it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

MAA award

File:Euronyr12105200255 widec.jpg

Leading the league as subject of the most simultaneous AN/I threads by a single editor this week is... Barneca!

Since there are currently at least 4 threads on WP:AN/I about your mean, unfair administrative actions (with bonus points since they're all from the same IP editor), you are this week's winner of the Most Abusive Admin award. The trophy has been signed by all previous winners. I just hope you haven't been using performance-enhancing drugs. Think of the kids... MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

*sniff* I'd like to thank the Academy... I considered condensing them into one thread, but the IP would scream WP:ZOMGINVOLVEDADMIN. --barneca (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG! I had to go look for myself, 4 times at once, yep! :) Seems you have a fan... SQL ^{Query me!} 20:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

IP Hell

Okay, thanks for help on the IP troublemaker. Should I just rip it from the Help Desk? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any great advice; I suspect removing it will set him off again. Completely ignoring is probably best (even though I find that difficult), but it's hard to let everyone on WP know to ignore that particular range for a while. --barneca (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP advice needed

I would like to ask your advice about suspected sockpuppet template on user page. I have started the case. It will take time for editors to review it. But in the mean time, I have put the SSP template on user's page and he keeps removing it. Not to agrivate the situation I stopped putting it back, and asked in the SSP filling that he put the template back as long as the case is active. But he is not doing it. Any Advice? Igor Berger (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My advice is: pick your battles and let it drop. In the grand scheme of things, the suspected sockpuppetry tag on the user page doesn't matter. I think you're right policy-wise (i.e. the tag, last I checked, wasn't supposed to be removed), but it's not worth the hassle. Make your case at the SSP; if you can prove your case, the user page will have a "blocked" message on it soon enough. If you can't prove your case, then no sense trying to put a scarlet letter on their user page ahead of time. --barneca (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The case is there, but it seems to be the community is giving the WP:TE editor another chance. The thing is this editor is so subtle in asserting his POV and advicating deliting one article. That seems is the primary objective of this SPA reincarnated sock. This is case #2. The first case he was indef blocked for sock. How much good will do we have to have? Igor Berger (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, Igor; I'm not familiar enough with this case to comment. In general, though, you need pretty compelling evidence to get a sock accusation to stick, and even then it sometimes gets ignored. Unless you've got a smoking gun, better to focus on the edits rather than the editor; if they're violating policy, call them on that, rather than focus on who you think they are. --barneca (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The reserected version is worse than the original. It feels like scratching under the skin. I am in the eye of the storm all is quiet and then Bam, all hell breaks lose. I hope I can keep my cool. I am getting a feeling that he enjoys the wiki..:) Oh well time will tell. (pp) Wow all the way to heavens. I agree with you about hope. Igor Berger (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Big John (rapper) (note: moved from User talk:Barneca/Unprotected)

You want proof that Big John is a real rapper from Tacoma, WA? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=big+john+the+next+step - that is the google search that will prove to you that he is a real rapper. I have both of his albums, and I am in CT. He is a real rapper, with real albums, and he is very good. He owns his own record label too, Magnus. Why you dont take the time to look him up on Google or something is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.235.20 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Tacoma, Washington. --barneca (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look of this article

Hello, Barneca, user:Oiboy77 added "protected" to the article Jin Jing. That's not right. Could you please have a look? Thanks.--Jingandteller (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to remove the protection tag, but someone else beat me to it. You are correct, it was not protected. --barneca (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This time user:Oiboy77 added "Speedy deletion" into the article.--Jingandteller (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

He's allowed to do that; he's requesting an admin come by and consider the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion. if you disagree, put a {{hangon}} tag on the article, and explain why you disagree on the talk page. --barneca (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks.--Jingandteller (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rats! I went to the page again, reviewed it, and was about to remove the speedy tag when I saw someone else had removed it already. I am too slow for this place. --barneca (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Still thank you very much!--Jingandteller (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, what is your opnion on removing speedy? If a anon ip with no edit history puts a speedy on an article that you know does not meet the cretiria, do nonadmins have to wait for an admin to remove the template and should use hangon? I saw editors remove it and recomnd AfD, not entertain the abusive vandalism. I usually do the same, unless it is established editor. Igor Berger (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the text in the speedy tag, anyone except the creator of the article is allowed to remove a speedy tag (even much-maligned IP editors). Speedy tags are supposed to be noncontroversial; if someone else besides the article creator disagrees, it isn't noncontroversial. Oh! I see now why you brought this up! I gave the user above bad advice; I had it in my head that they had created the article, but I see now that they didn't, so yes, they could have removed it themselves. --barneca (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the editor who tagged it speedy is established editor, so I would be careful just removing it without some discussion with the editor first. Maybe drop the editor a note on his talk page asking him to AfD it or put hangon, or both. Or you can be WP:BOLD, Igor Berger (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Established editor or not, anyone besides the original author is allowed to user their own judgement and disagree with (and hence remove) a speedy. Removing a speedy does not mean you think it was vandalism, or placed in bad faith, or anything. It just means you don't think it meets the criteria. That said, I always leave a long edit summary, or a note on the editor's talk page, with an explanation of why I removed it, and a suggestion they can take it to AfD instead. Discussion is always good, but in this case it doesn't need to happen before you remove the tag yourself. --barneca (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but if you are a new editor at Wikipedia removing a speedy template placed by an established editor, even if you did not create the article, may not be a good thing per spirit of the law not the policy. Better err on the grounds of caution than get WP:ABF by the established editor. Anyway, to remove once is okay, but do not edit war with the established editor. Check editors contributions to see who you are working with. You might be reverting and edit warring with Barneca not knowing he is an admin. That will be a good candidate for a block! Igor Berger (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't put a speedy tag back once it's been removed by someone. There's no edit war, there's no risk of blocking. The only situation I can think of where removing a speedy tag on an article you didn't create could get you in any kind of trouble, is if you were doing it with the intention of disruption; i.e. removing ALL speedy tags at CAT:CSD indiscriminantly, or following one particular editor around and removing all of their speedy tags. If anyone ever removed a speedy tag I put on an article, I'd either drop it or take it to AfD. There's really no other recourse. --barneca (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, removing a speedy tag you disagree with not only doesn't violate the spirit of the policy, it is actively within the spirit of the law. Speedy deletion has a very narrow range of application. If the article doesn't meet one of the WP:CSD criteria, it should have the tag removed. Speedy deletes are supposed to be noncontroversial. --barneca (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, this is my opinion based on my personal experiences at Wikipedia, and it is not a policy; Each editor can decide for themselves what is best for them. But as Barneca just said, get familiar with what can be deleted under speedy criteria. Igor Berger (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have mentioned, there's nothing wrong with your approach, just that it isn't necessary. --barneca (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have said do not edit war with a cranky admin, not make sure you are not reverting an admin..:) Igor Berger (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha? You protected your page from moving? Where did they try to move you to? The main page..:) Please unprotect so I can move you to some tropical country.....Igor Berger (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive; I've seen page-move vandals vandalizing user pages of admins before, and since I'm starting to attract unwanted attention, I thought it would be prudent to avoid discovering I'd been moved to User:Barneca is an evil admin and also mean overnight. That said, if you promise to move me to Tahiti, I'll unprotect. It's COLD here, and I'm sick and tired of it. --barneca (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Oh I see, you are at Defcon 1..nuclear weapons are authorized against all incoming socks..:) Actually I have been to Tahiti, stayed at Borabora, nice stuff. Igor Berger (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your information. I understand that it's good to keep polite in the controversial cases and I will obey the policy of wikipedia.--Jingandteller (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding IP user comments

You recently addressed an issue with an IP user's comments on my talk page [7] as a refresher. I was wondering if you'd had a chance to review the current situation at List of songs in Rock Band. The user continues to voice a concern (only via user talk pages, nothing mentioned in the article talk itself) reagring my supposed "ownership" of the article. I know I'm quite active in that article, but I never make significant changes to content without first requesting feedback...nor am I the only "regular" editor to that article. Overall, the user's attitude seems rather abbrasive, and I feel he or she is using their anon IP identity as a means of shielding themselves from recourse for their actions. On more than one occasion he or she has voiced a concern that I am overlooking their opinion simply because they are an IP, and that they are upset they are unable to edit the article because of it's protection status (something I was not involved in)...yet they actively refused to create a user account. In summation, I'd greatly appreciate if you had time to assess the current behavior in the article in question. I've been a regular editor to that article for some time. Yet this is the first time I've heard any sort of complaint regarding my behavior. TRTX ^{T / C} 05:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I had not planned to review that situation in detail unless the IP asked; when I asked on their talk page what the actual problem was, they didn't reply. However, if you'd like, I'll take a look at what's going on.

The talk page looks long, and I have to admit I don't have any great desire to read thru the whole thing and become an expert on the subject. Would you mind summarizing (just a few sentences, to point me in the right direction) which topics seem to be the problem, what your opinion is, and what you think their opinion is? I just popped on today to check email and my talk page, but I'll look into it tomorrow. --barneca (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Back in March there was a list of songs uncovered within content available for download. The list was covered in several gaming sites, and was confirmed to exist by the developers and distributors of the game. After much discussion, the following section was added. There was a consensus formed regarding the best way to present the information, and it's been that way for a while. Recently the IP user has voiced a concern with the way the section is maintained, and has been addressed by a number of regular editors. [8], and [9] are the more recent discussions in which the issue has been discussed. There's some discussions regarding the section and whether information should be integrated.

My opinion is keep the list as it appeared (those songs which were not already in the game or confirmed at the time of the discovery) and keep it seperate as an entry regarding the event moreso than the titles. My understanding of the IP editors view is that there are some assumptions that can be safely made (including artists), and if the data is verifiable enough to appear in the article, it should be enough to integrate it with other announced releases. Hopefully the two discussions can paint a more detailed picture of the opinions of editors that aren't me or the IP user.. TRTX ^{T / C} 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page of the article. Let me know here, or there, if you have any questions, or if problems aren't being resolved thru discussion. I couldn't see anything you've done wrong. I suspect the IP was frustrated at being unable to edit the article, and you were a convenient target of his anger. But really, that's just me playing Dr. Phil. --barneca (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance Fee

Barneca, I am going to have to start charging you Maintenance Fee, you just have too many admirers..:) Igor Berger (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck trying to collect. --barneca (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just blackmail you! I will tell you to delete AFD and MFD and if you do not, I will tell everyone that you are a cranky admin..:) Igor Berger (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How is my favorite admin doing? I think I am having a dejavu. Igor Berger (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Hello, Barneca. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Help Is Needed

Please see my talk page, this page, and this page. Its gone too far for me to try and handle. I also left a note on Keeper's talk page but I think he is offline. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tried (and likely failed) to help a little on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP seems pretty stubborn. Keeper is helping now I think. Also, I believe it went to WP:ANI. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to have gone to ANI about 10 minutes before I replied to you, so I let it be. After reading the ANI threads, I'm at least a little clearer on what the problem is. LHvU's solution seems to have worked (or, it did last time I checked the thread). --barneca (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

reporting vandalism

okay, i probally should stop biting the newcomers. But creating a page that says "I like piss" or replacing words on a page with "TITS" sure seems like a need for a ban to me. I think ban methods should be very strict for anonymous IP's but less strict for created accounts. LukeTheSpook (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to read WP:BLOCK. IP addresses are likely shared or dynamic. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Actually, it's exactly the opposite. For an account, we know it is one person. for an IP, it could very easily be a shared IP, like at a school, and there's no reason to think it's the same person that was warned a month ago.

I agree creating a page that says "I like piss" is a likely indication that things are going to end badly. I don't believe in coddling such users, or giving them gently escalating warnings over 30 minutes. But I do believe in giving them one or two chances (depending on the severity of the vandalism) to realize they can get blocked for that, and to either stop on their own, or find a subect they're interested in and contribute constructively.

So, please don't stop helping out by reporting vandals, just consider dialing it down a little, and give from 1 to 3 warnings first, and only reporting to WP:AIV if they vandalized after receiving a warning that clearly indicates they can be blocked if they continue. If there is something special about the vandalism that makes this unreasonable, then note that (I've blocked sooner in special circumstances myself), but in general that's the rule most admins follow most of the time. --barneca (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What it is about

Thanks for coming to my page. I do not know if I am right or wrong about this, or if I am going at it the right way/ But I think there is more to this then sees the eye. The methodology of User:Bsharvy and User:Gohldelocks are very similar. A lot of this could be related to User:John Gohde incident. I really do not know How and where to go from here. But I feel the user who has been trolling anti-Americanism has been around Wikipedia for a very long itme. The user intent on deleting this article and seems to attack different editors when he cannot get his way. Yet I can be wrong in tying them together, or maybe I should not even worry about it. Could use your advice. Igor Berger (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Short term advice: don't worry about it. You aren't the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike, protecting the integrity of Wikipedia all by yourself. There is no crisis, and no reason to act without deliberation. Longer term advice: I don't have any yet, let me think about it, and I'll look at the anti-Americanism article and see what I think before replying.

There are a lot of people on that ANI thread (not counting the one you suspect of being a sockpuppet) who seem to think you're being disruptive, so that's another reason to keep your head down for a while, maybe work on the article, and not try to solve the Bsharvy problem yourself. --barneca (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree. I am not even going to ANI. Take a look at anti-Americanism. There is one admin there User:Marskell‎, and he is getting hard time form User:Life.temp who is SSP of Bsharvy. Igor Berger (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I was sleeping and just woke up. I really do not think me coming to ANI is a good idea, not because of myself but for the sake of Wikipedia project. It will be a big mess for all Wikipedia. I will answer the questions they raise, but they need to do it through other means of dispute resolution. So as some editors have recommended RFC/U, that is the way to go. I will attend RFC/U and respond with civil to their conserns. Thank you Igor Berger (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, if you are to be my mentor, I promiss to listen to you. I also want to talk things out and find out what I am doing wrong. Igor Berger (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was actually hoping User:Newbyguesses would be my mentor, but either one of you is fine. Igor Berger (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I appear to have volunteered for the role, being willing to stick my neck out somewhat further than my nearest competitor. --barneca (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarify: if Newbyguesses wants to do the honors, I have no problem with that. --barneca (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I will not disappoint either of you. I will stay away from controvercy. I think I have done enough of that, and need to find an alternative way of doing things. Igor Berger (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of fake

Thanks very much, appreciated. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite welcome. --barneca (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd for Ronald Bongo

I'll close it. You've done the hard part all ready :) Xymmax (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nvrmnd. Late to the party again I guess :) Xymmax (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

:) I needed the practice anyway. You could doublecheck I did it right if you want... --barneca (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Comments About Me

So here we are making the troll happy by getting annoyed with each other.

This comment by you doesn't assume good faith: "Don't respond to anything Life.temp tries to goad you into. Respond to everyone else."
I don't appreciate your telling someone that he should respond to "everyone else" but not me, in a thread (started by me) for discussing that individual's harassment and trolling.
I also don't appreciate the assumption that I am trying to goad Igor. I think Igor is 100% pure troll, and it is impossible to goad him. I'm not very sympathetic to an obvious troll, who compares me to Hitler, follows me around trying to disrupt what I do, keeps hit lists of editors "marked for assassination" and so on. But nothing I do is aimed at goading him.
I removed the parable at your request, but I don't agree that it is a personal attack. How can it be a personal attack to call someone a troll who calls himself a troll? The issue does in fact remind me of the parable: many editors who have seen only a part of the whole, arguing over its true nature. I think if you considered the parable more seriously, it would help you understand what is going on with Igor.
Regardless of that, please don't assume I am trying to goad anyone. That is an assumption of bad faith. Life.temp (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I had not noticed you had removed it in the flurry of edits. Thank you.

Believe it or not, I actually do understand the parable. My problem with it is the specific wording you chose when you altered it from the original, particularly things like "coward". It struck me, and still strikes me, as intended to goad him. Worded less aggressively, it might have been a valuable addition to the discussion. --barneca (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Also, wouldn't your own parable lead you to beleive that it isn't as simple as "100% pure troll" either? Or do you consider yourself the seventh man? --barneca (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I consider the group that wanted to block him indefinitely the "seventh man", and those who thought there should be mentoring or an RFC as the other blindmen. I didn't realize there was combo proposal of block + mentoring (as you mentioned, there was a flurry of edits). I thought there was a serious possibility that he wouldn't be blocked.

I admire your commitment to seeing the best in everyone. Sometimes, assuming good faith just feeds the trolls. Life.temp (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: edit conflict that wasn't

Well, that's weird. I didn't get an edit conflict, and I'm pretty darn sure I removed the original {{unblock}}. Sorry, no, what you did was just fine, it looks as though WP glitched up for some reason. You can get the new one. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at AIV talk

Very well written; rational and nuanced. Although I don't recall seeing your name very much before, I'm quite impresssed. Keep up the good work. :) Durova^Charge! 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Durova, I appreciate that. We traded puns late one night on WT:RFA about... something, I forget the specifics, but otherwise I don't believe our paths have crossed previously, and I often fly under people's radar I guess. Anyway, thanks for the kind words. --barneca (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Puts wind beneath your wings. Durova^Charge! 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

re:I deleted a speedy you declined earlier

Hi. Thanks for the note, Barneca. I don't mind you deleting that page, though since there is no rush for a case like this, I'd think it could have been more tactful to give the editor an advance notification ("your subpage is liable for deletion if no further improvement is made in X days" or something along the line), so they had time to get round to editing their page in case it had been forgotten. (?) CSD G4 lays down that pages in userspace are specifically excluded from this criterion unless they are created in an attempt to contravene deletion policies; personally I rarely if ever speedy delete any pages in userspace using G4, unless that "attempt" is blindingly obvious. I saw a couple of minor changes in Jan, so i decided to extend assumption of good faith a little, (not that I mean you did not, this was decidedly subject to individual judgment.) Policy-wise, you were entirely right. I am glad you explained your rationale to user QueenAdelaide; it was very diplomatic of you to offer them a chance of discussion so they know where to ask for help when they come back editing. That is to say, I don't think you stepped on my toes at all; obviously I wasn't there when the page was re-tagged for deletion, so it is only fair that I thank you for taking care of the issue. Thanks. Happy editing, Barneca. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the note. --barneca (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiMedal for Janitorial Services

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		For properly instructing me regarding which namespace my personal templates belong in. preschooler @heart 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

- - What a cool wikimedal; I've never seen this one before. Thanks! --barneca (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: IP Vandal

You may want to remove that template that's on the IP's talk page if you don't want users to immediatley report it. I understand why you didn't block it, but just a head's up to remove future incidences. Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dusti, way ahead of you, already done. I don't know who thought that template up, but I don't see how any editor can add that to a user talk page. Auburnpilot removed it a while ago, and he was reverted. I may look into that, and see how many other talk pages it's on. --barneca (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Never thought of it being in more than one IP talk page but good thinking!!! WAY TO GO BARNECA!! You deserve a cookie!! Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti^{speak and be heard!} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the cookie, Dusti. I've brought it up at WT:AIV; it looks like 90 other pages have this template. I'm a little torn on it, actually; it may have its place, but I'm not 100% sold. We'll see what people say. --barneca (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have left my comment there. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Everdon

There was participation, although prior to transclusion. I undeleted to make certain that of the policy on this. I'm pretty sure it can be deleted, but I figured a few extra minutes on the server, just in case, was appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

asked for clarification on the last thread of WT:RFA. I'll wait to see what others say, tho i think deletion is cleaner. --barneca (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too, as long as there was never any transclusion. -- Avi (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my bright line criterion too. Personally, I think malformed and briefly transcluded RfA's created by users who don't know better should be deleted as well, but I'm in the minority on that, I think, so I don't act on it. --barneca (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

CU

Regarding this. The answer is "yes" there is a log which only CUs can see. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I asked that on WT:RFA when Majorly's RfCship got shut down, and Majorly said the same. Eases my mind that a "rogue" CU would be found out pretty quickly. --barneca (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of User:87.66.113.231‎

It does not seem to be working; he continues to vandalize Talk:Qur'an.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

that's another IP. I've blocked that too, but if it continues from more IP's, I'll have to consider protecting the talk page. hate to do that, tho. --barneca (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks

It's possible that this are are socks of the said indef blocked user, but what concerned me about them is when I saw a page on Encyclopedia Dramatica where a user claiming to be the owner of the accounts revealed their passwords to another user who claims to be the vandal Grawp so that the user who claims to be Grawp could compromise the accounts and avoid being checkuser blocked for creating his own accounts. So I guess that ED user "ByAppointmentTo", who claims to be the creator of the accounts could be RinseRubric. I will email you with a link to this page if you request it, as links to ED are blacklisted on Wikipedia. I've already emailed Thatcher with a link.--Urban Rose 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All 3 blocked. No need for a link. --barneca (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Warning Template!

Just wanted to drop a note and say that I saw the templates you mentioned in the talk page on AIV, and liked them so much that I stole them. They're worded very well, and are exactly what I needed in situations where I couldn't tell whether something was vandalism and deserved a vandalism template on the user's page, or whether it was just an ill-conceived good-faith test / ill-conceived attempt at improving something. Now I can leave a helpful, friendly note in either case. Thanks again! Fogster (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, glad you liked them. If you ever think of any improvements to them, let me know too. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV help

Thanks for the quick block. Sure saves good editors a bunch of time fixing such problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, but you might want to save the thanks until we see if they can just IP hop. The IP seems to be part of a small ISP in College Station (if I read the WHOIS right, which I'm no expert at), so we'll see. --barneca (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix Engine / PhoenixLayer

I'm aware that the problem is no longer a copyright issue, I was just stating exactly why for the record. (I just want the vandalism to end! :P) As you said, it's not a valid article because of notability. Do I need to establish a project page on my website and so forth for it to be notable, or do you mean it must be nearing release for it to be notable? Some of Wikipedia's bylaws are a tad iffy to understand. They're humorous, but hard to understand at times :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThymeCypher (talk • contribs) 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the rules can be a bit obtuse. The key is to understand what we mean by "notable", and to not take offense when someone says the thing you've been spending significant time on in the real world isn't notable on Wikipedia. To see what "notable" means on Wikipedia, see our notability guideline. Basically, it's not enough to have a web page, or to be nearing release. Instead, it needs to be covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. --barneca (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Phoenis game engine, et al

I just closed the debate for Phoenix Game Engine as delete, and I'm pretty sure I deleted all the redirects/copies/new names. If I missed any, let me know? (Or [delete them yourself?] :-) Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you got them all. I'm keeping the pages watchlisted to see if they are truly Phoenix-like, if you know what I mean. --barneca (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I get it. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted content

Yes, I would like the content. I have not yet acquired it. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 00:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that a problem... I don't have email enabled, and don't have email period. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 00:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it at User:Basketball110/Deletion Patrol, but if you put it at that other link, I'll move it, no big deal there. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 01:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 01:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring that page. We can now discuss moving it back to project space.... --Abd (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OBR: The Watercooler

Hihi

I saw you deleted as CopyVio, which was my initial impression for the tag, but then it looked like the editor was the original author on the other site, so I wasn't sure if that still qualified...I figured non notable web content would work too. Can you help educate me about CopyVio? It doesn't matter if its the same author unless the original post is properly CC tagged? Does that even make sense??? Anyway thank you for your help :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey,

The content consisted of copies of two different blog posts, so it couldn't have been the same author. But, in any case, even if it was just one author, we don't really have any way of verifying that User:Brownsfan88 is an author of something off-site. If, somehow, we could verify that the author of the blog was the author of the article, then by submitting it he would have been re-licensing it with GFDL, and there wouldn't have been copyvio problems. Of course then, it would have been an WP:CSD#A7... :) --barneca (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, that's how I'd tagged it when I stumbled on it originally...thank you!!! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Incident started again

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) has begun disruptive edits again, after discussion at WT:FOOTY has criticized his past tactics (not just me). Please help stop this problem from getting out of hand again. -- Grant .Alpaugh 12:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you change the link to the discussion an his talk page to the appropriate section of WP:ANI, since the discussion has moved there. I've tried to do so, but since FN is determined to act like a stubborn child, he reverts my productive comments, and as a result I fear he might go to the wrong place. Thanks for your repeated help. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Then warn him for being uncivil. I'm not vandalizing his page. All I did was change the link to reflect the fact that the thread had moved. If he's incapable of treating someone who he disagrees with in a civil way then he has no place in this project. I would like to see him blocked for a day because of his continued disruption. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, please, block both of us for being uncivil. I fully understand that this behavior is unacceptable, but I can't be assured that FN does, as he has refused to communicate in a productive manner about it. To be honest I could use the break, especially if it means that there's a chance he will get the message. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He reverted your edit as "unread," then realized that it was your edit and reverted again. Aside from making me laugh <redact>, he showed me that he can read, which means he gets my point, which means this issue is resolved. Its so infuriating how people can lower you to the level of a 7 year old simply by acting like one themselves. Truthfully I feel worse for you as you were the one who had to waste time with the issue. Thanks again. -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yeah. -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was getting a little old, yes, but that pair of edits kind of made up for it. --barneca (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said

When I grow up I am going to make a template out of this. The only danger is that it might get over-used. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah daaaaang, shef! I was just coming here to say the same thing! Wooooot!! Oh, and you should subpage that at the very least. Call it User:Barneca/Standard ANI response, just change the names. It would in fact be very useful in about 89.75% of ANI threads. Cheers, you'e made my day! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The squeaky wheel gets the grease; I got involved because I couldn't stand the constant edit warring over the thread title anymore: [10]. Rewarding edit warring, I suppose, shame on me. Anyway, glad to have made you guys smile, and thanks for the sanity check that I wasn't a tad too aggressive in that response. --barneca (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)