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 (update): June 26, 2024 22:22 (UTC)

purge cache

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

Hello Barek,

I feel I have unfairly been taken spammed by my competition simplysteonbach.com on wikipedia. We have had some bad blood through competition and I must admit he is much more tech savvy than myself. I do not recognize the IP addresses you have filed as spam clearly. Today I tried to make a comment on the file cuckoo clocks and was unable to because of this block. I ask that my block be taken away on these grounds. Thanks you - Alan support@decorationpoint.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanb23DP (talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a site to be removed from the spam blacklist by adding a request at WP:SBL#Proposed_removals. However, due to the history of this site being repeatedly spammed over a period of more than two years, the site is unlikely to be removed. Also, be aware that requests from site owners are rarely honored - the most frequent removals are when requested by established editors. Even then, if only a handful of pages were needed as refs to article additions, it would be more likely that the individual pages would be whitelisted rather than removing the entire site from the blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, hey, hey! Silverbolt was the best articles, and what kind of article is that?! 75.142.152.104 (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You talk page suggests you're already aware of the {{hangon}} tag. Please use that and show why the prior AfD should not apply to the newly created article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Barek. I don't like the fact that you keep deleting my updates to Microsoft Ants. You said you deleted it so not to promote Ants. However, the information on the page is out of date. The final sentence says that "As of January 31, 2006, Microsoft's Zone retired Ants because of the lack of players."

However, this is not the whole truth as ants is not retired, and can still be played on Voobly. It is important to let people know that ants is not retired and can still be played online, so please put back this fact. This was not an advertisement, just an update that ants is not dead! I tried to reference this truth (not advertisement) but the webside is blacklisted. You can see for yourself that this is a fact and that I am just trying to let people know updated information about ants. games/view/21 --- I still cant type voobly dot com, but if you put that in with that extention, you will see that Microsoft ants is still very much online. This needs to be added online, or people who read this will assume that ants is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- Nov. 14 2010 10:31 p.m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To start, I have only removed the mention once; however, the mention has been removed by multiple established Wikipedia editors.

Also, please be aware that material on Wikipedia should be sourced to reliable sources, and argumentative content does not belong in article text as you were adding.

Lastly, Wikipedia is not the place to advertise places to play Microsoft Ants, Wikipedia is not a forum to promote a website. The voobly.com website was blacklisted due to excessive spamming, caused by multiple IPs repeatedly trying to abuse Wikipedia to promote the website. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still should be stated that ants is not offline and can still be played, even if you don't list the website where to find it. Not doing so is giving the false impression that Ants is dead. And that is just not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voobly is a reliable source, as I have been there and have played ants. But I can't use it because it is blacklisted. If it wasn't I would have put the source. It's not that I was advertising the website, but anyone who comes to this wiki page wants to know if ants is still around. The answer is yes. But this page makes it seem as though it isn't. This will give people the wrong impression. So this information needs to be updated and let people know that they can still play it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Then I suggest you find a source for it that meets the guidelines documented at WP:RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- If the website I mentioned were allowed, you could see that Ants is playable there!!! It shouldn't need to be "sourced" if the actual source of where it is shows that it is still playabale. That would be like posting that you can play MSN checkers from the MSN gaming zone, but unable to post that, unless you find an article were someone else that says the same thing instead of just showing where you can play it.. It makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about the Microsoft Gaming Zone and MSN games, but that isn't considered advertisement. Neither should Voobly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to try to get voobly removed from the blacklist, feel free to request it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals ... but due to the excessive spamming that went on for quite a while, my expectation would be that it remain blacklisted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care if voobly is blacklisted or not. Can't you see though that Microsoft Ants is not retired or dead. Can't you edit it for me in an appropriate way to let people know that it isn't dead, since I am new to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC) The wiki is 4 years out of date. It says that Ants was played on the MSN gaming zone and told where it was played at, so what's wrong with telling where it is at now? It is just a fact, not an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.242.61 (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Listing an official site or a site the official site mentions is approved by the company, is totally different than spamming places where to play it. And they are CONSTANTLY trying to spam links to voobly on different game articles, and have been for quite some time now. I have on several occasions reverted an anonymous IP address from spamming Voobly links on the Microsoft Ants article, and have seen others do it as well. They keep on trying. Expect it to return as soon as they don't think anyone is watching. Another IP address posted the Voobly spam on Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear and I reverted it tonight. Dream Focus 08:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to user Drmies. That person is the one who is not acting in good faith. 67.49.74.73 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now being discussed at WP:ANI#Swami Krishnananda. --- Barek (talk) - 16:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to notability of Blackout / Michael Biggins - that has already been established argued, and blackout / michael biggins articles were merged years ago.

As to credibility of first person to host a streaming prank call site, that has also been established, at least firmer than any other site can possibly prove.

Wayback machine shows the site up with a realaudio 1.0 prank in 1995... is that not source enough? Can you show me ONE of these other sites with proof of a prank call "STREAMING" on the internet prior to Blackout.com? No. None exist. Not claiming the guy invented prank calls but it was the first streaming prank call site on the internet, and that is notable and useful information to the evolution of prank calls, and this has been established from multiple sources and can be seen in references and articles on Michael Biggins page. Not trying to battle you but this keeps getting vandalized and there are TONS of uncredible listings and useless info in this article that should be removed, why don't you work on that instead of removing credible noteworthy contributions to the evolution of prank calling? 74.72.154.158 (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had an edit conflict on my reply. Rather than post it here, I'll re-type my reply later today (I need to step out for a few hours right now) on the article talk page at talk:Prank call, so as to not fragment the discussion. --- Barek (talk) - 18:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will look at your reply there later, but please don;'t just 'revert' edits with established notability. I tried to include all sourced and proven material in a non promotional tone. I also tried to clean up and move things into better organization as this article has always been a mess of prank callers fighting for there names to be included. I did not remove anyone even though there are several things there that have NO established notability that should be removed. You may be correct on the formatting, and if so, please feel free to fix that, but Biggins / Blackout is established and should be included. It was included many ties and vandalized by KDK - pranknet, and several other prankster sites that have no notibility whatsoever other than there own words. Blackout and his site are noted in 3 printed outside sources (New Times, Harley Hahns Internet Yellow Pages, and .NET magazine (1998 issue 13) as well as many online sources. 74.72.154.158 (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied over there. The claim of "established notability" is questionable, as no reliable sources support the claim. The entire claim seems to be built on original research. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barek.

I have tried editing this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporiser. As a new contributor I'm not very familiar with the process, however I gather that my edits have been deleted by you. As my contribution is technically correct and ethically acceptable I would like to know why it has been deleted and how should I go about putting in contributions.

Best regards

Steeve Taylor promotion@inhalater.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.65.163 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 November 2010

Please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Your edit was clearly meant as an advertisement for your company. Such content is not appropriate in a Wikipedia articles and should not be restored. --- Barek (talk) - 23:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt feedback. I understand the importance of keeping wikipedia free of commercial clutter. It is a fact that we enjoy every time we use it.

However the modifications I proposed are technically correct and are of value to people who are interested in the subjet. Yes, I am responsable of commercial promotion of a vaporiser and this places me in a position to be distrussed.

Thus said, I beleive, these proposed modifications more appropriate.

In radiation heating, the substance is subjected to radiant energy. The substance absorbs the energy radiated into it and its temperature rises. This energy can be provided by a superheated thermal mass placed around it, or from visible light source like the sun. Radiation vaporizers are rare, but capable of duplicating the performance of convection vaporizers. A pipe and a magnifying glass on a bright, sunny day can, with care and practice, act as an adequate radiation vaporizer using light.

Our product is the only vaporiser on the market using radiation heating of a thermal mass. From this perspective, would it be appropriate to have an illustration of the patent or of the apparatus?

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.65.163 (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue with your initial edit was the promotional wording. As long as that's not included, it would resolve the reason that I reverted it. For images, if you add one, be certain that it meets our image use policy. Some of the issues to watch for on images: the image must be licensed in a way that's compatible with Wikipedia (many images get deleted due to copyright issues); do not include a watermark or added copyright/logo/marketing information on the image itself; the image should demonstrate the use of the subject, and not be overly emphasized on any logo or branding on the device. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]