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 22:56 (UTC)

purge cache

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

Just to CYA, I asked for more information on the prop8 page protection request. Thanks, tedder (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added diffs of 8 users over the period Aug 28-Sep 1; I only lised one edit per user, although several made multiple edits. I only began watching the page on Aug 28th, but there's similar vandalism prior to that date which I could list as well if that's needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- that's enough. I just wanted to have "evidence" to semi-prot it, since it's a politically charged page. tedder (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a little difficult to maintain my faith in goodwill when a new article is suddenly inundated with demands for references which were never demanded when the same information was contained, for months if not years, in a different article. Perhaps you could give the originator of the new article Burgh Island Hotel at least a few minutes to put it in order? Ghughesarch (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Barek, nor do I play him on TV. But the new article dialog box says "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted." New pages tend to be more heavily scrutinized than existing pages, and just because it exists in one article doesn't make it correct. tedder (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did over-use the "fact" tags, and reverted them myself over ten minutes before you posted here. I did instead insert a "refimprove" tag for the section, as the refs did need to be improved (and should have been tagged as such from when the text was in the old article). You are making good progress on the article. Please do not assume bad-faith on my part simply because I add some appropriate cleanup tags. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the remarkable speed with which a (by Wikipedia standards) relatively obscure article was jumped on with demands for references that took me aback - I was busy adding refs when you reverted :o). However I'm aware from some news references and recent reviews that all is not necessarily well on Burgh Island as the new owners seem to have upset the locals, so the vehemence with which attempts have been made to suppress the hotel's website from the original Burgh Island article could seem to a disinterested observer to have an ulterior motive in themselves, similarly making my life difficult in trying to find a compromise. It's not by any means a "good" method of assessing notability, but a google for Burgh Island throws up 126000 articles, one for Burgh island Hotel, 48,000, which suggests a fair degree of notability for the hotel as ditinct from the island. Still working on improving the article, and no offence taken, but please, a little less assiduity... Ghughesarch (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my question. I think my Talk page was deleted by someone so I'm responding here.

I think I understand why the links were deleted even though the intention was not to spam Wikipedia. I'd like to comment or respond to the archived comments, but have no idea how to do this.

Would we be allowed to create a Global Oneness Project page? It might be easier to do that. But again, we weren't trying to promote the GOP. I honestly thought the videos would add value and did not think we would generate notable traffic from Wikipedia.

Thanks again, Alison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcalison (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't post directly to an archived discussion. Instead, start a new discussion at WP:ANI, and reference that you are replying to comments made in the archived discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#User:Mcalison.

Your talk page still exists. To reach it, scroll to the top of any Wikipedia page and look at the links in the upper right. One of them should be "My talk" and will take you to the talk page for your user account.

Good luck. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to reply to your other question ... to create a Wikipedia article for Global Oneness Project, you'll want to be sure that you can write an article that meets the notability requirements outlined at WP:ORG (see the "Primary criteria" section on that page), then locate as many reliable third-party sources as possible that can help establish and verify the notability of the organization - you will need to reference those in the new article. But, keep in mind the requirements of WP:COI, as the article will likely receive extra scrutiny due to the conflict of interest in writing an article about your own organization (there may be additional requirements related to the COI issue; regretably, I'm not an expert in that area ... but if you ask at the help desk, someone there will likely clarify any requirements for you). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close to having htis article up to speed. Please make necessary changes. SS Chief Wawatam for exazmple? Thanks 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

I didn't get as much done as I wanted. This coming week I'll see what I can find on the Chief Wawatam, and work on that if I find enough material for an article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is an article. I had forgotten to put SS in the link. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

BTW, I just went to boatnerd.com and did a searc for "Wawatam" and there was lots of really good information. Oddly, there is not specific page link that I could put a finger on. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

I think this is more or less done (with the exception of citations to real books). Please check format. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Hey Brother, everybody know that Jack Napier are in a Bruce's flashback when the Waynes are murdered. Then I not need sources. Ask to any Batman fan and you see that Jack Napier are in Batman Forever during the flaschback, I don't lie. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.46.244 (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do need reliable sources. What you are adding is original research. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor format issues. Please. That would be the way the NHRP infobox looks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

format problem with a reference. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

I spotted the ref tag issue and fixed it. On the other two you've mentioned above with minor format issues, I wasn't certain what issues were involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I f*d it up again (inadvertently, of course). Footnote 9. Thanks AGAIN. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Right now it works, but just says "Roach" ... not sure which source you meant to cite, so not sure if a fix is needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is down in the list of references. "The Ultimate Guide. . . " etc. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Hi

Thanks for that. A previous author had noted that the writer of the original entry might have had a conflict of interest, as the paragraph suggested that carbonated soft drinks have no adverse health effects when in fact they do. I enclosed that comment and put in a reference from peer-reviewed scientific literature; I wanted the reader to realise that my comments had no conflict of interest jcsegenmd@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.208.87 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, I've more or less finished several of the northern Lake Michigan, Straits of Mackinac and nother Lake Huron lighthouse articles. If you would take a look and put on your final touches and blessing, it would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

I'm a big fan of tallships myself and have been tracking HMS Bounty's voyage on Tall Ship tracker. By the way, I noticed you have been paying some attention to the Jimmy Hoffa page. There is some new info on there you might want to have a look at on the discussion page. I think it would be great if it was added in. I can't do it, since I'm the guy the articles are about. Just a thought, Nice to meet you. Jeff Hansen --Spectre7277 (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for deleting vandalism on my page. Thanks a lot Srinivas 13:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]