User talk:Barberio/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User 2005

I see that you've had problems with this user deleting your entries as well. He's been deleting many of my entries. I have given him a warning. Cloudreaver 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment - Is he still up to no good? Sure, I'll put in my thoughts on the matter. Keep me posted. Cloudreaver 16:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GAC under fire on the Community Portal.

Hi. Considering that you told me to add the Good Article Collaboration to the Community Portal, I was hoping you could help sort out an issue. Another user insists on removing it. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Community Portal#GAC.--HereToHelp 17:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

because of the projects history of inappropriately advertising their non-policy project everywhere (as you have now spread to the community portal). i have already blocked the above admin once for abusing their privileges in that way, and will repeat if anyone continues on that course. Zzzzz 10:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 ??? This is odd. What do you mean "i have already blocked the above admin...". William M. Connolley 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing Statements are USA phenomenon only

Hello! I appreciate your anti-centricism edits at [[signing statements] but there are no citations to significant signing statements outside the USA. I have mostly reverted that part of the edit, on the grounds that the article is about USA signing statements only. Can you add non-US material if the article would be better with examples from outside USA? rewinn 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I've been relucant to participate in this mediation. This is partly because I don't really see how the implementation of existing policies can be open to mediation. But it's also because I've spent an aburd amount of time on Wikipedia engaged in endless discussions with people who don't really care about facts or the truth. Some people just want to have the last word. ("Wrong, a genius like me? Impossible!") Others simply use discussion as a tool to spread doubt or innuendo. ("Are you really sure that Prince Charles isn't an alien reptile? Can you prove that?" ) And some people only use discussion as a tool to push their POV into an article. The idea is to simply exhaust their opponents. ("Why are you reverting my changes without discussion?") I'm just completely fed up with all that.

But I've read your comments on the talk page and now on the mediation page, and you gave me back some of my faith in (part of) humanity. Perhaps it would be a good idea to participate in this mediation? Perhaps something good could come out of it. Please tell me what you think.

I think your proposal for a new template was very constructive:

The following external sites may not have verifiable information.
Wikipedia makes no effort to verify the contents of external sites, and the following sites may not be reliable sources.

There is of course a risk that the template could be used as an excuse to add even more links to unreliable sites. And Wikipedia should be about informing people and not desinforming them. Guiding people to unreliable and possible false information is not the right way. Even so, as explained in WP:EL, it is sometimes useful to link to unreliable sites, and then your template (or something similar) ought to be mandatory. --Denis Diderot 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Unverifiable-external-links

Template:Unverifiable-external-links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Unverifiable-external-links deletion

Thanks for letting me know! --Iorek85 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deletion_of_WP:EL-compliant_links_and_images_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. AdamKesher 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About User:2005

I see that you've had trouble with this User:2005 in the past. Lately he has been disrupting me as well. His main behavioral problem is that he is an unscrupulous editor, who does not think about others before editing, reverting, or deleting their work. He is quite inconsiderate, and usually it's "his way or the highway". Should we do something about this? Cloudreaver 05:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Proposed Decision Pages

The Proposed Decision page says near the top, "Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page." As a result, your comments belong on the talk page, not the PD page. 23:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeasement

Hello Barberio--Thanks for your recent contributions to the Appeasement article, but don't forget about the main article, appeasement of Hitler, if you believe the information would be well-suited there. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid I don't really agree with you that Appeasement of Hitler is the main article. This appears to be the issue of a merge/split debate, and I'm not going to get into it. Once it's resolved, you should copy the information if it needs to be coppied. --Barberio 00:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules. A diverse mix of blogs is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article. Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Reminder to remain civil

Thanks for the reminder. Things have been pretty heated over there lately. Lots of stuff is just getting on my nerves at this point. However, this was only the first time I have been asked directly to stay civil. Steve's note was just a blanket reminder to all of us, and you'll notice he only struck out one sentence of mine. Was the comment that made you upset "this is getting rediculous. Of course allowing external links is a service to our readers and it's absurd to say otherwise"? - Mike | Talk 14:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EL workshop

Noting your edit summary, I do not see what I said that was hostile in any way. I think that you need to relax and not take things so personally whenever somebody does not agree with your point of view. This is not a personal attack, but rahter something I felt the need to point out. Even if 2005's comments about you "throwing your agenda in our faces while ignoring everybody else" seem a bit harsh, your comments often come off looking like that. I am not accusing you of this myself, as I assume good faith in your edits, but I find it easy to believe that people can interpret them in that way. - Mike | Talk 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to actualy clearly state the reasoning behind your objections to the simplification and consolodation efforts. --Barberio 12:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I think that the guide is okay the way it is and it doesn't need a rewrite, and I don't see any reason to simply remove portions of the guide in "consolidation" efforts. The guide is there to avoid editing disputes and problems, and removing content from it will only lead to more trouble. - Mike | Talk 13:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain then, why you think the consolodated section on Spurious Linking does not address the problems of fansite linking? --Barberio 13:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It simply ignores quality and advises users not to link to fansites. But really, you're not going to get me to agree with you that the guide needs a rewrite in the first place. You just seemed to have kind of started it without any prior discussion on whether one is needed or not. I came to the discussion to get a sentence changed. That didn't mean I had any problem with the rest of the guide. - Mike | Talk 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It does no such thing, it gives two reasons where it's okay to link. Because it's directly related from the subject of the article, ie an officialy sanctioned fansite, or it's explicitly acceptable for other reasons stated in the guidelines. I see no reason at all to give fansites special treatment, and it's instruction creep to tag on any. --Barberio 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel like getting into a pointless argument with you right now, so I'm simply going to stop editing the workshop because you have obviously taken ownership of it and refuse to listen to basically any objection to the proposal. Keep it real, Mike | Talk 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that last comment. How about this: Why not just make no mention of fansites at all, and instead simply rely on the rest of the guide to decide whether they are appropriate to link to? - Mike | Talk 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you really think that you could get away with pasting this to the official guide without any sort of discussion whatsoever? Please, think about others before making changes. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Read WP:CONSENSUS - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005

I've never really seen the point to an RFC, they don't really achieve much. I can see why you think one is neccessary though. I just think they make the issue more divisive. Steve block Talk 19:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/User_talk%7EBarberio_archive5_3740.html"