User talk:Barneca/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. 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 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 →

Contents

User welcome

I think that your welcome message to User talk:Billsouse is quite probably the nicest I have seen. Good job. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Eldereft. Always nice to start Monday morning with a compliment. I have that welcome template at user:barneca/temps/uw-test1ip and user:barneca/temps/uw-test1ac. Feel free to steal them if you'd like (you'll have to play with them a little, as I hard coded my signature and a timestamp into them). --barneca (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barneca. Having seen those templates I think I might steal them too. A lot of the already-available ones don't allow for enough possibilities about what the target was doing, in my opinion. Good work! Olaf Davis | Talk 10:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I've never archived a noticeboard discussion before. In this case, I felt compelled to do it because the originator requested an archival. Enigma message 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, different places (Afd, SPP, ANI) archive things differently, and inconsistenly. I only know this because I did it wrong before and got yelled at, so now I try to fix it when I see it. to be clear, I have no problems with the actual decision to archive. --barneca (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Security Tips

I assume Graham redirected it because it was linked, but I adjusted all links to point to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Helpful Hints#Security tips, so the redirect is obsolete. Dorftrottel (criticise) 15:28, May 6, 2008

If I interpreted his restore comment right, he was keeping it so as not to lose the contribution history. If the page is still there in a few hours, I'll ask him if he still feels that way; I need to run right now. --barneca (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Graham does, indeed, still disagree with the deletion (see his talk page if you're curious). I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'm not going to delete it as uncontested housekeeping if he still feels that way. If you really want to, you can discuss further with him, or I guess MfD it, or something. --barneca (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying, and also for notifying me. Dorftrottel (talk) 04:08, May 7, 2008

An old pal wearing a wooly handcovering

Since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Bongo, thought you might want to take a look at this wooly fellow User:Chopped Lamb whose edits and language are hauntingly familiar. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Contributed at the WP:SSP case; chickening out, calling myself "involved", and not blocking myself. Also, following the new account's edit history lead me to User:Jglogau‎, who appears to be the anti-JRS-SEC; he started a spam version of Rob Bongo last year, and among other things, seems to have article creation problems himself. If those two ever met, there would be some kind of matter/anti-matter reaction. --barneca (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, can't help but note this edit summary: [1]. Oh noes! NPOV-pushing!  :) --barneca (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Doppelganger

Quite simple. I deleted the first version of the "Userpage" today and at the time did a check for the contributions and deleted contributions to see what else was afoot. There was only one deleted contribution which was the cause of the block. Since I assumed that the current incident would attract more eyes on the matter I asked for that particular edit to be oversighted as it would have put someone at risk. I only mentioned it to prove without doubt that there is no connection between the two. Something that the current logs and records no longer can show. Agathoclea (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA Issues

Crap, apologies. (Somewhat sad that I manage to create a BLP issue by trying to avoid one). Would a RFO mess with anything on RfA? --Bfigura (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And would an RFO be overkill here? (It'd be more than one, since there are issues on the RfA page and subpage). --Bfigura (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll put in for the RFO. --Bfigura (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, RfO in. --Bfigura (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ack!

Now what? Dlohcierekim 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just raised it at WT:RFA. --barneca (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Schools online

Hi, I saw your query at AN about an online version of Wikipedia for Schools, I have replied there but it's a busy thread, so in case you missed it, the link is [2]. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Duncan. I got wrapped up in something else and completely forgot about that thread. --barneca (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA talk discussion

The reason that you "bother" is because it was probably quite prudent to inform the RfA community of the events surrounding the snow close of Dell's RfA. I thought it was very good that you started that thread to let people discuss to the extent that it was. I requested that it be marked "resolved" because of 2 reasons: 1, it seemed to be agreed that a SNOW close was accurate regardless of the circumstances and 2: Dell was engaging just about everyone in a harassing way (he was subsequently blocked). Anyways, just posting here to let you know I thought the thread was worthwhile. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwyand. Just disappointing to see someone who I tried to go out of my way to help, react like that. I guess looking gullible isn't the end of the world. --barneca (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, her actions were dissapointing, but hindsight is 20/20. If it was just a typical inexperienced editor, your thread may have gone a long way in encouraging them to properly prepare for their next RfA. Also, talking about hindsight, seeing Dell's use of the word "colored" on her talk page makes me think that original opposes over racist edits were valid. Oh well. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barneca. Nope, haven't heard anything, oddly enough. And I concur with you: I wish I had invested my time in a more worthwhile cause. --Bfigura (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
In recognition of your diligence, attention to detail, and exemplary upholding of Wikipedia values in the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dell970 affair. Dlohcierekim 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Aw, thanks Mike. I needed that. --barneca (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome, and thank you. I'm glad that helped. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This

diff made me laugh out loud, Barn. Out Loud. Anywho...back to my watchlist. control+F5....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I managed to go almost 2 hours that time. I must have it beat. Whew, good to have that monkey off my back, that was easier than i thought it would be. Now just a quick check of my watchlist, and I'll log off again. Ctrl-F5. Ctrl-F5. Ctrl-F5. Ctrl-F5.... --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Nicoleta Sofronie

Good job on this [3] --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, we'll see if it takes. --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Formatting at AN/I

I noticed you edited my post to 'remove transclusions'. Is using those templates not acceptable? I think it more convenient to give a direct link to a user's talk and contribs. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I usually don't edit other people's stuff, and probably should have dropped you a note about it. Sorry. I got rid of the transclusions because that puts a copy of whatever was on their user page on the ANI page; someone put a sockpuppet notice on one of the user pages, and transcluding that on ANI, put the ANI page into the category of suspected sock puppets, and copied the big notice onto ANI as well.
You did: {{user:JohnSmith}}
I did: [[user:JohnSmith]]
What you probably wanted to do was: {{user|JohnSmith}}
I'm not sure I explained that well, so let me know if it isn't unclear. --barneca (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so there's nothing wrong with the template. I see what I did, thanks. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple accounts (regarding card games)

Thanks for you stepping about recent edits to the Card game article, and attempting some constructive engagement with this editor (i.e. User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja, User:Oana Ban, User:Eremia, and others such as User:Dakota Blue Richards (I think)) . I've tried to do some of that too. I was wondering if it's appropriate to start a list of sock puppets to keep track of the accounts that have been created and keep a record of the activity. I don't know which one might be considered the "master" but I think the Dakota Blue Richards account was the first one create. I'm not trying to get this person "in trouble", but thought that having some more formal record of what's going on might be warranted. Of course I'm not an admin, so what do I know?  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 20:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a list at User:Barneca/watch/bvr. That way, I can use "Related changes" to see, at a glance, if any of the user pages or articles I have listed there have been vandalized. You're welcome to add information to that page if you think it will help, and of course help keep an eye on those pages if you want.
If they keep up the disruption, I plan to ask a Checkuser to see if we could do a rangeblock hardblock without cutting too many legitimate users out. From a message they left on one of their accounts, this could (if they are telling the truth) be a kid in France, so a rangeblock might not be that much of an inconvenience to legitimate editors. Or, better yet, they'll stop disrupting and be constructive (although I don't see much chance of their desire to see game changed to sport getting much support in any content resolution). --barneca (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added that page to my watchlist (so that I can find it easily), and if I encounter appropriate incidents I'll add them there. Thanks again for your participation here. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing, hope it eases up. --barneca (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

range protection

I noticed your comment favoring something I have been thinking about: range protection. Semi-protection is an ugly answer ... unless we decide to block anonymous editing completely, it just doesn't really fit with anything, and general blocking doesn't work once it gets much bigger than a /16. What I would like is to be able to protect an article with a group of CIDR ranges, and have that block be effective against IPs within that range and registered editors within that range whose account was created after the block was put in place. That last bit would have to be capable of being overriden by an admin (basically a "subject to IP restriction" flag on the account). Has there been any discussion of this in the past that you could point me at?Kww (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The first part (ignoring the account creation bit) I brought up once at WP:VPT, I really can't remember when. I'd try to find a link, but it isn't really worth it; if memory serves, one person commented that they didn't think you could do that, and one didn't understand why it would be useful: basically, a kinder version of "just semiprotect the article, you dope". No one else commented in the 7 days the thread was alive. It's possible someone has brought this up before, to be honest I didn't look.
As to your second bit, that hadn't occured to me, and I suspect that (a) it would make it a much more useful option, and (b) would be a lot harder to achieve. In a perfect world, it would work that way. But I'd settle for range protection without it, as better than nothing and better than now, if the account creation part wasn't feasible.
Things like this seem, to me, to be Catch-22's. If you bring it up, usually people say "file a Bugzilla request". But I don't think Bugzilla requests are acted on unless you can demonstrate a widespread agreeement that it would be useful. I'd certainly support the idea if you bring it up again. Not sure where the best place to have the discussion is. Maybe WP:VPT again, but this time push it a little if no one comments? --barneca (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the link: [4]. --barneca (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to chime in here.Kww (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Back and could use your help

barneca Greetings my friend. I am back, after a long period of illness, family illness, and assorted real world issues. I am going to post an article this week, and would be very grateful if I could solicit your help with any formatting problems. (As you know, I am a lot better on writing than I am on formatting!) I will understand if you cannot, between real world demands and the vastly increased demands on you after your election. (Congratulations, by the way, a better and fairer admin has not been elected!) JohninMaryland (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi John,
Glad you're back. As long as there is no real rush, I'd be happy to take a look when you post it. Assuming I can scrounge the willpower, I'm trying to be on-wiki a lot less this month, but I'll still have time for stuff like this. Just let me know. And, thanks for the kind words. --barneca (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
barneca Hi again my friend. NO rush. I will let you know when I post - it was one I was working on before the sky fell in, and I should finish this week. I just want to make sure I don't inadvertantly link to the wrong site, or any of the other rather odd things I have managed in the past! THANKS, and again, congrats, you earned the mop, and it is good to see good things happen for good people...JohninMaryland (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a nice day ! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! --barneca (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Eremia !

I need only 3 three accounts , Eremia , Alexandra Eremia , and Parslow ! I finish vandalism , I will TRY for discussions , and If Parslow don't exists , I will create it ! Thanks ! It was valable only for all the wikis , excepted , in French wiki ! But I am not perfect ! I can have 3 accounts ! —Preceding comment was added at 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already responded on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Barneca.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I wanted to especially thank you for taking part in the post discussion crat chat. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Brittney Skye

Drat, you beat me to it. I saw the edit on recent history and it just looked a little odd. Then I see that it's a porn star, now being listed as a dead porn star. By the time I'd figred that out and double checked for a pulse you had beaten me to it. At least now I can say that I've gone to an adult website for research reasons. o_O --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed several edits to the article scroll by on recent changes; looked, and figured a porn star would have had fans that would have noticed she'd been dead for a year. And yeah, if anyone asks, it was "official business". --barneca (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Barneca, I don't think that you ever understood what the issue is about at centrifugal force. Anome has been consistently misrepresenting the situation and claiming that it is about a fringe viewpoint.

It is not. There are two aspects to centrifugal force. There is the centrifugal force associated with actual rotation. There is also an artificat associated with viewing a stationary situation from a rotating frame of reference.

Any attempts to mention the cause and effect aspects associated with actual rotation are being suppressed. The group controlling the article have wanted to focus on the artifact aspect as being the general situation.

Anome never knew what the argument was about. He set about to appease the majority. He has now turned vindictive because his attempts to deceive have not been running as smoothly as he would have liked.

His recent block was totally wrong because the edit in question broke no rules and wasn't even part of the controversy.

You are totally wrong to endorse Anome's block. 118.175.84.92 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not use your IP address to evade your block. --barneca (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, was that a way of saying that you don't really want to look at the truth of the situation?119.42.64.217 (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it was a way of saying Do not use your IP address to evade your block. --barneca (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, the block was unlawful. It doesn't matter how many administrators sided with Anome. The block was unlawful. And now you are trying to disrupt discussions on the talk pages by deleting stuff on the talk pages. That is clearly against the rules. When somebody asks a question, they should have the common courtesy to listen to the answer without having somebody else going in and deleting the answer.

When you do an unlawful block, you lose all respect for the system. 118.173.15.142 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GA

Yeah, GA was fun... Rracecarr (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of Societyfinalclubs

Looking at the talk page, it appears that more than one of us was working on the AIV report for Societyfinalclubs (talk · contribs). As I generally follow a 1RR for admins, I wanted to drop you a note explaining my research and subsequent actions. Based on the 3RR warning for Talk:Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent that was issued to this editor at 19:21 [5] and their continued blanking of the page at 19:36 and 20:25, I blocked the editor for 12 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand, and was very tempted to do the same myself, until thinking of my alternate solution that I put on the talk page. But, we edit conflicted. The question now is whether to speedy the article, or leave it for them to return to when the block expires. Do you have a problem if I userfy it? Based on last year's AfD, and the complete absence of any non-Wikipedia Google hits, I have a strong hunch this is a hoax. --barneca (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
While I am willing to defer to your extension of good faith and not object to an early unblock, the editor's most recent messages do not reassure me that they understand either the importance or the ramifications of the three-revert rule. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, it's starting to look like windmill tilting on Prashanth's part, and mine too. Plus, I'm not even 100% convinced this isn't a hoax, I'm only userfying because I can't prove it, and if it isn't a hoax, deleting it as one would be poor form. I'm going to wait to see how they respond to my newer suggestion, but per your comment above, I may lift it early if it seems they're going to try to edit quietly. --barneca (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No offense I hope with the earlier disagreements. All in good faith. Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, none at all, being unjaded enough to AGF is always a good character trait. If you haven't seen it already, they have returned as User:65.150.33.24 to request a speedy, which I've done. --barneca (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Noted and thanks. Off for the day!Prashanthns (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. --barneca (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your research looks quite good to me. I pride myself on being an even tempered, easy-going admin (while other admins go for the 24- or 31-hour block, if I think the project will be adequately protected, I will generally give a first-time offender just a 12-hour block), however my patience for and tolerance of this editor's obvious shenanigans is getting pretty thin. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm not societfinalclubs, I have a history of contrubutions to the Theta Nu Epsilon talk page-which you can check for yourself.Jonesbig (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you aren't the same person. I'm quite confident you are. Now write your stupid article, and leave me alone. I spent an hour trying to help you tonight, and this is the thanks I get. --barneca (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying we are the same person?Jonesbig (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm not an idiot. --barneca (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just seeing the sockpuppetry evidence presented by you! Impressive work. I am perhaps partly to blame for my earlier defense of the user! I am very disappointed by his later behavior which I followed. Dont want to blame my poor judgement cos that will be going too far, but hmpf...I was really thinking they were a good editor, save for that small issue of 3RR. :( Prashanthns (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if saw Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs yet, but it appears that someone beat you to the punch ... --Kralizec! (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I must say I was quite confused when I tried to create the Checkuser page; For a second, I couldn't figure out HOW ON EARTH the software knew to populate it with usernames from the SSP! (cut me some slack, I'm very sleepy). --barneca (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think Cornell1890 (talk · contribs) is another lost sock ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
My gut instinct says yes, but I haven't had a chance to assemble any evidence, and I'm really hoping the Checkuser comes thru and identifies all of them. I purposely left out any accounts I wasn't very, very sure of. Looking at the history of that article, I think a majority of the redlinked usernames may be related. The AFD's and ANI report from last year seem to show a very determined hoaxer, I wouldn't be surprised if it was going on a long time. I'm also concerned about other possible hoaxes created by this person. But at least one or two of the articles created by SFC seem to have legit references, so it isn't all 100% hoax. complicated. Ick. --barneca (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've had a chance to review all their contributions, I take that back; Mctrain/Societyfinalclubs had several tells, and Cornell1890 shows none of them. The Checkuser doesn't list him, and there's no reason to think Mctrain was running some Checkuser-susceptible, and other Checuser-immune, puppets. Mctrain had socks that were all arguing with each other, so it made me suspicious of people who'd done nothing wrong; I'm glad I followed my instinct in the SSP report not to include people I wasn't sure about!
I don't think you have publicly accused him of that anywhere, but if you did, you might want to retract it. Societyfinalclubs sent him a condolence note, so I might have missed where Cornell was lumped in with them, or it might have been Mctrain yanking our chain some more. --barneca (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow-up! My above query was much like your gut instinct: an early feeling formed before either of us had time to fully investigate the issue. Since your talk page is the only one I wondered out loud about it, my guess is that Mctrain was just stirring up the pot in an attempt to cover up his own trail of deception. I wish there were an easier way to deal with sock issues like this ... one wonders how much time we wasted on this. Regardless, kudos to you sir for your hard work! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and kudos to you as well. Wonder how long until he comes back? --barneca (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The number of newly registered editors at Collegiate secret societies in North America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is enough to make my head spin. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not for fun

I am not inserting my name for fun. This is a serious matter.

Why are people making it so hard to write for Wikipedia. I am on the verge of quitting even before writing my first article.

Without even looking, I see 2 users abusing the name of doctor. This is why I seek some sort of verification before I write. OK, people say that an IP is not proof. But my IP is so specific that any checkuser can say that I am likely to be a doctor or am writing from a medical office and not a prison, drug company, school, etc. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is incredibly easy to edit Wikipedia. Just start editing Wikipedia. Worry about your Wikipedigree, not your medical pedigree. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Eremia !

Finally , I need 2 accounts , but only 2 ! Eremia and Alexandra Eremia ! I can use the both ! I have Eremia but , can you unblock Alexandra Eremia , just ONE ! With 1 , this is so diffcult ! With 2 , this is more easy ! Eremia (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Roger Parslow

Eremia - Edit 174 !

Yes , Aliena Kvacha is blocked indefinit'ly ! Yes , Roger Parslow is blocked indefinit'ly ! Yes , Nastasija Marachkovaskaja is blocked indefinit'ly ! Yes , Dakota Blue Richards is blocked indefinit'ly ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eremia (talk • contribs) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

i would like to have 2 accounts !

becase i love having 2 or 3 accounts , and i like the name " eremia " , and " alexandra eremia " , and " alexandra " ! if i loose a account , i have the another ! with 1 , i write on a subject , with the second , i create some page ! and i would like include card games in the sports , and i d'like to put the article and the categori in category " sports " ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eremia (talk • contribs) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Concerns

You have blocked Mctrain which is a legitimate account with the Chicago Public Library. I believe that there may be cross-over between legitimate users and non-legigimate users, or possibly, non-legitimates signing in on legitimate accounts. FYI the IP's you narrowed are shared accounts with the Chicago Public Library. I have posted to tell all Wikipedia users to create accounts on their own personal computers. Mctrain's focus is European history and architecture, not collegiate subject matter. Will you also please post this message on the Barbaro family page so there is no confusion with legitimacy. Thank you very muchGeniejargon (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mctrain, please see the message I left you at User talk:Geniejargon. --barneca (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is turing into top shelf Comedy Gold! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a laugh a minute. Until you have to sort thru all the crap to see how much damage they've done in the last year: User:Barneca/watch/societyfinalclubs / User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Page1. --barneca (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Barneca. These guys (or this guy)—i.e., the Tiki-two/Thost/F550/Save venice/Mctrain complex—have made me (and other users) waste a good deal of time dealing with their activities since I first became aware of them through my participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pugilist Club. In the next couple of weeks, I hope to begin undoing some of the fantasy they've inserted in Barbaro family and related articles. For now, I'd just like to thank you for getting a handle on the situation and making everyone else's life a little easier. (By the way, their signature move is attempting to blank any mention of their activities, or other users' concerns about the information their previous incarnations have added to articles, on article talk pages.) Deor (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Replied via email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneca (talk • contribs)

What should I use then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adam1213/warn <-- thats what i have been using

What should I use to warn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Personalinformation (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me a minute to look into that; it seems to be acting up. I'll reply on your talk page in a little while. --barneca (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Praise for Patience

I would like to praise you for the patience you have shown in handling the user Eremia and all the related sockpuppets. Your efforts may seem futile to you in hindsight, but I would like you to know that there are users around who notice and appreciate the kind of effort you have expended in trying to help and handle users like that. HermanHiddema (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Short version: Thanks! --barneca (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thank you for the cookie! :-) HermanHiddema (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block

I would like to thank you for blocking User:Whitemistert. As one who is endlessly frustrated by the stupidity of vandals, & frankly confused by their motivation, I am deeply satisfied when one of them gets shut out. Thank you. (OK, I'm not showing the nicest side; I don't think vandals are entitled to the same treatment {as you could guess by my userpage}, & I'm a natural born grouch anyhow. =) ) Trekphiler (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Replying on their talk. --barneca (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No sweat the delay. Just wanted to say it. (Actually, I didn't care if you replied or not. :)) Trekphiler (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ddduh....removing beans from my nose

...just a note to tell you that I fell for that line. :)Prashanthns (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk --barneca (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)