This page 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.
What vandalism is
Please review WP:VAND – All three of your latest reports to AIV were inappropriate (though I did handle one anyway). Remember, vandalism does not include username violations or content disputes. Those should be directed to WP:UAA and WP:ANEW, respectively. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that
Sorry Barts1a....new to wiki's and the open source environment in general...didn't mean to create any issues. You guys are really on the ball though :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgonzaleswmf (talk • contribs) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Glad to see you have a username! And in future: Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~ ~~ (Without spaces)) so it is easier to see who the message came from. Thanks! Barts1a (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Editing while logged out
This was rather foolish of you. In the future, if you have something to say about someone that isn't nice you should probably just not say it rather than log out then post from your IP address. I think you're just as guilty of not understanding WP:STICK as Ling.Nut if you're going to behave like this. Killiondude (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
And yet he claims to understand it fully on your talk page, and has even admitted to wanting to "catch me now". If I was making these posts I would most likely have been blocked for at least 24 hours by now! Barts1a (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Knock knock! This is my last post to your talk page. When I said "catch him now" I didn't mean "catch you doing something wrong, so I can watch him get punished". No... You completely misjudge me. I bear you no ill will. None. Zero-point-zero. In fact, I hope you do well.. live long and prosper, so to speak. Best of luck, and may all good things happen to you... I seriously am not kidding. "Catch him now" meant... I hope my stubbornness can be a wake-up call that will help you correct this short-sighted and counterproductive fear of admitting that you are wrong (and subsequently, apologizing). I seriously do predict that you will pass an RfA about 6 months from now with flying colors [I suggest that you get a mentor about a month from now, learn from that editor, and in addition learn how to admit it when you're wrong]. But seriously. Good luck in all things! I won't post here any more; I know I am bothering you. • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Your revert to page at Tom Cruise
This was not vandalism. Please, do not do this again. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Although when someone else does it, they will be personally thanked instead of reverted (and you will be again chided by implication). Ain't life grand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
And by the same user... I'm starting to smell some bias here... Barts1a (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Barts1a/discussion1, a page you substantially contributed to, 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:Barts1a/discussion1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Barts1a/discussion1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –MuZemike 04:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I replied there. Please note that I have no problem with the discussion being blanked if you prefer that, my problem is that the current solution "unlinks" them from my account's contributions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
norh-south highway/artery
I didn't mean to question anyone's English. The thing is that, in Czech, there is a distinction between the general term used for highways/freeways/motorways - "dálnice", and the term used specifically for the motorway-like road that runs through Prague in a north-south direction - "magistrála". As far as I know, the term artery is used for high-capacity roads in urban areas just like Prague's magistrála. Therefore I was thinking that an artery would fit better here. Perhaps I'm way off here.
Cheers!
The generally accepted term for use on wikipedia is highway. Thanks for taking the time to talk about it! Barts1a (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a valid use of rollback. Please see WP:ROLLBACK for more info on when you are allowed to use it. Also note that continued misuse can result in removal. Not insinuating that I've noticed other misuses, but just a note. Thanks! Killiondude (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? As far as I know rollback is only used when it is MORE than one edit being reverted. I only reverted one edit and even if rollback only involves one edit; how was my particular edit abuse? Barts1a (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
No. Every "revert" in Huggle requires rollback. That's why you have to have the rollback right to even use it. See WP:HUGGLE for more info about that. WP:ROLL#When to use rollback says that rollback is supposed to be used in cases of clear vandalism (among other cases, which don't apply here). The diff above was not vandalism and as such giving an actual edit summary (not just using rollback) is appropriate there. Also, don't see why you need to use the RFC tag. Feel free to ask on WT:ROLLBACK or any other place, though. Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(Comment) Hi Barts1a, if you just need an independent third party opinion then you may want to try using WP:3O. It is appropriate for any issue between two parties and is far more light-weight than RfC (which normally takes from several days to a month to create a consensus). Thanks, Fæ (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Barts1a/discussion1
I have closed that MfD as delete, that being the overall sense of the debate; but would you object to the page being userfied to Piotrus, as several contributors suggested? JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I would not object to this. Go right ahead! Barts1a (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Done, thanks. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom elections
Ciao, barts1a. I noticed you've made steps towards standing as a candidate in this year's ArbCom elections. Unfortunately, it does not look as if you meet the eligibilty criteria of having made 1,000 mainspace edits before November 114, 2010 so you will not be able to submit a candidacy (please correct me if I am wrong). Regards, Skomorokh 11:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I intend to run as this shows I have over 1,700 edits; more than qualifying me to stand for the position and at any rate this election needs all the candidates it can get. Barts1a (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That link indicates you have 728 mainspace edits, not 1000 (and some of those 728 have been made since Nov 1st14th). Sorry, Skomorokh 12:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Either way I intend to run anyway. And if you look at the guideline for edits you will see that it actually says November 14, not November 1. Barts1a (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, it is November 14 as you say. However, you still do not meet the threshold for article space edits and so are prohibited from running. Sincerely, Skomorokh 12:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have a rather strong position on this... Barts1a (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
My error regarding the date aside, it's pretty black and white. Sincerely, Skomorokh 12:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my self-nomination, but I believe that the lack of nominees this time around is due to unfriendly messages such as above. I hope that I will have enough edits next time around to qualify. Barts1a (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologise if you found my messages unfriendly, that was very much not my intention. You have the misfortune of being the first ineligible candidate this year, so I do not think this can be attributed as the reason for the lack of nominations. Best, Skomorokh 12:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
CommentBarts1a, the requirement is for mainspace edits (not total edits). You don't appear to meet the requirement.--RegentsPark (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No wonder candidates are so few and far between... Barts1a (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There are many thousands of wikipedians who easily exceed those requirements, and while I don't know if the minimum requirements are the same as last year, I suspect that all the successful and most of the unsuccessful candidates in previous years had rather more than a thousand mainspace edits. Any explanation for the paucity of candidates would need to explain why fewer of the qualified candidates are standing. ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Too much paperwork (Mostly one editor's fault) and a week filled with people saying nasty things about you? For most of us, RfA was enough, and I leaned my lesson last year.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Barts1a, I'm not sure why you've requested comment on this. It is a black and white standard. I don't know the reason behind it, but I would guess it is to ensure that only Wikipedia contributors that have a certain level of experience and dedication to the project are allowed to run in the ArbCom elections. Of course, counting edits is a poor approximation for these two qualities. On the other hand, this election will choose new arbitrators to complete two year terms on an extremely time-intensive project. Even given these requirements, we have a lot of arbitrators burn out and quit before their terms are over.--Chaser (away) - talk 15:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing wrong has taken place here. As has been said above, this is a black and white standard. There's more I could say on the matter, but nothing more that I will say. Sven ManguardTalk 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
As an election coordinator, I can only agree with the above. Barts1a, you are not eligible. But the more pressing issue now is your asking the same question to multiple candidates. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Questions: be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages) (emphasis added). Your questions may, thus, be removed at a coordinator's discretion. Please be aware of this, although several candidates have already answered. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
And you realize now that this is only making yourself look suspicious to everyone else. At any rate, see you around. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to be a coordinator, please follow the rules that the coordinators have to uphold. Specifically, I am referring to the questions policy, where it says
be specific to a particular candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
Now, I realize that the questions have been answered, so we're not going to move them, and I realize you did this before signing up as a coord, but now that you're a coord, please don't paste that question on the questions page anymore. You can, however, still ask it elsewhere, such as the "Discuss this Candidate" section.
Hi Barts1a/OldArchives! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your excellent edits on video game-related articles. We need your help at the Video games WikiProject! There is much work to do, so please head over to the project page and help us enhance and increase the coverage of video game related articles on Wikipedia!
Blocked for 24 hours
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and falsely accusing editors of vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Falsely accusing the editors you're edit warring with of vandalism in these edits: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Issuing two long-established editors with first and last warnings for vandalism as part of this is particularly inappropriate. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I apoloize if my editing was disruptive; I was only trying to clean up the clear anti-consensus editing on U2. I thought that I was doing the right thing but clearly I wasn't. I will not edit the U2 article again and have already removed it from my watchlist. I would also like to issue an apology to the editors I mistakingly called vandals. I was just getting tired of the ongoing content dispute. Signed by Barts1aSuggestions/compliments?Complaints and constructive criticism? 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm declining this for the minute. I have a few things to chat with you about before unblocking, so I'm just taking you out of the category so I don't get an edit conflict. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(edit conflict) - I'm one of the editors he accused of vandalism and who copped a "last warning" template. For what it's worth, i'd recommend his block being lifted if he recognises the valid concerns that saw him blocked and if doesn't continue like that. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Right. While I have your attention, I think this is part of a larger problem with your editing. You're simply going too fast and, in trying to help, you're actually making a nuisance of yourself. Most editors with your level of experience don't comment at every opportunity on every noticeboard they can find. For example, your attempts to help at WP:ANEW over the last few days have just resulted in you frustrating other editors, making useless edits and then having to correct yourself. Your intentions are good, that much is obvious, but you're doing more harm than good. It seems you're interested in becoming an administrator, but admins have to learn the ropes just the same way as any other editor and acting like an administrator is one sure-fire way to fail an RfA. You need to leave admin stuff to admins—for example, blocked editors don't want non-admins pointing out the reason for their block, especially when you're wrong. By popping up at every noticeboard, all you do is inflate your edit count, annoy people and increase the length of the thread.
I'm sorry to be so blunt with you, but, in my experience, the only way for an editor to know they're being disruptive is for somebody to tell them so. I hope you'll take this on board and try to make yourself useful as a non-admin and only comment on noticeboards when you have useful input.
Now, if you understand the above and the reason for your block and agree to stay out of trouble, I'll lift the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep the block in place; I need a wikibreak anyway. Don't get me wrong; I understand why the block was applied; I just think that I am becoming a little bit too stressed about edits such as this being made on high-traffic pages and going un-noticed. Signed by Barts1aSuggestions/compliments?Complaints and constructive criticism? 02:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. A wikibreak can do one the world of good. Come to think of it, I probably need one myself. Easier said than done, I know, but you shouldn't let WP stress you out. Real life is stressful enough. Email me if you need anything and I hope you understand I'm not trying to "have a go" above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Barts1a, make the most of the break, have some cookies & come back refreshed and ready to improve wikipedia! Just don't obsess about it, we're not getting paid for this & when it all starts getting too much go outside & smell the flowers for 5 minutes. Kiore (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually say something to me. I'm here face me man-to-man. If not, I will ruin you on Wikipedia. You have been warned. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about our issues. You know how you tried to ruin me. I want resolution to this issue. You make me out to be bad. I'm not. You tried to take me out. I will not forget this ever. I am your ally if you are good to me. But you were not good to me. I do not hate you. I hate what you did to me. Apologize to me and I will apologize to you. The ball is in your court. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I note you have removed our last conversation but I hope you won't mind me commenting here. Might I suggest you concentrate on some serious content work for a bit. The reason for this is that all the rules, policies and guidelines are subordinate to the purpose of editing which is to build an encyclopaedia. Whilst keeping wiki clean and tidy is very important, a better understanding of content work will give you a better understanding of where cleaning up and adminny type tasks fit in the great scheme of things. All the best. Fainitesbarleyscribs 11:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Warning
Enforcing WP:NFC policy is exempt from 3RR rules. I can and will enforce this policy with any means necessary. The block warning I gave Tenmei also goes for you. Fut.Perf.☼ 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
No, IAR has no value at all against NFCC. And there is no consensus for this image. Only informed consensus counts, and none of the opinions posted in favour of this image show any understanding of the policy at all. Please read up on NFCC policy and practice before continuing to argue about this. Fut.Perf.☼ 00:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Since you acted against my very clear warning above, I have blocked you for 12hrs. Fut.Perf.☼ 00:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Please see the section FUR of File:Yeonpyeong smoke Nov2010.jpg. If this is incorrect and the image is not fair use under "News reporting" critera of Fair Use legislation I apologize for edit warring. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No. If this was an isolated incident, I'd be inclined to cut you some slack, but it isn't; you just archived your previous block message a little while ago. In spite of a lot of advice, and many warnings from many people, you continue to wander from conflict to conflict, like a bull in a china shop, showing a significant lack of clue, giving bad advice to people about things you don't understand. Since lots of people's polite warnings have failed to register, let me be blunt: if you continue to screw around on here when your block expires, I will block you indefinitely. I very strongly recommend you avoid controversy and find something peaceful to do here for a while, and/or find yourself a mentor, if you want to edit here for much longer. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Barts1a -- I accept that I might be wrong or that the fair use rationale for this image may be unjustified; and if so, I do want to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.
In addition, I specifically invited Fut.Perf. to consider contributing to the discussion thread here. I posted a clickable link to the talk-page discussion at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. There was no response, nor was there the expected participation in the talk page thread.
IMO, it is pointless when an administrator fails to explain -- especially when there is evidence of explicit, reasonable, and repeated requests for help in understanding. Is there not an implicit administrator obligation to participate in a teachable moment when it is coupled with the edit history which developed in relation to this one image and others in corollary articles? If not, why not?
Barts1a -- Thank you for your willingness to help me encourage Fut.Perf. to explain. I'm sorry that the image I uploaded was the cause of any kind of problem.
Again -- for redundant emphasis -- If I am wrong, I will acknowledge it; and my future edits can be guided accordingly. --Tenmei (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This page 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.
