User talk:Barek

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 (): January 10, 2025 13:47 (UTC)

My talk page archives
• 2007  • 2008  • 2009  • 2010  • 2011  • 2012  • 2013  • 2014  • 2015  • 2016  • 2017  • 2018  • 2019  • 2020  • 2021  • 2022  • 2023  • 2024

Technically Correct

My information is not “technically incorrect.” The information I have submitted is from the United States Census Bureau and is the latest and most updated information. You are continually reposting old and general estimates. I will continually post accurate information about population estimates as this is my background. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits continue to use the wording that "San Jose has a population of 948,279 (July 2008 estimate)", while the original wording states clearly up-front that the value is an estimate by stating "Its estimated population by the US Census Bureau as of 2008 is 948,279."

Also, as I have already stated, your version breaks a ref tag in the "references" section, stating "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named population; see Help:Cite error." - while the original version does not create the error.

You also have made four edits/reverts to the same section of text, please review WP:3RR and persue appropriate dispute resolution processes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not change my accurate numbers again

Barek Are you some kind of control freak??? I give correct and accurate information. I am not changing any information or content. I am UPDATING NUMBERS. This is from The United States Census Bureau. I gave this reference to the absolute latest press release. I am going to repost my ACCURATE numbers tomorrow. This is in the exact same format that I have used for dozens of other cities in the United States DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CHANGE MY POSTS AGAIN!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted on multiple articles by multiple editors. Your edits are breaking formatting of multiple articles, as has been reported to you on your talk page. You have been advised by multiple editors to discuss the issues you have with the values on the article talk pages, and you have not done so on those articles. A discussion at Talk:New York City#Estimated population in lede by other editors seems to support the original wording, not your revision. Lastly, please note that WP:3RR does not entitle you to three edits per day - edit warring is not productive, and delaying edits to technically skirt the 3RR policy can still result in a block.

Please, take your issues to the article talk pages - or try to reach consensus by starting a discussion about the changes at WT:USCITY, which is a Wikiproject with the admirable goal of standardizing the presentation of all US cities listed at Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Barek, My numbers are accurate and my wording is correct.. leave it alone. I am 48 years old, and I am a Fund Manager, and you are fighting me over stupid wording. I have posted my reasons on the city page you suggested. I am not going anywhere. If you disagree with one of my posts again talk about it with me. Do not create friction between you and me by deleting it. I am sure we can come to some resolution. If you feel you are some kind of guru on city population then please take a different approach to me. I have posted my reasons in the City page you have posted in.Mattscards (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read my posts more closely, it is NOT the wording that is resulting in my reverting your edits. I have posted my reasons to your talk page (here), along with links to examples where you can view the broken ref tag errors you are generating within the "references" section. I am not the only person to post on your talk page about the broken ref tags you are creating (link). Yes, I disagree with your wording; yes, I disagree that with using csv instead of xls format for the source; but these are both secondary issues to the broken ref tags you are creating. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

David John Marley

Thanks for the help, I only just figured out how to edit like that 2 days ago. Jman279 (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

hi!!!!

hello barek it is good to see you again at 2000s. i am editor you are nice to here: [1] but my page is moveing sometimes. but happy new year! 70.153.208.164 (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, STOP CHANGING MY EDITS!

Barek, are the the person who is changing my article about the decades? The decade officially began in 2001 because there was no year zero. I wish you would stop being a control freak! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not reverted your edits, but I agree with the reverts.

Your actions go against community consensus on the article talk page, as well as going against the Wikipedia guideline documented at WP:RY. If you have an issue, please discuss it on the talk page. As it stands, you are close to breaking the three revert rule on the article, which could potentially result in administrator action being taken. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually...

You would have broken that rule also, also it is the official definition for the beginning of a decade, so it isn't unimportant to anything else, also lots of people think that I am right from the talk pages too. Say that 75% agree with you. Maybe 75% of people are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I just read your reply again, and I realize that you must stay on Wikipedia all day to find teeny tiny things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.184.49 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am in no danger of violating WP:3RR; my last edit on that article was on December 22nd. As I said, I have not reverted any of your edits, although I do agree with those who have made the reverts. On being right or wrong, what matters is consensus.

As to when I am on Wikipedia - I have no idea where you're coming from on that. You're incorrect on how frequently I'm on Wikipedia, although it certainly doesn't matter one way or the other. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dietrich v The Queen

I don't think there is any need for you to be involved at this stage, but FYI there is a message at my talk that was addressed to me and you. You may recall that you reverted some changes to Dietrich v The Queen (with an excellent edit summary btw), and I made a related comment on the talk page. That editor (as an IP) has left the message mentioned above. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The same user had also posted the message on my talk page, but I reverted it (here) - mainly because I viewed it as original research of legal analysis and soapboxing. I saw your reply and the user's comment to that reply - so at least they understand the issue with adding the material. Unfortunately, their reply suggests that they don't seem to understand the purpose of the talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles, not to be a forum for general discussion about the subject. But, at this point, I'll leave the discussion in your capable hands unless there's a reason for me to get involved further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Preferring the transcripts and the written submissions of the trials and appeals, I could never compete with 'reliable sources' such as those cited in support of the original article, including: Silvester, John (10 June 2005). "Hugo Rich chose the low road". The Age. Retrieved 8 October 2007. Wilkinson, Geoff (6 March 2009). "Bandits fled in seconds". Herald Sun: p. 33. Wilkinson, Geoff (12 June 2009). "Hugo Rich guilty of security guard Erwin Kastenberger's murder". Herald Sun. Retrieved 13 November 2009.

Mark A Clarkson (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fairmont-logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fairmont-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the image has been replaced with an .svg version, which is more appropriate for the logo use. I'll tag the File:Fairmont-logo.jpg version for deletion, as it's no longer needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what is constructive? hmmm?