This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Barneca.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 thecurrent talk page.

I would say wait for theWP:RFCU. I think they are the same but no doubt CU will say otherwise as they have been clever.GDonato (talk)16:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I do have other evidence I will present even if the RFCU comes back inconclusive, but will wait on that until I see what happens at RFCU. --barneca (talk)16:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replied. My patience with all this is wearing thin.--Jonashart17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You aren't the only one. if you think I like this, you're mistaken. --barneca (talk)17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

while I understand your sentiment, you must understand that I was only giving a brief observation of two of the users in question. Despite my recent dispute with them, I am still a member of the community, and it is a community discussion.NewEngland^(C)(H)18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, I didn't mean your evidence was not valid, I meant that because of yesterday, you giving the evidence is going to tarnish people's perceptions. Not completely fair, but that's how i think it is. --barneca (talk)18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to jump offline at an inopportune time, but juggling work and WP isn't working. One eye on WP talk pages, one on excel, and I still have an actual job. I've given everyone a chunk of data atUser talk:Barneca/Draft SSP report, I will try to get back on in 2.5 hours. I can't do this tonight, it's my anniversary, but will check in for a little while before going home. --barneca (talk)18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I really appreciate the way you've handled this. Your repeated apologies, your acknowledgement that it looks a bit like "Big Brother" etc. etc. is excellent. I know it's tough, and I think you've done well. For the record, I hope the Check User reveals nothing to worry about, as I have had only positive interaction with all concerned, but I still think that you have been very sensetive in this. By the way - Happy Aniversary! Best.Pedro | Chat 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree totally withPedro | Chat  -- I don't think you enjoy this, you have certainly made clear how distasteful you find it. Please, do not feel that you have offended me - you have been extraordinarily sensitive and decent. (I won't lie and say I am not hurt by being accused, but I understand you have a role to play, and you are doing so with dignity) Take care, and when the check-user clears me, I humbly ask you to look at his interests, and mine, and evaluate the total contributions, and I honestly believe you will see I had nothing to do with sock puppets. Take care! PS Happy Anniversary also!old windy bear20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro, that means quite a lot coming from a friend of Oldwindybear. And thank you, Oldwindybear, for remaining so civil thru all this. Signing off, need to go pretend WP doesn't exist for a while. --barneca (talk)21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

All's well that ends well...or something.--Jonashart12:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Or something. As I've said in a few places, I did not thinkyou were a sockpuppet, and regret that my clumsy way of bringing this up dragged you into it. --barneca (talk)13:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Not to worry...no blood, no foul. Thanks for working to clear it all up.--Jonashart14:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I aim to please. And baffle.--211.74.211.417:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the highlight of my week on Wikipedia is a conversation with an unrepentant vandal. --barneca (talk)23:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to think of myself as a new media performance artist. And yes, I am the artist formerly known as 211.74.211.4. I love dynamic IPs.--59.121.193.1903:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that other people have to follow you around, and clean up after your "performance"? With little hope of changing your mind, I'll still ask you to reconsider. The contrib list for your previous IP showed a combination of vandalism and constructive edits, and on roughly the same subjects so I assume it was always you. It seems like most of your legit contributions stayed; all the vandalism is gone. Isn't it slightly more satisfying doing something that will last? Please? --barneca (talk)12:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To be safe, you might want to revert your last reversion,I, personally think it's vandalism reversion, but some might consider it a content dispute. It would be crazy for you to get caught up in a 3RR accusation yourself. I think it's vandalistic enough that I can safely revert after the IP is blocked for 3RR so you don't have to, without being accussed of edit warring myself; that would be my third revert. --barneca (talk)15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads-up. I have already notified the Admid for intervention about the situation. It's funny, I just stumbled across the artical while on vandle control and get caught in a edit dispute :-).ShoesssS^Talk15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's how I got invovled too. No worries, I think any rational admin at WP:AN3 would view your edits as vandalism removal, it a white area with a teeny tiny bit of grey. --barneca (talk)15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That kind of nonsensical material should be removed on sight. No worries. Cheers,Peacent

User:Barneca, an ANI thread has been opened regardingsockpuppets of Oldwindybear.Proabivouac08:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Barneca, you did good work on that. I appreciate you spotting and reporting the accounts, and taking the time to work through all the diffs.Tom Harrison^Talk13:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom. I appreciate that. --barneca (talk)13:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can now come out of hiding (I promise I'm about to leave for Maine though). I just checked the whole situation, and I am thoroughly pleased at the result. I also noticed thatProabivouac received two barnstars for his actions, and I decided that you deserve one (if not several) as well.

Thus, I,New England, on this the twenty-fifth day of July, in the Year of the Lord 2007, present to you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar, for your efforts in ending the fraudulent and abusive sockpuppetry ofOld Windy Bear.

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your efforts in ending the fraudulent and abusive sockpuppetry ofOld Windy BearNewEngland(C)(H)15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy it, I'm out of here for a while.NewEngland^(C)(H)15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, NE, very much. Enjoy your vacation. --barneca (talk)16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One more won't hurt.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Well, you won't be getting any fromOWB, so here is a barnstar from me. For the incredibly detailed work in exposing the OWB/SS sockpuppetry. Thank you!Flyguy649talkcontribs15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyguy, for the barnstar and for your kind words atUser talk:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying. --barneca (talk)16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Barneca. As I just mentioned on Proabiovouac's talk page, I was extremely impressed with the thoroughness of the evidence you and he compiled regarding this case. If every suspected-sockpuppet report was one-tenth that diligent, the job of sorting them out would be easy! I'm not happy to see Oldwindybear leave, as he was a reasonably productive contributor, but I think the evidence was overwhelming and it was pretty clear that he did not have the community's trust to continue with the admin bit. In the long run, I think that's the best thing for Wikipedia, because even with Stillstudying "gone", past performance is a strong predictor of future performance. Anyhow, I just wanted to thank you again for the extensive time and effort you put into researching this sensitive issue, as well as the tact with which you handled it. We need more admins with those sorts of qualities; if that's something that interests you down the line, let me know.MastCell^Talk17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, for that vote of confidence, and for your previous kind words when I was feeling a little out on a limb. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of pursuing that in the future; right now there are several areas I just don't feel knowledgeable enough about, but I'll think about it in the coming months. If I do decide it's something that interests me, I'll probably open an Editor Review beforehand, and will certainly let you know. --barneca (talk)18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I just had a chance to read the report after I saw the link to it onWP:AN/I, and I'm impressed by the work you all did in putting it together. As a new user I'm a little surprised (maybe even scared) that one person could use so many accounts for such a long time and get away with it. Hopefully this won't happen again.Pats Sox Princess17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Pats Sox Princess, I appreciate it. I was a little surprised it lasted that long too. No need to be overly worried, however. This was a pretty isolated case, and will hopefully lead to a little more vigilance. Actually, I'm sure itwill happen again, but the beauty of a wiki is that everything is revertable, so it's hard to do lasting, long term damage. --barneca (talk)17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

my username if nferbert and i was not spamming on the boston page. i am providing TRANSPORTATION information in the TRANSPORTATION section. why is that a problem for you?_{(unsigned comment added at 16:04, July 26, 2007 by Nferbert)}

With all due respect, you were indeed spamming, based on any reasonable definition of the word. If the use of the word "spamming" itself offends you, then I apologize; feel free to substitute "inappropriate advertising" in any previous messages I've sent you. But providing 1-3 paragraphs about one particular company, including the toll free number used to make reservations, in three separate articles, qualifies as inappropriate advertising.

Wikipedia has some pretty ironclad policies on adding advertising to articles. There is more information available on this atWP:ADVERT andWP:COI. --barneca (talk)16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --barneca (talk)18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your comment onWikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship brought a smile to my face, and, being the only person on Wikipedia to have done that today, you deserve this barnstar. ;-)Lradrama16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, I'm just racking these puppies up. :) Thank you Lradrama. I was typing as fast as I could, as I was positive someone was going to say it before me, and I kept getting e/c'd. Glad i could make you smile. --barneca (talk)16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The real tragedy is that I'm feeling frisky for some reason today, and now have another joke I want to add to that page, but have bumped up against the 1JR (one joke rule).--barneca (talk)16:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I mucked thewording all up. But nobody seems to have noticed... --barneca (talk)16:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it's alright, my real reward is being arougeadmin non-admin. —Moeε17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Something i can aspire to. --barneca (talk)17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits likethis almost make me think humanity isn't doomed after all. Good work.Raymond Arritt03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you, Raymond. I like my style too, but I'mbiased.

I took a look at your user page, and you strike me as someone who doesn't put a lot of stock in the idea of jinxing, so allow me to congratulate you a tad early on your soon-to-be-successful RfA. --barneca (talk)15:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it might go well with Loodog's "Bostonians" after I saw him remove it, but didn't notice it was already mentioned elsewhere. Thanks again.Aepoutre15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I probably need to learn to be bolder; I just hate the idea of using "undo" on a non-vandal, hence the very long edit summary. Probably see you around that page; seems we both have it watchlisted. --barneca (talk)15:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We sure do. I love Boston, haha. Bold is good; I don't tend to take umbrage at any edits, but I've seen that some pretty nasty little "wars" occur on Wikipedia, too.Aepoutre16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to set up a template page for my userboxes but I notice that when I put the link to the userbox on the mainspace of listing of userboxes there's a dead link. Unless you can think of a better way to do it. But to be perfectly honest all the userboxes on that main listing page are not necessarily template pages, so what am I doing wrong and help me fix the problem. Thanks.þ03:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

- I actually see what you think I'm doing. No, I'm not trying to create separate userpages. If you look at other userboxes they seem to be created from user pages. I'm not a technical wizard; so I don't understand why they're not being called out (shrugs).þ03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

- I see what I'm doing wrong; I thought that those userpages were for the userbox; but I see that those are userboxes that are redirected from userpages. I guess I just have to redirect those to template pages.þ03:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

- I put in redirects I don't know if that's alright. Tell me if it is.þ06:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

- Nevermind, I finally understood what you wanted me to do.þ06:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. --barneca (talk)12:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

- Oh, your most welcome!þ21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

- I did a minor revision of the userbox. I think it's funnier.

þ22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your e-mail, and I expect you to keep its content to yourself. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not publish the contents of that email, both because I think it would be a violation of your privacy, and because it is against WP policy, but you can't expect me not to act on it's contents. There is no way that you are mature enough to be an admin; thank you for demonstrating it so clearly, if only to me personally. --barneca (talk)15:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Boricuaeddie15:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you readWP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks lately? --Boricuaeddie15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page, and please don't make me disable my "email this user" link. I want nothing further to do with you. --barneca (talk)15:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't get everything we want. --Boricuaeddie15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to stop e-mailing you, if you would stop threatening to publish the information on the e-mail. --Boricuaeddie16:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen Barneca threaten to publish it; in fact, he's said he has no intention of doing so. Since you aren't getting along, why not disengage? If the email is put on-wiki, then there would be repercussions, but it sounds like no one has any intention of doing that.MastCell^Talk16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your words of encouragement and your luck. Luck was exactly what I needed and it prevailed in the end. The matter is resolved and will resume editing now. Thanks again, —Moeε11:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me, that was the first time I ever edited that article. How dumb could you be to jump to a conclusion like that._{unsigned comment by 67.175.48.136}

I'm pretty sure I'm right, but it doesn't really matter. You've still been given a final warning, and will be blocked the next time you vandalize an article.--barneca (talk)22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello - I have no idea how to reply to a message but this editing system appears to allow me to write here. You sent a message saying I had edited a page about the "scottish national party" and had violated neutrality editing policy? I have edited only one page on "plockton" since registering at Wikipedia and - evidently - still don't know my way around the site. Whatever the mistake was, it was not made by me. Thank you for the message but you got the wrong person. (sgitheanaich)

(replied onUser talk:Sgitheanaich) --barneca (talk)21:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:GROWUP would need to be written, but I imagine once it was it would be extremely dead on in regards to the Barrett situation. In fact the only reason I have not intervened is because I'd likely hand outtrout all around... which would be appropriate for what is an obvious fishing expedition by someone to attempt to eliminate one of their POV opponents. Of course this is just a long winded way to say I think your assessment was fairly spot on.--Isotope23^talk20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My slow, subtle and carefully organized plan to become God Emperor of Wikipedia is continuing apace. When I have finally succeeded, there will be more than enoughtrout to go around. (Don't worry, you're safe -- so far.) Nothing can stop me, unless someone finds out about my plans too early..._{(Oh, crap...)}

Just so long as they are sandtrout... I'm on board.--Isotope23^talk02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this until just now. Trying to decide whether to grin or groan. (*groans*) --barneca (talk)18:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I almost didn't say anything, figuring it wouldn't help, but after wading thru that talk page I decided I deserved a tiny little bit of venting. --barneca (talk)21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And what has it achieved? In reality it has allowed Levine to now say "I thank you for seeing through all of this and assigning responsibility to "both sides"" while not actually accepting responsibility for his actions. As I pointed out over at AN/I, when you have one person saying "They are ALL, ALL of THEM, 100% of THEM, picking on me" it is a strong bet that in fact, he/she isn't being picked on but is attempting to paint themselves as the victim. A deeper examination will see the number of COI accusations Levine as made, the number of NPA warnings (already noted by "independant" editors as Gaming), the number of accusations of Trolling, uncivility...AGF, etc. etc. Of course, the Community allows this to happen so it will continue until the Community decides to stop it. Thanks for your time.Shot info00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am quite satisfied with the depth of my examination of that quagmire, and I stand by my assessment. Not much else to say. --barneca (talk)01:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for your time.Shot info01:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well what it achieved is pointing out a relevant fact; there are a number of editors at that article that are doing little to further the project as a whole and are instead engaged in a petty POV squabble and that isn't making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It begs the question, how long do we suffer fools gladly?--Isotope23^talk02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

over six months it would seem :-) (sorry about cluttering up your talk page Barneca).Shot info—The precedingsigned but undated comment was added at 04:24, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Six months? Look at the talk history. (Better yet, dont) These problems go way back. Sadly, there is a noticeable improvement over a year ago. --Ronz00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Barneca - Thank you for your message. I just really want to discuss changes to the page before it goes way too biased. I have requested a protection as well. I have tried to communicate with Nsk92 however no answer. I have other articles that I am working on, so I certainly would not want to be blocked. Can you please revert to the last version (since Nsk92 is still continuing to make changes) and protect the file so discussions can be made on the article without it being used as a soapbox?Skporganic13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and I see you tried to communicate, and I see they are not responding, but an edit war takes two people, and you've both gone WAY over the line. If you stop now, I won't bother reporting you, but the reverts are doing no one any good. When the dust settles, try one of the recommendations inWP:DR. As it is, if I report Nsk92, I'm pretty sure you're going to get blocked too; being "right" is not a defense.

I'm not an admin, so I can't protect anything. If I was, frankly, you two would already both be blocked. If you stop right now, then Nsk92 will, the article can remain as is for a little while, and you can try again to communicate. --barneca (talk)13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Barneca, Thank you for the suggestion, I will try that. Regards,Skporganic13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Barneca, here is a copy of my message on the main VP discussion page.Thanks,Nsk9209:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Barneca! Thanks a lot for your comments. I agree with your criticism of my version of the page. It is probably true that the "criticism" portion of that page takes a rather large proportion of the entire entry and this could be balanced by adding some extra company-related info. I would be perfectly happy if you personally or another neutral party produced a compromise page and I would be quite willing to promise not to touch it myself. I would even go so far as to say that I would be happy if you entirely deleted my version of the page and wrote a new entry completely from scratch.

However, I am not willing to edit the page together with Skporganic or any other of the "Video Professor"'s hired guns. The entry created by Skporganic makes it abundantly clear that he is profoundly and fundamentally dishonest.

Sincerely, Nsk92 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(copy of my reply on your talk page) Sorry to hear that, but I understand. If Skporganic comes back, and I suspect he will, I'll see if I can work with him. I'm in a pretty comfortable position, as I don't care too much about the company one way or the other, I'd just like to see a nice, clean, NPOV article. If you don't want to work with him, please still feel free to contribute comments to the talk page, or edits to the article. Just please don't edit war anymore. Hope to still see you around VP occasionally. --barneca (talk)12:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the 1982 New York Times article writes that according to NASA Uranus and Neptunus have irregularities in their orbits created by a far large object outside the known planetary system. This is also widely known that something is affecting those orbits. I will get get sources for the clame. Even the 1982 NYT article is valid enough but surely there's other sources too. So look forward to see the page edited sometime soon again.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by84.239.219.220 (talk) 23:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

1982? That's 25 years ago! ThePlanet X article contains references that are much more up to date, and which suggest there are no remaining irregularities in Uranus's and Neptune's orbits. In any case, I look forward to seeing what you find. --barneca (talk)23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What? "there are no remaining irregularities",, where is this being said? The irregularities were there in the early 1900's as was 25 years ago and are today. Hence Pluto was found because of the search of the 'heavenly body' that's affecting Uranus and Neptunes orbits, but is too small to cause the effect. The irregularities are still there even though what's causing it haven't been yet identified. If the astronomy community isn't looking at the issue daily or is not a the moment on the interests, doesn't mean this information about the irregularities of the orbits could be just wiped out.

If you say information known earlier shouldn't be known today, I do think it doesn't make you a very valid editor of Wikipedia. The irregularities haven't been disproved either.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by84.239.219.220 (talk) 23:59, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, apparently they have. From the external links ofPlanet X (probably should be moved to References section):

• Planet X: No Dynamical Evidence in the Optical Observations - 1993 paper by E. Myles Standish, Jr. of theJet Propulsion Laboratory, on the absence of orbital perturbation, when corrected planetary mass is used

As I said, I'll be interested to see what additional information you can find. --barneca (talk)00:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen thanks for your post on my talk page. You're were right before I even got a chance to see your message: someone took down my RFA :-) for much the same reasons you gave me :-) That's fine though, maybe in a year or two.

Thanks again

Gagueci19:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it turned out that way, and glad you're letting it roll right off your back. Longer term, I think slow, careful, thoughtful editors like you make excellent admins. I look forward to seeingWP:RfA/Gagueci 2 in the future.

One point: I saw your"ouch" at New England's talk page. While I'm hoping you're referring, jocularly, to the responses to your RfA, I see now, in the light of day, that my comment last night right above yours could be seen as patronizing. That wasn't my intention, and if that's what "ouch" referred to, I'm sorry for that. --barneca (talk)19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Who said it was vandalism? Do you have any proof?—Precedingunsigned comment added byTaiwan88 (talk •contribs) 21:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

No your right, it was a goof. Although this editor, for reasons unknown, had allowed his userpage to get into a serious mess, I agree that I did take a cut too far back to revert to. Thank you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk"23:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Anthony. --barneca (talk)23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fan of ur works will u marry me?—Precedingunsigned comment added bySpecialWikiDoom (talk •contribs) 14:14, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Refering to the message you just put on my page, i did nothing. I was trying to revert the change. I need this off of my page.Agwin17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. --barneca (talk)18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)