User talk:Barberio/Archive 6

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Good article candidates  will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion
You might want to refocus your userpage on your Wikipedia activities. Mentions of your CFS and previous work experience should be footnotes.--Simongar 21:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh*
It's a shame when an admin like you is so beat-down. For the sake of all of the better users and editors of Wikipedia, I wish that you'd return. For your own sake, I wish that you'd stay away. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

False accusations
Hi, you've just falsely accused me of making personal attacks on you, and also falsely accused me of attempting to disrupt Wikipedia. Please let it stop there, it's enough. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your actions are self evident. --Barberio (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Telling someone flat out that you think they have underhand motives without evidence is a clear personal attack. If you can not understand this, maybe you should not be involved in debate. --Barberio (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * John, if I've said anywhere that you had underhand motives, or appeared to do so, I apologise. Could you show me where I've done so?  I'll gladly strike it out. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note my new username. I retired the old one because I thought it was too long. You know, John, I've seen you over a long period here and there on the internet and you're not one to make stuff up, so I went back and checked the dialog. At one point I said this:
 * It looks to me as if you agree with me that an RFC is unlikely to result in any binding policy change. This is presumably your aim, so if you want to achieve that aim I suggest that you take some advice.

Now on reflection your response indicates this was what you took as a personal attack. Reading between the lines, it looks as if when I said "This is presumably your aim" you took it to mean that I surmised that you aimed to avoid a binding policy change. I meant the opposite (that your aim was to get a lasting policy change, which is why I thought you and others were doing it wrong by going for what I regard as a relatively unfocussed discussion).

I apologise for my poor choice of words, which misled you. I made no attack on you, but I can understand how you might have misread my words as meaning the opposite of my intended meaning, and of course that poor choice of words was my fault. --Jenny 19:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. --Barberio (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on RFAR
Hi. I just saw your comment on the RFAR... I am not exactly sure what you are saying -- your syntax is unclear! Do you mean to say that these are the things that the AC does, that these are the things that the RFC recommends the AC do or that these are the things that the RFC commands the AC do? (Or something else entirely?)

Thanks! Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Yes, Maybe. --Barberio (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar
A request for arbitration which you commented on has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're being ... discussed?
Apparently. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY in a nutshell
The nutshell summary that leads WP:N is currently under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability, which is a continuation of the previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_11. Your comments would be most welcome.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Policy changes
Hi. In case you haven't seen, there have been some questions raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes. Perhaps you could respond? Thanks, Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email this morning. Just to let you know in case you hadn't checked. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom, policy, BLPSE, and all that
If you have a moment, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this idea. Kirill 23:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement with tznkai
Your talk page or his might be a better place to resolve your differences. --TS 06:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends entirely on if he was acting as an individual editor, or as an arbitration clerk. If he was acting as an individual editor, he shouldn't have removed the comments anyway. And if he was acting as an arbitration clerk, discussion belongs where it is --Barberio (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean tznkai, but InkSplotch. --TS 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, moot, as InkSplotch seems to have dropped that discussion after discussions elsewhere. (Which only makes the entire thread deletion that more heavy handed a response.) --Barberio (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Project Congress
As a participant of WikiProject U.S. Congress, please consider placing Project Congress to do at the top of your User_talk page. Thank you. —Markles 15:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom fast track?
You might be interested in, and wish to comment about, this experiment? &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS poll
Hi there. Some of your comments at the poll are rather large, and they argue for, rather than state, a position.


 * "The Dispute Resolution process already allows for BLP issues and Copyright issues to be revert protected. Other issues which are important enough that they should bypass Dispute Resolution should not be decided by any single individual OTRS volunteer. The projects were not consulted, nor consented, to granting OTRS volunteers this power, nor are they appointed in any way that the projects are allowed to gauge community trust in them"

This should be just "already covered by BLP and Copyright" - the second portion of that message is a complaint about establishment, which you cover below with


 * "No community consultation prior to being declared policy. No consensus generated. No solid indication of a need for this policy"

This could be "No community consultation, consensus; no indication of need." The shorter we can keep these, the easier this will be. The poll is meant to state positions, not arguments for those positions.   M   23:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit for conciseness. --Barberio (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Here's the diff. Hopefully the poll will show us what the biggest issues are.    M   23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

only thinking
Accusations of bad conduct unrelated to the case at hand should be immediately removed from case requests, workshops or other case pages. could perhaps be Accusations over patterns of bad conduct, or accusations of any bad conduct not having to do directly with the case at hand, should be immediately removed from case requests, workshops or other case pages.

I always worry about how the language of this kind of thing is wikilawyered without end. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kaminski
Hi there,

Just seen your edit to the Kaminski page - I cannot find, without spending too long, an article in which the apparent US concerns were denied by the US. As such, I'm going to take out that part of what you added to Kaminski's article, but the Wikipedia bit stays in, obviously. Until we get some definite proof, I think we should leave well alone - the story about his wikipedia article means he must be getting a lot of hits right now. user:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 14:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue will be discussed on article discussion page. --Barberio (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edward McMillan-Scott
I notice that you had added details to the article quoting the Observer article. I am a little concerned by the first sentence of what you have written. As it stands it appears that this is attributed to Edward McMillan-Scott while my reading of the article implies that it is attributable to Chris Bryant and not to Edward McMillan-Scott. The second sentence applies to Edward McMillan-Scott as stated. Keith D (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote and claim are both attributable to Edward McMillan-Scott. The article published both these claims. I'll edit the reference to be clear the cited article was not written by McMillan-Scott himself. --Barberio (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion at WP:IAR
I like the gist of your proposed addition. Unomi (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sailing Close to the Wind
Like it or lump it the DRV was going nowhere and, if you check DRV archives, practise is to close appeals against merges. Please don't revert me again, I'm not the only admin that does it, and its accepted practise. Please respect the way that DRV does its business. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC) *Please see does this look like a way forward on this issue. Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC) never mind don't bother. Spartaz Humbug! 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Warring over the redirect isn't going to get us very far, please join the discussion on the merge at Talk:Newshounds. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to edit the page to correct the defects you claim are there. The version as it is now has corrected almost all the issues cited in the AfD. There should be no reason now to persist in the merge! --Barberio (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments at the Arbcom Noticeboard
A shame you reacted so angrily to a good faith intention. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Assumption of good faith does not mean allowing someone a pass for screwing up. --Barberio (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You think I screwed up? Or David Gerard did? Or Arbcom did? I'm not sure I'd disagree with you that "good faith is a pass for screwing up". Some other things may be, though. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * David Gerard pretty clearly screwed up, and in any other institution would have been asked to resign, or given his papers. Arbcom screwed up by bowing to pressure. And the pressuring of Arbcom to censure and suppress the findings because of "potential for libel proceedings" was a screw up too. The WMF shouldn't be acting like Carter Ruck. --Barberio (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Village pump bureaucracy
You wrote, "I'm pretty used to people citing "That's just extra bureaucracy" when ever there's a suggestion for a process or documentation that'll make editors lives easier... But I think this takes the cake... This is a call to reduce bureaucracy"

Exactly! It's an incredible burden to established editors, and hugely unapproachable for new ones. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject British TV channels
This is a message from Wikiproject British TV channels. Please visit the main project page to reconfirm if you are actively taking part in the project and update your details. Many thanks. Auntie Beeb (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Signature
I see you have just returned from a very long break from editing. Welcome back. However I must tell you that your custom signature is not compliant with policy. Per WP:SIGLINK: "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." I'm fairly certain this was already policy back in 2009, but apparently it was not noticed back then. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How odd, my signature *did* have my name as a userpage wikilink, and I haven't changed it since then. Fixed it now. --user:Barberio 21:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Having never had a custom sig I have no idea how that could've happened, but all's well that ends well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)