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 (): July 26, 2024 18:42 (UTC)

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

Vaporiser article

Hello Barek.

I have tried editing this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporiser. As a new contributor I'm not very familiar with the process, however I gather that my edits have been deleted by you. As my contribution is technically correct and ethically acceptable I would like to know why it has been deleted and how should I go about putting in contributions.

Best regards

Steeve Taylor [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.65.163 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 November 2010

Please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Your edit was clearly meant as an advertisement for your company. Such content is not appropriate in a Wikipedia articles and should not be restored. --- Barek (talk) - 23:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt feedback. I understand the importance of keeping wikipedia free of commercial clutter. It is a fact that we enjoy every time we use it.

However the modifications I proposed are technically correct and are of value to people who are interested in the subjet. Yes, I am responsable of commercial promotion of a vaporiser and this places me in a position to be distrussed.

Thus said, I beleive, these proposed modifications more appropriate.

In radiation heating, the substance is subjected to radiant energy. The substance absorbs the energy radiated into it and its temperature rises. This energy can be provided by a superheated thermal mass placed around it, or from visible light source like the sun. Radiation vaporizers are rare, but capable of duplicating the performance of convection vaporizers. A pipe and a magnifying glass on a bright, sunny day can, with care and practice, act as an adequate radiation vaporizer using light.

Our product is the only vaporiser on the market using radiation heating of a thermal mass. From this perspective, would it be appropriate to have an illustration of the patent or of the apparatus?

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.65.163 (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The primary issue with your initial edit was the promotional wording. As long as that's not included, it would resolve the reason that I reverted it. For images, if you add one, be certain that it meets our image use policy. Some of the issues to watch for on images: the image must be licensed in a way that's compatible with Wikipedia (many images get deleted due to copyright issues); do not include a watermark or added copyright/logo/marketing information on the image itself; the image should demonstrate the use of the subject, and not be overly emphasized on any logo or branding on the device. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism off my userpages and blocking my fanboy, FvckReaperEternal! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

no problem. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not edit warring

Barek, I am not edit warring, nor am I referring to an old consensus. The recent consensus changed the introduction, and Peregrine981 and I are working on a discussion regarding the subject. However, the original wording by the new consensus listed 1981 as the "usual" end date without definite time frames. This is backed up by sources. Educatedlady decided on her own to change the phrase to read 1982. Most sources do not cite 1982 as the end date for Generation X. Very few do. I will request a revert to the edit as it does not violate the recent consensus. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a content dispute, and I don't currently see where a consensus is reached on the article talk page. If one was reached, feel free to point it out. But from what I can see, none has been reached as yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Drop mop, insert cork.

User talk:77.102.254.186 HalfShadow 22:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy attention to that one. - Pointillist (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Aw look; he's playing with you. Isn't that nice. HalfShadow 22:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think he may be taking a break for now. Hopefully he'll just get bored and move on to other activities elsewhere. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If we're placing bets, I wager it's a first year undergraduate at Bath facing two essays with final deadline early this week, who can't decide what to do and stirs up drama instead. In my day we used to call it displacement activity. If I'm right, quick blocks actually do the vandal a favour as well as protecting the 'pedia. Pointillist (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Post removed

I would like to contribute to this article and would like to know what I need to do to get my contribution approved. I am new to Wikipedia, though am a published author and respected authority on the subject of Lease Options in the UK.

I can confirm that the content posted was not an infringement on copyright.

I note the comment about removing the link which leads to a web site, the content of which is my personal property and which contains useful information about lease options, however, if this is not allowed, I apologise for the error.

Many thanks for your consideration in this matter.

Mark Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkJacksonUK (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Politics2012

Howdy, could you help clear his name. He's had a 'suspected of being a sock' Template on his talkpage, since November 10th. Yet, his suspector hasn't 'yet' filed a SPI. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, they can remove the notice from their own talk page. WP:BLANKING mentions that users cannot remove "confirmed sockpuppetry related notices", but makes no mention of needing to retain "suspected" notices. Still, to be safe, might be best to ask for confirmation from someone more familiar with those tags at either Wikipedia talk:User pages or Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

quick question, no blocking needed

Just wondering if the one month block was really necessary on my IP account? Sandstein didn't even give me a chance to reply, which makes me think that he was trying to get me out of the way from this thing and how I said that I had a vested interest in getting my account unblocked. Is that really how blockings are supposed to work? Spartan123455 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Normally, if an account is blocked, any questions with the block should be resolved via that account. Going around the block to debate the block is viewed as abusing multiple accounts, and results in automatic blocks of the IP. But, in this case, I think a month was likely overkill. I hadn't paid attention to the duration that was set - I'll go ahead and reduce that now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Just wondering. Spartan123455 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How does one get Eastside Sun newspaper deletion undone?

Hi. A bunch of self-appointed censors winnowed, then deleted, the article on a newspaper in Washington State called The Eastside Sun. How do we determine the identities of the people behind the screen names? This was a clearly orchestrated effort and it needs to be exposed in print. We've spoken with Rolling Stone and they want us to get the lowdown.

Thanks!