User talk:Barras/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Barras, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may begin by reading these:

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

You can edit any pages you want! Anything you write can be changed later. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on Talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

Good luck and happy editing! Juliancolton (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


Yah I noticed.  ←Kalajan→  21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And I thought I get an answer where I ask... --barras 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop attacking me

If you think about this issue please have first a look at this and this (the user is banned for his behaviour. Barras (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to the encyclopedia. However, please do not attack other editors. If you disagree with changes, please talk about the changes and not the editors who made them. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about changing Wikipedia. Thank you. Asking someone is they've got a life is extremely rude. Stop attacking me.  ←Kalajan→  18:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to attack you. If you feel attacked from me, so I want to say sorry! Sorry, but I'm still smilling about this template. --barras 19:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That's uncivil.  ←Kalajan→  19:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't use warning templates against the regulars!!! I'd suggest you remove it and apologize! Then you can say it more nicely! fr33kman t - c 19:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't be angry. Smile about the template. It's funny. He/She doesn't have to remove the template. It looks nice at my talk page. --barras 19:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Not the slightest bit angry, just feel it's not needed. (it is fun to get a warning every now and then though!) :-) fr33kman t - c 19:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
agreed (look down for a section called revert and you should get the joke. Razorflame 19:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Lets see. Don't do it again. Thanks.  ←Kalajan→  19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Just forget about it. No offense was ment. Don't make a big deal out of it. Regards, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course. Barras wouldn't mean it but it was uncivil. But seriously, idc. Ps. XD  ←Kalajan→  19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a PA and so I can do it again. But be sure I don't be asking for trouble. And so I spend my time rather for my real life than for such discussions. And now: EOD! This discussion is (in my opinion) stupid. --barras 19:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, regarding this, American Eagle already declined. I'd leave them to it frankly and let one of the admins deal with it. I only reverted the page move because it was against policy as the move was to a username that didn't exist. Take care :) fr33kman t - c 23:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I only know the in DEWP the delation of user talke page isn't allowed. He/She still wants the QD of the talk page. And I think your time stamp is false. Have a look in the history of this page and then see the time stamp in your signature. greetings, --Barras (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi Barras. User:Chris G Bot updates the RfX report, so you don't have to update it with every vote. ;) BTW, I've seen some of your edits and i especially like them! Shapiros10 16:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I did this only why the Bot doesn't uptade this page since yesterday. Regards, Barras (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I suggest leaving a message on Chris G's talk page. Shapiros10 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I heard Chris retired. Majorly talk 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi topics

Hi, I notice you've been doing some Nazi articles, great! I also wanted to get the categories going for this topic and wondered if you had any thoughts? Iwas thinking along the lines of Nazi Germany as top level, and have made Nazi officers, but think it should be split into Nazi officers and SS officers but that we should also have a cat for the normal German officers who just happened to serve during that time but weren't really "Nazis". I've also made the cat Nazi leaders and think we should have a cat for enlisted personnel who were Nazis and civilians. What about the Gestapo? Any thoughts? I really want to pull over the whole lot of Nazi articles from enWP because I think its an important resource for school children. Cheers fr33kman t - c 15:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For most of that time, membership in the NSDAP was compulsory; so yes, they were all Nazis. --Eptalon (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I added 2 cats which you created ("Nazi leaders" and "Nazi officers") to the articles which I created. The Gestapo people can get the cat "Nazi officer", that should be correct. Don't copy the enWP articles!!! Some of this articles are without any references. Not all is correct on enWP. I want to expand the articles about the Nazi people with references. Regards, Barras (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, barras.

I noticed that you have been reverting vandalism. You should use Twinkle to help you. While Twinkle is not fully imported, you can use the warning and reporting scripts. Here they are:


Just copy them into here and you're done. Note: You need to have Firefox or Safari to use this! SimonKSKContradict me... 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I use the Vandal Warner, which you can find under "my preferences" --> "Gadgets" --> "Administration". This is also easy to warn vandals. Regards, Barras (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Röhm

I have moved the comments to the talk page so we can continue there, and not fill up the GA page. Peterdownunder (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw it. Barras (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Romania vote for PVGA

Hi there. I filled in all of the red links. Please consider changing your vote. Thanks, Razorflame 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  •  Done Barras (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


My RfA


Thanks for the QD tag; that's the second time I've warned someone on the user page rather than the talk page :) duh! fr33kman talk 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your are welcome. That's no problem. Barras (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Good work reverting vandalism around here! I don't think I've ever actually met you, so "hi", and good work! ;) TheAE talk 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw you sometimes on VIP and when you controlled the RCs. And now: "hi" back :) Cheers, Barras (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk pages

Hi there. Please don't use rollback for reverting people who remove warnings from their talk pages. This is not appropriate use of the rollback tool. Thanks, Razorflame 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake and sorry. The last IP removed content from an other IP's talk page. This I reverted too. I wasn't sure what I can do. Regards, Barras (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages. Since the other IP address that removed the warnings from the first IP's talk page, and since it was a member of the same range, I think we can be certain that it is the same user. This IP range has had 5 IPs in that range blocked within the past 24 hours. Razorflame 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought too that the second IP is same like the first. I'll do it better next time. Regards, Barras (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Barras' Day!

Featured article star.svg

Barras has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Barras's day!
For being such a great wikipedian and kind person,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Barras!

Cheers, Fairfield Deleted? 01:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Thank you, Fairfield! Barras (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Barras. Thanks for your interest in my RFB. Just wanted to take a chance to explain myself quickly... although I was away, I was still active on this Wikipedia using my on tour account. I opted to take both RFB and RFC on because their roles are very different. I also noted an increase in CU requests while I was travelling, and the old "don't need another 'crat" is fine while we have a couple but the rate this Wikipedia appears to be losing good editors, e.g. Creol, Gwib, etc etc, we may not have the luxury of suitably qualified candidates. I have used my admin tools extensively since having a secure internet connection after returning home. While I was away I did not wish to risk an admin account in insecure internet cafes. Finally, as for the Synergy debate, I firmly believe what he did was too quick, and others have agreed with me. My discussion (on Simple Talk) seems to be extremely important to the future of this Wikipedia. Frankly if Synergy had done that to a new user, the new user wouldn't return, ever. So we need to sort it out. In any case, thanks again for taking part in the process, we need more input from experienced editors, and I respect your decision. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that you used your second account, but you don't do administrative stuff during this time. In my point of view you should wait one or two weeks between the Rfx's. At present there are 4 'crats and I think we don't need a fifth at the moment. So I think this Rfb is at the present not necessary. I think it was a good task to use a not-admin account during your trip. I admire your work here on simple and I'm really sorry. But I can't support you now. Regards, Barras (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
We only have three active bureaucrats, as Vector (talk · contribs) is marked as semi-active (and he's only made 50 contributions since January). –Juliancolton | Talk 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. In my point of view are three 'crat for so a small wiki are enough. I think there aren't so many tasks for crat's at the moment. So: No more crat's needed. Regards, Barras (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
While true, RfB is a discussion to determine whether the individual candidate can be trusted with the tools. So in my opinion, if we had 10 excellent candidates, we should have 10 bureaucrats. Whether or not we have too many bureaucrats/sysops is another story. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
First: I don't change my vote. The behaviour TRM's of yesterday wasn't nice. The wheel-warring (delete - restore) wasn't correct. When an admin deleted an article, and you do not agree with that deletion, you'd better ask him first for his reasons rather than restoring first, and asking later. Barras (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually when I restored those articles I modified them sufficiently so no-one could accuse them of being copyvios. Simple as that. What's happened now is that Synergy's actions have opened a huge can of worms on whether his actions were correct or not. Moreover, if he was justified in deleting my stubs, we have many thousands of articles (including articles created by Synergy) which are copyvios right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Synergy's behaviour wasn't correct too. Things that are commonly known can not be copyrighted, and so I think the deletion was false. In my opinion a 'crat should more communicate and not only do things. First asking, then acting. That's the right way. I don't change my mind. Barras (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, could you please place an opinion on this? It needs more input. Majorly talk 00:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done, because enough users voted for consensus and my vote don't change the result. Barras (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing Banana Section

You removed the Popular Culture section which I created in Bananas.

Why had you removed the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hello IP. The sentence: In a Youtube video called Charlie the Unicorn, Charlie dances with bananas in a fantasy disco. That sounds like an ad for youtube or so and it is original research. The sentence Because of their shape, bananas are sometimes portrayed as fake guns by small children. is POV without a cite. Regards, Barras (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Sorry, I had just noticed this, but you also removed the fact that the bananas were "ripe" from the image caption of the bananas. I thought that it was helpful in signifying the appearance of "ripe" versus "unripe" bananas.
Should I enter it back in, or is there a rule against specification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Sorry, I don't noticed this. I entered it back. Regards, Barras (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello Barras. Thanks for participating in my RFB which passed (on the early side) yesterday, 16/5. While you opposed my promotion, I still hope to serve you as well as I can in my capacity as a 'crat, and admin, but foremost fellow editor. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom of BG7

Hi Barras, if you've no objections, I've co-nom'd BG7 for RFA. I feel that he is an absolute natural for the bit. fr33kman talk 05:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no problems with a second co-nom. Regards, Barras (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of rollback query

I noticed you used rollback on this diff. Rollback is intended only for blatant vandalism, which this was not. One theory is that HIV/AIDS emerged among humans after simian-human sex. It would need to be referenced and balanced, but it wasn't vandalism Soup Dish (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. It looks to me like vandalism, because of that I reverted it. this is as a result pf humans having sex with our monkey freiends. the last bold part looks like ... with our black (African-American) friends, or so. Thats vandalism for me. But I'm not every time sure. Regards, Barras (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Barras, that's blatant vandalism. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's your call, but it doesn't read like that to me at all. It has raised an interesting point to add to the article, however, and that is the debate about whether the leap was due to simian-human intercourse or human consumption of infected simian tissue. Thanks Soup Dish (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK! Then I have to say sorry. I have another opinion. For me it was vandalism. I accept your opinion and I haven't got any problems, if you add such a sentence again. Regards, Barras (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
"Thirded" (I agree with Barras).--   CM16  17:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

AGF problem

Barras, I saw this use of rollback, which was justified, but this on the other hand was not, please remember assume good faith. The editor has only vandalized twice. In which case you start with a level two warning. Again, please try to assume good faith. Thanks.--   CM16  18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi CM16! In my point of view, a named editor shouldn't vandalize. He created the account to vandalize, no more. A new named editor who vandalize get only one warning by me. It isn't an AGF problem for me. I did this also in the past and it was ok. I assume good faith, if the edits doesn't look like vandalism. Regards, Barras (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
A registered user can be blocked when it is identified as a vandalism-only-account, so Barras' warning was fine. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, it sounds like he's willingly violating WP:BITE. There is a such thing as a user who starts out vandalizing only then turns into an admin quality user eventually, such as Gwib, who stated in his interview that he started as a vandal.--   CM16  18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a substantial difference between good-faith testing and blatant vandalism. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Say what you will, but he should have started with at least a level three warning if not a two and given the user a chance to straighten out. But now he has been "bitten" and is now gone from what I can tell. Oh well.--   CM16  18:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No, what he did was fine. Please stop saying stuff when you don't even know what you're talking about. Thank you! –Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
WHOA, WHOA!! I don't know what I'm talking about? Last I checked I was a banned user from en who knows how it feels to not only receive a block but a ban, warnings make a difference. I'm walking away from this conversation now, Julian, before I lose my cool anymore. Have a nice day.--   CM16  18:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a wise idea. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Schluss jetzt --Barras (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Your welcome.--   CM16  18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for correcting typos on your user page :) иιƒкч? 11:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

haha... Barras (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For Barras, for all the hard work in quickly reverting vandalism, especially during April 2009. Keep up the good work! Peterdownunder (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Barras (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)