User talk:Barbara Shack

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



Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Task Center for brief guides.)

Fix spelling and grammar

More...Learn how
Fix wikilinks

More...Learn how
Update with new information

More...Learn how
Expand short articles

More...Learn how
Check and add references

More...Learn how
Fix original research issues

More...Learn how
Improve lead sections

More...Learn how
Add an image

More...Learn how

Translate and clean up

More...Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular low quality articles.

What help specifically do you need over eggs?Barbara Shack 16:31, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 17:16, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jeez, is Uther still flogging those same "suggestions" to every new user? They all go off and edit Lord of the Rings things anyway :) Cool, it's nice to see you've created the account, and you've probably noticed that Derek and I have added some more stuff into it (but still lots to do). Derek moved it to Fettes College, but you'll notice that Fettes still works (it's a redirect now). We _really_ need a photo (it's quite an attractive building, if memory serves). -- Finlay McWalter 18:23, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yep agreed. We're always glad to have new participants, particularly women who are badly under-represented on the Wikipedia. Please don't take it personally when unexpected things happen to your text. We mean well but we all have to work together and sometimes toes get trodden on accidentally. So it does help to be tolerant (thick-skinned even). Anyway, I hope that you have as much fun on this site as I have. -- Derek Ross 18:36, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi - an article needs to be more than an external link. Articles that consist of just an external link will probably get deleted. Secretlondon 19:44, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for working on documenting some of the shameful history of involuntary medical experimentation -- but please note that we need original material, not re-works of existing articles on the Web that may risk being regarded as copyright-infringing derivative works. Otherwise we risk having our article challenged for copyright violation. You cannot in general rely on "mere paraphrase" to get round this, although you can still rely on copyrighted articles for facts, and write a new text in your own words: but it is best to use several sources when writing an article.

Please note that this problem does not arise when public domain works are adapted, which is why we can use the words of the Nuremberg prosecutor in the Nazi article: as an employee of the U.S. federal goverment acting as such, his words were automatically in the public domain. Please see Wikipedia:copyright policy for more on this. -- The Anome 16:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. Please check my article on the Labour Party's Clause IV. I am not sure about copyright.

On the Japanese experiments, try contacting the original website. They may want their material to reach a wider audience and may be willing to let you use their copyright.

Why has my article on North Korean human experimentation been voted for deletion? Don't the (expletive deleted) Communists of North Korea like it?

Barbara, you can sign your Talk messages with name and date by simply typing ~~~~ (four tildas). Mikkalai 19:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your many pages attempt[edit]

Barbara, you seem like a nice person but avoiding the Votes for Deleteion by creating multiple pages with the same or similar content to avoid deletion will get you in trouble. Please stop to avoid getting banned for vandalism. (I am not a sysop, just trying to help you out.) Thanks - Texture 17:15, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can't you lot see a great deal of what I do here is useful?

Absolutely Fred Bauder 13:31, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Tony Blair articles[edit]

Hi there! Looks like you're doing some useful stuff. I've come across a number of small articles about Tony Blair by you, such as Tony Blair's Early Years. It is more within the style of Wikipedia to include this information in the main article, which in this case would be Tony Blair. May I respectfully suggest that you merge your information into that article, and we can delete the small ones? moink 20:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't write the small articles on Tony Blair. I split them off from the main article. The section about his early life was right at the top of the article. I thought readers would prefer to read about his politics first. Rearranging things with those sections later in the article also works.


Hi Barbara, there is an explanation of the removal of some of your text at the bottom of the talk:psychology page. The paragraph was not NPOV and was completely unsourced. The statements seem highly over-generalised and biased. The Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial might help. Basically, you need to say who has made these claims rather than making it sound like they are necessarily true. Hope that helps. Let me know if you need further clarification. I'd be glad to discuss it at talk:psychology. Angela. 23:12, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Church sex abuse scandal[edit]

Hi Barbara, I have a question about the two sentences you've added to the opening paragraph in the article about Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal:

It is believed that the Roman Catholic Church used the fear of Hell among the faithful to discourage them from criticizing what Priests were doing. Priests give Absolution which Roman Catholics believe can save them from the consequences of Mortal sin.

It seems extremely biased to me.

"It is believed..." - namely, who does believe that and why?
"Priests give absolution, etc..." - what does it have to do with the topic?

All this may suggest that Catholic doctrine justifies sexual abuse by priests or that it grants impunity to priests. That's why I've added this sentence:

This, however, does not mean that the Roman Catholic doctrine in any way justifies sexual abuse of children by anybody, let alone by priests

But personally, I believe it would be much better if all three sentences - yours and mine - were deleted from the article.

Kpalion 20:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As per editing on Roman Catholic Church, please mark all minor edits, such as a spelling change or a single wikipedia article link, as minor. Falcon 19:36, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, before you re-add this text to Pope, would you read what I wrote on the talk page, please? Thanks. --anon

Which of the additions is yours, anon? Why don't you register?

This one -- you know, the one that quotes the text you added and explains the objections to it. And I have an account; I just choose not to use it. -- 18:50, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Magdalen Asylum: if you think the merge of Magdalene laundry left out necessary information, it is best, for reasons of style, to integrate whatever information was missed rather than dropping in an exact duplicate of the other article. Cheers, — 13:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Barbara, your current edits to Magdalen Asylum are turning a well written and informative article into a mess. Much of what you are adding is not directly relevant (e.g. child abuse scandals), incorrect (wrong order of nuns, no such place as Biltmore Industrial School), very POV and somewhat incoherent. Much of what you are adding has a place in the Wikipedia, but it isn't here. Sorry to be so negative, but I think you are doing damage. BrendanH 13:33, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with Brendan H

Of course you don't, Barbara. I just think you should be much more thoughtful about what you add, particularly in terms of the coherence, conciseness and NPOV nature of the articles. By the way, the order of nuns in (many of, at least) the Magdalen Laundries was Good Shepherd, and it was Baltimore Industrial School. BrendanH 13:58, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

So the Religious people guilty of this abuse called themselves, "Good Shepherds". That's a bit ironic.

Could you perhaps put the content you created in How Social Structures Influence Gender Identity in the main Gender identity page? I'd do this myself, but I'm a little bit busy with some other stuff right now. It's not good to have two articles with near identical treatment of the same topic under different pages. Dysprosia 13:32, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

BTW: isn't the stuff on your page more about gender role than gender identity? Dysprosia 13:32, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm busy too. I'm behind with my next Open University assignment. Feel free to change the title to, "How Social Structures Influence Gender Role and Gender Identity" if you like, or alternatively to integrate the article into, gender identity and/or gender role. I'm glad though that on Wikinfo they don't change my texts so much.Barbara Shack 15:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was too impolite last Saturday. It is good that Wikipedia and Wikinfo do things differently. At the moment Wikinfo is at a disadvantage because it started later. When the Wikinfo site has developed I hope it will provide a different service from Wikipedia. Wikipedia will concentrate on providing condensed articles where everything is in one place. This will be useful for people who want information quickly. Wikinfo will often have work by different authors in different articles. This will be useful for people who like to surf educational sites. It will also help serious researchers who want to incorporate many viewpoints in their research. It will take longer to find what you want, if you want anything specific but what you read will often be creatively written and pleasant to read. Creative writers on Wikinfo will not find their style cramped because someone else has rewritten and condensed their work and integrated it somewhere else. Barbara Shack 15:54, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Skeleton Army[edit]

Ah, OK. I'm pretty sure that link wasn't in the version I had seen. Anyway, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Manual of style--for example, the title of an article is usually bolded in the first sentence, and a concise definition is given (e.g "The Skeleton Army was a group that opposed the open-air marches of the anti-alcohol Salvation Army in the 19th century".) Good luck! Meelar 15:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Salvation Army[edit]

Sorry but I reverted your edits to this article. Whatever you feel about the organization, it is not appropriate to "argue" with them in the way that you were doing. It's not a debating society. The article doesn't aim to praise the SA, merely to explain what it does and believes. How can you justify adding your text questioning their beliefs interspersed with those points? It's like you are trying to turn it into your own piece pointing out their shortcomings, which I do not believe is encylopedic. I am sorry if this offends you but I really do not think that what you did was correct. -- 21:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Once again I have reverted your edits. Would you please stop this? The piece is NOT an opinion piece for you to air your problems with the SA. -- 19:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have time to restart Wikipedia again. My Open University work has finished, hopefully till Frebrary.Barbara Shack 15:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Carrionluggage 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


As I saw that you edited Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal I would like to invite you to help with conflicts in the article about the "North American Man/Boy love organization" as well. Get-back-world-respect 20:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

I agree to multilicense everything except my userpage and talk page and what I put on talk pages.Barbara Shack 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC) OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Objections to Salvation Army Doctrines[edit]

I am here to tell you that the topic that you created, Objections to Salvation Army Doctrines, will be voted for deletion, for it does not meet up to Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia should not be used as a personal opion, but as a encyclopedia. Thank you. --SFrank85 (talk/contrib) 12:58, 5 Sept. 2005 (EST)


See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objections to Salvation Army Doctrines. Because it was largely personal essay-style contributions, I am reproducing the contents here on your talk page. You may wish to include it on your user page. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The Salvation Army, as part of its beliefs uphold the following 11 doctrines: These articles are displayed here with objections.

  • Belief that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God; and that they only constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice.

How would they explain Bible contradictions as in The Skeptics Annotated Bible?

  • Belief that there is only one God who is infinitely perfect - the Creator, Preserver and Governor of all things - and who is the only proper object of religious worship.

How would a perfect God allow evil? See Problem of Evil

  • Belief that there are three persons in the Godhead - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost - undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.

The Doctrine of The Holy Trinity competely united and completely divided is considered a Logical Contradiction.
See also The Trinity Very Anciently a Current Heathen Doctrine

  • Belief that in the person of Jesus Christ the divine and human natures are united; so that he is truly and properly God, and truly and properly man.
  • Belief that our first parents were created in a state of innocence but, by their disobedience, they lost their purity and happiness; and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.

How would they explain fossil and other scientific evidence that humans evolved rather than were created in the form of Adam and Eve? The above doctrine has become far less tenable since the time of Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley. How would they explain the injustice of punishing all mankind for the sins of two individuals? Before acquiring knowlege Adam and Eve could not have known that disobedience is wrong and could not have been responsible for their actions.

  • Belief that the Lord Jesus Christ has, by his suffering and death, made an atonement for the whole world, so that whosoever will may be saved.

Punishing the inocent Jesus could not atone for the sins of guilty humans. It can be argued that God was guilty as he made mankind imperfect and liable to sin. Therefore the punishment of Jesus can be seen as just. Christians may well see the above as Blasphemy.

  • Belief that repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary to salvation.
  • Belief that we are justified by grace, through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; and that he that believes has the witness in himself.
  • Belief that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.

How would they explain a loving God condemning moral people to Hell? Do they believe that those who lead moral lives but do not believe in Jesus will be punished eternally simply for lack of faith?

  • Belief that it is the privilege of all believers to be 'wholly sanctified', and that their 'whole spirit and soul and body' may 'be preserved blame less unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Thessalonians5: 23).
  • Belief in the immortality of the soul; in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgement at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked.

On the endless punishment of the wicked see Problem of Hell Thanks, SFrank85 I've already preserved a copy on another Wiki.

Edits to chocolate company pages criticizing the talk page[edit]

Barbara, I think what you added is not appropriate for article pages. Since your objection appears to be the link to Talk:Chocolate and slavery, I've deleted that link from the template. Please see what you think. --Nlu 19:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding blanket accusations in the form of standardized critique-templates to individual chocolatier articles. Especially ones like Valrhona, which to the best of my knowledge imports it's cocoa beans only from Madagascar, South America and various islands in the Caribbean. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, even for just causes. If you want to add factual criticism about individual companies, you need to provide proper references for it, not just rely on guilt-by-association.
Peter Isotalo 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
If this comment is directed at me (and if it is, I don't think it should go on Barbara's talk page), please note the state of the articles before the template were in. I dare to say that the template reduced POVness rather than increased it. --Nlu 01:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Barbara added these templates along with her own opinions to articles. I think commenting on that definetly belongs here, since I've already tried to point out the problem with making such edits at talk:chocolate and slavery. There didn't seem to be any problem with Whitman's, Valrhona or Godiva (chocolatier) before Barbara added her own personal comments on the article in the form of the template and an inappropriate attempt to trump debate that belongs on talkpages rather than in articles. I haven't checked every single article involved, but as far as I can tell, this fair trade-POV seems to be about accusing every single chocolatier that isn't part of the fair trade-network of some kind of shared guilt for labor force abuses in certain cocoa-producing countries.
Peter Isotalo 09:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Darwin edits[edit]

Please, see my comments/praises/request in Darwin's discussion page, last entry. Jclerman 20:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Swastika edits[edit]

Hello. Your off-topic editorializing in swastika has been reverted. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nazism Edits[edit]

I see you're getting into a revert war over your addition of this phrase:

If this were correct theUnited States of America with its famous Melting pot would be weak. The United States is clearly strong.-

May I remind you of the Three Revert Rule WP:3RR?

Also, I and others have removed your phrase, and your other one about "unworthy life" as they are off-topic.

When discussing Nazism, a phenomenom of the 30's and 40's, you bring in your personal point of view, which presumably relates to MODERN America.

The problem is not only is it a POV statement, but it's out of place, and out of time. America of the 30's and 40's was a place where blacks had few Civil Rights, faced horrendous problems and intimidation when they tried to vote (various discriminatory poll-taxes); where segregation was rife, in schools, on buses, even when it came to buying a soda or taking a drink of water at a public water-spout. Even the US Army sent to fight the Nazis was segregated at every level. Even if you were to argue that the US has overcome these problems today, (which is debatable) you cannot set up two systems at two different times against each other.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svgtalk|contribs 19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Xenu battery, and perpetual motion machine[edit]

See edits on the applicable page. Religions believe stuff, but declaring that stuff as "improbable" doesn't really add much to articles, as religions tend to believe things which are unusual. See the Talk page. Ronabop 14:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. JoaoRicardotalk 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Help:Image page


On Half Caste, you created a "soft" redirect to Half-caste. You should do a real redirect in cases like this. The instructions for how are at Wikipedia:Redirect. Thanks! Nice merge, by the way... -- JLaTondre 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein's brain[edit]

I broke the brain stuff off from the main article, mostly because it seemed strange to have so much on just this one aspect of Einstein. I think it has the potential to be a really interesting and unique article, though, and you should feel unrestrained by the brevity which would have been required for its discussion in the main Einstein article! I hope this is satisfactory to you. Thanks. --Fastfission 17:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Barbara Shack 17:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)I agree!

I removed your last comment (advice to educationalists) from the Einstein's brain article. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soap box. Some guy 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure why you vandalized my talkpage. Can you explain it? u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 16:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not nominate your egg article for speedy deletion. I removed it from speedy deletion. Since you have apparently learned how to check edit histories, you should know that. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 17:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 17:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Sorry, I made a mistake.

Boiled eggs[edit]

Sorry, at the time it was a substub, and in accordance with WP:NOT listed it for SD - sorry. I was also suffering from lack of sleep at the time. Please accept my apologies. haz (user talk) 11:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Advice to..." sections[edit]

Please stop making "Advice to..." sections of articles. If you haven't noticed, they have been repeatedly deleted. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Some guy 02:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


I've moved Operculum (Gastropods) to operculum (gastropod) in parallel to mantle (mollusc) and other such article titles. I've editted various other articles to correct this. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Barbara, I removed the link to, and the explanation of washerwoman. I think most people know what a washerwoman is and if they don't, they can look it up at a reputable online dictionary, such as the one at Bartleby. I'm sure you didn't intend to post advertising, just grabbed one of the first links that came up with Google ... but is one of those "reference" sites that display minimal or plagiarized content in order to get eyeballs for ads -- they're making money from the advertisers.

However, the other link you added is great, as is the re-categorization of the history. Zora 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Operculum used for incense is the same exact thing as gastropod operculum. I personally think that the two should have remained in the same article. If you have no objections then I will merge it back. --Sjschen 08:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I also see that you tend to reply on your own page. Please do so on my dissc. page such that I can be notified of your reply. Sjschen 08:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Why did you add the Bonobo taxobox to the chimpanzee article? That article already had the taxobox for the genus Pan. As you can see in the article and the taxobox, there are two species of chimpanzees. There is one article for each species, and one article for the genus. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The extra image may indeed be appropriate, but the taxobox was not. You can easily add the image to any part of the article if you wish. Also, please do not reply on my user page, as that is not appropriate. Replying here or on my talk page is appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Crossing of the Red Sea[edit]

Barbara, you added this piece about the Santorini explosion and a resulting tsunami as a possible naturalistic explanation for the Red Sea crossing. ("The eruption of the Santorini volcano would have generated a Megatsunami estimated at 600-foot.") Two points to consider:

  • 1. Santorini is in the Mediterranean, and the Red Sea isn't.
  • 2. Genesis depicts the crossing as a supernatural event, caused by God (or Yahweh). Take away the supernatural, and you take away God.

Just some thoughts :). PiCo 13:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 13:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Thanks for the comments. Your first point, that the Mediterranean isn't connected to the Red sea is rational. I've modified the article.

Barbara, I don't think you understood what I was getting at. It's simply this: before looking for naturalistic explanations for the Biblical picture of the crossing of the Red Sea, you must first understand clearly what that picture is. It's not a matter of the sea withdrawing and then returning: the sea is said to have split down the middle, so that the Israelites were walking through a canyon with water on either side. ("[T]he water was like a wall to them on their right and on their left.") This is not the kind of effect that a tsunami produces. But it's the picture you have to accept if you accept the Bible as a religious, and a true, document.

Alternatively, you can take the Bible as a history, true in its details but not a true account of God's actions. This is what you're doing if you reject the image of the sea split by Moses and by God, with water in walls to the right and the left. Then of course, you can bring in theories about Santorini. But if you're going to reject the supernatural element, then why accept the naturalistic part? Why accept that the crossing ever took place? Perhaps it was a late 8th century piece of propaganda, deisgned to bolster the kingdom of Judah in its struggles against its its neighbours - the neighbours named in the Song of the ASea? After all, several of these peoples named in the Song of the Sae - Edom, Moab - didn't even exist at the time of the Exodus. So which do you believe? PiCo 13:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 14:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Frankly I don’t take the Bible more seriously than I take, for example Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Hindu mythology The Koran, or other faith based writings considered sacred. Mythology frequently includes elements of truth mixed with inaccuarte information. I’m quite prepared to believe that a tsunami evernt may have happened. Later after the story had been retold very many times it became the story in the Old Testament.

Maybe...but that's speculation. Still, if what you're saying is that you believe the Crossing story is not literally true, but may represent a folk-memory of a real event, you should say so. You should also give some context - dates for the supposed Crossing (you can take that from the article on the Exodus), dates of the Santorini event, do they match up... And if you want to go down that rtack, it would be only fair to include other naturalistic explanations as well (there's another theory that the crossing took place across marshes, rather than the sea, and that strong east winsd frequently blow back the waters of the marshes making them passable for men on foot but not for chariots, which would be bogged in the mud - have a look again at the Crossing article where it talks about the distinct threads making up the narrative according to the Documentary Hypothesis). PiCo 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 15:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Oh! I'll do all that reading when I've got time.Barbara Shack 15:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Comparing dates won’t work. See:- “Part of the problem of finding evidence for this migration also involves a larger issue: the date of the Exodus is not known” Numbers involved in the Exodus, All we know is the Second Millennium BC.

That's weasel-words for saying that there's no evidence that the Exodus ever happened, and a great deal to suggest that it didn't. PiCo 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello barbara :)

Frodo (chimpanzee)[edit]

I have changed an article you wrote(Frodo (chimpanzee)) into a redirect to Jane Goodall, if you do not agree with that decison, please let me know. Prodego talk 20:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Miracles at Lourdes[edit]

Thank you for recognizing my work needed improvement and taking action on it, Barbara. We here at Wikipedia are supposed to do that. Unfortunately, you did not do the appropriate research. If you are sincerely seeking the truth, please do your homework and contact the appropriate agencies o report any new findings. JBogdan 00:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 12:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Objective people like James Randi do not take Lourdes seriously.

Having looked at the page on James Randi, it does appear true that he is probably objective, and that he has done much good in exposing frauds. One thing about Lourdes needs to be clarified. The water DOES NOT HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC POWERS. It is simply an instrument used by God when He chooses. When He does not choose that it will cure, it will not cure. Also, if you read the documents, Bernadette only says she saw "a lady," not the Blessed Virgin Mary. An investigation done after the fact came to the conclusion that the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Bernadette. Regarding miracles, the Lourdes Medical Bureau's job is to investigate cases that may possibly be miracles and determine whether there is any way it may have possibly occured naturally, but it is not their job to determine what a miracle is. See the website for details. The apparition at Lourdes is not required to be believed by Catholics because it is not an integral doctrine of the Faith and is not public revelation, but private revelation. The Church has CONDEMNED other "apparitions" because they are not of God. Apparently you do not understand the Church's position on apparitions, but neither do I have time to explain it here. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available online here. JBogdan 01:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You did not do your research before reverting the page. Also, another user corrected us. The "miracles" can also be consummated by participating in a Eucharitic procession on the premises, i.e., the water does not have scientific healing powers, nor should it, as I previously stated on the page. If you do not do the apropriate research, further reverts by you will be reported to the administrators as violations of the WP:3RRrule. JBogdan 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop hand.svg

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.

Please discuss your changes on the article's Talk page. We will be glad to discuss inclusion of any non-original research relevant to the topic, but please refrain from defamatory attacks in your Edit Summaries, and please try to reach a consensus with other users before repeatedly including oft-reverted content. MamaGeek Joy 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you've put your edits to the Miracles at Lourdes article back in. Please note that the link to CSICOP's article on Lourdes is dead. Do not put it back in again. CSICOP does not currently have an article specifically on Lourdes. I am not deleting your changes because I am Catholic (I am an extremely lapsed Catholic with serious disagreements with the church on a number of issues) but because they are egregious and unprofessional. Please be careful about these edits as you are running serious risk of a WP:3RR and possibly getting yourself banned. --Bluejay Young 08:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise[edit]

Barbara, I can tell that you feel very strongly about including information about scientific explanations of body preservation in the articles on Bernadette and Lourdes. May I suggest putting this information in the Incorruptibility article? I see you have made some minor edits on that page, but I think that the very detailed information you've been trying to put into those other articles would be more appropriate there. You could then put a "See Also" or a sentence in the criticisms sections of the Bernadette and Lourdes articles refering to Incorruptibility, perhaps somethine like, "There have been scientific explanations offered to account for the preservation of Bernadette's body. For more information, see Incorruptibility." In editing the Incorruptibility article, however, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's no original research policy. I did not carefully read over your edits, but others have mentioned this policy in regards to them, so you may want to read it over. I hope that having your edits reverted so often has not given you such a bad experience of Wikipedia that you are discouraged from contributing. MamaGeek Joy 11:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Australial Dingos as feral dog descendants[edit]

I removed the claim you added in the Feral article that "The Australian Dingo is the descendent of domestic dogs". While I myself know little of this topic, it is clearly contradicted in the text of the actual article on Dingos that your claim linked to.

If you know of research that indicates Dingos are actually feral dog descendants, perhaps it belongs in the article on dingos along with references. Kurt 13:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Barbera not sure if you know but there is a mediation Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28_Miracles_at_Lourdes involving you. Discussion is at Talk:Our Lady of Lourdes. jbolden1517Talk 12:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit[edit]

Please refrain from adding unsourced quotes or commentary to articles, as you did to Gilad Shalit. Thank you. Kafziel 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Pigs Article[edit]

Hi, I have moved the criticism of intensive farming from domestic pig to intensive pig farming. Could you check to see the arguments are covered in appropriate detail? 10:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


I am Barbara Shack. The IT Centre where I was working closed. I moved to a Public Library. The Library is now closing. I can't continue the discussion. Please restore my edits. Thank you for taking care that jpeople don't impersonate me.
Barbara Shack 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)I've just done a load of edits at the Library again. It's that interesting former Carnegie library. Please don't imagine someone else was impersonating me. Please keep my edits.

Your edits to Masturbation[edit]

Hey Barbara - I removed your addition to Masturbation], where you noted that Islam sanctions slavery. Whilst I can't comment on whether or not that's true, I don't feel there's any way it's relevant to the article on masturbation, even within the section dealing with Islamic attitudes. --Mnemeson 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lemba on page Who is a Jew?[edit]

I have reverted your edit. There already is a section on the Lemba on the page. copying it and shoving it in at the top of the page is disruptive. An expansion of the current Lemba section, however, would be a great addition to the page. thank you. ThuranX 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Birth certificate[edit]

Hi! I noticed you copied the content of Birth certificate into a new article, Birth Certificate. Two things:

  1. The proper way to move a page is with the 'move' button (at the top of a page, beside 'history'). Moving a page this way preserves the edit history (very important for licensing issues!). It also automatically generates a redirect from the old page.
  2. This article should be at the original title, because "birth certificate" isn't a proper noun (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent_words).

Thanks. --Q Canuck 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you change Death Certificate. That one isn't the same as Birth certificate and Marriage Certificate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barbara Shack (talkcontribs) 18:45, September 20, 2006 (UTC).
I changed Marriage certificate back. Death Certificate is about a rap album, and mentions the article Death certificate at the top. --Q Canuck 19:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Essay PROD warning[edit]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Critical views of Wikipedia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Critical views of Wikipedia. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Gwern (contribs) 23:07 15 November 2006 (GMT)

Blue-Sky Thinking[edit]

Blue-Sky Thinking[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Blue-Sky Thinking, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthritis and NPOV[edit]

On two occasions you have now added the following content to arthritis:

The general public does not understand arthritis very well. Arthritic people can have "good days" and "bad days". they can do less on a "bad day" than on a "good day". This can cause uncertainty and prejudice among the public.

This is entirely POV. You could substantiate the first sentence by citing a well-conducted study that examines popular perception of arthritis; however, there are numerous forms of arthritis, and their popular perception varies wildly (i.e. osteoarthritis vs true inflammatory arthritides).

"Arthritic people" do not exist, much like people with cancer will probably not like to be called "cancerous people". Some forms of arthritis do not have "good & bad days": some flare every few weeks or months, and some are chronically debilitating (e.g. osteoarthritis). One cannot possibly generalise between all forms.

Uncertainty & prejudice? Possibly. But this is your opinion, not established fact. JFW | T@lk 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks[edit]

hey there. sorry, had to fulfill your interesting question on how long "they" would take to change your edit. it falls under NPOV. It's a valid point, but pure Point Of View, & thus disalloed on wikipedia. I reallyreallyreally have no problem whatsoever imaginable w/aithiests. here, it's just the NPOV facts, Jack (& Jill...:~) Grye 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Sans Arcs[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Barbara Shack! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No Personal attacks[edit]


Stop hand.svg

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —--Kamikaze 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Two things wrong with your creation of mummy (corpse):

  • You used copy and paste instead of move, thereby concealing the history of hundreds of edits. You knew about moves a year ago but you had forgotten within six months - see above.
  • You gave no regard to the 600 articles which intend to link to the corpse article.

I suggest you move The Mummy back to mummy (disambiguation) and add your links there. -- RHaworth 13:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me how to move stuff. I can't remember what you say I did last year.Barbara Shack 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As I look at this page, at the top I see a number of tabs: "discussion", "edit this page", "history", "watch". Do you see "move" among them??? -- RHaworth 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ETA (disambiguous)[edit]

Hello, I saw the page you created at ETA (disambiguous) and your request in the edit summary to have the page deleted. I have added the {{db-blank}} tag to the article to fulfill this purpose. In the future if you feel a page should be deleted please do not merely delete the content from it but propose it for deletion using one of the deletion processes. Happy editting! Stardust8212 16:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Sentient puddle[edit]

Hi there, I came across the page you created for Sentient Puddle. Articles need to contain context in what they are referencing. I noticed you mentioned "Adams" and being a fan of Douglas Adams I recognised what you were trying to get at. Happy editing in the future. (personal edit, apologies on my previous reference to Richard Dawkins I may be incorrect on that as per your sourced reference) Beeawwb 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentient puddle[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Sentient puddle, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. McGeddon 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fall of Freddie the Leaf[edit]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article The Fall of Freddie the Leaf, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 14:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine-tuned universe[edit]

I was reading your edits in this article. It seems to include an impressive amount of information, but it is difficult to read. One paragraph is HUGE. I think it deserves to be split up and put into a separate section. Moreover, the discussion is confusing and complex (I'm not a physicist, but I have an extensive science education), so if it is difficult for me to comprehend, the regular reader may find it incomprehensible. I was about to revert and ask for a rewrite, but I'll leave it there for a while for you to rewrite. Orangemarlin 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Shana Tova[edit]


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Shana Tova, and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 12:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Superior alien[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Superior alien, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Jrothwell (? | !) 13:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Domestication section in the Rock pigeon article[edit]

Why did you remove most of the material without providing any reason whatsoever? Sure, it seemed a bit long, and it kinda stuck out because the art. had way too much information on human/pigeon interactions and not enough on the pigeon's biology, but you removed alot of informative material when you reduced something that could've constituted as its own article into a mere cursory paragraph. Blueaster 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It may have been a good idea to discuss the massive removal you'd be making before you did so. You've provided no apparent reasoning behind the move, so I'm going to have to revert your changes for now. As far as I can see, the feral pigeon information is still most relevant on the Rock pigeon page, and is apparently one of the most important sections to include in this article. Please discuss these large-scale changes first.--C.Logan —Preceding comment was added at 12:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Doves as symbols article[edit]

Hi Barbara, can you have a look at the talk page of the above article as to my explanation as of why I want the memorial picture removing. I hope not to have to go to administrators to sort this out! Cheers! LookingYourBest 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! The other image is fine and in good context with the article! LookingYourBest 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rock Pigeon[edit]

I've reversed your move - there is no species named Wild Rock Pigeon, and none of the couple of hundred double redirects created appears to have been fixed. Jimfbleak 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Observable universe[edit]

I've reverted your edits to Observable universe since the addition of unnecessary section headings does nothing to improve the readability of the article. Cosmo0 19:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Hubble volume[edit]

I've reverted your edits to the opening paragraph of Hubble volume. Although I agree with the idea of simplifying the intro and moving the mathematical definition into a new section, your edit was factually inaccurate, since the Hubble volume is not defined as the region of the Universe observable from the Earth - see the discussion here. Cosmo0 19:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007[edit]

Information.svg Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did to Hubble volume. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. Please be careful with your edits. Blanking pages is rather frowned upon. Newtman 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Email confirmation[edit]

I hoped that would work. It seemed to work for me with account Boggle. Fred Bauder 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Correcting Counterpart Theory article[edit]

Thank you for your work. I will try to check the philosophy part. I am hoping to improve my english as quick as possible. Hopefully I will. Regards RickardV 21:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Meduso-anthropic principle

A tag has been placed on Meduso-anthropic principle, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. UtherSRG (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fairy fort[edit]

I took the liberty of rescuing one of your contributions to Fairy fort. You can look at that articles revision history to see. Probably someone else will revert later but I thought their reason for the first deletion was rather lame. Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Humphrey Hawksley[edit]

I've just taken out a causality in the article on Humphrey Hawksley. "In 1986 he was expelled from Sri Lanka where he had reported on a number of government atrocities in its conflict with Tamil separatists." became "In 1986 he was expelled from Sri Lanka where he had reported on a number of government atrocities in its conflict with Tamil separatists." because the first needed a citation for the causality. I'm pretty sure you wrote the first line (it shows up on the wikinfo page for which you are the only contributor, for example), so I was wondering if you knew a good source for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triacylglyceride (talkcontribs) 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit scholar?[edit]

Hi Barbara, I hope this isn't too off-topic, but are you a bit of a Sanskrit scholar? I saw your edits recently and was thinking either that, or you've read a bit about Vedanta? It's not that common in these parts. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Barbara. Lol. After 10 years+ of research on the subject I can assure you that ISKCON is far from being an abusive cult. There have been specific instances in the movement's history where leaders with personal agendas managed to abuse the system and turn certain temples towards that direction (before being deposed or expelled), but on the whole most members I've met are sincere people. In England especially, it is practically part of mainstream Hinduism these days. I have studied mostly Vaishnava Vedanta, but also some Advaita in the distant past. Have always found Easten philosophy to be very profound. It's got a kind of timeless quality, similar to looking at the stars. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian or Native American?[edit]

Hi Barbara! Look, I made a question at MOS discussion regarding which is the most correct use in Wikipedia (Indians or Native Americans). I think it would be great if you stopped by and added to it.--Legionarius (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Again - Barbara, would you accept to open a discussion in the Talk Page of the article regarding the qualification of Indians/Massacre vs Native Americans/Attack? I guess this is the better approach. What do you think?--Legionarius (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image sizes[edit]

Hi Barbara. Thanks for updating various Birmingham articles. I notice that some of your changes involve the sizes of images. Many editors believe that for most images a size should not be given. I generally specify as thumb, without an explicit size, so that individual users can choose what size is best for them in terms of download bandwidth (speed and cost), and in terms of ink used when printing (particularly for drafts of changes). I appreciate the value of a good colourful photograph in the right place in an article, but:

  • if you like big pictures you can set your default in my preferences (top line of every page, then Files section)
  • if you like small pictures, then ditto
  • different browsers will show different things to different people
  • viewing on a different screen size will change the appearance greatly from the "ideal" set by one editor on a given computer

That's why I use thumb anyway. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. Best wishes. Oosoom Talk 12:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for the barnstar, it is much appreciated. I have moved it to User:Erebus555/barnstars where the other barnstars I received are. Thanks again! - Erebus555 (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Couple of reminders[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.

Information icon.svg
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Stephenb (Talk) 11:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Austria at the Time of National Socialism[edit]

Since you started working on the translation of the article Austria at the Time of National Socialism it would be nice if you would also update the translation page.

I also thought that it might make sense if each of us would be working on seperate sections of the aricle... this is just a suggestion though... --VeronikaMM (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

replied directly to your message on my talk page... sorry --VeronikaMM (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making a significant contribution to this article. One thing I would like to point out, is that your edits do not provide any references. References are a critical part of wikipedia, as they allow editors to verify the information's accuracy and notability. If you could find some references for the article, I'd be most grateful. Sincerely, BETA 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Anschluss[edit]

Sorry for pestering again, but I had already added the heading for the Anschluss, and it would have been nice in you had just looked at the article, before adding it again. I added it to give the article a basic layout already, and to be honest, it would be appreciated it you would take a look the next time... Thanks for your work though--VeronikaMM (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing, Translating...[edit]

It would be nice if you would try in general to see that things make sense in any way. I know it can be confusing, but please try not to have things in one article twice. Like you had with the categories and the German link with this article... I think this is really important!

As I also said previously, it would be nice if one person would focus on one section of the article at a time, otherwise it might be that 2 people are working on the same section at the very same moment (not very likely but still...). This is why I started out with the new section leaving the "beginnings" for you to finish.

Anyway, I appreciate your work but I would also appreciate it if you could try to work out things like this with other users, especially working on projects like this...--VeronikaMM (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Gemeinderat, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Please excuse the insticking of the nose, Barbara. Don't let Human intimidate you, stand up for yourself. He's a decent enough guy but can be a touch autocratic at times. 'Wiedersehen, SusanG (Ratwikian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheresaWilson (talkcontribs) 08:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinazis - making signing compulsory - even when you've intentionally left it off. TheresaWilson (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Possibility that the universe is a false vacuum[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Possibility that the universe is a false vacuum, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possibility that the universe is a false vacuum. Thank you. JuJube (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi Barbara,

it would be great if you would make a note on what you did in your edits (even with Translations). In translations work it might be completion of a section or start of a new one, ect. it would just be a lot of help!

THANKS--VeronikaMM (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


You recently changed the spelling from US to UK. Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Retaining_the_existing_variety. There is no national tie from the UK to Impressionism, which is a French movement. Therefore the spelling should not have been changed. Please be careful in future, as this kind of thing can be annoying to other editors. Thanks. Tyrenius (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello Barbara, I have had to revert your edit to the Lewis's Trilemma article. I've spent ages on this myself, trying to turn what was originally a piece of crude apologetics into a balanced article that reflects the many weaknesses of the argument as well as its widespread popularity. The point you make is a fair one, though I think Lewis and his supporters would say that it's a lot harder to defend someone claiming to be the omnipotent Jewish God rather than a common or garden Roman one. Either way, I believe the point is better made by making it clear that scholars do not, in fact, believe that Jesus made any such claims. In the interests of balance, I have tried to keep the criticism section short so as not to invite claims of disproportionate attention to negative views. I'm usually a pretty ruthless reverter of unsupported arguments from fundamentalists, so in fairness I had to remove your unreferenced point. If you can find a suitable citation for it, you could always put it back in again.

By the way, I see you've been working on Austria in the Time of National Socialism - that's good, I started some work on that ages ago but have been too distracted by defending scholars against fundies to have much time to continue. Good luck with that ..--Rbreen (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

March 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Liberty University. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. AshleyScripter {talkback} 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Information.svg Thank you for your contribution to Liberty University, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Thank you. AshleyScripter {talkback} 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dude[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Dude, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Wikis[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Vandalism of Wikis, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. This is already covered at Wikipedia:Vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Not sure what bothered you about Spica. Perhaps the Wiki page does not state that it is a binary. There is an article discussing such stars - probably including Spica at: Adaptive Optics Photometry and Astrometry of Binary Stars. II. A Multiplicity Survey of B Stars by Lewis C. Roberts, Jr., Nils H. Turner, and Theo A. ten Brummelaar in The Astronomical Journal 133 545-552 (2007) doi:10.1086/510335 Unfortunately, due to the transfer of journals from the University of Chicago Press to the "IOP" organisation my password is not active. I can recheck details later if you wish (a day or two) or you can try a local university library, but is seems that the star is a rotationally distorted B star and also a binary. Carrionluggage (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They fixed up my access. This is quite puzzling. The article I mentioned lists Spica under its HD (Henry Draper) number: HD116658

It is in their Table 2 entitled "Single B Stars" (i.e. not binaries!!!) You might inquire of one of the authors as to what's up. The lead author can be contacted at: , and the other two are at: and (part of Georgia State University). Carrionluggage (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice[edit]


As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

James N. Gardner listed at RfD[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James N. Gardner. Since you had some involvement with the James N. Gardner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Six (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only just got this message as I use a different account now. Barbara Shack (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Proofreading of Theodor Kramer article[edit]

Hello! I wonder if you would be interested in proofreading the English article on the poet Theodor Kramer, which I have just finished translating from German, with some amendments (streamlining of chronology, removal of illogical statements, addition of summary para etc.) Of particular concern to me are the translations of certain culturally-specific items (e.g Germanistik und Staatswissenschaften). If you are interested, thanks for your help! Harlandski (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Victorian Architecture[edit]

Information.png Hi Barbara Shack! An article you have been concerned with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Victorian architecture, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Brownism[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Brownism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Centre-left[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Centre-left. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre-left. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Dubbiya[edit]

I have nominated Dubbiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Barbara Shack! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2,741 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Kate Blewett - Find sources: "Kate Blewett" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Brownism[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Brownism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownism (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Egg (biliogy)[edit]

You created a good article here. I have linked it up with hundreds of other pages over the last year so it should be more visible to users.

cheers. Bruinfan12 (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy message from WikiProject West Midlands[edit]

Hi there Barbara Shack. You are registered with WikiProject West Midlands and we are cleaning our list of members. As you have not contributed to any page for over a year we have removed you as inactive. If you still want to participate in the project, just go back and move yourself into the active list. Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Retrospective diagnoses of autism for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Retrospective diagnoses of autism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrospective diagnoses of autism (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PermStrump(talk) 00:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Way the Internet is used or abused listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Way the Internet is used or abused. Since you had some involvement with the The Way the Internet is used or abused redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)