Jump to content

User talk:Barkeep/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Oops!

Looking yonder :- [1] - I guess you beat the bot !! Pedro |  Chat  19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Re: Rick Tumlinson

No worries. I have been known to paste in the wrong link on occasion, so I can't get my shorts in a knot when I get reverted. Take care, Caknuck 18:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Condensed Detachment" citation

The formal secion of the Condensed Detachment page was a direct quote of a piece of email, used by permission subject to proper credit being given. You removed that credit. (Making the section now up without permission.) The reason given is "If this is true it is not cited". To use someones work without permission seems much more problematic then not having a full cite, but if you will point me at the wikipedia policy on how email should be cited, I'll gladly make a "proper" citation... since that seems preferable to using material without permission. Nahaj 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You left a note on my page saying you didn't know what article I was talking about. So I added quotes around it in the section title to make it clear it was a title, and added the wikistuff around it above to make it a link. Nahaj 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that you have added back in text to the article that violates copyright. Dr. Dolph Ulrich gave permission to include his text with attribution. Not only have you in the past removed his attribution, but now you are adding his text back in without permission. You say that the reason was that it was an unexplained removal, but the reason was given on the talk page. IT IS A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT TO USE AN AUTHOR'S WORK WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION. Please stop doing this. [And note that most countries are signaturories of the Berne convention, which says that the author holds the copyright even if there is no explicit notice.] What have you got against Dr. Urlich that you remove credit to him and use his text without permission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.254.50 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually haven't added anything to the article since our last conversation a year and a half ago (assuming you are User:Nahaj) so I am not sure what you are referring to. If you would like to remove content from the article please feel free to do so. If you would like to add content to the article do so as well under WP:V and GNU Free Documentation License. If something has not been properly cited, please do so under WP:CITE guidelines. Barkeep Chat | $ 14:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the log the edit of November 2008 was putting back in the copyright violating text was your edit. That text had much earlier in the discussing been pointed out as violating copyright without a disclaimer. Note that it WAS removed, and you put it back. Your claim of not adding text is contradicted by the logs. 155.101.254.50 (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If you're upset about the content of the article, do something about it. The edit you're referring to was a revert, not an addition, from an edit by an anonymous editor who did not explain their removal of the content of the article in their edit summary. Again, I will state, that if you do not like what is in the article, change it, within the confines of Wikipedia policy. I consider this a closed issue. Barkeep Chat | $ 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Six O'Clock News.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Six O'Clock News.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hotels

You had expressed interest in the above project on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page. This is to inform you that the project is now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hotels. Please feel free to remove your name from the project page if you are no longer interested in being a participant. Otherwise, welcome to the project! John Carter 18:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace Action

Dear Barkeep, I question the appropriateness of the "Publications" section you added to the Peace Action article. With the exceptions of the Katz and Solo books, and the new Wittner edited volume, they appear to be books about peace generally, but not about Peace Action specifically. I would argue that this is not the place for a general bibliography of peace books (and it's more of an idiosyncratic list at that). I'd like to remove this section, but I don't want to do this in an antagonistic spirit. The books are fine, they just don't belong in a list in that article, IMHO. Books on Peace Action are in the Reference section, which I hope to make use of to footnote more of the historical parts of the article. Dwalls 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your note on my talk page. The books on that list would probably be more appropriate in the article on the Peace Movement. Dwalls 15:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
Awarded for cleaning up articles that have been tagged as needing it for an extend period. RJFJR (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading Image:Dieckmann reaction mechanism2.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Current political events of Venezuela

Well done; good show. Unschool (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mand

Thanks for sweeping up behind me...I don't know what I was thinking! SlackerMom (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Loughton

Dear Barkeep, why have you so ruthlessly filleted the article on Loughton, Essex? The contents have been supplied by supplied by members of the Loughton & District Historical Society and all appear in the publications cited at the end of the article (not individually cited in the text to improve visual clarity). The paras follow standard wiki format for towns in England, which usually include a 'politics' section at the end so why have you so drastically edited this section? Without wishing to be rude, your previous edits do not indicate any specialist knowledge of this part of Essex!!

You are correct, I do not have knowledge of Loughton, however, I do have some knowledge of Wikipedia's policy, particularly manual of style. I would look more closely on my "filleting" of the article. As mentioned previously, my editing was done as the article is one of the oldest articles on Wikipedia marked for cleanup. The majority of my edits were formatting (some major), particularly in the Education and Sports and Leisure sections. In these instances of formatting and reorganizing much of the content was not lost and is still intact.
In reference to the Politics section, this was moved up in the article (instead of at the end) but, as a mentioned before, I removed the list of office holders as they do not seem to be notable and it appears just to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Among other things, "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are considered notable. If any of these political figures have received significant coverage you may add them back with as to why they are notable and can be verified. Please review WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO for more info.
I do not want to get into an edit war, and I am happy to answer any other questions or collaborate on improving this article further. Thanks! Barkeep Chat | $ 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jackpot

Thank you

You were right about the PDF link - for some reason, it would open up on my other computer. Thanks! BWH76 (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Yoruba twins and Ibeji

Hi, Barkeep -- I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoruba twins as "merge and redirect to Ibeji". Since you volunteered, have at it! The articles look almost the same at this point in any case, so it should not be too difficult. And when complete, please turn Yoruba twins into a redirect, citing the AfD. Thanks, MCB (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

External or Internal Links?

Hello Barkeep, the link to original unpublished research on a personal blog should be external (NOFOLLOW). Otherwise, you will have thousands of blogers inserting internal links in wikipedia articles to boost their google page rank! So, please revert the link to an external link [2]. Thanks - Marconet (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, your statement about citing bloggers is somewhat true, but in this case the assertions made by the author on his website are not random claims, but rather assertion supported by outside studies and references; which in this case would make the citation arguably usable. I would also venture a guess that the author of the web page is not concerned about his page rank since it is not advertisement driven and does not appear to have been updated in some time. Regardless, I changed the citation to the study he used to make his claim. Barkeep Chat | $ 13:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Racial issues in Japan

Someone deleted part of your article in Racial issues in Japan. --Planth (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

JDMH

Thank you, Barkeep! I didn't know you could do that. I will try to get to that article within the next 24 hours. Unschool (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism

I have replied on my own page. Do keep up the good work. Soidi (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your note

I appreciate your comment to me on Troy Davis case. I do my best, though I sometimes get annoyed when people make edits or comments in areas which they should not be attempting to make edits or comments (as was the case concerning the issue of whether names of judges in particular cases are public knowledge). I share our common interest in civility and respect, but that is precisely why the person who impolitely deleted what I wrote should have first asked me: How do you know the names of judges in this case? And i would have shown him that this is public, verifiable knowledge, as any lawyer in the US knows. Cheers! SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Philips curve

I didn't add a reference, but virtually none of that article is referenced. This is I think reasonable, as it's common economic knowledge, but I thought my edit was too. I have had a source for it in the past, and I suspect other people could too. As such, I think it's a little unreasonable to simiply remove it totally: so if you don't mind I'll re-insert and put a tag on it. If you think it's POV, feel free to edit it to make it more acceptable, it is a bit wordy. Larklight (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What's being discussed in that paragraph on the history of the Phillips curve is the fact that some governments began to believe they could control the business cycle with monetary and fiscal policy. This has nothing in particular to do with unions-- bringing in the role of unions is a side issue that makes the paragraph less clear. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've conceded. Rinconsoleao has already reverted. Larklight (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

POTA and User:Indiawale

In evaluating this user's edit on the POTA page, you should be aware of:

Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For your untiring efforts in cleaning up articles from the backlog and, therefore, improving the quality of Wikipedia.
- Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
Awarded for impressive clean up and rewrite of Obstetrics Thanks for your work. Gillyweed (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Vasserman

Incidentally, if you intend to vote for delete there, you should make that intention clear, as otherwise the admin who closes the AFD later might not count your comment as a vote. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Barkeep Chat | $ 13:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Barkeep, When I created this article more than 2 years ago, I included links to video showing news reports by the subject. Those links have remained there through numerous changes by wikipedia members. When you formatted the page several weeks ago, you improved the article tremendously. At that time, you left the links as well. But yesterday, after I added additional links, you removed all of them. Please explain why you did this. --Kusinews (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I initially wasn't going to mess with the original links that were listed in the external links section. However, since my first edit of the article I've seen more similar links appear in that section and realized that some action needed to be taken, otherwise a precedent was being set that it was OK to include more of these kind of links. So I removed them per the stated Wikipedia policies (WP:ELNO and WP:YT). Links for the Kimberly Hunt article (or any others) should deal directly with the subject (for instance a video featuring an interview of Kimberly Hunt, not Kimberly Hunt conducting interviews). Moreover, it could be argued that the links fall under WP:COI, WP:LINKSPAM, and WP:RESUME. However, if there was one catch-all link that would take a person to those features that were previously linked in the article that would be acceptable. Barkeep Chat | $ 17:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Those links have been there so long, I was wanting to update them with newer reports she has done. Because she is a news broadcaster, she is never the subject of a report. But she has done several worthwhile interviews that might be of interest to readers. Could you please instruct me on how to create 1 link, perhaps with several parts, to link viewers to various reports? Thank you in advance for your help. --Kusinews (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't help you to construct a link outside Wikipedia; however, I did find one such link through an internet search. I added this along with some outside profiles of her to the article. I fully appreciate the stories she has done and the interest they may be to some people, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia should be the launching pad for such links. I've put in a RfC section to get a confirming opinion. See the talk page for more. Barkeep Chat | $ 13:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep. That's perfect. I really appreciate all of your help. --Kusinews (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One note: I just noticed there is one video unrelated to the subject's work, where a woman discusses her dislike for the subject. I have added a different link. Please check to see if it's acceptable. --Kusinews (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep/Archive_1&oldid=1136206584"