User talk:Barts1a/OldArchives/Archive 1

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

Wanting to create a stub article

{{helpme}} I would like to create an article about the current 520-day mars mission simulation but am not sure if it has already been done Barts1a (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A quick search brings up no results. However, reading WP:MFA would be helpful for you. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)



Hello, Barts1a, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Habbo, Morocco
Lone Pine Airport
Wave Race
Sampo Karjalainen
Magical Starsign (series)
Fran Mirabella III
Day 1 Studios
Butler High School (Vandalia, Ohio)
Chinese people
Megan Hauserman
Smith & Tinker
Harvard University
Cossack Mamay
Kanongesha-Lunda people
Home Sweet Home (video game)
Art Style
Excitebike (series)
The Legendary Starfy (series)
Ultra Low Emission Vehicle
List of Soul Reapers in Bleach
Frontal Protection System
Add Sources
MechWarrior (video game series)
Netherlands Maiden
Bobba Bar
Indian animation industry
Alsop High School
FlatOut (video game)
Aces High (video game)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert or delete edits by other editors for no good cause.

What "test". I made no test .... I did an edit. If you will notice in the remarks I left, the reference that is used to justify the claim I deleted specified nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even exist at all. Injuries to the bulls are not that common during the run itself, which is what the article is about. The injuries come during the actual bullfight (death actually). But that is discussed in a completely different article .... bullfighting.

If you have a reference to link to, showing my edit is unjustified, then by all means do so. But when an editor makes a correction because the previous entry was based on a false reference, don't just delete it (or even worse, revert it as you evidently did). My edit was based on research (the reference cited doesn't exist). Yours was evidently base on an assumption, since you evidently never even bothered to chec the reference.

I have recorrected it. If you feel a further need to revert my edit on this, then please find & include a proper reference befre you do so.

"Please do not delete content or templates..."

Actually, I was just correcting an error I made a few moments previously, when I accidentally added a copy of the template to the template already there. So, I've just "re-reverted" the reversion, which I hope is okay. Best wishes, (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


I do not understand your message about my edit of Dubai. Is is a mistake? Grafen (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your recent modifications

In Lynx (web browser), why are you consistently reverting a valid edit? (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to this. See their talk page (if the user has deleted the reply check page history) Barts1a (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fordyce's spot

deleted advertisement

the Tretinoin, Retin-A advertisement -- (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It was there all along, please do some research or at least read the original edit that you're reverting before reverting it. Reckless reverting does nothing for the Wiki community, thanks.

Deleted section again.

I am sorry, but I don't think this is worth replying to. My apologies for the inconvenience Barts1a (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RE:Angela McGlowan

The biography of Angela McGlowan that you continue to revert to is unofficial and contain falsities. The one that I have posted is the correct biography. To avoid confrontation within a legal realm, please refrain from reverting to the incorrect biography. If you have any questions, you may contact Mrs. McGlowan's office PSI12 (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a legal threat and can, by itself, have you blocked from editing Barts1a (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Admiral Jackie Fisher

Reply: Mr. Barts 1a, regarding that change to Admiral Fisher's "place of birth", that was mentioned in Massie's book Dreadnought I believe. Simply can't recall the page number though. One must remember that India was part of the British Empire and many English citizens were born there, including Rudyard Kipling (again, if memory serves correctly). Not having the page number handy for reference; we won't bother to contest the issue. But when the reference page number is opportunistically presented, we'll consider re-editing it back in, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. TbhotchTalk C. 00:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone forgets to sign their messages every once in a while, such as when notifying a user about an incident report posted about them on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Thank you for following up with the AIV for me on AlgeriaMonAmour

I got distracted by a couple other vandals and was just getting back to it. Thanks again, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 09:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalizing the Hurley page!

Hello, I keep getting errors that I'm vandalizing the Hurley page, but I'm not. "Viva La Vida" is a Coldplay cover, and "All My Friends Are Insects" is taken from the show Yo Gabba Gabba. Please allow me to make these edits, thank you. (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless you PROVIDE a VERIFIABLE, RELIABLE SOURCE your edit will keep on being reverted as vandalism as there is NO PROOF of this claim
Ugh. Fine, I understand "Viva La Vida" and the Yo Gabba Gabba one needing sources, but can I at least link to the "Memories" page? Why do I need a source for that? (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, note that the credits list Coldplay members as the writers of "Viva La Vida". I do not deserve to be accused of vandalism, here. (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You need to provide a source for EVERYTHING or else it is not considered fact and will be removed as non-encyclopaedic content
I don't understand. Look at their Raditude album page - do the song titles have sources given for each link? No. Not every word needs a source given, you're not being fair. (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This is because MANY facts are covered by ONE source. You just need a RELIABLE (E.G. NOTHING on free website hosting services!) source which can cover many FACTS. As long as each FACT can be linked to a SOURCE it will stay

External Links

I disagree with your comments regarding weebly web sites any site can be created by anyone just because this one does not need a great knowledge of HTML does not make it less valid than any of the other external links .Also this site promotes a book which if you research your self has been endorsed by uriah heep themselves including mike box and ken hemsley and also the byron family and has some relevance being on the site--Steve5915 (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if the site was endorsed by the President of the United states, as long as it is on a free web-hosting service it will NEVER be considered a reliable source. NO EXCEPTIONS! Barts1a (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/barts1a

I regret to inform you that I have closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Although you've been registered since 2007, you've only recently become quite active (since July). Most RFA participants are looking for candidates who have been actively editing for a minimum of six months and who demonstrate a decent grasp of current policies, guidelines, and administrative procedures. I would suggest you review the relevant advice at WP:NOTNOW, WP:GUIDERFA, and WP:PASSRFA before applying again in the future. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. –xenotalk 14:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, was just going through your contributions and was going to support due to your valuable anti vandal work defending content, and the few examples I found where you took part in discussions suggested you have a good collaborative approach. But would have only supported weakly as per your answers it looks like you might be a bit too strict with imperfect editors. I suspect youll do much better if you try another RfA in 6 months or so. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Bite Me (novel) for deletion

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Bite Me (novel), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bite Me (novel) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Shsilver (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Worldcat use

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Template:Worldcat use. Thank you. Tabercil (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a hoax

Hi Barts, just wanted to let you know -- the "hoax" you recently identified was actually a good faith effort, just by someone without a lot of wiki experience! I can see how that would't be clear though -- thanks for keeping an eye on things. I'm working with her now to help her with her project. -Pete (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I shall ignore edits by that IP in the future. Maybe next time to avoid confusion you could train them a bit on using the wiki? (Not editing from an IP anon is a good place to start!) Barts1a (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Amazing, fooled me completely. I would never suspect that an anon IP claiming authority from the Foundation might be serious. (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Can't blame either of you, I'd have thought the same thing! It's just the result of a whirlwind of miscommunication on our end -- you guys were definitely reacting appropriately :) -Pete (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You and me both Fæ. And thanks again for clearing this up Pete Barts1a (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But let's not forget WP:AGF... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kinda hard to do that when a random IP address is claiming to be from the wikimedia foundation and providing little to no proof to this effect Barts1a (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Then you talk to them, explaining how the project works (WP:BITE and all of that), and you also raise the issue on affected article's talk page (where constructive discussion has now begun). The (former) anon's edits were obviously good faithed if imperfect effort (creating table duplicating info), not vandalism. Calling them vandalism and bullshit is not the right approach to new editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you are handing out some unfair criticism here. I cannot see the word "bullshit" being used in the user page history and Barts1a was not the only person to add standard user warnings to the IP talk page. Barts1a also took the incentive to discuss the case on IRC which attracted my investigation as well as Prodego. Only after I added an ISP notice did it start to become clear that the location matched the Foundation's address. Editing from this IP appeared to be persistent and disruptive, easily confused with damaging vandalism and potentially false claims of authority. If you feel Barts1a is in the wrong and requires advice on how to behave in the future, please be even-handed and add the same criticism to my talk page, Teles and Ma8thew. Thanks, (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The word bullshit was used in this edit summary. Such words should be avoided, and certainly, by administrators who should hold up high standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No. The edits were not disruptive. You folks please get your act together: learn to WP:AGF. learn what "disruptive" means. Learn to actually read the edits to see if they are vandalism (major miscall there!). Learn to use talk pages; they exist for a reason. The "bullshit" edit summary was out of bounds. In general, stop excusing yourselves and learn from this. • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to keep discussing this can we please move it to neutral ground? The new message notification is supposed to be for meaningful messages, not discussion of one. Thanks! Barts1a (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm done talking. The last sentence of my post above is a fair summary of everything I wish to say. You don't need to be spanked; you need to admit that it is you (and one other editor; I left a message on that person's talk) who were in the wrong. In fact, you should be issuing apologies, not that WMF memeber. And above all else, you should learn. • Ling.Nut (talk)
  • Please do not lie. You have not left a message on Fæ's talk page as I write this. Barts1a (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition: You contributions list suggest the only talk page you have edited recently is mine Barts1a (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Also in addition: The message you left on Ma8thew's talk page isn't nearly as scathing as the message you left for me
  • Look. You had plenty of time in this thread (above) to admit that you were in the wrong. Instead, you chose to justify yourself. I'm not whacking you for your mistakes; everyone makes mistakes. I'm whacking you for your refusal to admit that you were wrong & refusal to apologize. User Ma8thew has not yet engaged in this discussion, and thus has not done as you have... I assume by your stance that you wanna be an admin some day; this inability to consider the possibility that you are wrong is a huge problem with admins. Please. learn. • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I can see why you are pissed off over your recent RfA. but there really is no need to take it out on fellow wikipedia users. Might I suggest a wikibreak? Barts1a (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Holy Crap! That is lame, lamer, and lamest! This is exactly what I was talking about. Wait.. link here.. File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg. See the second and especially third layers from the bottom. Then look at the top of the triangle to see what you decline to do... • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Ling.Nut. I came here to comment on a minor error in judgement that could be easily closed by Bart saying "yeah, I was a bit too quick tempered there, sorry." Instead I see the "admin can to no wrong" attitude, and personal attacks. This is disheartening. Let me say after Ling again: we are not perfect, we all make mistakes. Admitting to that is what makes a better person - just like the inexperienced WMF staffer did, apologizing to Bart and others. He was not the only one at fault here, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again everyone -- if I may, I'd like to suggest that everybody just have a nice cup of tea and let this rest for a bit. I think I have a pretty unique view on this situation, and want to assure you all that everyone in the situation was proceeding with a healthier-than-average amount of good faith. Barts and Fae, you guys were dealing with edits that -- I completely agree -- had the look of a childish and unproductive prank; Ling and Piotr, you guys are putting a ton of good work lately into exploring the experience of new users, and I am full of admiration at your desire to make sure the newbie is represented well here.

I don't think there's much to be gained by arguing out the details here; yes, lots of little judgment calls were made by several people, and they led down an unfortunate path. With the benefit of hindsight, I'm sure we could all name things various people could have done better. But that doesn't mean that hashing them all out is going to be a productive activity.

If I had the ability to bring out a wiki tray of actual tea and cookies for everybody right now, that's what I'd want to do. Let's just let it rest, and maybe each of us will find some little lesson/takeaway from the situation on our own time. -Pete (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I fully intend to do as such. Barts1a (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not well said, sorry. I know we all wanna get along and so on. I know we don't want controversy or arguments at USPP or whatever. But the edits were good faith, and were furthermore completely appropriate (though aesthetics and convenience can be debated) and very obviously good faith. They were not dealt with appropriately. There was no attempt to go to talk, and that is Just Plain Wrong. Moreover, though mistakes are forgivable, but the mistake was never conceded, and that is an unresolved issue. This editor cannot learn from this experience if we paper it over; the comments above, though well-intended, are unhelpful. • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This whole thing is NotThatBigADeal. There were no casualties in today's incidents; let's keep it that way. Please walk away slowly. Killiondude (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • What do i want? I want this user (and potentially others) to admit that he/she was in the wrong. I want this user (and potentially others) to apologize to the editor whose good faith edits were smacked down in an inappropriate manner. And that is all i want. This is an opportunity for a learning experience; we do Wikipedia no favors if we elide it. • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Indeed, I am waiting to hear what people have learned from this incident. So far, the lesson I am seeing is that some editors see WP:BITE as unimportant :( That said, certain matters should be let go, if a party is unwilling to compromise. As far as I am concerned, the ball is in Bart's court now, and nobody else should comment any more. He can chose to say something based on those experiences, or let the ball drop. His action will affect how others think of him, but one way or another, this should be the end of that story. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)