Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek/Archive_2008.
For your tireless, well-made, active and generally brilliant contributions to various commercial ship articles, as well as related material such as the ship infobox. Keep up the great work! -- Kjet (talk ·contribs) 12:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An invitation
Interested in helping me with an historical ocean liner project that will eventually encompass quite a few new articles? See User:Maralia/Collins headquarters for an idea of scope. User:Benea has kindly agreed to help me with my first focus, the User:Maralia/SS Arctic, but as you can see, there are a lot of related articles—only two of the articles in that template even exist outside of my userspace. Would you be interested in working on the shipyard, the architect (who is very famous, having also designed America (yacht)), or perhaps one of the other Collins ships? Maralia (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good mini-project; although it goes further back than my real area of interest. Still, I should have time to take a closer look later this week to figure out where I can help. BTW: if you haven't already, you may also want to contact Kjet. Take a look at Kjet's work on the Home Lines article for an example of his efforts in taking that article from a bare-bones stub up to being a fully referenced article. Granted, Homes Lines ran 1946-1988, so again not as far back as your current project; but still a good example of Kjet's abilities. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I happen to have your userpage on my watchlist... First of all, thanks for the compliment on Home Lines (that was an extremely fun article to do, actually). I would definately be interested in helping out with this project, Collins Line is a fascinating part of the history of transatlantic trade. Also, I've got two or three books in my collection that have at least some information on Collis Line and their vessels that aren't mentioned in the current list of sources - I could look through them to see if there is anything actually worthwhile in those. So if my contributions are welcome, I'd be more than interested. -- Kjet (talk ·contribs) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Barek—just let me know if you see any parts of it you'd like to take on.
RE Kjet: of course you are more than welcome to join in! You were one of the first people I considered, actually, as one of our few civilian ship folks, but I wasn't sure what era you were most interested in, and your listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Participants led me to believe you were a modern ships kind of a guy. (Then again, now that I look at my listing there, it still says 'Mainly focused on shipwrecks', so I guess I should know better than to rely on those.) I'm so pleased to be wrong :) Would you mind enabling your email long enough to send me a note? I'd like to coordinate a little real-time chat at some point soonish. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, about that template, how is it ment to go, lets say, i make the article, so i can put the template as well, like a category putting it into the scope of the project, or does it work the other way around, do people from the project prefer to select the articles within the scope ? Mion (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Yes, I'm planning on moving the rest of the WSF fleet, but not tonight. It's a little after midnight here, and I'm getting rather tired. I'll likely start working through them in the morning. Yeah, I had noticed the problem when I created a pair of articles earlier today about a couple of M/Vs, and then stumbled upon the Rhododendron when I was looking through the unassessed importance backlog. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had noticed some of them had been moved. There's a handful of them left on the WSF template that still need to be moved; I'm in the process of finishing them. I've been taking care of redirects as I've been going as well. Before long, we'll have them all done. Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the articles related to the WSF have all been moved. If you're interested in fixing more of these articles, not just those affiliated with the WSF, there are quite a few of them, which you can see here, here, and here. I'll start working on them later today. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea there were more like that; I had hoped it was just the WSF vessel articles. I'll start working on some of the ones in the categories you linked as time permits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More M/V
Thanks for letting me know about those others. I don't have much time to get to it now, but perhaps later on in the evening I'll start working through them. How far have you gotten through the list? I might just start at the end, and work my way forwards, and we'll meet in the middle I suppose. Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged all the M/V articles as part of WP:SHIPS. I've barely touched the M/S articles, and need to stop for a real-world break for a while now.
From the M/V articles, I noticed that M/V New Flame is flagged as a "GA" class article by multiple projects. So when that one is moved (or maybe even before it is done) a notice should be left on the article's talk page. Members of the other projects may want to discuss it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a notice on the New Flame article; I won't move it until tomorrow probably, to let the editors involved there a chance for comment. I'll start working through the M/S articles in a little while. Parsecboy (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I knew there was a better template, but I couldn't recall the correct one, so I went with the one I know. Sorry about the added work to correct it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please remove asiafanclub.com from the blacklist, no one has respponded to the reasons put forth why it should not be reinstated! Thank you so much! Asia Pres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.219 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sysop on this wiki (I have been on other, lesser wikis, but not this one) - so I don't have the authority or access to remove blacklisted sites. I'm merely an additional voice of support for re-adding it. Per WP:SBL, the page can only be edited by admins, based on requests submitted to WP:SBL#Proposed_removals. There's an existing posting on in that space. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, while I support re-adding the one link (I haven't looked at the others being discussed), I must say that past behavior will likely make it impossible. Between the violations of WP:3RR, WP:COI, the use of multiple IPs, and the use of WP:POINTy edits to try to bypass the block with alternate URLs, the issue has grown far beyond just the merits of the link itself. If that behavior makes it impossible to re-add the link directly, then the only options will be to ask the official site to link from them to the fan site; or to create a {{dmoz}} directory and link to that. However, at this point, even dmoz may be viewed by some as an attempt to undermine prior blocks.
As I said when I first landed at that article, I have no strong opinions on it. I only edited originally to deal with the 3RR, COI, and lacking consensus issues. As a result, I likely won't be contributing further on the discussion - it's simply not an area where I wish to focus my editing efforts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Barek. Thanks for your recent cleanup work on this article, to make it less promotional. Since one of the other editors was recently blocked for 3RR, I thought it was worth reopening the previous COI complaint; see WP:COIN#FreeLife. You are welcome to add your own thoughts to that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to heavy metal fashion. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
I am going to assume good faith on this one. I really don't understand why you made that edit. You voted delete on the AfD discussion and said the article was full of original research (which it is) and yet you went back to the article and removed the AfD template (when it is not yet resolved) and added back in to the article more original research. I have no idea what to make of it. I can only assume it was an accident because it makes no sense to me at all. You want the page deleted, yet you removed the AfD template and added in more bad information. I'm totally confused. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About this... not that I'd be doubt you, but my (admittedly quite cursory) search into this could not find any information that any Celebrity Cruises ship (apart from Infinity and Constellation) would have been renamed with a "Celebrity" prefix. I know their own website has a prefix for all ships, but that's not nescessarily a reliable source as company websites are known to use a prefix even if the registered name doesn't have one (Tallink for instance). So, yeah. -- Kjet (talk ·contribs) 08:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realized after the changes that they may need changed back (I made them just before going to bed) - an anon had made a change on the Celebrity Cruises article. I did a quick search on the new names and came up with matches; but I admittedly didn't verify the quality of the sources, so the legal registered names may in fact remain without the prefixes, so my changes are quite possibly inaccurate. I need to leave for work in a few minutes; if you're available, could you verify and move them back where needed? Sorry about the extra effort to fix. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had some time to search on this, but I'm having difficulty sorting these out because of so much conflicting information - I can't be certain if the non-prefixed names are outdated material, or if the sources showing the prefix are just mirroring technically incorrect data from the cruise line. If you have some reliable sources that you recommend, I'll take a look at those too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the sites that I normally rely on have the same problem. I guess the only way to be absolutely certain would be to check the websites of the classification societies for each ship to see which name they're classified under. If the relevant classification societies offer the information for free. The Complete Guide to Cruising etc lists the classification society for each ship, so I can check those when I get home. Failing that, another potential source would be the visited ships -lists of various ports, which should also use the correct registered names. -- Kjet (talk ·contribs) 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it seems that all Celebrity ships are registered at Lloyd's, which will do us no good as you have to pay to access their register. The visited ships list for at least the Port of Helsinki proved equally useless, as they referred to the Constellation without a prefix, and that's one two that have been renamed according to a reliable source. As it seems we can't think of a reliable source (and I'm at the end of my resources here) I guess the sensible approach would be to keep them under the prefixed names at least for the time being, as they are the names the company itself refers to them. -- Kjet (talk ·contribs) 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten over my anger, although I still really do need to cut down on the editing. Although I'm now trapped at O'Hare Airport, and don't hqve much productive to do with my time.
FWIW, I am not the enemy. And I wasn't by any stretch "spamming" anything.
In any event, if you want to 'butt in' to editing lighthouse articles, be my guest. Most of the articles that exist are crap, and barely rate being a "stub". As a point of information, I do have a lot of knowledge about the on line sources, and typically try to put them in to the External Links. It is my hope that subsequent editors will look at those, and convert them (as you did, thank you) into text with references following them. Obviously, you and I share that goal.
As a point of information, I've been working in this little corner of the world on a bunch of articles, most of which nobody cares about. The beauty of this is that I don't have have to deal with editing conflicts. While it isn't 'my garden' (I don't claim to own it, and recognize that others will come and edit (and hopefully improve) the articles, it is basically off the beaten path.
Being tag-teamed, attacked and barred by you and HU12 was a real rude awakening. FWIW, I think you used a shotgun to kill a flea. And you did it without a rule, and without any sensitivity to the nuances of your positions, and the responsibilities that are attendant thereto.
Now that I've gotten over my sulk, your constructive assistance is most welcome.
FWIW, the Terry Pepper articleds are generally so exquisitely good, thawt burying him in a footnote instead of an external link might not be doing the readers a favor. Even though he has pretty much given up editing his website (he got related work, and has now help), the material he put goether was simply outstanding in its level of thoroughness and scholarship. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]
While I understand your position in the disagreement, and while I partially agree with you on some issues and disagree with you on many others in that incident, I would rather just move on at this point. The only additional comment I will make is that Hu12 does have a much more hardline stance on issues than I, which resulted in his addressing more articles than I was direclty concerned about when I reported it to the WikiProject he monitors. In fact, my first introduction to Hu12 was an issue where he had removed a large number of links added by someone else, where at the time I disagreed with their removal. He's not a bad guy and has done a lot of good for Wikipedia, he just tends to see issues in stark black-and-white with no shades of grey in between, which is both a benefit in some instances and a challenge in others, depending on the issue.
On the Terry Pepper articles, I agree they are quite good. I was reviewing WP:GTL##Standard appendices and descriptions, and it explicitly states that the external links section is for "websites that you recommend for readers of the article that have not been used as sources", so adding it will likely eventually result in their removal at some point by others. The further reading section only says "generally for resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article", so the word "generally" may allow more lee-way to add it to that section. I'll add it back to that section later, or feel free to add it to that section yourself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't just blowing smoke up your ass. You've shown me some flare and ability to write, and your assistance would be appreciated by me. There is a huge hole to fill. Not trying to dictate to you, but puling together the information from the sources that I've provided would be a tremendous contribution. In any event, it is an invitation, not a draft notice.
I was just kidding about the "Greetings." No doubt your too young to recognize the introductory word from a draft notice.
If there is already an article, I'd be happy to help. If not, please start up the article and I'll add ot it. I'm about to get on that long-awaited plane, so I won't be able to get to it till the morning light. If you go to terrypepper.com and then look up the lighthouse you want, you'll have a really good start. The Clark Historical Library (Central Michigan University) has the website (heh-heh, isn't this ironic -- sorry, but I couldn't resist) that includes the chronology, list of resources (including books, manuscripts, etc.) They may have specific stuff on the Marquette Harbor Light. That will get you started. You also have to decide whether to call it the Marquette Light, Marquette Lighthouse, Marquette Light Station, etc., since there doesn't appear to be a Marquette Harbor Light article. See the discussion at the List of U.S. lighthouses. Have fun Sweet dreams. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
In any event, you know where to fine the link to the CMU lighthouse article. See for example Charity Island Light.
Clarke Historical Library - Sources Regarding the Lighthouses of ...
Marquette, MI: Northern Michigan University Press, 1979. Penrose, Laurie. A Traveler's Guide to Eastern Great Lakes Lighthouses. ...
clarke.cmich.edu/lighthouses/lhsour1.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
Clarke Historical Library - A Light House Keeper's Life
Granite Island (11 miles north of Marquette) Light constructed. .... Big Bay Point (24 miles northwest of Marquette) Light constructed. Sault Ste. ...
clarke.cmich.edu/lighthouses/lhtime1.htm - 56k - Cached - Similar pages
Asher 196 put in the picture. I hope your happy with the article. It would be nice to find a picture that showed the promontory. Unfortunately, I don't have one. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]
It looks good to me. I agree that a better picture would be prefered. I looked at the few I have at home, and they're just not good angles or just have the light in the background. I'll search on-line for another image that would exist in the public domain (no copyright issues). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having watched the struggles of some of our contributors with copyright issues, all I can say is "good luck." Even if it is in the public domain, trying to convince the Wikipolice can be problematical, at best. Next time I get up to Marquette, I'd be pleased to put this on my 'to do' list, but it's so far away that there is no way I'll make a special trip. I do have some guests who are coming by in July (I think) and would be passing through their on their way to Minnesota. I think that they are intending to go through Pictured Rocks, so it might be possible for me to recruit them. Of course, the best shots are in the magic hours (sunrise, sunset), and it's unlikely that they'll have their schedule organized around that. Anyway, I'll give it some thought. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
There actually was some material on the light house at the Clarke Historical Library. Take a look at the links in the discussion page. You may have to do a search of the library using the correct verbiage. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stam[reply]
I got lucky that the Wikimedia Commons had a good image that was in the public domain.
I couldn't find a mention of if WP:LHOUSES had a preference for a close-up or a broader image in the infobox, so I placed the new one in the infobox. If you or someone else prefer the other, go ahead and change it. I like having both in the article, just no personal preference on which goes where. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The link to the Clarke Historical Library is still in the Further reading section, just reformatted to match standard wiki formatting. Double check, if that's not the link you were talking about, I may have misunderstood. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will you do the honors on the lifesaving part? FWIW, Wiki needs (if it doesn't already have it) an article on the lifesaving service. There was a tendency to put these stations in some of the worst and most treacherous places (see Sturgeon Point Light Station for example, and they were out there really saving lives from floundering ships. In the 1870s (or thereabouts) there were like 220 lives lost in shipping accidents, and Congress put a big move on for lights on the Great Lakes and the life saving stations. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Barek:
FYI, I put the specific page of the Clarke Historical Library for each county in each of the entries of the 83 Michigan counties. So you can certainly adjust away, but they're already there. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]
It looks like Asher got to it before me. I removed the outdated infobox notice from the talk page, since it's already updated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are new to Wikipedia--and did not thoroughly study your external link guidelines--we will stop posting external links for now. I was led to post external links after seeing "Buck Owens" page which has had an external link to Rhino Entertainment (e.g. commercial site selling Buck Owens music product). How is Rhino Entertainment different than us? Why has their external link remained for weeks?
We are not spammers--just ignorant of the rules.
BestCamuco (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Camuco[reply]
No problem. Thanks for pointing out the Rhino link, which I've removed from the Buck Owens article. These links aren't always found quickly - but they do get removed once verified to be commercial links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral non-COI WSEAS draft?
Hi Barek,
MER-C suggested I write a new WSEAS article, and I'm happy to give it a go, but I'd like access to the old versions (now nuked).
Also, I am a newbie, this will be my second article, and I'd appreciate a hint on how you do this in userspace. Thanks,
Access to deleted versions will require an admin to assist (sorry, I'm not an admin). I'm not sure the best place to request it, but you could try WP:AN.
For creating a draft in your user space, you create a subpage to your userpage. For example: User:StaySeven/sandbox or User:StaySeven/draft, or anything you want after the "/" will be in your user space.
Can you please help out with the fanclub situation? No one is going to correct that even though they know the case I presented is right, evidence being I presented & case that the official my space link that was wrongly removed by the same IP address that removed my link should be reinstated, that was the right thing to do, did they run to do that after that case was presented after it was wrongly removed? No Shubopshadangalang re-added the official myspace link. We just touched on that over at the talk page. But he can't do so with mine because of the blacklist. Can you please get in touch with a few administrators and have them read the case I presented on Sunday so they can remove it from the blacklist, sir, I would really appreciate it. I'm inexperienced here at wiki and they'll ban me if I request something the wrong way, please help. Sincerely70.188.184.84 (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)AP[reply]
I'm not an admin, and don't have many admin contacts. Besides which, going directly to the contacts I do have would be outside of wiki procedures.
The official way to request removal from the blacklist can be reached from WP:BLACKLIST, follow the instructions and links for "proposed removals". That's really the only advice I know to offer on how to try getting it removed.
When requesting, be sure to keep it simple and to the point - leave out complaints against the admins who listed it, only focus on the merits of the link and explain why under policy you feel it should be removed from the blacklist. Take a look at some of the other proposed removals to get a feel for how much information they provide. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My ip is 70.188.184.84, hu12 & AB was there in a heartbeat so no one can else can see it!70.188.184.84 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)AP
Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Asia_%28band%29"
I'm surprised and a little disappointed that they deleted it outright rather than replying. It's the first time you had made a formal request through the normal un-blacklisting procedure, so if they were going to refuse it, I would have expected that they at least marked it "declined" for the first time requested via the official process. However, further re-adding of the request to that page will simply serve to provide evidence to support the delete reason of "trolling".
It's the same two guys hu12 & AB, the same ones that were against me all along, they delete every request I make for a neutral opinion!70.188.184.84 (talk)AP —Preceding comment was added at 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: While I agree that they needed to respond to your official request rather than deleting it; the continually arguing of the issue after it was declined is meeting the definition of disruption. I urge you to let it drop at this point, as you're likely facing a potential additional ban. It's important to remember that external links are permitted by policy, but not required and there's certainly no promise on Wikipedia's part to list external links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Barek, in regard to the Asia Fan Club issue, that may be a lost cause at this point, but in a larger sense, I'm concerned about the precedent this issue sets, as it seems administrators involved can't separate the idea of "punishing" the user from arguments surrounding the value of the link itself. If we're really building an encyclopedia here, we all need to be objective, especially the administrators, and I fear that this could lead down a dangerous road. Would you mind to chime on this issue? Thanks! --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the link, and haven't analyzed the arguments closely on either side of it. From what I did see from my brief review of the discussions, there's mixed information out there about if APs site is even official or not. The only thing that will convince the admins at this stage that APs site is trully official is going to be for originalasia.com to post a list of official fansites.
The issues about the user and the link are very closely related, and interpreting them that way isn't a change from past practice so no new precedent. As I mentioned above to AP, please remember that external links are permitted by policy, but not mandated or guaranteed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barek:
Please take a look at the talk page, discussion about gangs.
The April 10 revert of the main article that I am concerned about is:
XLinkBot (Talk | contribs) (16,570 bytes) (BOT--Reverting edits by 68.62.59.23 to revision 202239188 (\bmyspace\.com)) A strange entry indeed. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I think the problem is that external links and refs to myspace are usually not permitted, unless it's an "official" page (such as an official fansite maintained by a celebrity or by someone appointed by the celebrity). Without the myspace link, the entry becomes unsourced and not-verifiable, so I agree with the bot that removed it. As "gangs" can be viewed as a defamatory item, it should only be included if a reliable source can be provided (such as a notable news organization or other similar quality source). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: even if a reliable source can be provided, I think it should go under a broader category of "crime" and not mention specific gangs by name, no need to help them advertise/recruit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barek: I agree with you on everything you say. But it wasn't removed. It's there. It's ungrammatical. It's unreliable, and it has a stupid myspace source. The history of what is in that article and how it got there is kind of convoluted, so maybe I'm confused. But the offending text is there. At least it offends me. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]
Barek: Please take a look at the talk page. There are several ambiguation problems that I know you know how to fix. Thank ou in advance. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I would like to insert an image from a United States patent application which shows the McCoy oiler. I found it online by Googling Elijah McCoy picture. Since it is part of government documents, I don't see any copyright issues. This article would also benefit from a picture of McCoy himself, but finding one that we can use seems problematical. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
The vandals took the handles. -- Bob Dylan Watching the whole vandalism-thing appear on pages on my watch list is frankly appalling. Apparently wiki is well known enough (and of course open enough) to attract some very unsavory (and unfathomable) attacks from some creepy "contributors." BTW, the Ludington Light and the Manistee Light could maybe benefit from Cosat Guard pictures (as a second picture). The links are in the articles, if you feel motivated. I'll try to get to your Lewis Lamp question -- I haven't forgotten about it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by the "Magic box" being intertwined with a reference - was that already resolved?
I'm not very familiar with the Template:Infobox Museum; but the summary instructions on it seem to indicate that the location field shouldn't have any more detail than city - or in the case of larger cities the neighborhood within the city. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The magic box (not the info box) is that big blue area with all the magic citations at the bottom. If you click on the last reference I inserted, you will not that the references/footnotes seem to appear in the magic box, and that you can't access the reference at all. If you take a look at the magic box, you will note that it has a group of letters (footnotes) in its upper left hand corner, which obviously don't belong there. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Hmmm ... it's looking correct to me, and all the reference links seem to be working. Which web browser are you using? Do you know which version of the browser? I can see if I get the same result with that (I'm using FireFox v2.0 here). I do see three letters in the upper left of the navigation box, but they're the three that belong there (v-d-e) and are part of the template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just made some changes to this page and noticed you have edited my text, including removing some of it. Some of your changes cleaned up mine, but I'm wondering why you deleted some of my text, especially discussion about rider's views of removal of the ferries, which is accurate. Do you work for WSF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.7.19 (talk • contribs) 13:51, April 20, 2008
Barak, thanks for clarifying these points. I'm new to this. Though I understand your point, and will abide by your knowledge of the wikipedia standards, I have to say that the source would be myself and conversations I've heard from other passengers and crew on this run. My point was not to add weasel words, but I feel that these questions and comments from ferry passengers raise important issues about the removal of these ferries from service. David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.7.19 (talk • contribs) 18:26, April 20, 2008
If there are discussions by passengers, and a newspaper has picked it up (as an article, not in an editorial or readers letters section), then that would be an excellent source. Unfortunately, original research, which includes writing about your first-hand experience, does not count in Wikipedia as a reliable source so should not be used as a basis for content.
But, if there is talking and questions being raised, then it wouldn't surprise me to find a news story on it eventually if one hasn't been written already. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Winslow Lewis, a former ship captain from Wellfleet, Cape Cod, patented his version of the Argand Lamp on June 8, 1810 and sold his “reflecting and magnifying lantern” patent to United States Government just prior to the War of 1812.
Although the Lewis Patent Lamp required only half of the oil used by Spider Lamps, the intensity of his lamp was 400 times less that of the Argand Lamp used in Europe. Lewis promoted his device as a “magnifying and reflector lantern” claiming the system was a combined Lamp and magnifier with reflectors. In a effort to increase the lamp’s intensity, Lewis placed a lens, a “magnifier” made from a 4-inch diameter green bottle glass, in front of the flame to focus the straying beams of light. His “magnifier” accumulated soot immediately further dimming the Light and was later removed. Lewis lamps required constant adjustment and cleaning due to the inadequate draft and defective brass gears.
The design of his silvered plated copper reflectors was another reason why his Lewis Patent Lamp was less effective than the Argand Lamp. The reflector’s silver finish was too thin to withstand abrasive cleaning and the thin copper could not hold its original parabolic shape when exposed to the heat of illumination. As a result, Lewis reflectors were altered into a spherical shape and the worn down reflective silver finish scarcely reflected the Lamp’s light. The spherical reflectors were inferior to the parabolic reflectors used behind Argand Lamps.
The Lewis Patent Lamp was basically a poorly modified version of the Argand Lamp and parabolic reflectors. As one inspector noted the “magnifier” “made a bad light worse,” yet Lewis did not argue with his critics. He used the economy of the Lamp emphasizing the 50% oil savings over the Argand Lamps.
In 1812, Congress approved the first contract for the maintenance of Lighthouses authorizing Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, to purchase Winslow Lewis’ patent Lamps with Winslow Lewis refitting all Lighthouses in the United States with Lewis patent Lamps and to keep the new lantern system repaired.
There are different accounts* of how Winslow Lewis was able to install a inferior Lamp system in American Lighthouses. According to Federal Law, contracts were awarded to the Contractor with the lowest offer as noted by Stephen Pleasonton, Fifth Auditor of the Treasury Department and federal administrator of U.S. Lighthouses.
Winslow Lewis strongly promoted his own system of lighting and was frequently awarded contracts due to his low bids. In 1817, Winslow Lewis listed and described all American Lighthouses and noted his method of Lighting consumed 24,731 gallons of oil annually whereas the annual consumption of the prior oil Lamps was 52,000 gallons. A 52% fuel savings was most likely the major reason why a new developing nation approved the Lewis’ Lighting contract.
There are sources that allege collusion between Winslow Lewis and the Fifth Auditor, Stephen Pleasonton yet these allegations were made 30 years after Winslow Lewis was awarded the Lamp contract. In 1842, his nephew, Isaiah William Penn Lewis (I.W.P. Lewis), claimed his uncle’s Lamp was copied from Europe and his reflectors were bad after Pleasonton refused to adjust contracts for I.W.P. Lewis bids. Winslow Lewis died on May 20, 1850, several years before the alleged relationship with Pleasonton was exposed to Congress.
Author’s Note: The law mandating the acceptance of the lowest offer was either a blessing or a curse. Many Lighthouses were built to stand the test of time with diverse Architectural styles using aesthetic functional structures. Unfortunately, many Lighthouses were first built using poor construction and poor engineering practices resulting in a constant state of disrepair. In addition, this law was a reasonable way for a recently formed government to be cost effective.
Winslow Lewis became the main Lighthouse Contractor for 30 years after rebuilding Frank’s Island Lighthouse (July 1818- March 1823) despite some questionable work done on the original structure by his sub-contractors, Benjamin Beal and Duncan Thaxter (1). After the dilemma of Franks Island Lighthouse, Winslow Lewis formed an alliance with Stephen Pleasonton, the Fifth Auditor of the Treasury and U.S. Lighthouse administrator (1820-1852) by winning contracts to build Conical Brick Lighthouses cheaply. Winslow Lewis consistently submitted the lowest bids and there was no “hard” evidence of illegal dealings between Lewis and Pleasonton (2). Winslow Lewis ignorance of engineering caused most of his Lighthouses to be replaced by taller structurally sound structures.
Although his nephews allegations were incriminating and Lewis Patent Lamps were poorly designed and manufactured, research has yet to find evidence that he violated federal law. Stephen Pleasonton was given an administrative task that was outside his accounting knowledge. With no engineering background, Pleasonton awarded contracts to the lowest bidder per the law yet he was unable to verify the contractor’s qualifications. Congress later corrected these problems by creating a Board with experts from every trade involved in constructing Lighthouses.
For 40 years**, American Lighting technology did not improve due in part to the cost of expensive European Lighting and whether existing Towers were built to structurally support the additional weight of the lens (a First-order Fresnel lens assembly can weigh up to 3-tons and was priced at $12,000 shipped in 1841). In addition, Winslow Lewis lobbied successfully to protect his Lighting System.
In 1851, Congress ordered a investigation of the nation’s aids to navigation after receiving numerous strong complaints about the poor quality of America’s lighthouses, specifically the lights. Interestingly, Congress authorized two Fresnel lenses for testing in 1838 and the Navesink Twin Lights were refitted with First-order Fresnel lenses in 1841. Nine more years elapsed before the second Lighthouse was fitted with a Fresnel lens. After the successful tests, the Fresnel lens was not installed in the remaining Lighthouses until Pleasonton was replaced by he U.S. Light-House Board. Pleasonton insisted most keepers could not operate the new complex system and additional testing was required.
On October 9, 1852, Congress established a nine member Lighthouse Board in response to the investigation that uncovered the poor condition of American Lighthouses. The Board included two Army Engineer Corps officers, two Navy officers, two Topographical Engineers officers, two scientists, and the Secretary of the Treasury who served as President of the Board. This team of specialists acted immediately in using new technology and all Lighthouses were refitted with Fresnel lenses by the time of the Civil War.
The new lens system was three times the cost of the Lewis Lamp system yet the efficiency of the Fresnel lens assembly reduced fuel costs by 75% on average since only one oil lamp was needed whereas the Lewis system required many oil lamps. The major advantage of Fresnel Lenses was a 400% increase in the intensity of the focused beam of light over the Lewis Lamp system (Catoptric light). Eighty-three percent of the light is lost at the top and and bottom of a Catoptric light whereas a Fresnel catadioptric system collects and redirects 83% of the light into a focused horizontal beam.
For 11 years (1812 to 1823), Lewis Patent Lamps were used instead of the superior Argand Lamps with parabolic reflectors. In 1823, the first lenticular apparatus or Fresnel lens was installed the Cordouan Lighthouse at the mouth of the Gironde River near Royan, France. American Lighthouses continued to be illuminated by Lewis Patent Lamps for another 29 years (1823 to 1852). Prior to 1852, Fresnel Lenses were tested at three American Lighthouses; Navesink Twin Lights (1841 - New Jersey), Sankaty Head Light (1850 - Nantucket, Mass), and Brandywine Shoal Light (1850 - Delaware). From 1852 to 1859, all Lighthouses in America were refitted with Fresnel Lenses.
(1) Benjamin Latrobe’s Designs for a Lighthouse at the Mouth of the Mississippi River by Michael W. Fazio
The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 232-247
(2) America’s Lighthouses: An Illustrated History by Francis Ross Holland, Jr. - Page 16
I would say that Pepper and this article basically agree.
I see that you had cited to the foregoing. I took a whack at new text, which I think synthesizes what I absorbed for Terry Pepper and the foregoing. I think that we might want to paraphrase the paragraph that says:
The new lens system was three times the cost of the Lewis Lamp system yet the efficiency of the Fresnel lens assembly reduced fuel costs by 75% on average since only one oil lamp was needed whereas the Lewis system required many oil lamps. The major advantage of Fresnel Lenses was a 400% increase in the intensity of the focused beam of light over the Lewis Lamp system (Catoptric light). Eighty-three percent of the light is lost at the top and and bottom of a Catoptric light whereas a Fresnel catadioptric system collects and redirects 83% of the light into a focused horizontal beam.
I saw your date/time box on your page and thought it looked nice. I copied the code to one of my pages. I hope that's ok with you. JodyB talk22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - It's all GFDL'd code anyhow. Mine is actually something I started using on a different wiki, which I modified from someone else's version, who had modified what they had copied from User talk:Angela (of which, it appears that Angela has modified her version from how it used to look).
Well, you get the idea. The code has been passed around and tweaked for a while. Feel free to copy it and adjust it further if you wish. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you advise how best to deal with this? I originally made my notations after his postings and he deleted those. Hu12 has been aggressively maligning me and my postings as well as other articles where the clear concensus on those individual articles is against him. What recourse do I have to make him stop?Urbanrenewal (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had to search the history to find where you inserted comments. The problem is that's a talk page, and you inserted comments into a section that had been written by someone else. To comment, just add a reply (with an indent) immediately after his comments. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried writing a reply first and Hu12 removed that as well. Fairly frustrating seeing my username on a spam list for really no reason Urbanrenewal (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, found it: dif. In this case, it appears that he interpreted your comments to be more about his actions rather than the actual report itself; to me, it's borderline as there were issues raised to which he did not reply. You could try a reply that toned down the personal criticisms and focussed solely on the merits of the links. You could also check Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see what suggestions they have for addressing this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. It looks like they only changed some of them to gjenvick.com, the rest they changed to ggarchives.com. I've corrected the links now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! I have the article on my watch-list, so had seen quite a bit of activity recently, where the article was being cleaned-up. Congratulations! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, too. B's are hard to come by. And I really don't have a clue where to go on the other groups (Wiki Michigan; Wiki Museums; whatever). Don't hardly know what a museum article looks like that can merit a B. So I'm kinda out of ideas on it. Hopefully somebody else can pick up the ball. Next time I get up to Port Huron, I do intend to take a picture, which can't hurt. Cheers.7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
The following external link was inserted in this article. I would suspect it is the first of many occasions when we will see this commercial link.
Mid-Michigan Ads
Maybe you know what to do. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Thanks, that was pretty blatant advertising / soliciting. I removed the link and left a message on the talk page of the anon that added the link.
For now, I think we can treat it an an isolated incident. But if the link continues to be posted, a message can be left at WT:WPSPAM for others to consider it for blacklisting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see how 'isolated' it turns out to be. Maybe stomping on it quickly will deter it. However, my Magic 8 ball says differently. I knew you would be up to the challenge. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
are you familiar with WP:MOS and WP:MEDMOS? The intro is supposed to be a brief summary of the following sections, so mentioning things that are expanded on later in the article is not a bad thing. Also, the article intro was too short; I may have made it too long, but then you should shorten it down to an appropriate length, not simply revert me.
Finally, since me edit clearly was well-considered and well-intended, it might have been more appropriate to discuss first or explain your concerns.
I hope to see your constructive comments and edits,
Thanks for bringing it up on the article's talk page - I meant to do so, but had to drive out on an errand for an hour or so. I replied to your comments on the talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ANI Post
You were not in violation of 3RR. Your reverts fell under the spectrum of anti-vandalism. I thank you for being honest and keep up the good anti-vandalism work. Rgoodermote21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said at WP:ANI mate as long as you are fighting vandalism. 3RR is gone. It falls under Ignore All Rules. Just as long as you are actually removing vandalism. By the way. Warn the user after you revert then report to WP:AIV. Happy Editing.(I see you have been warning. Carry on.) Rgoodermote22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: about the second or third tim you find yourself reverting, switch to an Undo and give a summary something like "commercial links are not appropriate on Wikipedia". Often this will either stop the poster from doing it again, or at least get him to post a nasty snarl on your user page instead. :-) Loren.wilton (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, been doing that. The anon seems to either ignore or not understand the reasons given in the edit comments, nor the ones on his/her talk page. I use the generic term "revert", but I'm actually using the "undo" and inserting a reason in my text. My first two I only said "rv SPAM", but I explained it further in my third and fourth reverts. (edit: although I didn't use the wording you suggested, I'll try that next time). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does look good. I think USCG images are public domain images too, so we should be okay uploading them. I can verify, then upload it to the commons so it can be used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess I should learn how to do that so I can self help instead of bothering you. I'm sure that the Coast Guard images are public domain. If you take a look at Whitefish Point Light there is an image there that was uploaded, and which in fact someone requested be uploaded to wiki commons. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Do you have links to where the USCG has attached comments to the images, rather than directly to the images themselves? That way I can also add the comments when I upload them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barek:
Would you take a look at this. Likewise, this picture http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBLIGHTHOUSES/graniteisland.JPG might be good if it were on the right side on the external links area. Take a look and see what you think. Thanks. 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Stan
Thanks for lending a hand. Do we need an info box (or a picture) on the current 96 foot grey steel tower? Or at least a link to a picture of it? Think about it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I've looked around and am not finding one that is public domain. I tried the National Park inventory and the Coast Guard, but they have only the lighthouse. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Thanks. Would you take a look at the National Register section in the infobox, please. I put in the number, and it doesn't show. Maybe that's the wrong kind of entry. I don't know. Best. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
It looks like {{Infobox Lighthouse}} isn't currently configured to display that field. Someone posted on the talkpage in December when they added the Admiralty and ARLHS fields - but no others have been added as yet. I added a reply to that post to see if some discussion could be started on it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you find anything out. I've been grabbing stuff out of info boxes and putting pieces in. The lighthouse articles that I've looked at frequently don't have a lot of these fields. (e.g., current lens) 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Hi, after I made the changes this morning I was wondering the same thing about the 'see also' section and the 'external links'. I went to other articles to compare and found it was being done both ways, external sections and also adding external links to the see also sections. So I too am baffled with this. I will ask an administrator who is my mentor to fill me in on this and then I will let you know too. I have no problems though if you revert or change what I did so don't worry about that. I actually got to this by a spammer who was spamming a bunch of articles in both sections, which I then realized the differences. Give me some time and I will contact Delldot right now, she is really pretty quick in responding and gives real good explanations on these kinds of questions.
Sounds good what you found but they sure make some of these policy hard to clarify. ;) I wrote to Dell and should hear back soon. I asked her to respond to my page so that you could see the response in case I'm off line. There's bad weather coming in right now so I doubt I'll be on for long. I have 5 min. to shut down before my battery backup stops. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk18:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dell responded at my talk page and asked also if you had anymore questions. Feel free to respond on my page or go to hers if you desire. You were right about it, thanks for helping me clarify this, much appreciated. --CrohnieGalTalk19:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say thank you for fixing my errors yesterday. I am sorry for making extra work for you. It was unintentional on my part but I am aware that my edits made more work for you to do, sorry about that. The good thing is I did learn something though. ;) It looks good the changes you made. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk10:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references, links and infobox are there. All we're missing is actually credible text. If you can find the time. Happy 4th of July! 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
You know, this was a good catch, but why don't you just fix it instead of tagging? I would have put it into the numbered reference deal below, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. I put in references because it was tagged. So now you tag it again. Why not just fix it and be done with the tags? --Achim (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It boils down to limited time available. I've fixed tags on several other articles in the past. Just no time to fix that one at the time, so I took the faster solution of tagging it ... then I forgot about it until you mentioned it just now. I'll take a look at it in a few minutes and update what I can before I need to leave again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just haven't figured out how to configure that yet. Just looks like gobbledigook to me still :-) --Achim (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I know, there are only so many hours is a day and I get the missus yelling at me for doing this stuff...--Achim (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I saw your comment for the revert on the pix in Call entre: rv - image does nothing to improve understanding of subject of article. I thought the pix gave a more realistic view of what it's really like in a call centre, with people doing the work, rather than an empty floor with just workstations. Don't you think that people doing telemarketing in a call centre conveys a more accurate picture? --Achim (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image showing the back of a call centre employee could really be anyone's back in any office cubicle setting - to me, there's nothing especially illustrative of call centres about the image. The other one that showed an overview of multiple cubes seemed redundant to the existing picture in the article to me ... the only difference being people in the environment. But, if you feel that one does add something, go ahead and add it back in - I won't debate that one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okiedokie. Maybe this evening. If you have ever worked in a place like that both pix are more poignant I suppose. They actuall speak volumes, but then if it is not immediatley apparent to an outsider, then I suppose you mght be right. --Achim (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I've been on vacation for the past week. I may have time to look over the articles later this week ... but a lot of real-world stuff to get caught up on first. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi we are still not able to understand where we need clean up in this article. please reply in my talk page, thanks. Mrikapa (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barek, no it never went to AfD because I got too busy in real life, plus the fact that I didn't want to spend hours arguing with the creator of the article. I'm glad however that the issue is being resolved. - TexMurphy (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced over it, and didn't see any major problems with the article (granted, I only scanned it, and didn't review it in detail). Was there a specific section that you wanted me to copyedit in it? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the citation forms are messed up. There are redundancies in the text. It's incomplete, particularly when compared to the national historical assessment and the Terry Pepper artciles.I'll get to a rewrite on it next week. Anyway, your skills and perspective are always useful and appreciated (by me.
Barek and BK: I created this article. I don't think I should be censoring it. Plainly, there should be room for an objective point and counterpoint. Nor do I think that the article should be an apologist or defender of this particular organization. OTOH, if you would take a look at the last few edits, I would appreciate it. I toned down some of the most recent contributions, and am wondering if it accords with wiki policy. I am trying to maintain my objectivity, and the objectivity of the article. I going to send this on to BK, as I also value his opinion. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
As there appears to be some degree of ongoing oposition to some policies and practices of the State Bar of Michigan, my opinion is that a "Current cotroversies" or "Current litigations" section discussing cases against the organization may be appropriate - and the mention of StateBarWatch should be moved to that section.
Incidentally, any particular reason why the second list in the article is numbered? (also, as an FYI: wikipedia generally isn't a big fan of lists, although they do exist in a large number of articles ... whever possible, the preference is to convert lists into paragraph formatted article content) I didn't see any reason for the numbering in the second list, so standard WikiPedia practice would be to just bullet point the section instead of numbering. If there is a reason for the specific sequence, I may have just missed it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Numbering. If I put that in, I don't even remember doing it. It may be that a subsequent editor put it in -- that is my guess. So I have no opinion about it one way or another.
"Current controversies" suggestion makes sense to me. The particular anonymous contributor apparently has an ax to grind, but that does not take away from the fact that there is a controversy. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I don't mind (and in fact encourage) local attractions. But I think this bowling alley stuff is over the top. What do you think? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I recently edited Carnival Conquest. I added info like the maiden voyage and when it was christened. Is it possible for a ship to go on its maiden voyage before its christening ceremony? Are my sources reliable enough? Goodvac(talk)17:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on the various traditions and ceremonies involved, so I may have gotten some of this wrong. But, here's my understanding of how it all work.
In the case of the Carnival Conquest, I suspect it's the result of poor reporting by one of the newspapers. It gets a bit confusing due to some odd semantics that come into play with cruise shipts. I've also seen some discrepancy between different cruise lines in different countries as to what the various events get called. The true christening usually happens at the time the ship is launched or "floated out" - at which time the ship is still at the builder's yard and still under construction - it's tradition to hold this before the ships hull comes into contact with water, the upper decks frequently don't have all their walls in place at this stage. But another event that is sometimes called either the dedication ceremony or also called a christening happens once the ship owners get the ship to wherever they are holding their ceremony. For cruise ships, it's the second ceremony that gets the bigger press coverage, so it's the usual date that I see published as the "christening" date.
The problem comes in that the ships owner takes posession where the ship was built, and the second ceremony takes place sometimes on a different continent. The journey from the shipyard to the ceremony site is usually only occupied by crew and VIPs to get them familiar with the new vessel, and involve putting some finishing touches on the decor and to perform last minute training. I usually have seen this referred to as the inaugural voyage; but, a reporter who wanted to use terms that he thought his readers may be more familiar with may call this the maiden voyage. Usually, what the cruise line would call the maiden voyage would be the first voyage containing paying passengers, which usually (if not always) happens after the ship owner's chistening ceremony. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then again ... I could be wrong. I tried searching for additional documentation on this; I found some variances by a day or two on some sites as to when the maiden voyage took place; but they all show a date prior to the date found for the owner's christening ceremony. As that's what's verifiable - I believe we should just leave it in the article until/unless someone can find a reliable source that shows otherwise. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barek: I knew you'd be watching, and I knew you would have a good perspective. I don't really care. I do think that the link/reference to the company should stay. This is not an immaterial issue. Terry Pepper has (or at least had) the issue of getting to Big Charity Island flat out wrong. He suggested one charter a boat from Caseville. I certainly don't care if their name is in the text, and i don't want to (knowingly) violate Wiki policy. I recognize that we are not an advertising banner, but having good info on how to get to the island would be of genuine public interest. I am going to be out of town for the next week or so. I would appreciate it if you would "handle" the matter as you deem fit. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
If the disambiguation existed on Lodge (disambiguation), then the top-most line could be a link to the primary topic such as "A Lodge is a ..."; but because the Lodge article itself is the disambiguation page, it's already the "primary use".
Technically, WP:MOSDAB views "Lodge" and "Lodging" as different forms of the term - and specifies that when such exists, to use a "See also" section to reference the related terms. If you feel this should be different, then a discussion should be started on the guideline's talk page to see if there's community support for a change of how to handle different forms of a word. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the template - it is useful. I hadn't realized you were using it to navigate from article to article or I would've waited before setting the state to autocollapse. I hope you don't mind the removal of the pictures; with them in place, it forced the links into a narrower part of the screen, which then forced it to take more rows to fit in all the links; for users with lower res screens, that then takes up a significant part of the screen, which is why I removed them. And, personally, I prefer only having images of the lighthouse I'm currently viewing, so not having other lighthouse images in the navbox cleans it up (at least to me). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you caught that..sometimes less is more. I'm using a 22" widescreen LCD and didn't realize what it would do in older monitors. I didn't know if there was any sort of logical subgrouping of these lighthouses other than alphabetical (that was partly why I left group headings in place, for expansion/reorganization). The other reason was that with them, all of the links formed up on a neat left alignment. It seems fine the way you left it. There will be mismatches between this template and the category..for example, Skillalee Island Light exists in the template but not directly in the category under that name...only a couple of those, though. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no
i like messing things up. dont yell at me. i have deep emotional issues. meanie
Hi, It seemed to add a lot of photos and other information, and I didn't see the harm. I'll look a bit more closely and maybe I'll agree with you. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the site and other links and see it as a nice compliment to our presentaion. It is the images and the timeline which are the value added. An image is worth a thousand words, and as long as we remain very restrictive on our image policies, we benefit from such links. The motivation of the editor who added the link may be suspect, but the result seems to the benefit of our readers. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You replied to my blacklisting question about da Vinci Surgical Systems. Thanks for the help with that. I wanted to let you know that I'm making a wiki for a surgeon and I wanted to have his picture uploaded into the infobox. I am not autoconfirmed yet, though, because I've only made 2 or 3 edits. Can I have you upload the picture for me? I can send you the picture itself, and that would be great if you could check out its legitimacy and upload it. Thanks a bunch man.
I usually only upload images for others in cases where the source makes it explicitly clear that there are no copyright restrictions on the image. What's the source of the image that you want to use? Many images are problematic due to copyrights preventing Wikipedia's use of those images. ---
I took the picture myself about a month ago, and this surgeon used to be my lab supervisor. The picture is mine, so there are no copyright restrictions.
In that case, I would prefer not uploading it - sorry about that. But, I believe that the auto-confirmed threshold is only 4 days and 10 edits - so you should be able to achieve that level relatively quickly and be able to upload it yourself fairly soon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if I log in and make 10 edits of any kind to any page (as long as they're legitimate), am I automatically upgraded? Or does someone manually look through everyone who needs to be upgraded. Can my edit be a typo correction? --Nmishra9 (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Nmishra9 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autoconfirming is an automatic process. From what I see here, it looks like you passed 10 edits earlier today. And according to what I see here, your account was established long enough ago. So, according to WP:AUTOCONFIRM, you should be okay now. Although, there's a chance that the program that automatically labels you auto-confirmed may only run once per day sometime overnight - I'm not sure how it works. To check, look at the "My preferences" link in the upper-most part of any Wikipedia page. If it shows "Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users", then you should be okay. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Fairmont-logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fairmont-logo.jpg. 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:
However, as a form of constructive feedback, I have some concerns regarding what you consider "vandalism". Specifically, let's start with this edit and this edit, where you claim that you reverted as vandalism. I'm sorry, but under no stretch of the imagination was this vandalism. What caught my attention was the removal of an external link from Bellevue, Washington, which may or may not be appropriate. I tend to agree that the link is not appropriate, but as I assume good faith, I can easily see where a new user might legitimately believe it is. However, in this very section, it again was referred to "vandalism". I object to this as well. Please review WP:VAND where it specifically states: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism". Please take some consideration into this as you procede, especially when working with new and anonymous users. -- ShinmaWa(talk)14:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history of the 50% article, I did view it as vandalism - but you are correct that in this particular case I should have viewed the anon as a new user, rather than a changed IP from the ongoing activity of that page.
As to the edits of Bellevue, Washington, at no time did I use vandalism in my edit summaries removing the link, nor on the talk pages of the IPs whose edits I reverted (User_talk:12.46.34.135 and User_talk:24.16.149.159). The reference to vandalism was made in the Barnstar award to me by another editor ... if you feel it's an inappropriate Barnstar, I certainly wouldn't object to it being changed or removed (and I'll either change or remove it from my main page, depending on what you and the editor who awarded it to me decide to do). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it was just a fancy way of saying thanks for being on top of things. It should officially be thanks for repeatedly correcting good-faith edits. --DerRichter (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is where Mr. Albury took affront to the posting. Lighthouses in the United States (rv ext. link to commercial site [promoting marinas)
I think you give me too much credit in your post to Donald Albury ... there are certainly other editors who are far more knowledgeable and proficient at dealing with spam than I am - but I'll take a look later today and provide whatever comments/advice I can. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a note to David Wobser of Boatnerd.com concerning some factual inaccuracies in one of his fine articles.
He wrote to me asking if he could use the Wikipedia article.
Stan,
Could we just use your Wikipedia article, with credit to you?
Dave Wobser
Boatnerd Lighthouse Editor
I wrote back as follows:
David:
I wrote a good part of this article, but not all of it. So I don't want undo credit.
I can't speak for wikipedia. You might talk to Barek, who is an administrator and a collaborator on Wikipedia. He can tell you whatever you need to know.
I think (but can't vouchsafe) that Wikipedia is open source, and can be used by anybody anytime (although I think they like being cited). So if you want to use it, it's OK with me personally, but I can't speak for them. If you have questions, contact Barek. I will send him a copy of this E-mail, as he is very knowledgable and can expedite an explanation.
BTW, as you may note when you go through the articles, I've been updating the Michgian lighthouses, and you always get included as an external link. I think what you've done (the text, and especially the pictures) makes you a premier source on lighthouses
Best regards.
Barek, if you could pass this on to the powers that be, or directly correspond with him, I would appreciate it.
FYI: I'm not an administrator on Wikipedia - although I was one on a couple lesser wikis until I resigned from them last year.
For Wikipedia, the site uses the GNU Free Documentation License. The following is my best understanding - but you should probably forward the request to someone with more knowledge on it that I have. My understanding is that to use a copy of text from a Wikipedia article would require the other site site to also use that or a compatible license. It may just be easier for them to paraphrase our content and just reference that they're paraphrasing Wikipedia content.
Barek,
Many thanks for pulling me out of the quicksand re: those references I messed up. I was going pretty crazy there for a while, and it's great to be able to put my technical difficulties behind me. Tracktowner (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem - glad to help. The main problem you were having was in naming the ref link. You only need to use the format <ref name=XYZ> when the url being cited is used multiple times - the "name" argument lets wikipedia know which ones are supposedly the same. For a url that's only used once, you just need to use <ref> to start the ref tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disney spam IP/Tooloose
Just spotted the CU req on it - sorry if my block made it pointless :). How about a block on the IP? There really is no history of anything other than link placement (& stealing links). View welcome - cheers --Herbytalk thyme07:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barek,
Sources for my deleted edit, "as Jack Phillips and Harold Bride, the Marconi radio operators, were employed by Marconi and paid to relay messages to and from the passengers, they were not required to relay such "non-essential" messages"
As to "as Jack Phillips and Harold Bride, the Marconi radio operators, were employed by Marconi"...I cite page 490 of "Titanic & Her Sisters Olympic & Britannic" by McCluskie/Sharpe/Marriott, page 60 of "Unsinkable - The Full Story" by Daniel Allen Butler, page 33 of "The Titanic" by Tibballs, page 52 of "Titanic - Legacy of the World's Greatest Ocean Liner" by Susan Wels, page 37 of "1912 Facts About Titanic" by Merideth
As to "and paid to relay messages to and from the passengers"...I cite page 61-62 of "Unsinkable - The Full Story" by Daniel Allen Butler, page 63 of "The Titanic" by Tibballs
As to "they were not required to relay such "non-essential" messages...I cite page 37 of "1912 Facts About Titanic" by Merideth, which states, "Marconi wireless operators were employed by the Marconi Company and not by the ship or its owners. The operators were contracted out and reported to their company offices first and to the ship's officers second. The operators were only required to pass information on to the crew of the ship if the information was related to an emergency..."...I cite page 20 of "The Discovery of the Titanic" by Dr. Ballard, which ..."because of the lack of coordination between the bridge and the wireless room and the absence of any standard procedure for dealing with ice warnings". I cite page 60 of "Unsinkable - The Full Story"...which "What was most noticeably lacking was standardization...no definite order in the ships' crew organisations as to where the wireless oeprator belong." as evidence that Phillips/Bride had no formal reporting structure. I cite page 66 of "The Titanic" by Tibballs as further evidence that "Phillips was apparently preoccupied with transmitting messages that had accumulated during the day." as opposed to the ice warnings. I cite page 79-80 of "Titanic - Legacy of the World's Greatest Ocean Liner" by Susan Wels...for Phillips and Bride focusing on the backlog of private commercial traffic after the wireless had been broken on Friday night...their focus was on the commercial traffic, for which they were paid (report to Marconi offices first). The "non-essential" is a hind-sight adjective (sarcasm), as these messages should have taken precedent and treated as an emergency.
I suggest posting this information as a reply to the thread I started on the article's talk page at Talk:RMS Titanic#Marconi radio operators so that everyone can see your reply with the citations identified more easilly. That also allows for the community to discuss them more easilly as well. To re-add the content to the article, you'll need to use <ref> tags to insert the references to the text. If you're not familiar with how to format those and need some help, you can take a look at WP:CITE for more information on citations, or ask for assistance if needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guild Wars merger
The text originally posted here has been moved to Talk:Guild Wars Prophecies#Merge in order to maintain a central location for the discussion.
I agree it was more sensible for my previous comments to be where you placed them. Just so you know I have no objections to you moving the comments I left here. Alex J Fox 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sort of new to all this. I am the person who made the Viking River Cruises page. I worked hard to make it as factual as possible, giving the age of the company, some of its history, fleet size and particulars, and so on. I did not write a long brochure about specific itineraries Viking offers, post glamour shots of river cruising vessels or any of that--people can get that stuff from the company's website. I thought this would be useful to people who are interested in learning about the company--especially since it is privately held.
Can you help me understand how the page could be improved? Is there something I could add or delete that would be helpful?
I agree that there's value in the article ... it just needs some cleanup to a more neutral tone.
I did a little more cleanup; the main section that still reads like an advertisement is the section "River Cruising with Viking", so I moved the advert tag to that section (although background on the co-founder could probably be thinned a bit - the article should focus on the cruise line, not the co-founder). The main concern is that encyclopedia articles should strive to maintain a neutral point of view in their tone; avoid phrasing that sounds like a promotional travel brochure, and focus just on the facts. I also added a "refimprove" tag. While there's already several sources cited, there are remaining large sections of text which do not yet show a reference. If you need any help, please let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Barek! I only gave 3 sentences about Mr. Hagen--I think a few biographical snippets have been published about him here and there, so I will try to find something where I can cite a reference. I did not want to create a page for him, and I don't think he would want that either. He is the company chairman and as such he sets company direction and so forth, but he is actually pretty unassuming.
I have a question about finding more references. A number of travel writers have covered specific itineraries (which I was trying to avoid). Also the company has appeared on some of those "Ten Best" lists, like Travel + Leisure and Condé Nast Traveler, plus some travel agent publications like Recommend. The writeups have been quite laudatory--they actually sound a lot more like marketing brochure writing than what I put on the page. Do I need to look for material that is negatively critical so as to create the NPOV?
Generally, the Condé Nast Traveler content that I've seen is too superficial to provide much of a reference - and "ten best" type articles are usually not worth mentioning unless it's from a more mainstream source.
It can be hard finding good neutral sources for cruise lines. If you can find it, the best neutral references for a company are usually a news agency of some sort; but most mainstream coverage is usually pretty limited or just excerpts from press releases. What most commonly gets used would be cruise industry publications such as Cruise Business Review or something comparable. Other sources that are not neutral could be used as long as they're a reputable source (for instance, I see Berlitz and Fodor's used as sources on many cruise line articles), you just need to summarize the content in a more neutral tone than how the source provided it - even press releases can be used in this way. Just be aware that press releases should not account for all of the sources - it's important to have content from third party reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of "news coverage" about cruise lines is just press releases word for word--it has been a real problem. But...jackpot! I found an excellent Insight Guide about river cruises and was able to utilize some of that content, which of course has its own NPOV, in this article. I trust this new information will bring the article more in line with Wikipedia's standards. Please advise! Thank you.
74.62.46.90 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The additional content looked good. I took a stab at some additional cleanup, let me know if I lost anything in the process that you considered important. A couple paragraphs seemed better suited to the more generic river cruise article rather than the Viking River Cruises article - they provided background on river cruising, which this article's focus should be on the company itself. The River cruise article can provide the details about the experiences of a river cruise. I also dropped much of the marketing spin - although like I said, if I dropped something you consider of value in that process, I appologize.
I left one remaining cleanup tag ... although the only "fact" tag where something still needs to be cited is in the corporate structure of the company ... that could likely be found on the company's own website. The only other thing that I think should be added is the year that the first four russain ships had been purchased (the start of the company). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent--I just went in and fixed a couple of spellings. The initial purchase of the Russian ships I think was already in the first sentence, but I put the year again. I took the liberty of adding that general "river cruise" content to the river cruise article--I hope that is okay with whoever is in charge of that page, which was flagged as needing citations. Are we "there" yet? I really can't thank you enough for your help--when you are new to something it is great to have some guidance. 74.62.46.90 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed--there is a 10-digit and a 13-digit one, so I put in the 13-digit one which is apparently the latest standard and subsumes the other one. 74.62.46.90 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St. Mary's edit
Barek, thanks for fixing my clumsy handling of the St. Mary's edit. I figured out what I had done wrong and was going to post the correction, but you were too quick for me!Hal Wing (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, Thanks for your help last month with my edits to this article. Unfortunately, a contributor made some edits that are either inaccurate or not cited correctly, so I undid his contribution. To keep you in the loop, I have sent you the following with the reasons for changing it back.
This information is also posted on the Talk page for Nike Oregon Project.
Some inaccuracies (or possibly facts that are inaccurately or improperly cited) appeared in the Leadership section (and other sections) of this article on 9/4, through the efforts of an anonymous poster [213.34.251.81]. Here is the summary of the disputed info that was added to the article on 9/4:
Jerry Schumacher has joined the Nike Oregon Project itself, not a “separate group” as the IP user has written. [Source: http://www.tracktownusa.com/track.item.55/Alberto-Salazar-Brings-Jerry-Schumacher-to-Nike-Oregon-Project.html. This same information has also appeared in the Eugene Register-Guard.] Virtually all track teams and track clubs have multiple coaches (e.g., sprints, middle distance, long distance, field events), each coaching different athletes, but they are still part of the same organization. Schumacher’s runners are part of the Nike Oregon Project; they just train under Schumacher, as Salazar’s runners train under him. When the source cited by the poster as evidence of this [6] mentions two groups (on page 2), it’s in reference to Schumacher’s Wisconsin collegiate and professional runners, which are indeed two separate groups. Instead of citing a news article, the contributor makes the statement, “inside sources claim,” which doesn’t meet an acceptable standard for a source (i.e., published).
Source [6] is cited as evidence that there is a plan to merge two separate groups when Salazar retires, but the source contains no mention of separate groups or such a plan. In fact, Salazar’s name does not appear even once in the article (nor mention of his retirement, of course).
One of the new references [4] cited by this contributor does not exist. From the incorrect URL given [1], it appears to be a forum post rather than an actual news article anyway.
All references, including the one added by the contributor-- e.g., [6]—mention that Salazar considers Schumacher the eventual successor, so the odd revision made (referring to the future succession as “speculation” rather than fact) actually makes the article more inaccurate than the previous version.
The change from “Amy Yoder-Begley, a 2008 Olympian at 10,000 meters” to “Amy Yoder-Begley, and a 2008 Olympian at 10,000 meters” does not make any sense grammatically. The deletion of Tegenkamp is inexplicable as well.
Just a style point, but the contributor uses “Jerry” repeatedly when referring to Schumacher, which introduces a different naming style than that used in the rest of the article.
The version of Barek dated 8/16/08 is the more factually accurate version, so the content has been reverted to that. The prior citations have also been restored, since the new citations are not relevant and do not add any new factual information not present in the previous citations. Tracktowner (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barek: I think that a great addition to this article would be a picture of the Save Our Lights (Michigan) license plate. Ihave no idea where to find one. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I agree, and undid the anon's edits. FYI: I don't have any revert tools either. I just use the standard "undo" link that's available to all users when viewing the differences between two versions in the History tab of each article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have done that, although it gets messy sometimes when it involves multiple edits. Thanks for the help and the tip. ==== Stan
I'm not very familiar with Infobox Island, so I only added the most basic of data in the fields for it. Someone else will need to expand the data. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about all the annoyance I caused with the ship's ensigns. I've been creating a lot of infoboxes for ships (merchant and military), and from all the previous examples I'd seen I thought that having the ensign in the header was the correct way. I have added a modified template to the wikiproject:ships discussion, it would be interesting to hear what you think. Cheers, Xtrememachineuk (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the prod tag, I think we'll have to take it to AfD. It was close enough to the border that I didn't speedy the page but I don't hold out any real hope for it. With prod, we've started a five-day clock. If it can be improved, great. If not, it's had a fair chance. (And prods can be easily undone if some later contributor has better content and sources.) Rossami(talk)22:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've really got a project that is on deadline. At hte delettion page, I put in most of the sources through page 5 of the Google search for "'Copper Island' Michigan'". I note that the Finns, the Swedes, the Irish, and the French all used "Copper Island". We also have sources from Michigan Technical University, New York University, various genealogical groups. I leave it in your capable hands, mon ami. Bon chance! 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Your accusations are uncalled for and offensive. I would like to assist in mediating the FULLY LEGITIMATE issues on Pioneer Courthouse Square. But instead you make personal and offensive insults toward me, calling me a sock puppet. I entreat you to please be reasonable and discuss the issues rather than taking vengeful inappropriate actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns21 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to your comments on the article talk page. Further posts of the above nature on my user talk page will be viewed as harassment and removed without comment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneer Courthouse Square
I am friends with user:pioneercourthouse. He reports that he is eager to mediate the issue RE: controversy over pioneer courthouse square if he is unblocked so he can have a rational discussion with you. I urge you to be open to mediation on this issue. It seems to be a reasonable request. Do not be closed minded. Mediman43 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that a CU hasn't checked that one yet; there seem to be quite a few sockpuppets there. Anyway, the article protection has been resolved and things can go on as normal (my apologies for the disruption!). Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :)16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the cases over there have initial request dates in early / mid September ... so they may be a bit backlogged at the moment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. I have added the template back, but I think the Subpages link coding is broken - I don't know enough about coding to attempt a fix. Any chance you can take a look at it? Thanks! – ukexpat (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be working correctly now. The template had been updated, and contained some extra spaces that were confusing the subpages link. I removed them, and it seems to work correctly now for me; but please try it yourself and let me know your results. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No where did it say student body presidents were notable. Its simply part of the history of the school.
Details of Matt and Willy's presidency are not original thought. Im not sure if you go to AHS but improvements have been made and talked about/published in places such as the school newspaper.
If the person does not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability under WP:BIO, then they simply shouldn't be listed within the article. Remember that this is a world-wide encyclopedia, not a community or school website. The school's own newspaper would likely not be viewed as a reliable source by most (bias and COI issues) - publication in mainstream media would be needed. Even then, be sure to review what Wikipedia is not. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that Interzil is now saying the discussion is not finished (when it is), yet he felt the need to take down the AFD twice before it actually was finished. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already at 2rv on that page, so I'm leaving it to others now. But I added a 3RR warning to his user page as he's added it four times at this point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the end for me there are multiple blockable issues here. The comments on your user page attracted my attention & I wasn't keen on them. Following a little further we have link placement which the user has been warned about a time or two, edit warring - again warned, & 3rr. I note the appeal so we will leave it to someone else now. Regards --Herbytalk thyme15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of both, to be honest - I *do* prefer the older image, it's very striking, however it also looked like the makings of an edit war - an editor made a good faith edit (fair enough), you reverted them (fair enough), then they reinstated their changes instead of discussing. If you're happy to talk it over with them I'm happy to bow out. I do take your point about the new image; if you want to to revert me that's fine (maybe reference this discussion so it's clear we're not edit-warring).
Note: The following was moved to the talk page from user:Barek.
Barek this is Tobryant. I am not vandalizing your page I just dont see an email me button.
can you email me at (email address removed to prevent harvesting by bots). I would like to work together with you on the Project Management definition. I wasnt trying to vandalize that page the other day i am just new to the wiki project and didn't understand why my changes kept disappearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobryant (talk • contribs) 14:49, October 22, 2008
AGF? Don't. Please, please don't talk to the socks anymore. The "it's so unfair" tone is the same user yanking our chain again. RBI... If it's a legit user, s/he can appeal to the powers that be via e-mail. Katr67 (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may be marginally more patient as I haven't been involved for the whole duration. My reply pretty much spelled out that there's no tolerance left for manipulation. If he drops it or moves on like a real new user who legitimately looked into the facts would do, then no harm done. If he proceeds to badger for the change, then it's back to the B&I part of the essay. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External Links
I read the guideline and don't understand why adding relevant external links is a problem?
Wikipedia is not a repository of external links; this site is an encyclopedia, not an internet directory to all things that reference the subject of the article. If we permitted links to every site that posted a review of a cruise ship, the links would quickly dwarf the contents of the article. Also, keep in mind that while external links are permitted, there is no policy that says they must exist; per WP:EL: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. Lastly, the use of link spam to promote a website is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. For consistency, the legacy entries should ideally be converted over to use the new field; but perhaps someone in the project with the technical savvy to do it could run an automated bot to convert those (that would be the ideal solution). There may even be someone out there with a "bot for hire" - I can think of one or two people who may be able to do it if they can be convinced of a value in doing it. Once they're all converted, then the legacy field could be retired. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discovered this article, and I've put in the link to it ("aid to navigation") in Spectacle Reef Light. It occurs to me that lighthouse articles generally have that phrase, but that they may not have that link. If you knew someone who had a bot that could do that, it would be a good thing. I don't have any sources on my own. Could you help? I'll also ask Barek, as he might be a source. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't really know anyone with a bot; I just know of a couple bots that exist and it might be possible to request something on the talk page of the users who run them - I know that user talk:Lightmouse and user talk:R'n'B both have bots, but I've never requested anything from them and don't know how receptive they are to requests. If you don't have any past communication with them, then it may be better and simpler to go to WP:BOTREQ and follow the procedure they have listed on that page to make bot edit requests. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cheers for making the revert to basin of the indus river sorry for all the fuss over it but sometimes its the only way to acheive neutrality have a good day freind your a ACE editor86.158.238.187 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "0" is actually okay -- whenever there's a from the editor piece, it's marked as a "0" so that it's centered on the main Signpost pages. The problem was actually a separate issue -- I made a change in {{s-s}}, trying to fix a minor, unimportant formatting bug, and didn't realize I created a much larger one. Thanks for the heads up. Ral315 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me rather than giving warnings. In the Lavan Davis article, along with the Tyler Perry's House of Payne, and Cassi Davis articles, I and other editors have been battling a dynamic IP that apparently has a couple user accounts also. They keep adding unsourced info and copyright violating images. This user had ignored many, many warnings, and since the IP keeps changing (209.xxx.xxx.xxx), warnings to the IP are useless. Help please. Asher196 (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into it - the warnings were just a first step. The images do have issues, and I'm addressing those now. For the text, I haven't looked closely yet, but didn't see any obvious issues with it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert the poorly sourced marriage issue in the article also. They are sourcing Imdb, which has an almost word for word copy of the paragraph in the article. I believe this user added this info to Imdb, since it appeared on Wikipedia by this editor first. Asher196 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now fully protected, so I'm unable to edit it. You'll need to discuss changes on the talk page and add an {{editprotected}} tag to the talk page to get the article changed now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Couple Things
Have a couple of questions, I hope you can help me. The first is, I am the author for three pages so far, Vita Nelson, Moneypaper Inc and Temper of the Times. Now, I work for Ms. Nelson, she wrote me the material first hand for her page, and she owns the two companies, MP and TOTT, what can I use for sources? There's no article that's going to corroborate what she's standing here telling me about her life, you know?
Second is, as you can see, I've been on the Coke, Johnson & Johnson and Bank of America pages trying to put up links. Now, these aren't advertising links, they are to a financial prospectus regarding DRIPs (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). There's nothing ad related to be able to put down that these plans exist, it's not linking to a page to buy something, it's simply informative and all of the information is 100% accurate and updated every day.
There are multiple problems here - first and foremost is that you have a conflict of interest in the subject of those articles, so should probably avoid editing them. See WP:COI for details.
Next, one of the three core content policies on Wikipedia states "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". This surprises and confuses many editors; but the simple fact is that if statements cannot be verified via reliable third-party sources, then it shouldn't be in the article. Granted, a lot of Wikipedia articles need cleanup in this regard; but the fact that other articles also have problems is not a viable excuse for another article to do the same. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR for further clarification on this point.
For the links, the pages linked are clearly soliciting sales, as is demonstrated by the large prominent button on the page labelled "Order Enrollment in this DRIP". These links also contain tracking IDs, which is against Wikipedia's external links guidelines. See WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT for further clarification.
Note also that the link has been reported to WP:WPSPAM so that there's a record of the insertion of the links. Continued re-insertion (ie: spamming) of links can result in a user account being blocked, or the site being blacklisted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would knowing the subject constitute a conflict of interest? Nothing in the article is promoting or advertising the subject in any way. I would have to have an intimate knowledge of the person I'm editing to begin with, and unless the person or topic I'm writing about has enough notoriety to have been covered in another arena, how would one obtain this knowledge without getting it first hand from the subject? A lack of third party sources shouldn't diminish the importance of having the subject included in wikipedia. Besides, if someone else had done this before me and gotten the information from the subject, and then I took that as a third party and made the page, that would make it more reliable?
You have a conflict of interest because you work for the subject (as I said, read WP:COI). Wikipedia policies mandate that reliable third party sources be used (see WP:V and WP:RS), lacking those can make it impossible to meet Wikipedia's defined criteria of notability (see WP:N), which can potentially result in articles being deleted. I've provided links to multiple site policies and guidelines; my suggestion is that you read those - as failure to abide by those can result in deletion of content, blocking of editing access, or in extreme situations result in blacklisting of websites and page protection preventing articles being created under certain names. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Ms. Nelson has informed me that her biographical information can be verified at Who's Who in America and other Who's Who databases. Would that qualify as a valid source? Is that something that you guys can look at and confirm or do I need to find it and link to it myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftermidmusic (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A citation to Who's Who in America would be a good one, although I would be surprised if it contained reference for all parts of the articles. Additional sources could be news articles, books, professional journals (third party ones), etc - which could add additional references for supporting claims/statements/facts presented in the artcles. Generally, multiple references are considered better. I don't have a subscription to Who's Who in America myself, nor am I a student at a university (many of which have access to the Who's Who online database), so I can't assist in identifying the citation content myself. What is needed is formal citation information (book title, publisher, publishing date, edition, relevant pages in the book, author if listed, etc) - or for sources where one exists, a url.
Note also that the tags at the top of the article are merely cleanup tags (none of the articles are currently tagged with anything questioning their notability nor with "deleting" tags). The cleanup tags shouldn't be viewed as some sort of stigmata as they are not critical of the subject of the article - they are merely tags indicating that the article requires additional cleanup efforts so that the formatting and verifiability of the article meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Many articles in Wikipedia contain similar tags. Adding references is an excellent step towards resolving the issues identified by the tags - just don't be surprised if they come-and-go from the article over time - it's not uncommon for that to happen with articles on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I signed up for a trial to Who's Who, so I'll get on that, but in the meantime, I posted three articles on the Moneypaper Inc page, from Reuters, Investment News and Kiplingers, how many sources is sufficient? Is that a good amount or should I have more? What is standard procedure? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftermidmusic (talk • contribs) 19:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have provided a link to WP:CITE. If a single source covers everything mentioned in the article, then that's sufficient - the reason I suggest multiple sources is that it's rarely the case where a single source can address all claims/statements/facts presented in an article.
The normal method of citing information is to insert the reference within the body of an article between "ref" tags - where the ref is relevant (this is what's mentioned in one of the cleanup tags, a need for in-line citations). Here are a couple exmaples:
Text statement to which a reference is being provided.<ref>http:url_goes_here</ref>
Text statement to which a reference is being provided.<ref>Marquis Who's Who in America, pages xx-yy, published 1902</ref>
More advanced citation methods using templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc can be found at the WP:CITE link which I just listed above. But those templates tend to only get used after people become familiar with more basic formatting first.
The applicable format would be placed imediately after the text which is supported by the source. Then at the end of the article, a "references" section can be added which will automatically list all of the references used in the above article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For images, I'm not an expert - so you may want to ask someone else. From what I can see, it appears that there may be license issues. For images where the creator publicly displays that the image is available under a free license, you just need to indicate that license in the page that holds the image. For copyrighted images (including company logos) it gets trickier, as the only legal way that Wikipedia can use those images is under the "fair use" clause of copyright law - so if the image meets the requirements of fair use, then it can be uploaded with a fair use tag that spells out why the image is viewed as legal to be used on Wikipedia under the fair use clause.
Fair enough, one more question. I received information from who's who America, they sent me Ms. Nelson's bio and all of the books she has appeared in, how can I reference that without having a website to link to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftermidmusic (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did they provide an ISBN number (or similar identification number), book title, page, publisher name and publish date? Those are the main things needed for book references, although more information can be provided as well.
If you're comfortable trying templates, here's the basic format to use ... just fill in the information that you do have after the equal signs, and leave blank after any equal signs where you don't have data:
For example, it might look something like this when filled out:
<ref>{{cite book |title=Who's Who in America |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2008 |publisher=[[Marquis Who's Who]] |location= |isbn=1234567890 |pages=102-104 |url= }}</ref>
Which would generate output looking like this in the notes section:
Barek, as I recall you are nautically oriented. This needs a picture. It is also kind of light on content. The 50th anniversary is within the week. If you could help, I would always appreciate it, even if no one else notices. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I'll search some more tonight. On an initial search, I found several images - but most had unclear copyright status. I should be able to locate one after dinner that's available under a free copyright license, just takes some sifting through the searches. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched all of my usual sources but couldn't find an image with any of those. I've also tried doing broader searches from other sources; but can find very fiew images of this ship, and all of the ones that I can find are copyrighted. I'll look more; but it's not looking promising so far on finding an image of this one under a free license. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a picture of him that I linked to that would be a great addition to this article. I don't think there is a copyright issue, but you be the judge. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Thanks for thinking about it. It's a conundrum. The other way, I suppose, would be to get the Archdiocese to post a picture. It would really be a great time capsule/picture for the article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Not a problem ... there are a lot of commercial ship articles that need fixed, and due to the confusion over this, they often get re-added after the article is fixed. Just wanted to mention it so that you knew for next time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish to hap contacted me before you went to the help desk but not worries. I think we need to move the page to Little Tahoma Peak as this is the name at GNIS and it is the policy of WikiProject Mountains to use official names. I quess that the content has to be moved back and then the destination page needs to be deleted so that a move will work. I have to stop editing now as I have an appointment. If you would like to take care of it that would be fine or I'll check to see what has happened after I get back to my computer. --DRoll (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a web log to cite the personal recommendation of various editors. Instead of edit warring when there is controvesy and presuming what would be fine use the talk facility, which is what it is therefore, it would be better to discuss these edits. Once something is agreeD (sic) upon in the talk then change can happen. You have good intentions on the recent edit, but discuss it first. Lihaas (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that you appear to have been reported for 3RR over your edit warring over your version which appears to have no consensus on the talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spam?
I am not quite that of newb. Welcome stuff is a bit strange. And I did ask an administrator about the link and the answer was, that is not a spam.
So I added that again.
Ok, I do not have to add that link, that is not such a big issue. But this December 2008 makes me look a bit criminal... Which I am not, I really asked an admin in order to ~don t make any mistakes.
Warrington (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I based my edit of naval ship articles and didn’t realize that different standards applied to civilian ships. – Zntrip22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a bit confusing with all of the year shifts - but it can be followed. Optionally, I think the original layout, just with the country/flag in the port of registry area would be slightly more compact than the original - but not as compact as it is now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random Rule -- Random Policing
You are the reason People hate wikipedia.
If you really want to clean up promotional links than you ought to remove most all of the links on this page comparison of netbooks
You don't actually want to clean up the page you want to punish one site to make yourself feel significant.
Hello Barek - I see that you have reviewed the new definition "Sheening".
It is in many peoples best interest that this word sees success and I will do everything in my power to see this through.
I recieved this TALK message from Malik:
Sheening
Hi Jillian, I understand that keeping the article about "sheening" may be important to you, but it may be contrary to some of Wikipedia's policies. I'm going to leave a note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheening explaining the problems with the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz
And would appreciate your help in making this new addition as successful as possible - seeing as I'm new to this site.
Any help would be GREATLY appreciated. And just think - all definitions had to go through hoops - think of something as simple as Ketchup... sounds stupid - but is used around the world!
The fundamental problem here to me is that regardless of the frequency of use of the word, the entry is still a dictionary definition; while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wiktionary is a far more appropriate location for submitting dictionary terms. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for more on this.
Even if you can resolve that issue, the article still must meet the criteria of notability (see WP:N for Wikipedia's criteria of what it takes be be notable). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smiles!
DocDeel516discuss has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
