User talk:BARRY BARON

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi BARRY BARON! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 12:45, Sunday, October 14, 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Saint Matthew and the Angel Redux
Hi Barry. I have just responded to you at the Teahouse, but I felt it might help if I were to leave you a copy of my advice to you directly on your talk page. (I recognise that you did not create it as a draft, but that another editor moved it from your sandbox into our draftspace, which caused you - and indeed me - some confusion.) I wrote:
 * ''I fear you are completely wasting your time trying to publish the results of your researches on Wikipedia by working on Draft:Saint Matthew and the Angel Redux. This is not - and I must repeat this, NOT - the place for any original research, as exciting as it might be, nor indeed how momentous that discovery might be to the art world. I need you to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which distils, aggregates and reflects what has already been written by other reliable sources.  We aren't the place to do that publishing de novo.  In fact we have a policy on it, so please re-read  No original research which begins with the statement, in bold: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Neither should that 'original research' be added into the existing article until such time as it has been published by reputable sources and/or covered in the mainstream media. Perhaps I can tell you a true story? Twenty years ago I discovered something in 'The Orrery' by Joseph Wright of Derby that none of the experts had ever noticed or commented on before. My museum's Director was one of the world's leading specialists on him, and was astonished when I commented on what, to me, was blindingly obvious - that every person in that painting were seated around a central light source representing the sun in the centre of that mechanical orrery, each had their faces represented one of the main phases of the moon. Now, had Wikipedia actually existed back then, I probably would not have been permitted to add that simple observation to the painting's article because it was original research (albeit, you can actually see this fact when you look at the painting, unlike your research!). But luckily we had published a leaflet on orreries, in which we reported this new - and to us, exciting - observation. So now, the leaflet that I wrote back then can be used today as a reliable citation to support that statement. Similarly, until such time as you get your work and discoveries taken seriously by a museum, a publisher or a news outlet, I see absolutely no future in you trying to report it here. There are far better ways to get attention to new research, and I urge you to focus on other areas of art currently under-represented on Wikipedia. I do hope this helps you understand any future difficulties that you are bound to encounter if you ignore this advice and try to persist. I might suggest you make a copy of what you have drafted here and store it off-wiki to help you prepare a publication in other media. This advice really is well-meant. Regards, etc''

I really hate sounding negative, but I do think it's important that you understand why I feel your current efforts are mis-directed. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox2 (January 3)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by StraussInTheHouse was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:BARRY BARON/sandbox2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:BARRY BARON/sandbox2, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:BARRY_BARON/sandbox2 Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StraussInTheHouse&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:BARRY_BARON/sandbox2 reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 SITH   (talk)   18:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:BARRY BARON/sandbox2 has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:BARRY BARON/sandbox2. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:BARRY BARON/sandbox2


A tag has been placed on User:BARRY BARON/sandbox2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

To John of Idegon I am unable to locate this tag or button to which you refer on my page -- Please indicate where precisely to look. (forest for the trees) Apparently, there is something either published or refered concerning the subject directly from one of the German museums (Bode). I am uncertain where yet, maybe a professional journal. My difficulty is the time delay because almost everything needs to be translated from german to english.This is recent over the last month and may possibly be a solution. I will not know until I have a difinitive final source. Seems somewhat close in content to what I may need. Any suggestions? BARRY BARON (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:BARRY BARON - You were unable to locate the button to contest speedy deletion of your sandbox because the speedy deletion request was removed. It was removed because User:JamesBWatson decided that your sandbox did not qualify for speedy deletion.  It has not been deleted, and is still there.  However, your sandbox will never be accepted as a Wikipedia article, and you are wasting your time and the time of Wikipedia volunteer editors by continuing to try to make minor changes that will not make it into a valid Wikipedia article.  You refer vaguely to something that may have been published in Germany.  Regardless of whether your sister's findings are published in German or are published by you in an art journal in the United States, they are not likely to become a separate article in Wikipedia.  If they are published in a reliable source, they can be described in the main article on the painting.  It appears that you have a fundamental misconception of what Wikipedia is and what can be published in Wikipedia, if you think that Wikipedia can be used as a means to publish your research.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Although your draft in your sandbox was not speedily deleted, your continued diddly questions about it and continued efforts to have it accepted into Wikipedia are becoming disruptive, and may result in the draft being nominated for deletion (a different procedure than speedy deletion), or in a topic-ban telling you not to edit in this area. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:John from Idegon, User:JamesBWatson - Do either of you want to add anything? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A topic ban for a WP:SPA is tantamount to a block, so why bother with it? This fella is as WP:NOTHERE as anyone I've seen. Clearly Barry's only interest is promoting his work. I don't have time for the dramaboards right now,, but if you wish to gather some diffs and report him, I'd certainly support an indef. I don't think simply removing the speedy raises James to the level of involved, so maybe he'll just drop the hammer himself. John from Idegon (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Since last October you have repeatedly been given explanations as to why what you are trying to do is not going to succeed, and offered advice to help you avoid wasting time on such attempts which are doomed to failure. Not only have you declined to take the advice given to you, and frequently have shown an inability or unwillingness to understand what you have been told, but you have also taken a belligerent attitude to other editors who say things you don't like, at times amounting to personal attacks. It is clear that what you are doing is achieving nothing here apart from wasting your own time and that of other editors. It is also clear, as John has said above, that you have no interest in contributing to the encyclopaedia in any way other than using it to publicise your work. Therefore, to save both you and others from such waste of time, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:JamesBWatson, User:John from Idegon. That is that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)