User talk:Barberio/Archive 1

Hey there!
Yeah, I'll probably update the viral marketing article with info about the campaign. I thought Barberio mighta been you :) Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 16:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Re: NPOV, and Quotations

 * You have recently been removing quoted views or statements under claim of POV. ([Congress of the United States] and [Congressional_Black_Caucus]) Items directly labled as the opinions or quotes of notable people are NPOV. To quote directly, "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly." Reporting a quote from someone is representing a majority or minority view. You may add quotations or detail information on views held by others if you wish. --Barberio 20:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would ask you to stop attacking my edits as if they were done to advance my own POV. Both of the edits of which you speak were made as an attempt to make the article NPOV and were discussed before being made. In fact, the edit on the Congress of the United States article was made more then a month ago and my comment on that talk page has gone unanswered until just recently. Wikipedia is built on the art of compromise, it is wholly inappropriate for you to go around characterizing edits that you disagree with as vandalism. Certain quotes and the way that they are used in an artlce CAN make an artlce NPOV, that is an agreed upon fact within the community., and it is the job of the editors to make sure that each side is fairly represented. IMO This was not the case in either of these articles, that is why I felt compelled to delete the quotes until the article can be balanced out. On Congress of the United States, someone made an argument for why the content should be kept, so I regress and supporrt putting it back up, although I do intend to rewrite it to an extent; this is the spirit of Wikipedia. The second article to which you refer, Congressional Black Caucus is also a long dead dispute. After stating our views, the author of the article, User:Adam Carr and I reached a compromise in which the quotes could be kept. I also disagree with your interpretation of the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. Reporting a quote from someone who is clearly associated with one POV, although acceptable in some terms and when balanced out with other quotes, is not always NPOV, espeically when it is what I like to call "blind praise". This is the kind of issue that has to be handled through DISCUSSION of the issue and not by making attacks calling such changes vandalism. I would advise you to please make any further comments on content related issues on the article's talk page so that the community may add input. --Gpyoung talk 01:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Deleting valid quotes of opinion is not balencing an article. You may if you wish add quotations from alternitive viewpoints or disagrements.


 * An agrement between two users does not stand for an agreement between all wiki editors, and should not replace discussion on the talk page of the article, and a general consensus prior to making any changes of this kind. I see no discussion on the talk pages that supported your removals. On the contrary, I saw disagreement with them.


 * If a quote comes from someone clearly assosiated with a POV, then reporting it is inherently a NPOV. The reader has his own capabilities to recognise that Wiki is quoting the opinion of someone, not stating it as fact. If you disagree, then I sugest you start a campaign to alter the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines.


 * --Barberio 10:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand the situation at hand. Yes, IMO and in the opinion of many other Wiki editors, excessive quotes supporting one opinion can greatly shift the POV of an article, the question just is what is excessive. I do not know what has compelled you to resurect these two minor issues that were worked out weeks ago and are now non-issues. My removal of the section from Congress of the United States was completely valid and done 100% within precedure; I posted a comment explaining my position and what I intended to do on the talk page, and when it went un-answered for a substancial amount of time, I went ahead and made the change. That change was not even made under a claim of NPOV, it was made, as I said in my comment, because I felt the content was unncesssary and would only inspire conflict without adding anything to the article. I might also add that this change was made when Congress of the United States was nowhere near the featured article that it is today and myself and other editors were in the process of over-hauling it. The second edit was also made in good faith and was discussed in a public forum (the talk page) and was eventually resolved so that the quotes could be kept. This was an agreement between two members only because we were the only two involved in the dispute. If someone else wanted to contribute, they were free to.

Please do not preach about the Wikipedia guidlines. I understand the concept of NPOV and do not need to be attacked by someone who has decided to resurect old conflicts for whatever reason you may have. The NPOV guidlines are not specific about quotes, so compromised must be reached regarding them, something at which you do not seem to be very adept. I look forward to working with you on the CBC article as I intend to bring it to a "higher standard" of NPOV and also the Women in Congress Section. --Gpyoung talk 18:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To quote you in the Talk:Congress of the United States
 * "This is not needed. Yes, it should be noted in the article but giving tis topic its own section is inappropriate. It was also not at all NPOV and refelects the very worst of the affirmative action lobby ie. "Congress has historically been composed of white males"."
 * This says you belive the information should remain, but be moved and edited. Instead you deleted the information in enterity. Something that has been later disagreed with on both counts by others. Aditionaly, something that you did a month ago is not an 'old event'. There is no statute of limitations on bad edits.
 * I find it disturbing for you to atempt to alter the history of your actions. And also more so for you to atempt to claim major participation in the overhaul of the article. You made exactly one edit in the last 500 edits on the article prior to featured status, thats since 2003! And the edit you made has been disputed, and reverted. --John R. Barberio talk, contribs 20:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a question for you-why the vendetta? This is old news, if someone disagreed with my removal of that content, they were free to bring it back, thats how Wikipedia works. I have even gone ahead and expanded the section. Yes, this is old news and there was no reason for you to make it so personal. As a new user, it is not good to start your tenure on Wikipedia by making such vehement attacks. I never claimed as "major" role in the overhaul, but I did add significantly to the History section, maybe I did it under my IP, I cant really remember, but that comment was not meant to "glorify" me or anything of that nature, it was meant to prove a point. Also, I find it very disturbing that you actually looked through 500 edit summaries for my name-once again..vendetta. --Gpyoung talk 20:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you insist on making this a personal thing, with accusations of 'vendeta', and not focusing on the edits, I see no reason to continue this conversation. --John R. Barberio talk, contribs 20:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, you have long since cross the threshold of civility. --Gpyoung talk 01:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

International Internet
Please see Talk:History of the Internet. Noel (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Erroneous edits
Here's a partial list of the errors in the material you just added to History of the Internet.


 * Prior to the Internet, communication networks would operate based on their physical transmission method - Ah, technically, no, Even the ARPAnet needed nothing more than a bit-string and clock, and it used a number of different physical transmission technologies (including satellite links) to get that. (You may have meant something slightly different, but I can only go by what's there.)


 * as the research project at the UK's National Physical Laboratory under the direction of Donald Davies - I am unaware that Davies played any role at all in internetworking (he certainly had no role after '77, which was when I joined the project); please provide a reference to his work on that topic. (His role in packet-switching is well known, but that's different.)


 * who developed the concepts of packet switched networks - The credit for packet switching is split several ways; see the ARPANET article for a more detailed look at this topic (Baran's work is the earliest).


 * Parallel to DARPA's research, packet switching networks were developed by the International Telecommunication Union in the form of X.25. - There was nothing "parallel" about it. Telenet was an ARPANet clone, done by Larry Roberts after he left DARPA, and went online in '75. X.25 was heavily based on Telenet. In any event, the X.25 spec was only done in '76, contemporaneously with the early Internet work.


 *  X.25 would see large take up in business, particularly banking and public access networks. - So? It was a non-related branch that died off (like a whole bunch of other failed networking technologies, such as SNA, DECnet, etc, etc, etc), and irrelevant to the history of the Internet.


 * The Internet's technical roots lie within the ARPANET, - You added the "technical", but this is incorrect. The "network culture" of the early Internet was a direct transplant of the culture which had grown up on the ARPANet (with mailing lists, etc, etc), so it's more than just "technical".


 * which was initially the core network in the collection of networks in the American Internet Backbone - Again, incorrect. See the 1982 and 1985 maps. In the early stages, the ARPANET was the backbone, there was nothing else.


 * Early TCP/IP work - In the earliest Internet work, there were no separate TCP and IP protocols, so this title is inaccurate.


 *  The early Internet, based around the ARPANET, was government-funded - The material you struck out was factual and accurate. See the circa-'85 Internet map I added to the article.

In the future, please do more research before editing, instead of adding statements which a little digging will show are not correct. Noel (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * About your comment Please make comments disputing changes to an article on the articles talk page: I assumed you would prefer if I didn't post such an extensive list of errors on the article's talk page. However, at your explicit request, I will so post it. I assume you will want to copy your reply there too, but I'll leave it to you to so so. Noel (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)