User talk:Barberio/Archive 4

Ian Paisley
Maura Lyons info may not be verifiable - it does seem odd - but the footnote is the best way to include the websites and the caution on them in this article: will you revert to the footnote? Sorry - I thought the website refs were appearing in the body of the article: info should remain hidden unless verified, and your revert is correct.--shtove 00:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

History of the Internet
That was fast fixing! --Telsa 09:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RE:Deleting
what exactly (which article, when, what section) are we talking about here? Boneyard 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * i assume your talking about the world of warcraft remark on some xmas 2005 free trial gift? it was added without source and even after some google searching i can't find anything on it. Boneyard 15:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry but if we are to discuss every little thing on talk pages we will go on for ever without any effect, some things which are added without source and simply don't add to an article should be removed without problems. and please show me a source for this as im still unable to find anything about guest passes around xmas 2005 and a free months for people who get a friend playing. Boneyard 16:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Packet Switching
Hi, I made edits to address your concerns within the bounds of the truth. Pls see the page. I have noted that both Baran and Davies discovered the concept independently, and gave Kleinrock the maximum credit possible - work on "message switching" and help with the ARPANET. I don't see how I can make any other edits and stick to the documented, historical, factual truth on this matter. I hope this meets your concerns. Reliablesources 12:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have invested even more effort, and done a general clarification of the entire section. I cannot do more without straying from the truth.  My reasoning is below.  I hope this meets your concerns and that we can close this issue.
 * (1) We both want the objective facts of the history, as opposed to a subjective point of view: Baran discovered and published the concept in 1961, and Davies discovered and published the concept in 1965. A gentleman's gentleman, Davies himself never had a problem acknowledging that Baran was first by four years, was always one of Baran's biggest supporters, and clearest analysts of Kleinrock's claims, and has been so very clearly in print.  However, since these facts are apparent in the subsequent paragraphs, I have removed the word "first" in the first sentence associated with Baran's discovery to attempt to do what I can to address your concern.
 * (2) Wrt the word "discover", I use it because I believe it is a much more inclusive term. Nobody invented the circle, several people discovered it.  Pythagoras did not invent his theorem, he discovered a reality already present in the universe.  Much like Zorkenias did on planet Zork a billion years earlier.  In any case, while this is metaphysically fascinating, please allow me the liberty of choosing this word in a work that took some effort to build. Reliablesources 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * John, in the scheme of life, I'm on your side. Please remove whatever has caused you to inject so much negative emotion into our exchanges.  My motivation for updating the packet switching page is positive.  You are turning it into a personal issue, and we are losing sight of the facts, which is all I want on that page, as you do.  I have done a great deal of research over many years on this subject, and am trying to contribute that.  I would actually like your help. Reliablesources 14:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue here is completely fact-based. There is no controversy over Kleinrock's role, as the NY Times article reported, and no less than Bob Taylor himself responded, as per my notes painstakingly on the packet switching discussion page.  With respect to the dates and roles of Baran and Davies attribution, I have also outlined the facts on the discussion page in some detail, and put them in the article.  Further, as I also noted in my response to you above, Davies himself never had any issue with the facts - he published a paper posthumously to set the record straight and, as an academic gentleman, fully acknowledges Baran's prior publication (see me for more info if needed).  Rather than continuing to criticize my hard work, it would be much more constructive for you to acknowledge that this is a valuable contribution, responding to a Talk page with many noting the travesty of pretending there was a controversy when there is not.  Wikipedia must not be party to ongoing perpetuation of this untruth, and I will continue to work hard to ensure it does so given the importance of this issue.  For the fourth time, I would appreciate it if you would remove the disputed tag and close this issue.  Thanks. Reliablesources 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no POV in facts. Baran discovered it in 1961, Davies in 1965.  According to the standards of academic credit going back centuries, that is a four year difference.  Neither of them disputes this fact.  You are the only one that appears to hold a POV on this.  It appears to based on little other than an apparent wish to strike my edits, without any facts behind your argument.  This is my fifth time repeating the same points, and further effort without any corresponding movement from you is not warranted.  The facts I have contributed are from the historical record, and backed by the NY Times, Baran, Davies, Taylor, and every historian that has published on the issue.  If you do not remove the disputed tag within a couple days, I will escalate this to protect the truth and the reputation of Wikipedia.  Reliablesources 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the problem: the facts I have detailed in my previous posts show that there is no controversy to report. On the Davies/Baran issue, no-one anywhere, including Davies himself, has ever disputed Baran's 4 year prior invention.  If needed, I'll dig up a quote from Davies himself giving Baran first due -- he said so in print.  So that is all facts and no dissenters, so that issue is closed.  On the Kleinrock claims, since those have been proven untrue as I detailed in my earlier posts, to report the issue at all would be to report that Kleinrock unfairly claimed credit, without anyone besides his best friend Roberts to half-ways back him up, and then the claim was conclusively shown to have been false.  Why bother?  As reported by others on this talk page, the guy was human, and made great contributions in other areas.  Why make a point of his over-reaching in this area?  I'd rather just give him credit where his credit is due, and move on.  If that makes sense, pls remove the tag.  I believe that I have made great efforts to address your concerns as best as possible, and hope if you reread the post you will agree.  If you have remaining concerns, pls don't respond in general (need to report a controversy, maintain a NPOV) and get specific: what specific word, phrase, sentence, or fact in the post do you still have issue with?  Thanks.  Reliablesources 15:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

America/USA Poll
Re my vote, you wondered whether I had voted *against* keeping the status quo, I voted for the style guide to state the 'status quo'. Unless, of course, it's already in there somewhere - I can't find it.Markb 08:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the site map approach?
What about creating a site map as was done for the help page? --Go for it! 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the 'keep it all on one page' is the defining aspect of a portal. Replying here, since your talk page is... a mess. --Barberio 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack accusations
I've looked through PizzaMargherita's edits for the past couple of hours and can find nothing approaching a personal attack. I have therefore removed your report to WP:PAIN. Also, per the instructions at WP:PAIN, that page is for reporting ongoing personal attacks that continue after the user has been repeatedly warned. It's the last place you go for redress when under personal attack, not the first. Angr (talk • contribs) 23:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Hi, I have started an RFC on User:Go for it! Your input and additions would be appreciated. Requests_for_comment/Go_for_it%21. thanks. -Quiddity 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal Redesign
I noticed that the Community Portal's design was changed, with the edit comment saying that consensus was reached. After reading the discussion, it doesn't seem like any consensus was reached. I started a discussion on the Community Portal talk page — J3ff 16:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm staying out of it. I have enough wikistress because of the America/USA stupidity. --Barberio 17:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

silly games
Hi - I'm not playing silly games with numbers. You changed "strong" to "slight". I changed "slight" to the actual number from the talk page (69%). You changed this to 67% (without an explanation of where you got this number). I changed it to "over 2/3", attempting to avoid the issue of an exact percentage since I think there's room for various interpretations. You changed this back to 67%. Since you seem to want an exact number, I added an explicit explanation and changed it to 70%. You changed it back (without comment) to 67%. How about if you add an explanation of why 67% is the one and only true number? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been repetedly explained. Counts higher than 67% were either not counting 'un-decided' or 'no-guideline' votes, and the 70% one counted them in with the support. I suggest you aquaint yourself with the diference between majority, super-majority and consensus, and how they apply to Wikipedia. --Barberio 21:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The version you most recently changed said a straw poll on this page has indicated a strong preference (46 out of 50 voters) for standardization of some sort with 70% (31 out of 44 voters) of those expressing a preference supporting "American x"' [over two alternatives]. This statement is exactly true.  50 people voted.  46 of them voted for a specific standard or for "any standard".  Of the 46, 44 people expressed a preference for a specific standard with 31 supporting "American".  67% (31 out of 46) can only be arrived at by including those who voted any standard in the total of those expressing a preference for a standard but without counting them toward any specific proposal.  What this does is turn them into "none of the above" (which I think is not a reasonable interpretation).  I suggested counting them toward each (so the percentages for each alternative would add to more than 100%) is one way to consistently handle such votes, which makes it 72%.  I'm willing to meet you half way on this and explicitly discount them (making it 70%, per the most recent version you disliked), but if you insist on including them in the total I insist on counting them in a sensible manner.  They did not say "none of the above".  They said "any of the above".  -- Rick Block (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't get to meet me half way on abusing statistics. First, the sample set is small. Second, the sample set is self declared to be biased towards one particular result. Third, the sample set had significant amounts of people voting for alternative options. Fourth, the margin of the majority is sufficiently small to be swayed by all of these. These must be declared. There are also inherently why Polling is only used for clarification of discussion, not for policy changes. --Barberio 09:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to abuse statistics. I agree the sample set is small.  Where is this bias declaration?  Four people ( Steve Block [no relation] BlankVerse, Christopher Parham, Sansvoix, and Kjkolb) voted for multiple alternatives.  That's why any percentage needs to be heavily qualified and is inherently suspect.  The margin of majority is larger than 2-1 for "American" over all alternatives combined.  This is not a small majority.  I've added explanations about the vote that you've deleted in preference for an unqualified, misleading percentage.  I'm not claiming Polling should be used for policy changes.  And, re your latest revert summary, it's also dishonest to inflate the sample size with "any of the above" votes but otherwise discount such votes (in fact, I just noticed one of them, Kjkolb, is among the group voting for "American").  I'll try another heavily qualified wording.  Please let me know if you can live with it.  Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your version did not state such, and instead simply provided confusingly figures that could mislead the reader into beliving an overwhelming supermajority of the total votes supported the resolution. The objections in referenance to Systemic Bias should also be raised. --Barberio 16:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Goforit's RFC
Hi, regarding Requests for comment/Go for it!, there has been much editing of the initial statement since you signed it. Please read it again and/or consider changing your edits/your signature to avoid the impression of inadequate procedure. Thank you. Kosebamse 20:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Overreactions
I don't know if it's just me, but I feel that you've overreacted to my comments lately. I say what I mean, explaining my objections, but rather than taking them at face value and suggesting a way to work with them, you argue with me. For instance, earlier, I stated my objection to replacing "foreign" with "common in English use". Clearly you were capable of formulating another proposal that answered my objections, because you wrote one. So I don't understand why you'd argue as well. Sometimes, when reacting to another's objection, you have to just say, "okay, that's entirely mad, but whatever, I can work around it" rather than trying to convince the other of their madness.

I'm aware that many around here argue to be obstructionist. I'm not one of those people. If I say I object to something, I object to exactly that; I'm not using it as a vehicle to get to some ulterior motive. --TreyHarris 19:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I currently have a migrane so may not be on best form, if you feel hassled I apologise. --Barberio 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Best wishes that you feel better soon. --TreyHarris 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott Speed
Well just log onto their web pages (FIA and Formula1.com) to see the race results have been changed which clearly can been seen Andreasu 12:33, 13 April 2006