User talk:Barryz1/older comments

St Ives - which one?
Re Cornwall vs Cambridgeshire

I am amazed that there has not been any talk on the discussion pages about this, considering that it is full of other waffle. I can of course conjour up plenty of references pointing the other way. There's no point editing it back but I think we should try to get more citations, preferably from both sides. Unfortunately all my books are in store right now as I am in the middle of monving house. SimonTrew (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed your version, but only to conjoin the references, were duplicated.

If you firmly believe it is Cornwall I should keep it to yourself if you ever come my way!

Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi SimonTrew, I'll assume you're being humourous when you say things like "I should keep it to yourself if you ever come my way" but you should be careful because Wikipedia is edited by a (mostly) well meaning international community of people, many of whom might consider such comments to be aggressive or some sort of veiled threat.


 * I'd never claim any of my edits are perfect and I have absolutely no problem with you (or anyone else) correcting or improving any of my contributions.... that is after all the whole point of a collaborative encyclopaedia like this! Likewise don't feel offended if someone (me in this case) is unimpressed with what you have done and feels it important to try and put it right.


 * Incidentally, is "your way" St. Ives in Cambridgeshire by any chance? If so you should be very careful to avoid any form of prejudice, pride or bias in your editing as this, if noticed, will likely be deemed vandalism. For the record I have absolutely no personal connection with anywhere called St. Ives.


 * As for citations etc. when I corrected what you had done (removed perfectly valid information apparently on a personal whim) I did add a proper (and nicely [|Wikified])reference using the preferred style and selecting a reasonably stable and authoritative source relevant to the subject.


 * I note that you've started a new topic on the relevant talk page (which St. Ives?), which I welcome. I'll make further comments and response to you there.


 * All the best Barryz1 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Barry,


 * Yes it was meant tongue in cheek. I should know better as, using other Internet media, I realise how often these things can go off half-cocked. I am glad you were not offended.


 * Yes I do live near St Ives (I live in Cambridge) and am aware of NPOV, on the other hand it was not until I moved up here that I realised that St Ives was a strong candidate for the one named in the rhyme. As I say unfortunately I don't have my reference books with me right now, unfortunately.


 * I see you removed "evident". I put this because the quoted page in the reference starts something like "When I was a child we learnt this rhyme" thus making it quite clear that it was in use several years before. I would say that was evident. It's evidence. Therefore it's evident.


 * I'll join you on the article talk page (how seldom they are used!) but I wanted just to say sorry for "threatening" you even humorously and to put my POV here I am not trying to make arbitrary edits but as you see until you Be Bold and actually make a change nobody actually lifts a finger to argue the point.


 * Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SimonTrew, no problem at all and perfectly understood and understandable. I've encountered all sorts of interesting people and unexpected ideas and points of view whilst editing Wikipedia.... I've found it pays to be cautious (and try not to make assumptions) first! Glad we're both on the same wavelength.

I agree the best place to discuss this further is under the new heading you created on the talk page. As you'll see I've added a fairly length comment there of my recent investigations so far.

All the best Barryz1 (talk)

Sydney Selwyn
Thanks for all your hard work editing Sydney Selwyn. I would like to help make this a WP:GA. In an effort to work together, I would like to make a few suggestions: (1) Please read Manual_of_Style_(biographies), it is very helpful in understanding the correct formatting of such articles. (2) In particular, use Selwyn instead of Sydney when referring to him within the article. (3) It would be great if this could look more like an encyclopedia with only statements of facts and inline references for each statement of fact. If it is not possible to find a WP:RS for a statement, then it's questionable whether that statement should be included. (4) The Sydney Selwyn section is unsourced and has WP:POV problems. What is the purpose of including the "wheelchair insurance" image? Thanks again! Plastikspork (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Plastikspork. Thanks for the really useful feedback and all your help. I don’t mind admitting I've learned quite a bit from looking carefully at what you've done, e.g. recently with footnotes and in terms of style. Though generally really short of time I will make the effort to follow-up on all the points you've made (stylistic and formatting, better referencing etc) as I can see it's worth the effort and will obviously improve the overall quality and value of the article.


 * I included the wheelchair insurance for a several reasons; firstly I happen to know he was hugely amused by anything quirky and unusual particularly if it gave insight into other people's lives and I believe this does. Secondly, most people know you must have insurance for "normal" vehicles like cars, motorcycles and trucks but very few people realise it's also necessary (at least in the UK where he lived) for certain categories of battery powered wheelchairs (an anomaly since, for example, no insurance is needed in the UK for bicycles even if they are battery powered and can go quite fast). Finally, I thought that when time permits I'll be able to cross-reference this from other Wikipedia articles (which incidentally will be one of several steps towards addressing the Orphan problem tagged by "Addbot" - actually I have lots of cross references planned but need to research them properly first).


 * As for the 'Last Years and Final Illness' section, before submitting it to Wikipedia I email drafts to several people who knew him well (sadly they're getting older now and busy with other things so not especially interested in editing articles on Wikipedia themselves - it would otherwise perhaps be good to have them participate more directly). Based on their feedback I'm reasonably confident it contains balanced information and is not merely my personal POV. I accept the points you've made, however, regarding lack of external references and citation for this section - which I certainly intend to address. Much of the information is available in a couple of obituaries I have but apart from the one by Robin Price (already included in the list at the end) I haven't so far found any online. I've now added a citation in this section to the last paragraph of the Robin Price document by way of a start but will come back to this once I have further/better sources to quote.


 * Thanks again and more to follow!  Barryz1 (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied to your latest query on Talk:Sydney Selwyn. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Population breakdown for Jordan
That Jordan info box from joshuaproject isnt accurate, 5% syrian is not true, and why is jordanian and bedouin seperate? They are both just jordanian, bedouin isnt an ethnic group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.117.84 (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Hattar393 thank you for replying properly - this is a much better way to proceed. Do you have any recognised source of information? For example any government, UN population division or NGO statistics or population surveys that you can show me? I'm perfectly happy to accept any figures you'd like to use provided you can show me where they come from and also that you can convince me (and anyone else) that they are the best and most reliable figures currently available for that topic or subject.


 * Thanks again - I look forward to an interesting discussion with you and I'm happy to learn and revise any opinion provided, as I said, that you have demonstrable and convincing evidence. -- Kind Regards, Barryz1 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem, Jordan is one of the many countries who have different demographics published everywhere, and none are accurate enough.Hattar393 (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but where do your figures come from? Are they your own personal estimates or are you quoting from a particular source of information, if so which?


 * Thanks Barryz1 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish to raise an issue as well with those numbers. I also doubt the purposes and accuracy of the Joshua Project, a group that states that its data is "critical for understanding and completing the Great Commission" and is a very impartial group representing a special interest. They do not give out explicit information on how the data is collected other than saying that it is collected from missionaries from around the world, about whom we know nothing and also nothing about the way they collect that data themselves. One more thing, Bedouin means the same thing as Jordanian, it just denotes nomadism. References to this and to the fact that Bedouin tribes represented and still do, the pillars of Jordanian society are abundant and can be found in the works of Alec Kirkbride's "Crackle of Thorns" which is an account of his more than 30 years spent in Jordan as a British official (up to the position of High Commisioner Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary) as well as the writings of King Hussein of Jordan ("Uneasy Lies the Head") and Professor Avi Shlaim's "Lion of Jordan". Quoting missionary data is not a reliable way to build an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the reasons for which they have made the split between "Jordanian" and "Bedouin" must be investigated thoroughly before their data can be used. It may be that they have made that difference for the purpose of evangelizing, which would explain why it is relevant to them but is not a reason for a real difference. The difference between the urban Jordanians and the nomadic ones is analogous to a claimed difference between Londoners and people from the West Country. John Glubb, the British Commander-in-Chief of the Arab Legion (previous name of the Jordanian Armed Forces) also references the bedouins as being the nomadic Jordanians, not as a different groupt altogether. Sufitul (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sufitul - many thanks for your detailed and interesting question and comments. I've only just seen what you wrote and it's rather late at night for me at the moment (and after a long days work) so I'll carefully read again what you have written and research and respond properly as soon as I am able to. Thanks again and kind regards Barryz1 (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ...sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience. I've been rather busy and looking properly into this will take me a little longer but I do promise to respond properly within a few days. Sorry & Thanks Barryz1 (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello
You should see many wikipedia articles' histories to see what vandalism REALLY IS LIKE.You got me all wrong.I will start consulting you, the king of wikipedia, before i edit anything from now on.You seem to have an anger problem, and propose unnecessary threats..i am just trying to contribute to wikipedia, and i do not know why you are threatening me...i used to edit wikipedia without an account, i didnt have an account, one day i decided to make one and i wasnt (and still) am not a professional at this, im figuring things out slowly, i did not know how to sign until i found out myself one day. I am sorry i made mistakes which are very offensive to your very sensitive personality, I DO NOT VANDALIZE my friend! I DO NOT INTENTIONALLY VANDALIZE ANY ARTICLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * hi Hattar393 if we remain in contact and are able to be on friendly terms then I'm sure there will be no problem. It's not clear to me why you think I'm "angry" - actually I'm very calm and relaxed and feel fairly neutral about the whole thing. My main concern is that any information added to Wikipedia (especially of a numerical nature) MUST be based on verifiable and recognisable published sources. I have scanned through (but not as yet checked) all of the edits you have made - most of them have no comments or explanation as to why you have made the changes and I do not remember seeing any references that you have added showing where any of you so-called information comes from, so I must conclude (unless you can prove otherwise) that you have simply made it up to support your own biased point of view or agenda. If this is not the case then settle the matter by proving your information is ALL verifiable and published by one or more known authorities rather than merely as bogus as it appears.

Hattar393: You claim that you do not "intentionally" vandalise articles, yet it seems you regularly succeed anyhow! Please learn the difference between vandalism and proper, valid editing, correction and refinement of information then your contributions will be welcomed rather than deemed disruptive and totally counter-productive.


 * On a different subject, I noticed that you have firstly made a series of edits to my (and other peoples) warnings on your talk page (doing so is WP:VAND) and then blanked/deleted the entire page (which you have no right to do unless every matter listed has been resolved - which it most certainly has not). I have therefore taken some time and effort to reconstruct and repair the page as best I can. Please do not do this again - not only is it serious vandalism but it is unfair and unreasonable to waste my time in this way. It will not help you in any case as every entry ever made to Wikipedia is not only logged but backed up and so merely by deleting it you have not covered your tracks and hidden valid adverse comments made against you - you have simply highlighted their validity and demonstrated the importance of keeping an eye on your activities for the integrity of Wikipedia and the good of it's community.


 * Please explain yourself and also please try hard to resist the temptation to further damage and disrupt this online encyclopaedia.


 * Kind Regards Barryz1 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

..
I never vandalized the "Jordon" article, obviously ive never been to the Jordon article but now i have, it doesnt seem you put any effort into it, its a very small disambiguation page smart pants —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WHATS UP BUD??
Then im going to stop editing any article on wikipedia and see retarded spelling mistakes and unaccurate information (acquired from the most unknown websites). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted my page, im not longer going to edit wikipedia, even if i see mistakes everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hattar393
Hi Barry, just to let you know, it's OK for Hattar to remove warnings from his talk page (see Talk). If you need to refer to them at a later date, you can do so through the page history. Also be careful about re-adding the db-author tag. Using it on a page lists the page for deletion, which is undesirable. Tra (Talk) 10:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

File:World population growth - time between each billion-person growth.jpg
There is a typo in the image File:World population growth - time between each billion-person growth.jpg – the second line should read "(1927, 2 Billion)", not 1 billion. If you still have the original image and can easily fix the error, that would be great, otherwise I will re-create the chart in a vector-graphic format. Thanks, » Swpbτ • ¢ 16:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't had as much time to logon to Wikipedia recently as much as I'd like so only just noticed your comment, for which thanks. I've corrected the file as suggested and also made exactly the same correction to the corresponding/alternative version of the same chart; File:World population growth - time between each billion-person growth--MKII.jpg (which I originally created in case anyone preferred to see the bars in the reverse order as they might find that helpful).


 * Incidentally I acknowledged you in the edit comment in Commons as I believe in that sort of thing - - - Kind Regards Barryz1 ([[User talk:Ba