User talk:Bartman82

July 2021
Hello, I'm Rdp060707. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Starflight because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Rdp060707&#124;talk 04:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

December 2022
Hello, I'm Aishik Rehman. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Pogue because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Aishik Rehman (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

reference access-date in Titan submersible implosion
This edit changes access-date in two existing references from 24 March 2024 (yesterday) to 24 September 2024 (in the future) for no obvious reason, but presumably by mistake. Could either revert those changes, or change the dates to what you actually intended. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Hello. In some recent edits to Hyperbaric medicine you have been copy-pasting content from other articles (namely Pressure vessel for human occupancy and Built-in breathing system). You can not do this, as it is plagiarism (WP:POW, WP:PLAG). Moreover, since those articles do exist, there is no value in copy-and-pasting the contents into this article: just wikilink to the article. Kimen8 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I am in the process of editing it so they are not plagerism. I am on the ASME PVHO Committee and one of the experts in the field.  I was asked to fix the factually wrong information.  Give me a chance to work thorugh this. Bartman82 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that content was added so recently by you in the case of PVHO.
 * I still want to point out that you don't need to copy-and-paste such large chunks of articles when you can just wikilink. Also take care to not put so much you don't need in the top section of, e.g., hyperbaric medicine, and take care to think about your WP:AUDIENCE with the level of technicality of your writing.
 * Also, the content from Built-in breathing system is not your writing and must be attributed if you're going to just copy-and-paste it.
 * Kimen8 (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't copy anything with BIBS nor did I edit it.
 * I'm working on dumbing it down, but to give you the big picture, there are essentially counterfiet hyperbaric chambers being used and people are being hurt or killed. This is due to hyperbaric medicine has inherent risks due to pressure and oxygen, and a lot of people know a scalpel can hurt them but don't realize pressure or oxygen can.  By making it clear the chambers have to done properly in order to do the medicine properly, and highlight the hazards that go into design, it puts the treatments in that context.  I fully agree with your issue of clarity and "Stay on topic".  Let me do a bit more. Bartman82 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I mentioned Built-in breathing system because it contains the sentence starting "", which was copy-and-pasted in this edit of yours into Hyperbaric medicine. I appreciate the fixing up and I'm not trying to step on toes it's just that if I notice something that someone will have to fix later I figure it's better to let the editor know before they're finished and save everyone duplicated effort. Kimen8 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it looks like they are quoting the US Navy manual, which means anyone using that reference (as a citation) may be using similar language. Bartman82 (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * From my skim of that navy manual, the BIBS article adequately summarizes it in the editor's WP:OWNWORDS and is therefore acceptable. On the other hand, your copying word-for-word of another editor's content into Hyperbaric medicine is not your own words. As the help pages I linked to said, this is plagiarism, and you need to credit the original article from whence it came. This is not difficult: just make the copy-paste its own separate edit, and put in the edit summary which article you took the language from. Anyway, at this point, I don't care enough about inter-wiki plagiarism to continue talking about this. Kimen8 (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't write anything about the BIBS section or copy from it. I'll go change the words, but keep in mind I a principle author of the ASME PVHO-1 and PHVHO-2 standards, proofed the current Navy documents, and am writing on the topic frequently. Even if I write off the top of my head, it's going to look like what everyone else paraphrases from what I published years ago. Bartman82 (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I just looked at that passage. Pleasae re-examine it with the split screen. The language you are citing about "such chambers" was pre-existing.  It's on the left hand side before the edit and on the right side.  The edit in question is where I inserted " In the US, the required engineering safety code is Pressure vessel for human occupancy."   That's it.  I did not change anything else in the paragraph so the langauge "Such chambers can be run" was in more than one place, it was not due to my edits.
 * I know it all blurs together at times -- it's a relatively small field with only so many authoritative publications. Bartman82 (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I (as frequently happens) likely misread the history. I saw that in this edit of yours, the result was that the passage I was talking about was indented as a block quote, something that would likely happen if it was copy-pasted. I now see that it got shoved into a block quote just because of the sentence you added before it. My apologies, as I say, I'm not trying to step on toes. Kimen8 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. We are all doing volunteer work and I appreciate the due dilligence. I had to look at it a few times to get it straight in my head. Bartman82 (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Original Research, Conflict of Interest, and improper use of Minor edits
Hi @Bartman82, welcome to Wikipedia! I wanted to add (and update) this is a friendly request to only use 'minor edits' when there aren't any conceivable objections to the edits. Some of your recent 'minor' edits on Stochastic terrorism were quite significant and removed as original research (also worth a read). Superb Owl (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If I recall, the "minor edits" were things like fixing typos to earlier, more signficant, additions. I also used it to add citations to add depth to existing text.  Being one of the actual researchers in this field, I was fixing a very false listing that largely ignored the orignal term and pretended it was no in use, but instead focused on partisan agendas. Bartman82 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your professional background, we still need verifiable sources to any major changes. Removing well-sourced material is a major edit and generally discouraged, but if you have well-sourced material that disputes what is existing, that would be a valuable addition alongside any conflicting existing material. The article's talk page could be a good forum for that discussion too. Superb Owl (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You appear to be adding lots of work by Bart Kemper in many of your edits - please disclose a Conflict of Interest on your user page and on your talk pages. Also read that linked article as it outlines the rules around editing when you have a conflict of interest. Superb Owl (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You removed the references regarding Woo and the usages of the term within the terrorism and risk assessment community. Regardless of my own work, those were primary citations coupled with OTHER works that stated Woo coined the term, to include sources that were already cited on the page.  I had a flag a while back "add discussion" and "add citation".  I did so.  Further, I added examples of how that term is still in use, which was then erased.  However, you allow the comments by others it "was an obscure term" with a single citation.
 * By eliminating the citation of the original use and its continued use in professional fields, you creating a false listing that leaves only a political use that is highly partisan. Bartman82 (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You continue to assert this distinction but I have yet to see it argued in any reliable sources (your symposium entry does not appear reliable enough). Without reliable sources, that is simply WP:Original Research. As for Woo, there is already a reliable source so I removed that template. Superb Owl (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)