User talk:Barneca/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

can editors who have been here for less than one month take a "wikibreak"?

i won't be logging onto wikipedia again until approx. march, due to pressing issues in the real world. if you wish to discuss an edit i've already made, please use the "email this user" link to contact me. if you leave me a message on my talk page, it's unlikely i'll see it until march. barneca 02:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

back. barneca 17:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Probabilities

Thanks Barneca for the great note on my chat! Very professional hiding the puzzle answer :-) But no, I didn't guess, I used the C program I had written yesterday to provide numbers for the random pages topic.

<my prompt>factorials 1653406 250

(1653406)sub 250 / 1653406 ^ 250 is 0.981

So I get 1.9%, you got 1.8, round off. We must be using the same math :-) You use Maple or something? I'm pretty sure I can't do this with my desktop calculator :-) Pete St.John 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

nothing so elegant; i just used excel. i realized very quickly just how many digits there are in 1,600,000!, so i just went back to basics and created a little spreadsheet that calc'd p(n) for n = 1, then used that to calc it for n=2,3,4,........ i'm old enough, and nontechnological enough, that the only programming languages i've ever known how to use are basic and fortran, but i've found there is very little i need to do that can't be done in my dos-based quickbasic, or in excel.

and yes, i must admit i was a bit more pleased with myself than is really justifiable in figuring out how to hide the answer :) -barneca 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ah, qbasic. In antiquity I wrote some multi-precision routines to get "large" prime numbers, in BASICA. I still use basic, sorta, because MS VisualBasic is a great way to bang out user interfaces for clients, but I switched to C for numerical computing long ago. But of course Excel, those things all have each other's DLLs, so multiprecision arithmetic, control flow, everything you could want, cool. Incidentally, you might be amused by Steganography if you haven't seen it. Pete St.John 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

so i'm a steganographer, and didn't even know it. or, perhaps more appropriately given all of the younger people i work with, a stegosaurus.  :) the question is, are you a steganalyst? -barneca 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

oh cool, maybe I can make a new neologism for my stash, we are "steganosauri" :-)

indeed. -barneca 17:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fabartus response

Roger on your last... No offense taken, though that's the appearance given. I'm just playing back with you as I didn't figure it was mean spirited. Be well. // FrankB 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA - thanks anyway

I wanted to say thanks; you get that the box is/was a joke. As for the Black Knight changes - growing up, I learned that ax[e] had an optional 'e' at the end when alone (and right now Firefox tells me no e). And the other was me transcribing another source. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the edit in question was not transcribed. Wanted to clear that up. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

replied via email. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Alfonso Caycedo

You're welcome. Well, actually, I was there to remove the "thank you" thingy the IP left on the page but you were quicker than me, so I checked the rest of the article, in case someone forgot something, and noticed the accidental removal of the interwiki links. Don't worry about it, it happened to me too the first few times I removed spam (that's why I always check if they're still there when external links are removed). I guess we all learn something new every day :-). Happy editing! - Myanw 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

off line here only infrequently until may

if you have a comment or question about an edit i've made, please email me instead of leaving a comment here. i will not be logging in for quite a while, and likely won't see anything left here or leave something here, but be prepared to wait; i'll be logging in pretty infrequently for a while.

or, better yet, be bold and do whatever you want.

--barneca (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC) --barneca (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement with Thatpeteguy's edits on Fort collins

Hi Barneca,

Was wondering how you qualify your assertion that my edits are POV and not fair.I live in Fort Collins and I feel my edits reflect what a signifigant number of people here would like to say on a page like this.Is it possible you don't live here?
I only ask to see your opinion and not to be difficult.I will hold off my edits pending a concensus between us and any others
interested.Please know I like living here and have raised my family here.I truly feel that even attributed edits can be steered
by ommision of countering attributed edits.So,lets tell it like it is together and we will have done something worthwhile.Being
new to Wikipedia I sense some arrogance and pettiness all around and I wonder if this is so.(Not a jab just asking for direction)
Hope this finds you well and whole. -\--Thatpeteguy 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

hi thatpeteguy, let me clarify/emphasize that i am not saying your opinions are right or wrong; i have not been in the fort collins area for many years, and don't know, for example, whether marilyn musgrave is a rubber stamp for bush or not. what i am saying is that they aren't neutral. wikipedia, as it was explained to me, is not trying to be Truth with a capital T, it's trying to be an encyclopedia. things that you believe to be true, but which do not represent a neutral point of view, or which cannot be attributed to a verifiable source, are going to be edited out by many, many people here. you and i might disagree about whether that's the way it should be, but that battle has already been fought many times, and i doubt it's going to change. if you want to look into this in truly excruciating detail, you can read WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Attribution.

if you can tone down the rhetoric, and cite verifiable sources for your edits, you may be able to hash something out with people on the talk pages, and a consensus might emerge. or, it may not.

as to your other comment, yes, there is a lot of arrogance and pettiness around here, just like the real world. there's also a lot of fascinating people and information around here, just like the real world. --barneca (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply- You seem to think you are talking to a child so let me respond by saying this: 1:I know what I need to do and not do and so I don't need to "take this to the talk page". 2:Don't take my kindness for weakness so let me "clarify/emphasize" that I don't need your opinion I just wanted it. 3:I can tell you haven't been here in many years and haven't seen the infestation of christians and elitists. 4:Wikipedia "as it was explained to me" is a psuedopedia. 5:I was an election worker and so I DO know how Musgrave election edit is absolutely true.Not many ballots made it out of larimer county without my handling them.I was also part of certifying a vast majority of electronic voting machines.My signature is on the seals of many of them.I did this under the mandates of the state because of statewide policy now.I was one of the auditors as well in all three of the contested races.6:Are you seriously trying to tell me on the internet about the real world?You don't know me and I don't you,the difference being I tried to talk to you and you tried to talk at me. 7:Yeah,you got me on not submiting these facts as Wikipedia expects but that's only inexperience and not bad intent. So,I will do as I see fit and leave it to Wikipedia to decide if I can play well with others.I do feel you are probably fascinating and here's food for thought:"It is better to be self-assured than re-assured"(mine)or my favorite "Any effort expended trying to understand anothers way only brings you closer to your own"(credit forgotten,St. Francis?) I still got love for ya!--Thatpeteguy 05:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

i was not talking to you like a child, i was talking to you like a civilized human being, who it appeared was new to wikipedia. my mistake. please stay off my talk page. i have absolutely NO desire to get into any type of discussion with passive-aggressive people. it is obvious it would be a serious time sink. goodbye. --barneca (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Washington

Barneca, I apologize if I gave you the impression I was not discussing your point during the discussion regarding "Washington State" vs. "Washington state". I have also apologized on the page as well, and clarified my disagreement. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 06:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(copy of reply to Cascadia's talk page, for completeness) Thanks for the note, it wasn't necessary but it is appreciated. I was starting to get pretty cranky there at the end; sorry about that. Believe it or not, I don't feel strongly about the capital S, I just feel strongly about being listened to. I still disagree, but will defer to the 85 people who feel differently. --barneca (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion and Culture

I truly appreciate you taking the time to revise the work so quickly, buy my addditons despite not being cited at first, i think should now be considered. The previous work seemed, outdated, and does not reflect the current state of mind of the religion. I also thought they left many important information out in both sectors, (which was the reason i added that information), the added information adds new relevence to religon, and the changes the country is currently passing throught in the past 3 years. The information before seemed to be from older stocks which no longer has high consistency with it's reality today; however i did not deleat it, but rather added on. Thank you for the attention, I hope an agreement between us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerahad (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

(my reply on User Talk:Jerahad, added here for completeness:)

I'm replying to your comment on my talk page here, since i don't know if you have it on your watchlist or not. I'm glad you can see I'm reverting you in good faith, and not because I'm being a jerk. Anything you can specifically prove with a reference, I have no problem with it being added back in. However, to be honest, I have some doubts whether you'll be able to find sources for much of what you added.

In general, you can't put something in an article because you know it's true; unless you can find a published source to verify it, it has to stay out, even if true. There has been a lot written about this in places like WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:ATT and probably many, many more. This is good, because it eliminates arguments about whether something is correct or not (for example, I agree with some of the statements you added, and disagree with others). Instead, the discussion becomes whether the source is verifiable or not, and whether everyone agrees that it says what you think it says. Still not perfect, but better than the alternate.

In reality, obviously no one provides a reference for every single sentence, but when a statement is called into question, like I'm doing with some of yours, it is the responsiblity of the editor adding the statement to cite a verifiable source.

I suggest we continue this conversation on the article talk page, where others can add to the discussion. --barneca (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

new hampshire?

look fucknigga, i aint edit shit so keep my name and my IP out ya mouf

YA DIG

holla back xion

cool, my very first vandal! --barneca (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm back, fwiw

below for posterity is the old notice.

back as of 5-1-07, although (assuming i can buy some willpower somewhere) on a reduced level. --barneca (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani

Thanks for your help with the pretzelly odd vandalism at Gwen Stefani. ShadowHalo 18:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

no problem. finger is on the WP:AIV trigger, waiting to pull... --barneca (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

you warned me and i don't like it

Hi 216.177.4.201. Looking at the talk page for your IP, I see I am certainly not the only one! Now, either that warning was meant for you, or it wasn't.

If you are not the person that vandalized the article, then one of the unavoidable annoyances of editing from a shared IP is that you have to look at warnings directed at other people. You can ignore them, or if you get an account, you don't have to see them anymore.

If, on the other hand, you are the person that vandalized the article, I have great news: there's an exceptionally easy way for you to avoid being warned in the future. Stop vandalizing, and either edit constructively (which is what everyone would prefer), or go away. --barneca (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV Report Removal

First off thank you for expressing your concern over my WP:AIV patrolling habits. Let me first explain, no matter how swampped AIV is, I always take the time to evaluate each report individually. Among the things I check are a.) when were they last warned b.) when did they last edit c.)what is the severtity of what they were doing (i.e., how fast were they vandalising etc etc). I then weigh all of that in with WIkipedias blocking policy. If you read the policy, blocking is NEVER meant to be punitive, however to stop immediate damage. If the vandal has stopped on there own accord, blocking the IP does little good to this project. Now, named editors are a different story and I regularly block them even if they have stopped. As I have said many a time, you can ALWAYS revert vandalism to an article, you can never take back a lost oppurtinity to gain a new editor who found they were blocked on a shared IP and gave up and moved on. I.E., lets say one of those IP's is a PC in a library or a Cyber Cafe. As soon as the one guy gives up, if he stopped, and I blocked it, everybody else who uses it is blocked. I hope this helps you understand a little more. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply; I'll try to make this reply short so you can get back to AIV. What you're saying makes perfect sense if we're talking about an IP with a sprinkling of vandal edits among a sea of legit edits. Or, I suppose, even a sprinkling of legit edits in a sea of vandal edits. But very frequently I run across an IP address with less than a half dozen edits a day, but every edit for the last month is vandalism. I tried to anticipate and address the concern about collateral damage by noting this in my report. If you believe this type of vandal shouldn't be dealt with, that's fine; I guess we can agree to disagree. But if there's a different place I should report such an IP (and I probably run across them a couple of times a day), please let me know where it is. --barneca (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

218.111.173.221

hi,

i am newcomer, my purpose is just wanna post in more informations for this two articles ! any problem with me for editing structural engineering and structural engineer ? if so please advise !

Nope, this is not a problem at all. The whole point of a wiki is that anyone can work on articles. Just note three things:

1. You don't appear to be a native English speaker (my sincere apologies if this is wrong), so don't be offended if others change the wording of what you add.

2. Keep in mind that the other point of a wiki is that others can delete what you add if they disagree.

3. Please add ~~~~ to the end of your comments on talk pages. This adds your signature, to let others know who is saying what.

Other than that, enjoy working on the articles, and let me know if you have questions. --barneca (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Appreciate the involvement you took to put a stop to the edit war and reminding me, too. The sound of one hand clapping wouldn't have become an edit war :-) Thanks. Yaf 21:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope it helped. Please consider that, especially in the Lead Poisoning article, the situation might be more nuanced than either of you think. If I can figure something out before I have to leave, I'll propose a compromise. As far as Shooting ranges in the United States, I know nothing about it, so I can't help, but he seems to know at least a little bit about it, doesn't he? Anyway, hope you two can figure out a way to make the article better. --barneca (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Have started a dialogue with Burk8 on my talk page. The lead issue is largely blown out of proportion, and is being used on Federal property to largely shut down recreational shooting ranges. The two topics are hence very much related. Have been through a good bit of the chemistry and clean-up issues in the past, even including chelation therapy for individuals, so am somewhat familar with the issues. Thanks, again, for the level-headed assistance. Yaf 05:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 3RR

I have replied

burk8

Lead poisoning

I replied under Lead Poisoning

--Burk8 10:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppets you blocked: How should I have reported it?

I've replied to your message on my talk page. Feel free to ask any more questions you may have. --Slowking Man 18:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning "Rwanda"

sure, I will be explaining future deletions etc.; I'm just a casual editor here, so i didn't know whereabouts. Thx! Ad. --unsigned comment by User:77.97.236.57

MartinBot yells at me for no reason :)

Your recent edit to Booker T. Washington (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(my response here). --barneca (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Legitimate" Spam

Hello. Please read wikipedia's policy on external links. Even if the site is a not-for-profit, wikiepdia is not a resource to support links, and such edits are considered spam. Please refrain from adding such links; continuation to add such links will require measures to be taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest where non-commercial sites are mentioned specifically as well. -- Avi 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This one does not pass the smell test. Any link that is applicable to dentistry and actuarial science and career planning is not going to give you more specific information about the article in question, but is likely some kind of "service" site - regardless of whether it is for, or not for profit. Such sites usually do not belong on wikipedia. -- Avi 21:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with discussing it on each talk page, but when we see a user's contribution being adding the same link to a dozen disparate articles, it looks very much like spam. If the relationship is not obvious, the onus is usually on the linker to justify it. Sorry, and thanks for discussing it ! -- Avi 21:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I noticed the extra effort you went to, to help a user with what other editors (and I) consider to be Spam links. Your politeness, level-headedness and general helpfulness were most impressive. Gillyweed 01:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment from someone who, I assume, took umbrage at being warned

<div class="BANN ME I DONT CAREEEEEEEEerererererer

Spam?

Ahh, sorry abt the so-called "spam". I did not realise they were considered spam until you informed me. Actually, i don't think of them as spam as i am the Moderator for the websites i listed, but alright, i understand your policies. My apologies. _{adding signature of User:Lukas Upadhya for clarity.}

I'm glad you understand the policy now. Adding links to inappropriate external sites will be reverted, and normally a gentle warning is posted on your talk page. But adding them multiple times, after being warned not to, including messing up templates, is just unacceptable. Thank you for stopping. --barneca (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the halp

Thanks for fixing that for me. I started helping re moving vandalism yesterday. Theirs more vandalizm than i thought. I have already reverted 21 pages.

Oysterguitarist 17:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. When I first started editing and looking "behind the curtain", i was really amazed at how much vandalism there is, and how many people there are trying to clean it up. Don't know if you know this already or not, but Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism has a lot of useful info if you decide you want to do more of it. Watch out, tho, it's addictive. --barneca (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User Page problem

I theres only the plain wiki background on my user page what does this mean? Oysterguitarist 17:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. I can see your userboxes fine when I go to your userpage. I'm not really up to speed on the software side, so the only think i can suggest is using CTRL-F5. That refreshes the cache, whatever that means, and often fixes puzzling behavior on Wikipedia. Sort of like rebooting on a Windows-based machine. If this doesn't work, you're more than welcome to leave a more detailed description of what the problem is, and if i can't help, I'll refer you to The Village Pump - Technical. (p.s.: it took a while, but AIV finally blocked the editor you reported eariler). --barneca (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok my user pageis fine but i kept trying to view it and i would get a plain wiki background. I will asked the village pump what might have happened.

Oysterguitarist 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1993

Hi Barneca, I noticed that you tried to remove a Pakistani drug dealer claiming to be born on October 4. The funny thing is he still appears on the article page, but not during editing. I don't know why this would be, any thoughts? --Daniel J. Leivick 22:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I managed to fix it by reverting to an older version, but I still find it odd that something would appear in th article space but not in the edit text. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I think it was a problem with your cache; it appears from the history that you just removed a blank line. WP has been acting weird today, but I usually hit CTRL-F5 to purge the cache and many unexplainable things go away. No matter what it is, i guess it's all OK now. --barneca (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Google Answers

Thanks for getting me thinking about the alternatives section on that site. Dealt with much more cleanly now in Knowledge market, although it could definitely use a second set of eyes. Many thanks, MrZaius^talk 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent solution. Didn't even notice there was a Knowledge market article or category. If you want mine to be the second set of eyes, unfortunately real life is pulling me away from here until tomorrow, but I'll take a look then. But a cursory glance looks like a clean solution. --barneca (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Hi, yes I was the culprit. :) There is no clear answer on what to do exactly with copyvio's. Some think just restoring, other think deleting the edits is necessary. I tend to agree with the latter. Nevertheless, when there is a lot of new stuff added I often just delete the copyvio section. In this case the article didn't changed much, only people editing the history section. Since that was the original copyvio and (almost) all later edits were based on that (derivative work) I deleted all the edits which contained the copyright violation. Garion96 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am an admin who deals with copyright, I am used to complaints. :) Nah, just kidding. Feel free to link to my reply. Garion96 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiDragon

Thanks! I answered on my talk page. Malc82 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nikro

My brother deleted the reason from his page, he told me about deleting it.

• 1)First of all, I asked him if I can edit his page, he said "Go ahead." Then I asked him if he wanted the word "Yes" to be changed to "Neutral" or "Lost", he said "Which ever one".
• 2)I was changing a lie he made about my work on wikiipedia.
• 3)He tells to go ahead and edit it, then he deletes the reason for the changes on his talkpage, then he writes me up for vandelism, it looks like he set me up to get me banned, which he's known to do that. I say he should be banned for setting someone up for suspencen.
• 4)If it was vandelism, Wikipedia would have noted it as vandelism, but they didn't.
• 5)If he says "Go ahead", then he give me permission, thus it can't be vandelism, but what he's doing is vandelism to my charactor.

Trust me, he knewn about the reason on his talkpage, and he deleted it, and he told me. And I had permission from him to edit his page.Proove of my reason on hi's talkpage

This following is a copy from the user's talkpage history. 

• (cur) (last) 21:49, 8 June 2007 WikiDragon295 (Talk | contribs) (322 bytes)
• (cur) (last) 11:46, 8 June 2007 Nikro (Talk | contribs) (531 bytes) (Won)

§→Nikro 10:55, 9 June 2007(UTC)

Sorry, i usually git carried away when it involves my brother.§→Nikro 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the two reverts of my user page, I appreciate them both! Dismas|^(talk) 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, twice. --barneca (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pkazazes

Yes, I started wondering if I'd done the right thing there or not by reverting, then reinstating the blanking. I had a previous experience where an IP blanked (their allegedly) old userpage and complained when I reverted it, claiming they'd forgotten the old password. It's hard to tell sometimes. I still don't quite know what was going on, but if everybody's happy ... Wombatcat 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what was going on either; could have been Pkazaes, could have been a good faith misunderstanding, could have been vandalism. I went ahead and reverted all of the IP's edits relating to Pkazazes (they were deleting several old comments on other pages too); if that was really him, he can log in and revert me. --barneca (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)