User talk:Barberio/Archive 3

Exceptional Newcomer

Exceptional Newcomer

Well, you might be too new for a barnstar (your words), but you do deserve some recognition for continuing to stay nice over the Talk:History of the Internet issue, despite the others in that debate getting heated and making personal remarks. Well done, and keep it up! Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank's for the not-a-barnstart :) --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 20:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 21:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

PUP

Not being content with screwing up the History of the Internet (here we go again, I see), you have seen fit to get rid of the entire PUP article (including the long list of references, further reading, etc, none of which were in any other article). I've had it with your trashing of networking articles. Noel (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I fixed a large number of errors you made in a variety of other pages (e.g. Routing Information Protocol, etc) but I don't have the time to check every edit you make and get rid of all the errors you introduce. Noel (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Um... I did not 'get rid of' PUP, the article was merged in to XNS. No information was lost, all the references were coppied over. The RIP article seemed to be be claiming that a protocol created at Xerox PARC for PUP was first used at ARPANET.

I'm not sure what my 'large number of errors in a variety' of other pages actualy are, since you only appear to have 'corrected' the merge, and the RIP article.

Could you tell me where these other errors are so I can correct them?

--John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 09:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't the two of you try mediating your differences? Or in the alternative, just avoid one another until tempers cool? -- Essjay · Talk 08:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Barberio and Noel,

I'm happy to be a mediator at Requests for mediation/Jnc and Barberio. Please give me a day or so to catch up on the situation. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like you both to look at the mediation page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jnc and Barberio. Please note from the onset that I am not here to agree or disagree with any specific fact in the article: this mediation is to enable both of you to list your disagreements in a rational manner and hopefully to try to agree with each other, not me. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Bob Jones University

Aloha. Your edits to Bob Jones University don't make any sense. These patently absurd rules are all "perceived by the Bob Jones University administration" as the rules section makes clear. Perhaps you aren't aware that we are merely stating their rules, but your edit doesn't work in the context of the article. --Viriditas | Talk 22:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've quoted and sourced the rule directly, so there should be no problem, now. Mahalo. --Viriditas | Talk 23:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

More4

Is not free to view, its family pack. Could you please stop adding that it is, I've had to remove it from three different pages. --Kiand 12:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops. You're right. Got the wrong end of the stick somewhere. Sorry. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 13:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. No guarantee it won't suddenly go FTA/FTV for no reason some day mind - remember Men & Motors/ITV2 for those two scenarios... --Kiand 13:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ian Paisley

Barberio, thank you for your comment on my talk page. I thought I was reverting this change, which placed the existing Dr in quotation marks, which is, to my mind, entirely inappropriate - we either have the Dr bit, or we don't - we don't add it and then put it in quotation marks. For some reason your edit did not appear, and I got no edit conflict message. Kind regards, jguk 18:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem - I realised immediately that it was nothing more than a little misunderstanding, jguk 18:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no question of giving Paisley (whom personally I loathe) any special treatment. It does not matter what Debretts says. The guide here is how to cover a complex political leader based on Wikipedia rules. As to the conventions on naming here, I know all about them: I helped write them so I know exactly what the rules are. Apart from anything else I have written hundreds of biographical articles on Wikipedia. Paisley is known in three ways: as Dr. Paisley, as Rev. Ian Paisley and as Rev. Dr. Paisley. Whether that it following Debretts' rules does not matter. That is how he is known and that is what the article has to cover. Not covering it involves making a value judgment on the name and that is POV. He also uses different honorifics depending on whether he has his clerical or political hat on. That has to be covered too. Clearly in not understanding all of this you don't know the full complexity both of WP naming and of Paisley. Your edits are simply POV and if you think my reversions are annoying, it is nothing to what would happen if you made those edits and anyone from Northern Ireland, either unionist or nationalist, got loose on them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Completely wrong in every respect. Please read how biographical articles are written and how in the past Wikipedia has dealt with issues of controversial people with multiple honorifics. Wikipedia has one overriding rule when dealing with other than royalty (they have other complexities that have been teased out in detail here). It is called "most common name". If someone is widely known as something then we use it. Paisley is widely known by two different honorifics. Under the most common name rule we must use them both. It is an elementary rule in biographical writing on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

Hey John,

Sorry if I was a bit sharp with you earlier. (I've been rather sick all day and so have been grouchy!) Paisley is different to most people in so far as he uses two different honorifics, one in each context, and is universally recognised as to which had he has one depending on which one used. There are hundreds of such cases on Wikipedia, where in effect usual honorific rules can't be used. In those cases the most common name is followed. That is why Paisley has to use both Dr and Rev. Use the wrong one in the wrong context and you can mislead people as to which Paisley, the politician or the religious leader, is being talked about. In his early days he blurred those roles. He is ultra-strict now about following a demarcation. As the use of the honorifics acts as a demarcation in his case (as it does in many other cases) we have to understand them and apply them.

For us to decide to overrule them in such cases would involve us making a value judgment and that is POV for we are deciding what he should be called rather than going by what he is called. The MCN rule on Wikipedia exists to allow us to do that. (eg, Isabella of Castile wasn't actually Isabella. That is simply what English speakers call her. Wikipedia rightly goes by Isabella because otherwise people wouldn't recognise her. We can explain in the article the complexity, but we have to use the recognisable name. Similarly Russian emperors strictly weren't tsars for the last two hundred years. But everyone called them that, so we have to use it while explaining the context. Ditto with using Prince Harry of Wales when he was christened Prince Henry of Wales,just as we use Bill Clinton even though he was officially William Jefferson Clinton. I hope that explains the context. I'm not trying to be alkward. It is just that I know unless articles about Northern Ireland are careful with language, when Northern Ireland readers get their hands on them you'll have the mother of edit wars. In Paisley's case we have to be ultra-careful not to provoke either side into taking offence, so the MCN rule has to be applied, not the technical rules of Debretts. The naming conventions and MoS rules were carefully phrased to cover such complexities.

Again, apologies for being so grouchy. Upset stomachs and splitting headaches can do that sometimes.

Slán FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

A tip, John. Never use google searches. I've learnt that from experience before on Wikipedia. The problem with net searches is that they are relying on sources of indeterminate quality, from the accurate to bullshit. For example, some months ago a google search was used to prove that the Prince of Wales's surname is Windsor. Buckingham Palace, staff working with the Lord Chancellor's Office and Clarence House all stated unambiguously that the google 'results' were wrong. Google searches were used on Wikipedia to "prove" wrong details about W.E. Gladstone, wrong biographical information about Diana Spencer, wrong information on Bill Clinton, complete nonsense about Bono, a wrong year of publication for a textbook, the wrong honorific for Prince Albert of Monaco, etc etc etc. Tonight, for example, Paisley was mentioned on programmes on one Irish and one British station. Both referred throughout to Dr. Paisley. One used the Rev. Ian Paisley once and Dr. Paisley the rest of the time. When it comes to relying on factual information on sensitive issues (and few is more sensitive that Northern Ireland, where both communities go out of their way to read offence into things — they are a pain in the butt to cover as a journalist, as I know from experience) google is worthless. From direct experience one needs to be ultra careful in particular when dealing with someone as controversial as Paisley. That is why not using either of his honorifics is not an option. Northern Ireland is so complex unionists will go ballistic if one writes "the North" instead of "Northern Ireland" or the "Six Counties" istead of the "six counties". And nationalists are just as bad with their paranoia over language. With Paisley you need to be ultra sensitive to nuances of language if you are going to avoid accusations of bias. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi John —

I'm very sorry that I haven't been able to be involved in the mediation in the last week or so. I've been pretty much off Wikipedia completely recently, dealing with jobs and moving house and such.

I re-removed the personal attacks on the Talk page, and left a srongly-worded message on Coolcaesar's talk page. I don't know whether the anon contributor was a sock-puppet or not — from his various contributions he seems more like a random fly-by who has been on Wikipedia for a while. Maybe not, but it's best to assume the best for the time being.

I left a message on Noel's talk page asking if he was interested in contining mediation. He had previously left a notice saying that he was sick and hadn't been able to be on Wikipedia much lately. I'll email the two of you, and see if you both think the mediation is worth continuing. I think progress can be made, but realize that at the moment we haven't progressed anywhere yet.

I hope that we can jump-start this discussion back into action,
— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't get anyone back into mediation who doesn't want to be there. I've sent several emails, but the only replies I've heard are along the lines of needing time to sort out his priorities. I agree that this mediation is probably completely stalled.

My only suggestions now would be

a) let you both get back to editing, obviously. Maybe after this cooling down period there will be fewer quick reverts, and more focusing on what is actually being said,

b) perhaps linking the mediation from the HOTI talk page, mainly so you both don't have to find references all over again next time you want to back up your case. Obviously, it should be linked only if you're both up for it.

Beyond that, I can only suggest to keep using citations for everything you put in, preferably within the article itself (see Wikipedia:Footnotes for how to do it)

I'm sorry that I wasn't able to help further with the discussion,

— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 05:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Rt Hon. the Revd Dr Ian Paisley

I don't know where you got the idea that you can't put 'the Revd' (or 'the Rev.') together with 'Dr'. It's common practice down the road from you where I sing in Hertford College Chapel, Oxford. In the chapel card we had 'The Very Reverend Dr Jeffrey John' and 'The Reverend Dr Andrew Davison'. Maybe the 'Dr' should be removed in Dr Paisley's case because it's not a proper doctorate, but not because you can't put it together with 'the Revd'. Some clergy would be offended if you missed their 'Dr' out. DTOx 13:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Having been there myself, I happen to know that the Oxford institutions do like to use specialy extended forms of address not common elsewhere. You will note that the abbreviated honorific form is not used, as we uncovered on the discussion on the talk page, Debrette's Etiquette makes it clear that Rev. takes precedence and is not to be combined with other honorifics. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 17:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Barberio. You say that I am having a POV saying that Ian Paisley or anyone else is entitled to call him "Dr.". This is either true or false. I put in the OFFICIAL reference from the British Government, and you still dispute this, and call it POV, and indeed remove it. If you think that what I have said is POV, then take it up with the British Government, and tell them that what they say is POV too. Wallie 15:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As we discussed on the talk page, what political groups consider appropriate to use for political reasons must not be considered. This would be blatent POV. British Government use of the phrase is made in consideration of the politics of NI, not any legitimacy of that honorific. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 17:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Systematic bias in electrical engineering

Hi Barberio,

I have responded to your claim of systematic bias in the electrical engineering article here. Please read and consider my opinion and, if possible, alter your comment here.

Thanks,

Cedars 10:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Systematic bias in electrical engineering

Hi Barberio,

I have added some questions regarding your claim of systematic bias in the electrical engineering article here. Please answer the questions as it will help me gain some understanding of your viewpoint.

Thanks,

Cedars 10:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)