Archive 1 | Archive 2

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Australiangreenslogo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tasmanian Barnstar of Merit
	For your help with Tasmanian Politicians please come and help revive the Tasmanian Wikiproject
	this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~

SatuSuro 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of people from Hobart, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people from Hobart. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? seresin ( ¡? ) 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed a template space redirect you created, {{by whom?}}, redirects to {{fact}}. Since no articles are currently using {{by whom?}}, I'd like to propose redirecting to the anti-weasel template {{who}} instead. {{by who?}} redirects to {{who}}, for comparison, but {{by who?}} bugs me because it's grammatically incorrect. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, agreed - I have made the change. Barrylb (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barryl,

Referring to the Extension:Calendar_(Barrylb), it seems pretty nice, however I am experiencing some difficulties I add the script to a page that contains all of the event dates and when you click on that date or look at the list of Upcoming events, the name of the page appears with the date tag from that particular page.

In the Extension directory, there we have:

• Calendar.php
• SpecialEvents.php

The Calendar.php has 3 simple edited outputs. What I do not understand is, why are the updated version of Calendar.php doesn't show it's new values, however, when you click on MORE or on the Calendar day, it brings you to a page with the proper settings? (Special:Events page) Special:Events?year=2008&month=10&day=09

Please reply to me at evilinhell2 (to) hotmail (point) com

---

Script updates for the Calendar, would be great if it could use a Tag and Bookmark Anchor to display the events. Currently, it uses only the name of the page. Could this update be created?

Example, if the name of the page is WCGI_Tools that contains many dates, this is the result:

• • >> WCGI_Tools
    • 2008/10/02
  • >> WCGI_Tools
    • 2008/12/12
  • >> WCGI_Tools
    • 2009/02/28

Desired results:

• • >> WCGI - Conference
    • 2008/10/02
  • >> WCGI - Monthly Lunch
    • 2008/12/12
  • >> Company Budget deadline
    • 2009/02/28

Thank you, all your work is greatly appreciated.

Ybourret (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi! Got similar question to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:Calendar_(Barrylb)#Categories_for_Events_lasting_2.2B_days - is it somehow possible?

With Best Wishes Surra (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I've noted your image contributions, you should probably consider uploading them to commons when they have a free liscence instead of here. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Weet-Bix-Logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is very neat. However, I'd like to see a non-hackish way to add it to the sidebar, perhaps Sidebar support. --TIB (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TIB and thanks. I would like the same too... but as far as I can tell the sidebar has it's own special syntax that only allows headings and links. Hence the only way to add it is by editing the Monobook.php skin file. Barrylb (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you've deleted some Romanian text at the talk of Wikitext! [1] Why? Do you understand Romanian? If not, is it a en.wikipedia.org policy to delete everything what's not in EN? I'm just curious.

Thank you in advance for answering this question!

Take care,

Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since this is the English Wikipedia I don't think it makes sense to have discussions in Romanian language... We certainly do not allow articles in foreign languages and I think the same rule makes sense for talk pages... Barrylb (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, how do you do?

I removed previous text, as it's irrelevant (I hope so and you thought so...) /*you're FAST!, therefore I leave it (but I would have done like you even when I've seen that you've deleted wikitext*/

Sorry, I've just noticed that you removed Wikitext from Template:Wikipedia and Template:Wiki software. These templates are very well protected: i.e. if needed they both would be semi-protected & totally-protected; wiki-warring on it won't be useful to anybody, as it just kills useful server time. Please give a valid reason, why you deleted [[wikitext]]. I have put all my arguments for the moment in the Talk page/Discussion of Wikitext. These arguments maybe don't touch upon Wikipedia/Wiki software directly, but I said, that Wikitext is THE markup language of Wikipedia. My argument paraphrased, shortened and losing many points would look now like this: "If one doesn't have a nice page of [[wikitext]], ppl won't learn it as effectively, efficiently & fast as it would be with the article. Maybe some XML/HTML professionals will join to edit Wikipedia, maybe some will learn Wikitext in the hard way (without having a nice page about Wikitext & its significance to Wikipedia) and then contribute to Wikipedia. But I say that all the common folk will just read Wikipedia articles and won't contribute! And I want every single one, having read wikipedia at least once, to have contributed to Wiki (any, anywhere, but preferrably, Wikipedia) also at least once." My main point: "without this webpage, there won't be any huger visibility of Wikitext in the near future. But by having the link to this webpage, [[wikitext]]/wikitext, on the main templates it could bring some attention early enough & maybe Wikitext will be saved from another year being unknown."

It's not only my opinion, but also the expression of some of Wiki users, who learn, I will repeat, the whole structure, syntax & other language features from not the Wikipedia page on Wikitext, not even from some high quality book published under GNU free license, but thru multitude of browsing & searching sessions, as everything is growing so FAST, that the documentation of Wikitext is stagnating, is lost in progress (smth like lost in translation). But HTML and XML are multitude of lightyears away from Wikitext and this doesn't help Wikitext at all!

Please, read my arguments. And then reply to the question 'why did you delete/backroll?', because I say that these two reasons for me are not good enough for deletion:

1. for {{Wiki software}} you wrote:
2. "(Undoing - Wikitext is not a type of Wiki software)"
3. and for {{Wikipedia}} you wrote:
4. "(Wikitext isn't really about Wikipedia per se)"

Please, explain in at least 10% of amount of text as I wrote in Talk:Wikitext#I think one of the most important thing in Wikipedia is its MARKUP LANGUAGE (Wikitext/Wiki markup).

I don't ask you to put in some fancy graphics, but if you wish, I'll appreciate, as I love pics more than text.

Thank you in advance for your full and timely reply.

Good luck. Hope to see you next week. Enjoy the weekend (hopefully not wiki-warying) :D

Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - you sure like to write a lot! I want to make sure you realise that the Wikitext article is an encyclopedia article about Wikitext. It is not part of the Wikipedia or MediaWiki documentation. There is a link on every edit page called "Editing help" that has good instructions on editing and the particular wikitext used on Wikipedia. There is also a "Help" link on the left side of every page. Have a look at both and if you still think there is a problem I suggest you post a message on Wikipedia:Village pump to discuss it with a few more people.

As for the rollbacks, I think the reasons I gave in the edit summary explained my reasons if you understand that these are encyclopedia articles, not documentation.

Regards, Barrylb (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hero (not) Gray the Robin refs does not look right even now - worse than op cit - isnt there a better way of doing it? - to repeat the title and isbn etc 3 times is not MOS as far as I know - cheers SatuSuro 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost sure it is using <refname> and a formatted ref SatuSuro 03:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I agree and I think using a short reference may be the way to do it... per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations. Barrylb (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a nuisance about it - my hero (not in any way) does not deserve overlinked refs - the best eg i could find that i have recently looked at is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_River_(Western_Australia) I gotta get off now - but will keep educating myself how to do it - trust the hobart weather is better than perth (WA) is at the mo - cheers and catch up some other time SatuSuro 03:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITESHORT bingo! im off cheers SatuSuro 03:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Coal River Valley. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MrShamrock (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I gave an explanation in the edit summary and there not much chance that you will find any more articles to create links from. Please don't use this patronizing warning. I have been editing on Wikipedia for years. --- Barrylb (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Coal River Valley, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. if you can't find any, then leave the tag on, until other articles are created that do link to this one. MrShamrock (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you remove external link from Open access network ? Why thear are links to other open access network ? What are the terms to post link here? Os74 —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I gave the reason in the edit summary... the website is not in English language. Barrylb (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reverted the deletion of the image. I wasn't sure about this, so had already raised it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RFCbio/manual. Not sure if there will be any feedback, but keep watching. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was a bit unsure too.. I figured we'll decide what to do if he comes back. Barrylb (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Please use another image. Thanks. -the person in the picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.26.189.185 (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Victorian_bushfires. Merbabu still insists that we should not use flag icons on this page. Others consider otherwise. Please observe the discussion and provide your views, which now has gone to a RFC. Kransky (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tavix |  Talk  15:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no disambiguation guidelines that recommend removing links to ambiguous articles from disambiguation pages. The examples of set index articles in the guidelines do not indicate that they must not overlap with disambiguations. You appear to be the only editor reverting the additions on Black Saturday, with several editors attempting to make the additions. Please work with consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear evidence that other editors know what they are doing... If we go down this path, it must be consistent. That means changing Signal Mountain article since it is the one mentioned on the guidelines; also all the other Black xxx days articles and any other articles like it. Barrylb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But that other things also need to be fixed is no reason not to fix things. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barry

I guess by deleting my entries over the last three days you really wanted me to contact you. Well here I am!

The reason for the entry regarding the SheffieldTasmaia.com.au website is to allow the visitor see that there is more to the Sheffield area than paintings on the sides of buildings. Yes! the murals are a tourist attraction, but so are many other things.

When a visitor logs onto the Wikipedia page relating to Sheffield Tasmania, they see information that is outdated. Some of the entries are well over twelve months old. At least the website details are current and no more that one day old.

I ask you to please leave off your zealous editing and allow visitors to access current information about our town.

At your own leisure, could I suggest you read the relavent information regarding editing.

Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions. Each has brought something different to the table: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess, tidbits of information, or, most importantly, a willingness to help. Even the best article should not be considered complete; each new editor offers new insights about how to further enhance our content.

Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (eg User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page.

Main article: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes Policies and guidelines are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject. In general, more caution should be exercised in editing policies and guidelines than in editing articles. Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general, as should proposals for new policy pages (see also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals). [under discussion]

(Trallie (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Barrylb. Yes, I can undelete the images (at least here on Wikipedia, not on commons) but they were deleted on commons for breach of copyright so I am not sure that I should. I disagreed with the deletion but it seems consensus is against me. You may wish to raise the issue at deletion review if you wish.

If I had known that commons administrators would delete them, I never would have transwikied them in the first place. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some photos of my own from last year but can I assume that I can't release them as public domain? I have a photo of the mural 'park' too that I could upload but it doesn't look like much from a wide perspective. Barrylb (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barrylb, I've just noticed your page states you do photo upload requests and i was wondering next time you're down Hobart Airport way if you could get a particular photo for the article???? If you take a look at the Melbourne Airport page in the nfobox, you'll see a photo of a jet taking off with the tower in the foreground.....while a shot like this would be difficult for Hobart, I was wondering what the chances of a shot of a plane taking off or on landing approach, with some aspect of the airport in the background/foreground???? Cheers Wiki ian 01:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an interesting challenge. I'll see what I can come up with ! Barrylb (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove cleanup tags without addressing the issues in question. The introduction to the article completely omits coverage of the subject's features (which is the bulk of the article content) and the whole article is written in a promotional tone. I'll be re-tagging this; the article needs a lot of work, especially considering that the Linux Gazette article is the single solitary reliable secondary source currently included in it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not simply remove the tags "without addressing the issues". I removed them because I disagreed with the need for them. Sure the article can be improved, which you can do, but I don't see such major problems that we need to slap a massive notice at the top. Barrylb (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the concept of cleanup tags, please feel free to argue against them at WP:TC. If you simply dislike the look of them, it is trivial to modify your monobook.css to hide them completely. These tags add articles to appropriate cleanup categories, which helps to draw attention to them: for low-quality articles which obviously need a lot of attention, they're a very good way of improving articles quickly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I disagreed with the need for them on this particular page. Barrylb (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would suggest that you re-examine WP:LEDE, which explains that the lede should cover all of an article's key points and not just provide a brief line of context. For the tone issue, I don't see how else to explain that the current article would not be out of place in a magazine advert or fan site. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.

Your recent edit to the page Climate Sceptics Party involved putting the 'notability' template on the top of the page, and you stating essentially that anyone can claim to be an unregistered political party. I concur with the user who states a few sub-headings up: "consider discussing them first".

I can provide you with a couple of links to reputable Australian news services that have reported on this party.

Before that, try Googling 'Climate Sceptics Party' and find some news articles there. This may help to find the secondary sources that you're after.

Thanks Flipper24 (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barrylb! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mike Goldman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is deletable about robin buying shares? SatuSuro 07:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing! :) Barrylb (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks gay will get booted and rrobin might get the next chair - i put the abc item back but left it without comment - ahh to be back in a queenie pub to hear what the locals think about the current lot of hobart suits  :| 08:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Barrylb, I noticed you have removed the Legislative Council table from the Tasmanian state election, 2010 and also in your edit comment commented on the relevance of the other Legislative Assembly table. I had a look through, and it is almost impossible to make an electoral pendulum for the article as the assembly's seats are multi member. The best I could find that sort of represents a pendulum is the one that you left. The legislative Council table is okay to go, I just wanted you to know that it is there to represent a pendulum. Thank you Wikistar (Place order here) 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop unlinking her? She's the Deputy Lord Mayor of Hobart, and thus easily notable outside of her election candidacy. Rebecca (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CrimsonBlue (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 05:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the trilateration article it is certainly meaningful to state "as used in this article" since it alerts readers to the fact that there is different usage in some other articles. The definition you put up is vague, ambiguous, and confusing. Read the talk page. RHB100 (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "as used in this article" simply means the definition given is not sufficient. Fix the definition and we won't have any problem. Barrylb (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that "as used in this article" means the definition given is not sufficient is a lie an outright lie and nothing but a lie. I can't believe anyone with good sense would make such a statement. Are you really so stupid you actually believe this? Practically all words in the definition have multiple definitions. The Wikipedia does not have to use every vague and ambiguous definition scattered over the Internet. Neither you or any character who has little enough sense to believe the statement you made above is going to tell me what I can write. RHB100 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I will not be continuing this conversation any further due to your uncivil behaviour. Barrylb (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have recently uploaded a number of images tagged as a "poster". Could you please edit the image description pages to include the source of the image? We need to be able to verify the claim of fair use, otherwise the images might be deleted. Thanks. -- Barrylb (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, can you please check em out?--Adry JM (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining. I'm just interested. Why did you revert this edit? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to this website were added to several pages in a manner that looked like spam. There is a conflict of interest because the username of the editor indicates the operator of the website is adding links to his own site. Barrylb (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. How unfortunate. This particular page actually looks useful.

I understand and support your rationale, but how would you feel about restoring this particular link?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barry, I'm looking at the source link provided but it does not show the image being used. What page was the image pulled from, and does that page have the same creative commons licensing? Also what about RS? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For both people there is an "Attachment" section underneath the photo you see where they have a downloadable file. That file seems to be part of the rest of the site and under the CC license. cheers -- Barrylb (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks. Common sense would say that when there's a hyperlink to an image underneath an image, it's of that image... Timeshift (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see we are at a bit of a disagreement about Movie World's logo. According to WP:NFCI, "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.". It also states corporate logos may be used for identification in accordance with WP:LOGO. Now according to this article "company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on commercial companies" as long as it contains the an WP:ICT, {{Logo fur}} and is in accordance with WP:NFCC:

1. No free equivalent.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.
3. Minimal usage and extent of use.
4. Previous publication.
5. Content.
6. Media-specific policy.
7. One-article minimum.
8. Contextual significance.
9. Restrictions on location.
10. Image description page.

Now the only item that is disputed is the first. Yes, you have got a photo of the sign out the front of Movie World's carpark, but I believe it is not "acceptable quality" as it is partially covered by a tree and on an angle. You don't see the McDonald's article replacing their logo with a free photo taken of one of their signs. The same is with Six Flags, The Walt Disney Company etc. Feel free to reply on this page, as it will be added to my watchlist. Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  01:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Reverting Changes to the Australian Greens article.

Greens are a admitted leftist party, is Bob Brown Paying you to stimmie the truth from the australian public or something.

Greens party is not an ideology , get it right dummy

Communism , Socialism , Conservatism , Capitalism , Libertism , are ideologys , Green Party <<<< is not an ideology its a color, that is why i amended article to correct the position of where the greens party is on the political spectrum in relation to ideology

IN THE WORDS of DERRYN HINCH SHAME SHAME SHAME :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.203.186 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

There is no such thing as an "in house style" for Wikipedia, nor is there a list of "authorised" styles. Any citation style is an acceptable one, the one in Planking (fad) is consistent and supplies all citation data. Your edit warring without policy support is disruptive to the encyclopaedic process. Desist and revert. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not follow the style used in the WP:REF? How about following the recommendations at WP:REF#Links_and_ID_numbers where is says "If you have a URL (webpage) link, you can add it to the title part of the citation, so that when you add the citation to Wikipedia the URL becomes hidden and the title becomes clickable". Show me where your style is recommended. Barrylb (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEVAR is pretty damn clear "Citations within each Wikipedia article should follow a consistent style. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it." The style in the article was consistent before your edits, now it varies between Author (Date) Title Publication information and Author Title Publication information date. I suggest you revert your edits. To make it pretty clear:

• Existing article style: [Staff] (13 May 2011) "Planking the latest net craze" The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW) p. 9.
• Your modifications to selected references: Georgia Waters, "Layabouts plank their way across town in latest net craze", Sydney Morning Herald, 12 May 2011 Fifelfoo (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They refer to a set of citation styles. The ones they refer to are the ones that shouldn't be changed between. You can just choose any citation style you want and expect everyone to follow. There has to be some consistency across the site. The most notable feature of your citation style is the "available online" links. They stand out like a sore thumb. It makes it looks like there is some big deal that an articles is "available online" which these days is not such a big deal. It also makes the page more cluttered. The policy recommends embedding links in the title instead for good reason. Barrylb (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can choose any style and expect others to follow. See FAC, or the variety of FA styles. "Any consistent style". The article had an internally consistent style set prior to your mucking with it. Also, if you're going to stuff up the consistent style I presented, then finish the job. The article still contains Author (Date) Title Location Publisher Location-In-Text notes, and your Author Title Date notes. You've left the article's citation style consistency half broken. Good job. As far as Available online, see Turabian. I strongly suggest you self-revert to the previously internally consistent style. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You have been mentioned at WP:AN/I. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not reduce the quality of citations to bare weblinks as you did while merging Planking (Fad) and Lying down game. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me what to do. I have my reasons. WP:AGF. Barrylb (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons can be anything you please; but, the fact of the matter is, in contradiction of policy you merged the articles while reducing fully cited works to bare weblinks. I made no assumption of your faith or reason, but merely noted your actions to you. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated policy by including unreliable references. Barrylb (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Is_Know_Your_Meme_a_reliable_source_on_viral_videos.3F. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barrylb, Just thought I would let you know why I reverted your edit on Planking DAB. Redirects are explicitly allowed for alternative article titles, as per WP:MOSDAB. Widefox (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I didn't know that until now. Barrylb (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Barrylb! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I am doing a class assignment and I chose to modify the article Shyness. I saw that you were one of the contributors to this article and a user advised me to write main contributors about the changes I want to make. The changes I would like to make are: 1) I want to delete the part about mercury poisoning because I feel it has nothing to do with the article 2) I want to add some studies of shyness/inhibition in relation to other cultures and talk about inhibition related to said cultures and 3) I want to add a new section explaining how inhibition relates to shyness. This is my first time editing and would appreciate any feedback. Thank you Csing (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2010, around the time of that year's election, you produced all those wonderful maps of each federal electoral division. Since then, redistributions have taken place in Victoria and South Australia. I was wondering if you were happy for me to update all the maps with the 2013 boundaries, or if you have the system set up and the new data from the AEC, if you would prefer to do it yourself. If you're happy for me to do them, I was just wondering what GIS setup/software you used—I'd like to match your maps as much as possible, and any advice on your process would be most helpful. --Canley (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Alexandra-Battery-Panorama.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Alexandra-Battery.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Cassy OConnor.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You're very dedicated and informative. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 18:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:ChristineMilne 2007 crop.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Weet-Bix-Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]