User talk:Barbatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] References vs. Further reading

A "References" section refers to works actually consulted in the writing of the article. A "further reading" section is simply recommended further reading, often works that probably someone should be taking on in order to improve the article, also sometimes fictional works that might shed light on the subject. So in effect by this edit you are asserting that other editors were lying about what works they consulted in working on the article. I doubt that was your intent. You might want to go back to the article and sort this back out. - Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Isn't "lying" is a bit too strong of a word? I'm not asserting anything, and, actually, I prefer a neutral "bibliography" (under which you can probably list both used and recommended works). But, if something has been cited or referenced, there should be footnote to a specific page, don't you think? Anyhow, I don't really care how you call it. Wanna change it, you're welcome to do it. —Barbatus 00:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Might be too strong a word. I didn't dwell on choosing it. The thing is, the article in question didn't cite inline (which only became common in Wikipedia quite recently), so the references section stands as the only clue to what works were actually used. - Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
And how you know that? Have you consulted every editor, or what? By all means, change it ... to "References and further reading", for example. Yet again, a "Bibliography" (which I'd prefer) has been changed so many times to "Further reading" in articles I started or heavily edited myself, that eventually I gave up. ... Oh, and next time do dwell before accusing somebody of something like that. Take care.—Barbatus 01:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
On vaguely this topic... it's good to see so many works being added - it would be even better if we could add some appropriate inline citations (see WP:FOOTNOTE if you don't know what I'm talking about). That way, people reading the article can find sources for individual facts in it. Thanks! The Land 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Land, I leave referencing to those who actually used certain materials while writing or editing articles (you're not politely suggesting I must do the fact-checking here, I hope).—Barbatus 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, i was hoping you'd added some more of the content ... and you know you always coudl do if you wanted ;-) The Land 19:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I had and I did. Unfortunately, most of the articles on my 'watchlist' are related to history and various historical/political personages, often highly controversial, so I try not to get involved in any 'revert' wars. Bibliography seems to be a relatively quiet field.—Barbatus 20:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander

Did you have some particular objection to my work on the article? Haiduc 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. The change you made looked just like one of the half of a dozen of vandalism attacks I reverted last night. I had to be more careful, sorry. Did you restore it, or do you want me to do it?—Barbatus 10:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
All is well, thanks. Haiduc 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphens etc

Hi Barbatus, You are quite right in your use of en-dashes. My only point was that en-dashes are not much different from hyphens, & I still maintain that a space each side of the en-dash (or hyphen) looks better, is clearer, & easier to read. If you look at numerous other biographies etc the space/en-dash or hyphen/space is frequently used in separating the birth & death dates, for example. But lets call it a draw.  :-) GrahamBould 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Graham, I've been out of touch for a couple of days ... There's no standard (as it used to be in the former USSR, for example), and every publisher can (and does) have its "house style." The Wiki's own Manual of Style, in the dashes section, merely states: "An en dash placed between numbers or in compounds does not have spaces around it: for example Paris–Brussels timetable, Ages 7–77. Some writers, however, prefer to place a space on either side in complex ranges: January 1, 2003 – December 31, 2004." After over 15 years in publishing (last 11 of those years—in the U.S.), I can tell that I've seen all kinds of variations in the usage of dashes, but it would probably be safe to say that the majority of Anglo-American publishers prefer both em- and en-dashes closed (or tight, as they are called in the Wiki MoS). Thank you, Barbatus 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your suggestions and corrections for my map

Thank you very much for your suggestions and corrections for my Image:Ancient Greek_Colonies of N Black Sea.png. I have endeavoured to put them into the second version of the map. Let me know if you see anything else that needs to be addessed. Cheers, MapMaster 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

De nada, and thank you, too.--Barbatus 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea of renaming Family_name article

Hello, Barbatus,

I see that you have edited the Family_name article quite a bit. Could you weigh in on my idea of changing the article name? Thank you. --DBlomgren 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year!

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen
Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Amusin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amusin.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 02:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I am sorry that my correction to Augustus was wrong. However, it does not merit a "vandalism" tag. Please do not think that I am so free as to go around vandalising. Do not generalise and discriminate against IP addresses please. --218.186.9.3 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not do either. But something like that has happened to me once, so I understand. To avoid errors like this in the future, please consider registering (it's free, you don't need to use your real name, and it takes just few seconds to do).--Barbatus 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board

You are invited to join Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Finley.jpg

Hello, I have added a fair use rationale to the above image, which you uploaded. Could you add the source whenever it's possible. Thanks, -- Chris B • talk 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-policed semi-protection

Hi. I was recently reading with interest arguments that had previously made in support of the policy of only allowing logged in users to edit Wikipedia articles. I'm currently venturing an idea that I see as something of a compromise, namely that, subject to the establishment of some rules of thumb, all logged in editors should be allowed semi-protect articles as they see fit. You can read about it here and contribute to the discussion if you like. Thanks. --SallyScot (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Amusin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amusin.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not exacty sure what else is needed there. I have provided the source for the image long time ago.--Barbatus (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)