Welcome!
Hello, Barry Pearson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Aboutmovies (
talk)
10:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
Being new here, I am intrigued about the route leading to your "welcome". Was it creating the account, creating my first page, or what?
Barry Pearson
13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
I have just discovered, and just pointed out on my User page, that I am clearly in the category of
single-purpose accounts. But I find the implied criticism bizarre, for a reason I state there. I have also identified under the "Digital photography" header that I am drawing upon a
sub-website (30 pages within a larger personal website) on the topic of DNG. When I refer to this Wikipedia warns me, which I can understand. I have gone through lots of pages about
primary sources,
secondary sources,
tertiary sources, and
original research, and it appears to be all of those, (plus things to do with conflict of interest, etc). (My own quality level is "verifiable truth"!) One interpretation is that I should not be referring to this sub-website in articles. But others have been doing so here for years, because it is the largest non-Adobe source of information on this topic on the planet! I am applying "
ignore all rules" and "
be bold" for this specific case until I run into trouble. Am I likely to?
Barry Pearson
13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Barry Pearson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
If Malcolm Kendrick is notable why do no reliable secondary references mention him? Can you list 10 reliable references that mention his work? There is literally nothing out there. Are you happy with how his article looks? Do you think that is a good Wikipedia article? An article with one reference? Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 15:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Barry Pearson! As a quick heads up, you need to be cautious about inviting people to help defend an article off-wiki - it can be seen as canvassing. I understand that there's a strong desire to keep the article in some areas, but we need to be careful about how we notify people of the discussion, and that's probably best left to the existing processes on WP. - Bilby ( talk) 00:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Barry Pearson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Aboutmovies (
talk)
10:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
Being new here, I am intrigued about the route leading to your "welcome". Was it creating the account, creating my first page, or what?
Barry Pearson
13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
helpme}}
I have just discovered, and just pointed out on my User page, that I am clearly in the category of
single-purpose accounts. But I find the implied criticism bizarre, for a reason I state there. I have also identified under the "Digital photography" header that I am drawing upon a
sub-website (30 pages within a larger personal website) on the topic of DNG. When I refer to this Wikipedia warns me, which I can understand. I have gone through lots of pages about
primary sources,
secondary sources,
tertiary sources, and
original research, and it appears to be all of those, (plus things to do with conflict of interest, etc). (My own quality level is "verifiable truth"!) One interpretation is that I should not be referring to this sub-website in articles. But others have been doing so here for years, because it is the largest non-Adobe source of information on this topic on the planet! I am applying "
ignore all rules" and "
be bold" for this specific case until I run into trouble. Am I likely to?
Barry Pearson
13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Barry Pearson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
If Malcolm Kendrick is notable why do no reliable secondary references mention him? Can you list 10 reliable references that mention his work? There is literally nothing out there. Are you happy with how his article looks? Do you think that is a good Wikipedia article? An article with one reference? Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 15:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Barry Pearson! As a quick heads up, you need to be cautious about inviting people to help defend an article off-wiki - it can be seen as canvassing. I understand that there's a strong desire to keep the article in some areas, but we need to be careful about how we notify people of the discussion, and that's probably best left to the existing processes on WP. - Bilby ( talk) 00:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)