User talk:Barbara Shack
Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
What help specifically do you need over eggs?Barbara Shack 16:31, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 17:16, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Jeez, is Uther still flogging those same "suggestions" to every new user? They all go off and edit Lord of the Rings things anyway :) Cool, it's nice to see you've created the account, and you've probably noticed that Derek and I have added some more stuff into it (but still lots to do). Derek moved it to Fettes College, but you'll notice that Fettes still works (it's a redirect now). We _really_ need a photo (it's quite an attractive building, if memory serves). -- Finlay McWalter 18:23, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Yep agreed. We're always glad to have new participants, particularly women who are badly under-represented on the Wikipedia. Please don't take it personally when unexpected things happen to your text. We mean well but we all have to work together and sometimes toes get trodden on accidentally. So it does help to be tolerant (thick-skinned even). Anyway, I hope that you have as much fun on this site as I have. -- Derek Ross 18:36, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi - an article needs to be more than an external link. Articles that consist of just an external link will probably get deleted. Secretlondon 19:44, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for working on documenting some of the shameful history of involuntary medical experimentation -- but please note that we need original material, not re-works of existing articles on the Web that may risk being regarded as copyright-infringing derivative works. Otherwise we risk having our article challenged for copyright violation. You cannot in general rely on "mere paraphrase" to get round this, although you can still rely on copyrighted articles for facts, and write a new text in your own words: but it is best to use several sources when writing an article.
Please note that this problem does not arise when public domain works are adapted, which is why we can use the words of the Nuremberg prosecutor in the Nazi article: as an employee of the U.S. federal goverment acting as such, his words were automatically in the public domain. Please see Wikipedia:copyright policy for more on this. -- The Anome 16:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me. Please check my article on the Labour Party's Clause IV. I am not sure about copyright.
On the Japanese experiments, try contacting the original website. They may want their material to reach a wider audience and may be willing to let you use their copyright.
Why has my article on North Korean human experimentation been voted for deletion? Don't the (expletive deleted) Communists of North Korea like it?
Barbara, you can sign your Talk messages with name and date by simply typing ~~~~ (four tildas). Mikkalai 19:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Your many pages attempt
Barbara, you seem like a nice person but avoiding the Votes for Deleteion by creating multiple pages with the same or similar content to avoid deletion will get you in trouble. Please stop to avoid getting banned for vandalism. (I am not a sysop, just trying to help you out.) Thanks - Texture 17:15, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Can't you lot see a great deal of what I do here is useful?
Absolutely Fred Bauder 13:31, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
Tony Blair articles
Hi there! Looks like you're doing some useful stuff. I've come across a number of small articles about Tony Blair by you, such as Tony Blair's Early Years. It is more within the style of Wikipedia to include this information in the main article, which in this case would be Tony Blair. May I respectfully suggest that you merge your information into that article, and we can delete the small ones? moink 20:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I didn't write the small articles on Tony Blair. I split them off from the main article. The section about his early life was right at the top of the article. I thought readers would prefer to read about his politics first. Rearranging things with those sections later in the article also works.
Psychology
Hi Barbara, there is an explanation of the removal of some of your text at the bottom of the talk:psychology page. The paragraph was not NPOV and was completely unsourced. The statements seem highly over-generalised and biased. The Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial might help. Basically, you need to say who has made these claims rather than making it sound like they are necessarily true. Hope that helps. Let me know if you need further clarification. I'd be glad to discuss it at talk:psychology. Angela. 23:12, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
Church sex abuse scandal
Hi Barbara, I have a question about the two sentences you've added to the opening paragraph in the article about Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal:
It is believed that the Roman Catholic Church used the fear of Hell among the faithful to discourage them from criticizing what Priests were doing. Priests give Absolution which Roman Catholics believe can save them from the consequences of Mortal sin.
It seems extremely biased to me.
- "It is believed..." - namely, who does believe that and why?
- "Priests give absolution, etc..." - what does it have to do with the topic?
All this may suggest that Catholic doctrine justifies sexual abuse by priests or that it grants impunity to priests. That's why I've added this sentence:
This, however, does not mean that the Roman Catholic doctrine in any way justifies sexual abuse of children by anybody, let alone by priests
But personally, I believe it would be much better if all three sentences - yours and mine - were deleted from the article.
Kpalion 20:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As per editing on Roman Catholic Church, please mark all minor edits, such as a spelling change or a single wilipedia article link, as minor. Falcon 19:36, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)