Barry Pearson

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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)Reply

{{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)Reply

You would have to ask User:Aboutmovies directly, to get a specific answer. However, chances are he saw one of your edits, and upon looking at your contribs realised you were a recent newcomer, so decided to welcome you. Some users also scan the User Creation Log, however given that the welcome came some days after you created the account, this is probably not where (s)he encountered you. ∙ AJCham^(talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

{{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)Reply

Linking to your own personal website as a source will be seen by some as link-spamming. Unless you can persuade people that the website constitutes a reliable source, however I am doubtful this will be possible as the website appears to be promoting DNG, not just reporting on it. That other's may have used this as a source in the past does not mean they should - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. For more information you can:

• Leave a message on my talk page; or
• Use another {{helpme}} here; or
• Talk to us live, with this or this.

∙ AJCham^(talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply