User talk:Rlbarton

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from 23 January. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. 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. Gwernol 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Your efforts to clean up insignificant facts from Wikipedia articles without conflict or fanfare, is noted and appreciated. I know it's a thankless job. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

You removed 4 events from this date stating that they were non-notable. I disagree certainly with two removals, and probably with all four and have therefore reverted your edit. An event that occured to a notable person or entity is reasonably included in my opinion. The removals seem fairly arbitrary, why is the legal recognition of the LCT non notable but the transferal of ashes of Ahn Eak-tainotable? I would prefer if you could explain why you feel the events are non-notable in your edit summary. I realise that these pages do get cluttered with minutae but so what? The page is a list of occurances on that date. Fol de rol troll (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The removal of the attempted assassination of Hussein was a mistake. 2) The creation of a new party in any country does not seem very significant, especially a small country like Senagal (the article is only a few sentences; how many new parties are created every year in the world). 3) The creation of some European commission is not significant and is not in the spirit of Events in Wiki (it is only a few sentences also). It seems to me the appointment of a prime minister of any country does not seem significant to me. Should we enter every appointment by a president, for every county, every few years it occurs? Generally, the consensus for Wiki has not even shown election results for major countries unless something was significant about them, such as Obama being the first black president. 4) I agree that the ashes does not belong.

I just starting reading some of the entries lately and have realized some people just notice something occurred on such a date and therefore make an entry. I try to keep the Events from becoming to trivialized by an over abundance of entries which in the real world are not important at all.

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from November 19. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. 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. Please state your case as to why this event is non-notable on the article's talk page. McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No confidence debate

Can you please explain to me how you come to believe the 1979 vote of no confidence against the government of James Callaghan is insignificant enough that you feel obliged to repeatedly remove it from the list of events occurring on March 28? It is by any standards a highly significant event. It is the only time since the United Kingdom has had universal franchise on an equal basis that a Government has been forced from office by a vote in Parliament. It has its own article (linked above). More than that, its anniversary is in fact celebrated: the 30th anniversary this year was the occasion for a whole night of special programming on BBC Parliament. As you are the only editor that has removed this event I would appreciate an explanation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that no justification has, as yet, appeared, there will come a point when I will restore the no confidence vote on March 28 on the basis that it is no longer contended that it lacks significance. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rlbarton. You have new messages at Talk:November 24.
Message added 00:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from July 21. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. 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. Please explain the reasons behind your removal in the article's talk page -- Angelikfire (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "Not significant world event" is not a sufficient explanation for your removal to my eyes. In the article's talk page I explained why I added it in the first place, and provided quotes from the guidelines to back up my edit. Since you didn't remove the 1980 AC/DC entry in the same page (which might be considered even less significant - to use your words - since Back in Black is the second best selling album of all time, and not a first), I can't help but think your edit stems from bias towards the Harry Potter series, and I'd like you to provide further details behind your removal in the aforementioned talk page. Thank you. -- Angelikfire (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to August 28 may be considered vandalism. As per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, please do not continue to remove information from the page without taking part in the talk page discussion. BS24 (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Your removal of cited text to Pasadena, Texas appeared to be based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. This is insufficient reason for its removal. Content referred to a Pulitzer Prize winning author which is clearly notable. Rm of this sort of material will be seriously regarded in the future. Student7 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

There is a new Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police Misconduct in Pasadena Texas on which you may wish to comment. Student7 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of The forming of the SAFA

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from December 8. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. 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. Please state your case as to why this event is non-notable on the article's talk page.

bobjimwilly (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the observance

Dear Rlbarton, please give a clear explanation before removing a content that you feel incorrect. Kim Jong-Un's bithday is a new 2010 National observance of North Korea, as stated in the wikipedia article and in the reference given. --Rochelimit (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Britton/July 29

Is there some rule I'm unaware of that says that assassinations of abortion providers don't count as deaths? I'm aware of WP:RY, but this is July 29, not 1994; if you're trying to apply the same rule anyway, why remove Britton and not, say, Bibhutibhushan Mukhopadhyay or Vean Gregg or Bill Todman, who also don't fit those criteria? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable event

Re: this edit, I beg to differ. According to the 2007 Guinean general strike article, the strike caused the Guinean president to name a new head of government; it wasn't just a small group of people going on strike, it was a general strike across the entire country. Seems like a big deal to me. howcheng {chat} 00:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdays additions

Rlbarton, with all the respect I would like to contest your decision to undo my additions of the birthdays of several renown violinists and violists. Each of them is a major artist, who left/leave major contribution in the field of music. It is perfectly reasonable that their names appear along other people born on their birthdays who also made contributions in their respective fields. It took me a while to put them all, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would review your decision and not delete my additions so lightly. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.196.236.205 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to register my strong objection to the removal of Adela Verne from 27 February - [1] - without explanation or justification. If it's factually wrong, OK (this wasn't), but you don't get to decide that a particular subject is not notable enough for our date lists. There are no degrees of notability in Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vincelord

I would like to know why you reverted my edits about the people born on December 22, and April 15,. Isn't the purpose of the pages to list notable people born on those dates. Why were my edits removed but other far less notable people kept in.Vincelord (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 11 and April 15

I disagree with these two unexplained removals - a person who has had an important medical condition named after him would certainly appear notable to me. Please provide some reasoning for your edits. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

I would like to know why you removed the establishment of the Royal Australian Navy from the July 10 page without giving any explanation what so ever? Nford24 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2011 (AEST)

Your recent edits

You removed two notable entries from August 27 without explanation. I see your user talk displays several messages bringing this practice to your attention as unhelpful and unconstructive. Please do not continue this type of editing. If an occurance or individual is notable enough to have their own article they are notable enough for these lists. Regards Tiderolls 23:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Discussion?

Are you going to continue to remove notable entries from the calendar lists without explanation? Additionally, using the default undo edit summary is meant for reverting vandalism only. Tiderolls 18:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First, the yeoman's work of cleaning up the date pages is very much appreciated. But it seems that you've been getting some requests for explanation of your removals of entries. At a quick glance, it appears that many of the removals could meet the very bare minimum requirements for inclusion and therefore it's reasonable for passing editors to expect to see a descriptive edit summary explaining the removals. You must respond to good faith queries into your edits or your edits could be considered disruptive. It's not outside the realm of possibility that you could find yourself blocked from editing if you don't engage in discussion with your fellow editors. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 10:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to January 26. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy Halloween!)} 12:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave edit summaries

A quick look at your contributions shows that you rarely leave edit summaries. Please stop reverting edits such as this one without explanation. The edit summary exists for a reason, so please use it, as you have already received several messages from other editors who complain that your editing is becoming disruptive. Thanks. --24.187.233.18 (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]