Talk:Sydney Selwyn

Untitled

Hi,

As the originating author of this recently created article ("Professor Sydney Selwyn") I greatly welcome the time and help User:Plastikspork has given, especially in improving some of the layout and sorting out the format of internal references.

I particularly like the newly added reference list and can see the revised treatment for the uploaded 2-page letter from Barts is now much neater and less obtrusive than before – so thanks for that and I’ve learned something from seeing how it was done!

Plastikspork has added three tags to highlight the following concerns;

{{coi}} {{wikify}} {{refimprove}}

Responding to each these in turn;

(1) I’m the “major contributor” so far, though do very much hope that now I’ve started this article other people will correct it if required as well as be inspired to augment and enhance it significantly. A lot of people (in a great many countries around the world) knew Professor Selwyn. Many of these people are likely to have interesting and relevant contributions to make to this article. I’ve already emailed several of them to alert them about the existence of this new article in the hope they’d start contributing and I believe eventually one or two of them will, however so far whilst I’ve had a number of very positive emails back thanking me for writing the article the main theme seems to have been to simply thank me for writting it saying “it’s about time someone document The Professor’s life” etc.

I do not believe there is any Conflict of Interest with the subject (COI) caused by my writing this article. Following Plastikspork’s tagging of the article I carefully re-read the Wikipedia:CONFLICT page, as well as following links to Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:NOT and Wikipedia:N.

I hope my contribution meets the standard “neutral point of view” required for contributions to Wikipedia, and is certainly not merely personal opinion, though I’d welcome feedback on this. I believe the article largely (if not exclusively) comprises factual and well supported information (see also response below to point 3).

I don’t think the “Notability” of Prof Sydney Selwyn can be questioned? Presumably the contents of the article already copiously self-justifies its’ case for inclusion?

This is not “original research” there are for example one or two published obituaries (included and cited) as well as several “Who’s Who” style-entries (e.g. Who’s Who in the World 1991, Debrett's Distinguished People of Today -1990, Debrett's People of Today -1991, Men of Science etc. I have paper copies however I’m unsure about licensing for them so have not as yet scanned and uploaded them and cannot currently find the relevant text online).

In terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability I think I have included more than enough references and links to independent, established and authoritative sources if information for any reader to satisfy her or himself.

There is no question of me benefitting financially either directly or indirectly from this Wikipedia article.

Taking all of the above into account

I hope that the concern of potential COI has been addressed and that the tag can now be removed?

(2) “The article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards”. Plastikspork has already made a number of important improvements to the format and referencing of the article. Any further improvements that further enhance the readability, style or format can only be welcomed!

A request for contributors to help wikify the article is a good idea; Let's hope it encourages participation.

(3) “This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references”. Obviously any additional citations, verifications and reliable references would be welcome (as with any Wikipedia article, no matter how well established), however:

I believe that the article is already well supported and easily verifiable and so I request removal of the refimprove tag.

Many thanks and I’d welcome any further comments, feedback and of course positive contributions to the article itself that add interest and knowledge to the subject.

Barryz1 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Date (1552) that Leeds Grammar School was founded

Moved from User talk:Plastikspork

... Unsigned 195.194.143.91 removed the founding date of Leeds Grammar School from the Sydney Selwyn article (revision 285634065) citing it as 'totally irrelevant' (which I felt a rather strongly worded and ill-considered comment) as the reason. I undid that edit and was then most disappointed to see you immediately undo my reinstatement.

I don’t want to get into some silly “editing war” but I really feel there is plenty of space within Wikipedia to store the text necessary to include “(founded in 1552)” in the article and indeed all this removal and reinstatement and subsequent comment and discussion about it is just plain time consuming and counter-productive.

I am firmly of the opinion that the founding date of 1552 is both remarkable and interesting in itself and of great significance in evaluating the life and work of the subject of the article (Sydney Selwyn).

He was born and brought up the son of a butcher yet managed to obtain a scholarship to go to one of the oldest and most prestigious grammar schools in the country (admittedly located in his home town but nonetheless an extraordinary achievement given the educational system and socio-dynamics of Britain at that time). It is factual information and a key to understanding him that he was born with a natural academic talent which was unprecedented in his family and had nothing to do with his upbringing or environment. Until quite recently Britain was a fairly class-conscious nation (and still is to an extent) and at the time Sydney first attended Leeds Grammar he would have been one of the very few working class boys to do so.

I'm willing to bet a substantial sum of money (providing you are equally willing to risk matching it in backing your own seemingly opposing view) on the combined facts that;

(1) a properly conducted experiment would reveal only a tiny percentage of readers of Wikipedia around the world already know that Leeds Grammar school is more than 450 years old and is especially prestigious (perhaps you personally already knew before reading it in the article but if so then I think you'd be very much in the minority and probably have some connection with the place)

and,

(2) that most readers very rarely (if ever) follow minor links in articles unless already relevant or of interest to them.

As an encyclopaedia Wikipedia should both inform people and help broaden their knowledge. By removing this interesting nugget of information (the founding date of Sydney’s school) I believe we are instead narrowing and pigeon-holing it.

I think including the founding date in brackets achieves a great deal: It informs people about the type of education Sydney managed to obtain (he didn't just go to "any old school" but a genuinely old and venerable one) and it draws attention to an interesting fact in itself (which I believe will encourage some people to click the link to find out more about Leeds Grammar simply because they would be surprised to see how old it is - without the date their attention would probably not be drawn and so they would never find out).

If you can convince me with genuine arguments as to why it would be a problem, or contrary to Wikipedia policy, not to omit (or suppress) this important item of factual information then I’ll allow the article to be downgraded by its omission. Alternatively I’ll reinstate it in around 24 – 48 hrs and expect it to be left alone thereafter.

Kind Regards Barryz1 (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, that we do not assume the reader has a particular knowledge base, which is why we include interwiki links and footnotes. Checking the list of pages which link to Leeds Grammar School, it appears that the precedent is to simply link the name of the school, without this parenthetical information. If you disagree we can always request a Wikipedia:Third_opinion. As a general note, I do not consider this a "downgrade" as I believe it is improving the formating of the article. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply - in general I'd agree with you (and I know from browsing through some of your contributions that you're very experienced, plus I haven't forgotten that you have helped me in the past). I believe, however, that this is a special case as Leeds Grammar School is a surprisingly old and prestigious establishment - something very few people would know in advance (or take the trouble to follow the link to find out) unless some subtle point is made to draw attention to the fact.

I don't think it remotely clumsy or inappropriate to mention in brackets that the school was founded in 1552 - only two words (if a date is considered a word) and a very remarkable and noteworthy fact. (Apparently the school may even date back as far as 1341, ranking its establishment with Oxford and Cambridge, but records show it was officially setup with a bequest from Reverend William Sheafield in 1552).

Mentioning the founding date adds colour and interest to the article and subtly draws attention to the fact that Sydney Selwyn was fortunate in attending no ordinary school. I still think removal of this small insight causes the article to lose something and so slightly downgrades it.

I fail to see how stripping out small amounts of factual information (that had been simply and clearly added in the right places without interrupting the flow of the article) could in anyway be deemed “improving the formating” (which incidentally you spelt wrong – it should have a double “tt”). I have a library full of books – the finest of which are elegantly filled with such fascinating snippets of information.

It's well worth keeping the date in the article and it should be added back right away. It had been there for months and you yourself have edited and improved the article several times without commenting on the inclusion of the founding date. You only removed it after unsigned user 195.194.143.91 first deleted it (making a rather unsupportable POV comment in the process) and I reinstated it.

If you still don’t agree then please do request Wikipedia:Third_opinion as you suggested. It will be interesting to see how well the process works and what sort of outcome we obtain. - - - Kind Regards Barryz1 (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion - (inclusion of founding date)

This is my first shot at providing a third opinion, but since I know nothing about the topic or the players, I feel I qualify. I sympathize with the logic on both sides of this argument. A parenthetical isolated factoid within a fragment of sentence, with no apparent reason, is something I might remove myself. On the other hand, showing that this guy was working class and nonetheless got accepted into an old and prestigious school makes some sense, too. Here's what I suggest: rewrite the fragment to make it a sentence, get rid of the parenthetical, and say what needs to be said about the schoold and the guy, basing it on sources. If there's no source that mentions the founding date of the school in the same neighborhood as the name of the guy, we probably shouldn't be doing that here, either, but if there is, then we probably should. So work on it... Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dicklyon that makes sense, although I was appalled by your "parenthetical isolated factoid" sentence! For your information the judicious insinuation of isolated factoids inter alia scholastic institutional founding dates, whether parenthetical or embedded ipso facto within the integrated fabric of the word-fragment, has been acknowledged with plaudits as the recognised norm since before the cult of free online encyclopaedias and will no doubt continue to do so both within and without that cult ad infinitum.

Joking aside I’m quite sure that if I had the time I could produce a list of of links to literally tens of thousands of additional facts and figures quoted in brackets (or where appropriate as footnotes) throughout Wikipedia, and of course that list would rapidly expand to hundreds of thousands if not millions (again, time permitting) if extended to include well respected books in print.

The founding date of Leeds Grammar School is established and documented beyond doubt. It is including in the detailed Wikipedia article itself, but please don’t then say “ah well in that case it’s duplication and should only be mentioned in that one place” (sometime that argument is valid but there are a great many occasions when it is not and taken to its absurd limits it would tie everyone up in knots and often prevent any coherence or logic in a short article). It is perfectly right and proper to include the date as you have suggested in the flow of the Sydney Selwyn article, although I still think it was much neater (and better stylistically) when it simply said “Leeds Grammar School (founded in 1552)” as I originally wrote.

Thanks again for your independent 3rd opinion – much appreciated and I'll do as you suggested. - - - Kind Regards Barryz1 (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

From your comments here and your edits, I get the distinct impression that you didn't read beyond my "parenthetical isolated factoid" comment. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for NPOV check

I have nominated the article for NPOV check as I feel I have been unsuccessful in convincing the primary author alone. I feel as though this article should be rewritten in a more factual manner with fewer unsourced POV statements. I believe the crux of the issue is the fact that this article should be written as if it were in an encyclopaedia, and not as a memorial. I would encourage the primary author (and family members) to write a proper memorial and have it published, perhaps in a newspaper, or in one of the medical journals, if it has not be written already. This article could then reference that article, but in a more encyclopaedic manner. A list of some the passages which I feel need to be rewritten:

1. It was all the more remarkable ... (pov)
2. ... he became one of the youngest-ever Visiting Professors ... (unsourced)
3. ... to greatly improve ... (greatly is not necessary)
4. Anthony Nolan's mother went on to found the charitable Anthony Nolan Trust. (WP:COATRACK)
5. Despite his extremely demanding research activities ... (pov)
6. ... an important and popular course and diploma ... (pov)
7. ... to which some students even flew in from across Europe (and one from Canada) each week to attend! (exclamation mark is unnecessary) (pov)
8. ... very great number of scientific papers too numerous to mention here. ' Why not provide a rough estimate? Also see {{tl:google scholar}} about linking to google searches.
9. ... accessible and delightful publications ... (pov)
10. ... His diverse interests in many fields often led to involvement in unusual projects both large and small ... This sentence is not necessary, just state the facts.
11. ... he lent them a copy of this rare print from his own extensive private collection! ' (exclamation mark is unnecessary) (pov)
12. ... proved extremely popular ... (unsourced popularity)
13. ... popular broadcasts he gave on the dangers of licking postage stamps ... (unsourced popularity)
14. ... dependence on more of these otherwise unnecessary cosmetics! (exclamation mark is unnecessary) (pov)
15. ... His children were teased the next day at school and told (incorrectly of course) that they would start to smell if they listened to their father! (unsourced and not exactly on topic)
16. He was an enthusiastic, though often idiosyncratic, collector throughout his life. (pov)
17. Amongst his many acquisitions were a number of fine ... (unsourced)
18. ... splendid wooden and brass ... (pov)
19. ... though he also had a few examples of wonderful things of far greater age. (unsourced)
20. He didn't limit himself only to "mainstream collectables"; he also had an eye for less obviously desirable items (often considered kitsch, tacky or generally worthless and inexplicable by less discerning or knowledgeable people) provided they held some relevance to one or other of his various interests; for example if they could be used to anecdotally illustrate some point connected with the history of medicine. (unsourced, with no actual examples, pov)
21. Sadly, through necessity, his diverse and splendid collections ... (pov)
22. Almost the entire Last Years & Final Illness section:
    1. Naturally this was a terrible blow. (pov and no reason to state the obvious)
    2. ... a remarkable achievement ... (pov)
    3. Multiple uses of exclamation marks
    4. ... sporty ... (pov)
    5. (note that designs for these devices have improved significantly since Selwyn's vital though rather basic lightwriter of the mid-1990s, in much the same way as for personal computers and laptops since the same period) (not on topic)
    6. ... nostalgically (but humorously, as always) remembering the pleasure of tasting and feeling food in his mouth ...
23. The external links section is too long and should be restructured as references and a bibliography.

It would, perhaps, be a good idea to have a look at articles about other deceased individuals. Especially ones which have been edited by more than one primary contributor and/or primary contributors who are not so closely attached to the subject. For example, Tim Russert appears to be mostly factual statements with almost every statement backed up by a reference in to WP:RS. Thank you. Plastikspork (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

P, on reviewing the history, it seems obvious that the "main editor" is a WP:SPA, Selwyn's son Barry. I see you had put a coi tag and then removed it. I think you should put it back and do your best to turn the article into something neutral. Barry should not interfere, given his coi. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I put it back up. Given my strong affinity for WP:RS and WP:NPOV, I don't think Barry would be very receptive to the massive amount of material which I would delete from the article. He really should write a nice memorial essay and have it published so this page can be more encyclopaedic. Thanks for your input. Plastikspork (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

All points noted, chaps. I've put a huge amount of time and effort into researching then starting this article. There actually are still quite a few people around who knew Prof Selwyn - some now quite elderly but still connected with various august institutions such as The Apothecaries (or "Poths" as they call themselves). Naturally I did seek their comments and prior "approval" (which I obtained) for everything that is written here, as well as got them to review and scrutinise the whole thing fairly intensely.

Please remember that many of the people who knew Prof Selwyn are serious high powered intellectuals and academics and do not suffer would-be fools or poorly sourced or written articles (that relate in any way to them or their subjects) lightly. Therefore I have been extremely careful to check my facts (and seek their prior approval) before proceeding.

Several of them did also contribute important material to me for inclusion. Sadly, whilst I have of course asked them, none seemed especially interested in becoming Wikipedia authors themselves… perhaps as they didn’t have the time or maybe feeling too old to learn new tricks or else not really deeming Wikipedia as an especially "serious" publication worthy of their attention being the sorts of people used to routinely writing learned papers and articles for what they consider much more prestigious and academic publications - none of which would dream of letting just anyone have a go at writing for them!

Anyhow, I’m confident (having agonised over it all and generally being an incredibly careful person) that so far as I know everything I have written is scrupulously factual and fair. I do not believe much, if any, of it could reasonably be considered mere POV by anyone in a position to properly assess and judge.

I've made an effort to contribute quite in depth, and of course very factual, information elsewhere on Wikipedia (as you’ll see if you browse my “contributions” these relate largely to population statistics - not my main subject but certainly one in which I feel competent and to a reasonable extent "qualified" - and in creating various graphs and charts which I felt also helpful). I've looked with great interest at the sorts of things other people are doing on Wikipedia.... some are serious, sincere and careful (like me) others seem to rush around making arbitrary (often demonstrably false) assumptions and sweeping, unsupportable statements. Yet others apparently have nothing positive themselves to contribute and are instead content (and probably enjoy and feel important) in "policing" and generally challenging and deleting things, possibly with the good intention of somehow “protecting” Wikipedia and of course to an extent they probably succeed. All of these people are of course self-appointed and make it all up as they go along!

Most worryingly (to me) I’ve notice a large and stealthy band of what can only be classed “revisionists” - not necessarily any sort of conspiracy; most likely people with similar politics and points of view largely working in isolation to achieve their aims of distorting knowledge and history to better support their own biased world-views. There are also all sorts of intellectual “snobs” and “bullies” who seem to enjoy stifling and suppressing things – perhaps it gives them a “kick”.

There are vast numbers of articles on Wikipedia about all sorts of people some more worthy of attention than others. I’ve noticed one or two apparently bogus articles which, if I could find the time, I might become involved in challenging, refuting or (assuming they are not as unsupportable as they at first seem) improving.

Anyhow, returning to the topic of the Sydney Selwyn article, of which I have so far been the main author (but which I was hoping to simply start and see others gradually contribute towards)….. “my” article is not intended as any sort of memorial; the man was without doubt interesting and “notable” from many different points of view and little, if anything, has so far been written specifically about him online (though many of his published papers are available and there are a few important links I have so far discovered which, where relevant, I have mostly already included). From very humble origins he quickly reached the top of his profession, gained a worldwide reputation, did vast amounts of original research, appeared in “Who’s Who” and “Who’s Who In The World” and “Prominent Men of Science” etc. Therefore this seems an important article, even if comparatively minority interest, to include. Surely far more worthwhile (and valid) than all those silly articles I keep noticing people struggle to add about their local bus shelters or favourite chip shops than have come and gone?!

Yes, as I have got to know several of the people who knew and worked with Sydney Selwyn I could of course ask them to publish something about him on their own (or professional) websites then link to it. Not a bad idea. I’ll give it some thought and look into it casually over the next few weeks but am not keen to “push” anyone into doing anything they wouldn’t otherwise like. Also, of course, I’m aware of the WP policy of “no original research” and so whilst I have acquired a great deal more information about Sydney Selwyn I’ve been careful to avoid adding anything significant to the article unless I can support it and show it has already been published somewhere. Incidentally I have included a link to a fairly detailed obituary that is still available online. There were others but only in print and due to copyright reasons difficult to scan and upload for reference.

I put a lot of work into the article over several months (starting offline last November) and I believe it is valuable and, at least for certain people, important, interesting and factual (at least no less so than for a large number of articles – as mentioned – that I see on WP which really should have been removed long ago). But feel free (as perhaps you will) to delete large amounts of it, if not the whole thing (as though you personally are custodians of the world’s knowledge and the people to decide what should or should not be preserved and “allowed”).

Even though I’m the one who has done all the work, taken the initiative and made most of
the effort I do not believe that I personally “own” this article. 
Please remember that neither do either of you!

A couple of final points to Dicklyon: You said “From your comments here and your edits, I get the distinct impression that you didn't read beyond my "parenthetical isolated factoid" comment”. You could not be further from the truth… perhaps it was YOU (maybe in shock) who didn’t look very carefully at what I subsequently wrote? I’m sorry I teased you (even though you really did ask for it) and I’m sorry if you felt offended rather than amused (as intended) by my quick (and I thought at the time rather witty) response - it *did* include a smiley and I *did* then immediately say “joking aside” before moving on, taking your suggestion very seriously indeed and even thanking you for it then before spending about ½ hr or so implementing it. user:Plastikspork then commented he though the article much better as a result and also thanked him (on his talk page) for his feedback and help. My impression is that you wrongly feel intellectually threatened by me hence and have decided to somehow “fight back” which, if so, it neither sensible nor necessary. Please don’t try and undermine or damage the well researched and carefully written Sydney Selwyn article in revenge, simply because you made an over complicated and elaborate and (to my mind) fairly pompous remark for which I then teased you! But apologies again for offending you – I’ve said sorry several times so please now get over it. My second point to you is really a question – interesting idea that I am Selwyn’s son….. what made you think that and what is your evidence (or is it POV)?

Thanks Barryz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

I will respond in more detail later, but (1) File:Letter-from-Barts-98--p1.jpg is addressed to Barry Selwyn and your name matches Barry, and (2) the statements about his children being teased at school both indicate a COI. General Comment: Please believe me when I say that I am honestly trying to make the article better, and I have no reason to doubt that all the information you have added is indeed factual. However, I do not believe the article is written in an encyclopaedic manner. Please do compile what you have written into a news article which we can cite here. This would allow all the information you have painstakingly compiled to be preserved, and allow this article to be more encyclopaedic. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sure. Fair enough and no problem..... I've quite a few meetings and a lot of work to get through this week but I'll try and make time to contact one of the Professors (the English, not American sort!) or their assistants, at one or other of the various departments he used to run, or perhaps the "Poths" or maybe someone at the Harveian Society or Osler Club to see if they'd be interested in publishing something online about him (maybe even cribbed from this Wikipedia article if that saves them time and suits the purpose in authenticating it?). Please be patient though as these things take time and certainly won't happen "over night". Though slow-moving they are all highly regarded professional organisations so should be deemed impartial and authoritative enough for WP. (If not then I think WP will end up loosing a lot of credibility).

It should also be possible to contact his widow who is very active despite her age (and a wonderful lady who has been supportive of this article and very helpful to me). As it happens she runs her own magazine these days so would probably be delighted and flattered to publish something about him if asked nicely. I'll do my best. - - - Thanks again. Regards Barryz1 (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. Plastikspork – not important (especially as you've been very helpful) but are you the same person as Dicklyon? The reason I ask is that I addressed a question to him (following all that stuff he apparently wrote - or was it you - ending with "Barry should not interfere, given his coi. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2009") but you then answered which I found slightly confusing. Barryz1 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not the same person as Dicklyon, and in fact, that would be an extremely important point, as it would then not be a third opinion. You are correct that it was Dicklyon who stated that "it seems obvious that the "main editor" is a WP:SPA, Selwyn's son Barry". I am, however, the person who tagged the article with COI after coming to basically the same conclusion. You asked how Dicklyon came to this conclusion, and I was letting you know that it seemed fairly obvious. Note that it is possible to cite articles which are not available on the web, so long as they are properly cited, and could be verified by anyone wishing to do so. Hence, if you have newspaper articles which you wish to cite, those would be perfectly fine. However, personal accounts which are not in published sources are problematic as they would be difficult for someone else to "look up" and verify. It's not a question of "rank" or "class" of individuals. It's a question of making the article read more like an encyclopaedic entry. I believe the obituary in Med. Hist. will allow quite a few of the more important facts to be properly cited. Believe me, if I felt the subject was not notable, we would not be having this conversation, as I would not be putting effort into it. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Plastikspork, I responded (in probably too much detail - a regular fault of mine) to Dicklyon before replying to you..... Thanks (as always) for your very helpful clarification - what you've said makes perfect sense, both in clearing up my slight confusion for a moment and also in explaining your view (with which I agree) regarding obtaining verifiable published sources to cite. As I said before I'll do my best to progress that as soon as I can, though obviously will be dependant on other people to make some effort. - - - Thanks as ever, Barryz1 (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Barry, sorry, I had missed your comment to me above. Your kidding was no problem. But your comments like "The founding date of Leeds Grammar School is established and documented beyond doubt", while true, seemed to miss the point, which was that if you want to connect the founding date as being relevant to the bio, you ought to cite a source that does that; if no source on Selwyn mentions the founding date of the school, then its relevance is highly questionable. Anyway, it's clear that you're a novice at wikipedia and haven't yet internalized policies like WP:V and WP:RS and WP:BLP. I recommend you read those carefully. Then, find a place to publish the bio you want to write; after it's published, we can use what's in it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon - I'm very unimpressed with you for gleefully stooping to say things like "it's clear that you're a novice at Wikipedia" (even though it's true that I haven't yet made it my life's work) and going on to talk about "...we can use..." as though you consider yourself part of some inner sanctum of Wikipedians who believe they own the whole thing and decide for everyone else....... patronising and sheer arrogance if you ask me (which obviously you didn't). Yes, yes, if you look at Dicklyon's contributions you can be smugly satisfied with over 38 thousand edits to your name (though probably nothing like as many if properly analysed and all negative edits discounted) whilst poor old Barryz1's contributions amount to a feeble 300 or thereabouts (not counting the many graphs and charts I've uploaded and some other stuff besides, for some reason). I bet you have a bigger car too (well, I mainly use my bike which has only 1/2 as many wheels so you can relax as you're ahead there as well).

By the way, not that it matters a jot, but as for “experience” I was working on the internet long before it was even called that (back then we had various things, including eventually "Janet" for "joint academic network") and was routinely using computers for my work long before Microsoft even existed (my first "proper" computer was a Dec PDP-11, complete with octal keyboard and paper tape, I then went on to use a hand-built customised PDP15 which was eventually replaced with an early version of the VAX. I also remember at one point replacing our little Commodore Pet with the original IBM PC and reinstalling QDOS with DOS). I note you work in Silicon Valley so you'll probably know what I'm talking about.

I don't generally give it much thought but it is always possible that I know as much (if not more) about quite a wide range of subjects, than you do - however if you look carefully at the (admittedly rather few) things I've written I hope you may be able to detect a consistent thread of humility. Please don't ever misinterpret enthusiasm and passion for inexperience or naivety.

Also, Barry is not an especially rare name but your attempt at amateur detective work (perhaps hoping to uncover that terrible assumed crime of COI) was vaguely amusing! (Yes, that's another exclamation mark.... tusk, tusk, oh dear, but so what and "no big deal" as I believe people in Silicon Valley like to say!!!).

As for WP:V and WP:RS and WP:BLP, well thanks, but I've already discretely taken several people aside and corrected them for transgressions of WP:V and WP:RS and have I personally ever cited an unreliable source? Please do let me know exactly when and where (and why you feel it's unreliable) and I'll try and sort it out.

Finally (though equally unimportantly), did you know that the "L" in WP:BLP stands for "living" and (unfortunately) Sydney Selwyn died in 1996 (there's a good article about him in Wikipedia which I can confidently recommend - - - Most Sincere Kind Regards (genuinely, believe it or not). Now let's be friends. Barryz1 (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

I did a pass at fixing it up by taking out inside unsourced personal info and hype, but there's still a lot left. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)