User talk:Barkercoder

Welcome!

Hi Barkercoder! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Fiddle Faddle 18:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkercoder, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Barkercoder! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ronald Hugh Barker has been accepted

Ronald Hugh Barker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle Faddle 18:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recording your familial conflict of interest on the draft. I have logged it on Talk:Ronald Hugh Barker using your own words. Fiddle Faddle 18:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cracking first article. Very well done. There will be warts, but it can be wiser to be the article's father and let it graze its own knees, rather than to be its mother and to guard it jealously. We have a whole slew of stuff on this under WP:OWN which I am sure you have worked out already. Fiddle Faddle 18:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Barkercoder. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2–3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Barnstar

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		For your work creating and developing Ronald Hugh Barker one of the finer first articles by a new editor I have seen, and for your willingness to act on advice from others. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

I see you've contributed a bunch about Barker and his codes, and your user name points to that, and you've uploaded some of his old photos to commons. So I'm guessing you're a relative or something. It would be good if you'd just say, on your user page, or here. Then we could better advise on whether there are any potential WP:COI issues to deal with. Best to be up front. Thanks for your contributions. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just noticed Talk:Ronald Hugh Barker#COI which says you're his son. Thanks for disclosing already. Let me know (e.g. by a message on my user talk page) if I can help with Wikipedia logistics or content or anything. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ronald Hugh Barker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FIET.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barker and PCM

Sorry that you've had such a dismissive reception. Barker was British, radar was an American invention from MIT and the mere IET isn't a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE unless it's backed up by a proper source like the IEEE, or even the Milwaukee Guild Of Hot Tub Installers. This is the law of Wikipedia.

A long time ago, I was an apprentice telephone sanitiser. I came across Barker's name in relation to PCM, mostly in the pages of the Post Office Electrical Engineers' Journal and related to the development of new modem encodings to surpass the Nyquist limits (where encodings have to start using phase, shoe size and all sorts of underhand tricks). I noticed particularly because I was also studying at his old faculty. It was a long time later before I found out about his work on LOPGAP and similar era stuff.

I hope you get somewhere with this stuff, but it's tricky as British publication immediately post-war was so secretive about everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and your interesting overview. You have opened up a whole new world of data coding, that is well above my head. I have US patents I can cite for PCM but as you rightly point out the research was all very secretive. For History of Radar I quickly found this article in World Radio History in PO Electrical Engineers' Journal https://www.worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Site-Technical/Engineering-General/Archive-Electronics-IDX/IDX/70s/Electronics-1970-01-19a-IDX-113.pdf#search=%22barker%22. Would these be acceptable as secondary cites? An IEEE search finds many research papers that refer to Barker code or just Barker but because the code is so common it is not cited or referenced. Also, I'm wary of getting anything through the talk page! Windswept (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the same time, we did a laser moonbounce experiment with the Apollo reflectors. I have a dim memory that we used a Barker code on that (after we'd tried plain audio tones) as a confirmation that we were seeing our own signal returned. Barker was used because it was easy to implement in a few chips of TTL. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused

Some time ago Ronald Hugh Barker was created. What I find hard to understand is why you appear to be labouring in your sandbox with what is essentially the same material. Are you able to enlighten me? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued interest and for reviewing the article.

The current published version has developed incrementally over a long period and, in my view, would benefit from consolidation. As it stands, it is lengthy, uneven in structure, and includes material of limited relevance to Barker’s principal technical contributions.

I am therefore preparing a substantially revised draft in my sandbox. The aim is to improve clarity, chronological flow, and compliance with Wikipedia’s content and style guidelines, while focusing more clearly on the technical aspects of Barker’s career. This approach reflects the fact that many readers arrive at the biography via the Barker code article and are likely to be seeking context for his technical work.

Once the draft is complete and outstanding image-licensing issues are resolved, I intend to post it on this talk page for review and consensus before proposing any major changes to the live article.

I would be grateful for any guidance on whether this approach is appropriate. Windswept (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While the approach makes what one might describe as "real world sense" editors here appear almost allergic to wholesale replacements.

What might increase the probability of a successful discussion might to to consider asserting that the current article has deficiencies, signposting them accurately, and saying in advance ythere what you propose to do.

There must not even be the trace of a scent of WP:OWN about any proposal you make, but you know that anyway.

-----

The approach we are most used to is a sequence of requested and answered edits on the talk page, ideally the first answered prior to t he second being requested. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cedars School, Leighton Buzzard England Rugby 1st XV 1932.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cedars School, Leighton Buzzard England Rugby 1st XV 1932.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fleet Air Arm Anson with first British LOPGAP guided missile 29 May 1945.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fleet Air Arm Anson with first British LOPGAP guided missile 29 May 1945.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]