User talk:Pricejb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Responding to Conflict[edit]

I replied to you e-mail at Talk:Responding to Conflict. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ashes[edit]

It's a pity that the template won't accept "holder", as I agree with you that it is a more apt term than "Champions". JH (talk page) 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

B. Traven[edit]

Hi, John. I was looking at the above with a view to rating it for WP Biography, but I am much troubled by it, suffice to say I won't be touching it. There is still so much non-NPOV (the first paragraph calls him "enigmatic" - perhaps, from one editor's point of view, he is), definitely some original research (an editor should not raise questions within the article - "Concerns and other theories"→"Unanswered questions" - the reader is supposed to do that after having read the neutral, balanced facts laid out), and overall, the article expounds at such a length that the references contained within it at the moment are never going to be enough to verify everything being stated.

I'm afraid (for me) there is still so much to do with it. If I started editing the piece, I'd be ripping great chunks out and neutralising so much conjecture that I could see a possible edit war. Sorry to sound negative. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, John. Thanks for getting back to me. As a detached reader who had never heard of the subject before, and taking into consideration the nature of Wikipedia, I believe that you and your fellow editors are trying to do too much with what is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry in an online reference tool. We are not charged with producing a detailed academic paper on our subjects, merely to outline (even in a thousand words sometimes, I agree, but still an outline in relation to some of the more complex subjects) the nature of the subject and its inherent notability.
I would never question the notability of this subject, but your assertion that "we don't even know if B. Traven existed as a separate individual" is disconcerting, given that it is usual for individuals with nom de plumes to have their nom de plume covered in their own named article (with some exceptions such as Mark Twain, who was exclusively known as his alter). A more trivial example of this might be William Perry, American footballer, who became perhaps more famous through his nickname "The Refrigerator". However, his article exists as his given name, with a redirect to it from his nom de plume. Not an exact comparison, I agree, but I am trying to illustrate my take on how I believe subjects are supposed to be constructed, right from the off.
According to guidelines per WP:OR, the only way you can keep the "Questions" section (in its present format) is to make sure every single question you are putting is referenced from an outside source asking exactly the same question i.e. "Question" in Article.[1]
  1. ^ Identical "Question", by reliable external source, from "X" Book or at "Y" Website.
Anything else is eventually going to draw serious accusations of OR from the wider community of editors, especially as you bring the article, over time, up through "B" and "A" towards "Featured" standard. My mention of original research is merely a worry regarding its future credibility.
Much the same applies, per WP:NPOV, if you want to keep over-positive ("enigmatic") references in there. If you can again slip in an inline citation at the end of the sentence where you use the 'compliment', showing that someone, of stature maybe, said this of him, then it protects the use of the POV as someone else's and not as an editor's own inserted views.
I fear that B. Traven would eventually end up as a much shorter piece, but I strongly believe that you do need to prune even more, though how you prioritise the really-really-much-more-important content will be a challenge for you and your fellows - I personally do not have the time or the familiarity with subject to attempt anything, though I would love to see it succeed as a top article in the future. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 11:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As I am not a contributing editor to B. Traven, I do not contribute to its consensus either. I have merely been trying to point out possible future problems, given the nature of guidelines currently in force. I have no more to say on this really, and wish you luck with it in the future. No reply needed. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

John Merrill[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article John Merrill, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of John Merrill. slakrtalk / 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem: The Guild of St Joseph and St Dominic[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as The Guild of St Joseph and St Dominic, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.pricejb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Guild/Intro.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:The Guild of St Joseph and St Dominic/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:The Guild of St Joseph and St Dominic saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! MatthewDBA (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now a note on http://www.pricejb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Guild/Intro.htm releasing the material into the public domain.
Sorry about that John - you're right; I should have set this on your talk page in the first place.
It's a good article and definitely catches my interest; but it would be nice to see a couple more third-party references if those are available. Good work so far! -- MatthewDBA (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Floreat Greyfriars.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Floreat Greyfriars.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Frank Richards.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Frank Richards.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Bunter.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bunter.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed Yousuf[edit]

I've reverted your changes because you seem to have removed a fair amount of material from the article that was referenced, particularly the section on his recall to the national squad. It would help if you used edit summaries, as it is, I'm not sure whether this was deliberate or accidental. As it is, feel free to discuss anything you think doesn't belong in the article on the talk page.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Alan Gibson[edit]

Though I knew that he suffered from depression, I wasn't aware that he had committed suicide. Of course that is the sort of thing that tactful obituarists are inclined to omit, which may be why I didn't know about it. But it is something that very much needs a citation to support it. Can you provide one? JH (talk page) 20:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. His Independent obituary mentions that he made several unsuccessful suicide attempts, but of his death just says that he had been in poor health and was in a nursing home. JH (talk page) 09:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cricketers who committed suicide[edit]

The list includes both Albert Trott as well as User:Pricejb/my sandbox2!?! Absolut1966 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gibson[edit]

It's as clear as day in his Times Obit - he committed suicide I think the Wisden one is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.61.204 (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)