Jump to content

User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 11 October 2010 (→‎Oddly challenged images: Oh, I see.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

My favorite quotes used in deletion discussions

  • "If this guy is such a pillar of the Empire, why is he just now getting an article?" at William James Wanless

My wikistalkers

I have a sneaking suspicion that they are either the same person or working together. Most of their contributions appear to be nominating articles that I start.


As it turned out the two were the same along with a third. I am sure there are more. All three personas nominated the same article and the accounts were banned from editing.

New articles to start

Roger Craig

Thanks for the userify-ed version of Craig's article. 67.187.26.116 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC) User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Enrique Robles

A tag has been placed on Enrique Robles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Acather96 (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I detagged, that guy looks fascinating. Fame fame fleeting fame, but apparently a big deal 100 years ago. Note, this link [1] perhaps makes a reference to his burial site (would be in Valencia assuming this is same "chicorrito")--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I apologise, in retrospect my tagging did seem a little hasty. Sorry, Acather96 (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for canvassing

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. [2] an admin warned you months ago not to do this. this is considered your final warning. LibStar (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says: :::::Appropriate notification is: Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open. My notification met every criteria, so what's the beef? Please refrain from harassing editors making legitimate postings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, you're fooling no one, Colonel Warden votes keep 99% of the time, and you vote keep 100% of the time, you didn't care to notify a range of people who are known to vote delete. selective notification is canvassing. remember editors can be blocked for canvassing. please don't notify anyone of AfDs, to avoid any chance of being reported. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't because appropriate notification is: Limited. I am not aware of any statistics compiled on how he votes, and I didn't ask him to vote any particular way. I think your perception is that he "votes keep 99% of the time, and you vote keep 100% of the time", but I will have to see the statistics you compiled to back up your perception. You also ignore where he and I choose not to vote or to comment, which is 99% of all AFDs, which is my perception. If his rationale was inappropriate or nonsensical, or rote, at the AFD the closer is always free to ignore it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen Colonel Warden vote redirect. how about I say vast majority of the time. but if you want to continue to play innocent Richard, keep up your selective notifications of people who like voting keep. I would strongly recommend not to. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't threaten and harass the editors. It violates the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. I am issuing my second warning about editors issuing unilateral threats and warnings to other editors.
it is not harassment nor threatening, it is warning you about your potential to violate WP:CANVASS in future. I am doing you a favor by alerting you to behavior that may get you blocked. we know you love pushing the rules, and pleading innocent but I hope you do not wish to be blocked for your selective notification of AfDs. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says: "Appropriate notification is: Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open." Which part isn't sinking in for you? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, you definitely failed on the non partisan part, from WP:CANVASS: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion...it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters. You never notify delete voters. QED. Keep playing this false innocence game, I can see right through it. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't threaten and harass the editors. It violates the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. I am issuing you my third warning about editors issuing unilateral threats and warnings to other editors. Compile some real statistics on how each editor votes, and on how many AFDs they vote on and compare that to the average editor. Show me some real data before you make allegations of partisanship, or stop harassing me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, you continue to play fake innocent, you cannot deny the fact that Colonel Warden votes keep the vast majority of the time and you never notify known delete voters. that is exactly what one form of canvassing is. this is an alert to behavior that is not permitted in Wikipedia. I am assisting you in every endeavour to prevent you being blocked in future for this. but you insist on playing a game, with this "don't threaten me" attitude. It is within the spirit of Wikipedia to assist other editors in not getting caught out for violation of rules such as WP:CANVASS. I do not wish you to get blocked for canvassing in future, that is not harassment but assistance. kind regards. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:HARASS "Statements of intent to use normal Wikipedia processes properly, such as dispute resolution, are not threats". notification of violation of WP:CANVASS is within the normal wikipedia processes. I am assisting you in preventing future digressions. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colonel Warden votes keep 99% of the time, and you vote keep 100% of the time". Even if this were true, it is a misrepresentation, because they (as do I) rarely opine on a discussion heading for deletion where deletion is appropriate. There may be about 700 active AfD discussions at any one time, you have to pick and choose which you can help out on, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigmund Borgundvåg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Johannesson. (Is this discussion prompted by the latter, where the Colonel hasn't even opined?) I commend RAN for being above board about the few notifications he does, because everyone knows that people can do this backhandedly via emails if they wanted to. I often wonder whether this occurs among editors who more often favor deletion, but I AGF.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan
Last: 05/22/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Strongman 3857773310 27181bfe91 o.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Strongman 3857773310 27181bfe91 o.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Acather96 (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but I've also nominated File:Bomber 1 485.jpg and File:Bomber 2 485.jpg for deletion, as the source is invalid and there is virtually no FUR. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has a source and a fairuse rationale, how come you don't see it, and I can? Is it because it doesn't use the newest template? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that correct?

Oddly challenged images

I am not sure why these images are challenged, its not good to have legal decisions made by those not trained in law:

You don't know my training, and I don't choose to elaborate it on Wikipedia, which is my right. But if you have questions about my actions, you're quite welcome to ask me about them, and I will explain. This kind of approach seems unproductive. With this one, it's easy: I haven't challenged the image. There's certainly nothing in the image's history to suggest that I have, and, in fact, it is in this batch placed under the section marked "Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin". I realize that it is uncomfortable to have your uploads scrutinized. The vast majority of them are well within our copyright guidelines; some of them, demonstrably, have not been. I hope that this clarifies your concerns and, again, you are welcome to ask me if you don't understand something I've tagged for review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I'm afraid I misled you. I inadvertently tagged the wrong image here at the article, so no wonder you were confused. The image itself was never tagged. The image that is up for review is not the 1887 image, but the 1933 obituary. I am afraid I'm still not used to your convention of wikilinking to some images rather than displaying them. The image in question is File:Smith-Ormond 1933 obit.gif. This is not pre-1923, but a newspaper article that you have placed under the "fair use" rationale that it is historically significant, but its usage does not conform to the fair use rationale you have used or the non-free content guidelines. More explanation is on the image itself. I did not notify you directly of this as I've explained to you in the past to avoid spamming your talk page with notices. (I trust you're still watching the CCI. This one was noted under "tagged for action" at section P. If you'd rather individual notices, just let me know. I'd be happy to accommodate you.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&oldid=390070817"