User talk:Prinkipo71

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Prinkipo71! I am WereSpielChequers and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Ϣere SpielChequers 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apethorpe Hall

The amendment was undone because facts were removed (e.g. 'thirteen visits') and there were no citations for any of the additions (e.g. 'James I paid for the building of a set of impressive State rooms' and 'a favourite residence of James I'). Andrewtriggs (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Owen Matthews has been accepted

Owen Matthews, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, I'm FDW777. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Kate Osborne, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! FDW777 (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI

In this edit, [1] you describe yourself as "Apethope's new archivist and historian". That creates a clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This carries a requirement on you to:

a) declare the COI, in relation to Apethorpe; Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, the house's owner; and the Institute for East West Strategic Studies, his thinktank:

b) not to edit pages with which you have a COI, but rather to make requests for changes on the article Talkpages.

You are, of course, in breach of this by your reversion to my edit.

I look forward to seeing the appropriate COI declaration shortly.

KJP1 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am no such thing as 'Apethope's new archivist and historian' where on earth did you get that? ... You must be confusing me with someone else. Prinkipo71 (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You so described yourself in the diff I provided above, and again provide, here, [2]. KJP1 (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I am not Andrew Trigg and have no idea who that may be. Prinkipo71 (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And may I point out that you are in breach of basic Wikipedia editing rules by your reversion to my edit as you have made an error by identifying me with someone with whom I have no connection. I have no idea how this confusion on your part came about but kindly withdraw your comment and revision immediately. Prinkipo71 (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing me with someone called Andrew Triggs who I have never heard of or met. Kindly withdraw your comment and remove your reversion as its entirely unfounded. To have a self styled fact checker get his facts wrong is a bad look. Prinkipo71 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste both of our times by being silly. As you know perfectly well, the comment was one you made, about yourself, on Andrew Trigg's Talkpage, when you objected to his removal of material you had added. KJP1 (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I am not 'Apethope's new archivist and historian'. I am a foreign correspondent and prizewinning historian who lives in Rome. What are you talking about? Prinkipo71 (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shan't be going round this again. In 2014, you wrote on Andrew Trigg's page; "I should add that I have been retained as Apethope's new archivist and historian and have read, I would venture, far more than you about the house and its conservation." This is crystal clear in the page's edit history, as the diff demonstrates. Your protestations to the contrary are not convincing. You have a long history of removing material from here that you consider to be detrimental to his image. If you fail to make the COI declaration, and continue to edit pages connected to Iseux, I shall take the matter further. KJP1 (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what you mean - a comment left on Andrew Trigg's page. However - it's not true and was not written by me. Someone must have used my account to leave that message and I can guess who it may have been. That's rather shocking. Your criticism was clearly made in good faith. But for the record I have never been an archivist or historian or indeed anything whatsoever at Apethorpe except a visitor. Prinkipo71 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone must have hacked in to my page/Twitter account/email etc." is an excuse frequently used when a celebrity gets into trouble online. It is very rarely convincing. Nor does it cover your editing history. Since 2014, when you created the Iseux article, you have repeatedly sought to remove material you consider detrimental. A similar pattern of editing is followed by User talk:Baronpfetten. We are both well aware that you do have a connection, and thus a COI. So, either declare it and follow the procedure, or stop editing connected articles. KJP1 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are also the major contributor to this article, Owen Matthews, about a foreign correspondent and prizewinning historian, who happens to also be connected to Iseux through his vice-chairmanship of the thinktank. You will know if that is another COI you need to declare. KJP1 (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]