User talk:Pricejb

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]

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)

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. slakr^\ talk / 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:The Guild of St Joseph and St Dominic and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:The Guild of St Joseph and St Dominic with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:The Guild of St Joseph and St Dominic.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Noble Spanish Soldier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Dekker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Frank Richards.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Responding to Conflict 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/Responding to Conflict until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rose lawn.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:MagnetCompanion 77.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:MagnetCompanion 77.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Acheiropoieton.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from John Huddleston into Escape of Charles II. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sandstein 09:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, not entirely sure what you were trying to do at Haden Hill House is it meant to be a merge to Haden Hill Park? In which case you should state this in edit summary on both articles for attribution purposes, see WP:MERGETEXT. Also the redirect should be the only content on the page, aside from redirect specific templates, so I've restored the original page for now. Polyamorph (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)