Jump to content

User talk:Britishfinance/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Britishfinance! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Great work improving Wikipedia's content on some important topics in economics and finance, thank you for your editing! Whizz40 (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Qualifying investor alternative investment fund (QIAIF)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Qualifying investor alternative investment fund (QIAIF), Britishfinance!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An interesting and well-written article.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Britishfinance. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 11:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

If you're going to make dozens of sequential edit summaries to an article in a short space of time, use edit summaries, please. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, started out doing that but got lazy, my mistake. Britishfinance (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, it's much easier to follow now, without having to look at every single edit diff! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (List of British Isles mountains by height) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of British Isles mountains by height, Britishfinance!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I love the look of this list. It's brilliant that it's fully sortable, however there arevtwo omissions you could address. Firstly, the peaks themselves need to be wikilinked (easily done if you've compiled this in Excell) and I think you really needed a column for elevation in feet. So many users of the British list work in feet that this is quite an omission. I'm slightly worried this might be seen as duplicating parts of other lists (haven't properly checked that) but what a great job, and great structure.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks user:Nick Moyes, I have spent a bit of time fixing the core List of mountains in Ireland and Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles articles which needed updating etc. After doing this, I felt that there was a lack of a proper wiki that, with full definitions and sourcing, gave a list by height (the article you reviewed) and by prominence (also newly created). I will look into seeing if I could add the [[..]] and the feet equivalent in excel and re-paste into the excel-to-Wiki table tool. There are two other articles that have already tagged for REDIRECT (or deletion) that have unsourced and undefined lists of British Isles mountains (which makes them useless), they are List of mountains and hills of the United Kingdom, and List of mountains and hills of the British Isles by height. thanks again! Britishfinance (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah - I think once you've sorted out which pages to merge/redirect there will still be some essential renaming to do. If you look at other lists, you'll see their naming structure is keyword first, followed by geographic region, followed by any qualifier. So eventually, this'll need to become List of mountains of the British Isles by height. If you'd like me to (and only once you think you've got it all sorted) I'll invite my climbing partner to run his eyes over it. He's done every Munro, Corbet and almost every Wainwright, and drives me mad ticking off Marilyns, Hewitts and god knows what else. (But it does get me out on the hills and into some esoteric bivvy spots, so I can't complain!) BTW: I notice from your talk page that you've had a few automated notices about accidental DAB page links you've added. Could I suggest you activate the option in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to display DAB pages in orange? This is amazingly helpful, especially if you're now going to automate adding double square brackets around every listed mountain and then looking for the bad links to resolve. Oh, and maybe instead of adding another column for imperial measurements, why not drop in a {{convert}} template instead? It's worth making sure you get the best rounding up setting, so as to coincide with definitive heights in feet published elsewhere. Hope this all helps a little. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Nick. Will do regarding above. It was another editor that added the [[..]] (and seemed to be able to do in an automated form, which I am not sure of), but will check out. Am half way finishing these tables, but once I am done, I will list them all out for you, plus the articles I consider redundant and would welcome suggestions and help regarding the final naming and structure. There are quite a few "orphan" British Isles mountain articles where the sourcing and definition are lost (if it was ever there), and are thus not useable anymore. There are also a lot of articles on Hewitts etc., but with tables broken up by Section (e.g. you can't get a single table of all Scottish Munros). Thanks again for your help. Actually - could you also curate the sister page to List of British Isles mountains by height, which is List of British Isles mountains by prominence ? Another curator tried to wipe the prominence article as a duplicate but restored it when I explained that they are two different definitions, however would be good to avoid this problem again where the curator is not familiar with mountain classification?. thanks.Britishfinance (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Mountains

Just to say Thanks for all the work you're doing on the British mountains - I haven't looked at all the torrent of diffs which turn up on my watchlist, but look forward to having a good look once the dust settles. As one who lives within a couple of miles of the lowest Marilyn, and is married to a Wainwright-bagger, and did a lot of work a few years back on The Outlying Fells of Lakeland including making sure that each of them had either an article or a redirect ...! PamD 15:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks user:PamD ! like many "wiki-moments", I started updating and fixing a core article (Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles) and began to branch out to all the sub-articles. There are several British Isles wikis on lists of mountains (height, relative height etc), but they are often unsourced and out of date (and people have contaminated the source by adding edits from other sources). Am downloading the Database of British and Irish Hills (DoBIH) tables (the best in my view), which are current and have very accurate on classifications etc. Hopefully should improve the data integrity of the body of mountain articles on the British Isles on Wikipedia, and will also give readers big searchable tables of quality and single-source data. Will be interested in your comments or any ideas! thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Just had a look at Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles and was perturbed by the photo caption at the top! Scafell (not Scaffel) is not the same as Scafell Pike. And from the table at List of mountains of the British Isles by prominence it seems that Scafell Pike is 13th, not 3rd, in relative prominence in British Isles. Have fixed the caption, I think.
I'd agree with the editor above who suggested that the mountains really should all be wikilinked. This is a list in Wikipedia, and the links are really vital. Any red links would help encourage editors to create new articles, or redirects to sections etc, to help build the encyclopedia. But a list without links is a sad thing, on a topic where we know that a large proportion of the entries would be blue links if linked.
A separate thought is that DoBIH needs itself to get a mention somewhere. Either an article or perhaps better a section within Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles to which both the full name and the abbreviation could redirect. I might think about adding it myself, unless you'd like to do so? I've got a few other things I want to work on first (haven't yet done any of the October projects for WP:Women in Red and we're a third through the month). Will see what I can find by way of outside sources referring to it, to verify its notability. PamD 21:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. Was using Snowdon (3rd) but changed my mind when I saw on the DoBIH that Scafell Pike has one of the longest lists of classification listings. I think it is good to show readers the "richness" of the topic.
It would be good to link all these mountains, however, these databases get updated, and the prominence figure in particular moves around. Therefore, they would all need to be re-downloaded in a year or so, and thus the links would be lost. If there was a tool that could do this (even outside of Wikipedia, like in Excel or Word), then it would work? I like the idea of the redlinks as a prompt to others to create the article.
Good idea re DoBIH, and I see you have already done this. The place you have located it is perfect. I will add to this and link other DoBIH tables to this section. There are some good bbc stories on the ordinance survey amending their own tables for new DoBIH data, plus the most recent important books on this topic all reference and use DoBIH data (e.g. the "More relative hills of Britain"). Britishfinance (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

List of P600 mountains in the British Isles

I'm sorry to say so but after all your work I'm not sure that this version is better than the Sept 2018 version.

The old version had blue links for every mountain. It also included the information on the "parent" peak (linked), now lost. The "Highest point of ..." was also helpful in locating and describing the peaks.

Adding the Grid reference is a definite plus for the new version - but it would be even better if it was linked to make it clickable.

It's a pity that the British and Irish Hills WikiProject appears to be moribund, as it would be helpful to have more eyes on these major changes you're making. PamD 15:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Except that the old version's data was unsourced and out of date (and had been updated for individual peaks from several editors). This is the problem with many lists of British Isle mountains in wikipedia - nice format, bad data. A parent peak for a mountain of over 600m in prominence is not a useful metric and confusing to anybody other than a cartographer. I found other articles on large mountains (e.g. Furths) where the parent peak had been vandalized and nobody noticed, because for large mountains it is so unusual. I have given the parent peak for all the Munro Tops table that I added in the List of Munro mountains in Scotland)). The links for the updated P600 article are being added so that this aspect will be preserved. Britishfinance (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm without computer for a few days and can't do much on phone, but could I suggest that the links to the other big list articles shouldn't be piped, per Principle of Least Surprise. How about an italicised annotation like "(contains all the Humps over 600m)" or whatnot, beside an unpiped link? Rather than let the reader follow a link and think they're not where they expected to be. Thanks PamD 08:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi PamD. Not sure I understand what you are saying there? For example, in the articles with long lists of mountains, I have linked acronyms like Hewitts back to the “The lists of hills and mountains in British Isles” root article, rather than to the other article with big lists of Hewitts. Is this what you are referring to ? Sorry. Britishfinance (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No, more the standalone links in the main "Lists of ..." article, like at the end of "Elevation" section: signpost to another page but not with the expected title. Difficult to dodge around and cite exactly while on smallish phone! PamD 11:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Got you now, and understand, will do that. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions

One new table comparing and contrasting all the definitions would be fun? Including which country/ies, whether defined objectively or how else, numerical definitions where relevant, number, and perhaps relationship to other definitions (all xxx are also yyy).

Are there equivalent lists elsewhere? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have list, or mention, of P600 though it's said to be an international defn. A sideline to follow up and link, perhaps. PamD 11:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, found article re P1500s, but no redirect from that name (on Ultra (disambiguation) ok). Something to do when re-united with computer! PamD 11:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, am going to reproduce the DoBIH table summarising all classifications at the end (although I may need a little more wiki table skills first !).Britishfinance (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I found an article called Lists of mountain lists but it was not very technical. I am still looking for a better UIAA link, although, I notice that the Hill Bagging is starting to use P500 instead of P600 (and listing the P500 class for individual peaks). Years ago, UIAA had 30 m for prom, 300 m for mountain and 600 m for major mountain. I wonder if they have switched to 500 m, 1000 m and 1500 m ??? I will check it out.Britishfinance (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
One issue that I am coming across a lot in older subsidiary articles on Brtish Isles mountains it that of "parents". For the new articles I have done on Donald Tops, Munro Tops etc, I have listed the "parent" (which is from DoBIH). However, these older articles have parents for everything (e.g. parent of Scafell Pike is Ben Nevis), which while technically true from a scientific topographic point of view, is meaningless in practice. The DoBIH don't list parents for say Marilyns, and specifically, won't list "parents of parents". This older parent data is also unsourced from anything, frequently vandalised (sometimes in good faith by an editor who thinks it must be a mistake), and therefore un-useable. I am going to mark this issue on the Talk Pages of these articles, as their data is so old, they should be wiped and re-directed to the new lists? Britishfinance (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Edt summaries

Hi Britishfinance, thank you for all your great work on British mountain and hill articles. Please remember to add an edit summary when you make a change; it's really helpful for other watching editors. Cheers! Bermicourt (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for that, and will do. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Image format

Maybe you did not know that adding "right" is unnecessary because it is the default. Good work. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that, that is helpful to know! thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Teleflex

Ta for this update. Useful for my quick due diligence check-up. Zezen (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was notable enough to add to their page, thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Britishfinance. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Useful new gadget

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Tables scrolling (so far, works only in Firefox and Safari browsers) which might be of interest! PamD 14:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful idea (although I would need to swap my browser :(). Britishfinance (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Purple Mountain

In general, you should not move an article with incoming links without discussion, as there may have already been a consensus-based determination that it is the primary topic of the term. In the future, please make a request through Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, please note that in the English language, names of countries such as China are capitalized. bd2412 T 13:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I did look to see if there was a discussion on it being the primary topic and found none. Am doing a large overhaul of British Isles mountains tables and the name Purple Mountain features frequently, and the lack of a proper disambiguation page was causing automated downloads of large tables of British Isles mountains to automatically link to the Chinese mountain for Purple Mountain without highlighting a disambiguation requirement. Britishfinance (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I have fixed all of the links to point away from your extremely unnatural renaming, and have also compared the pageviews. Since creation of the County Kerry mountain, it has only gathered 488 views thru 23 Nov while "Purple Mountain (china)" and "Purple Mountain (Nanjing)" (the only proper disambiguation) have acquired 1,361. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
What a nonsensical post you have made. However, on reflection (and looking at the other Purple Mountains in WP), I suspect that we are both wrong, and the proper name should be Purple Mountain (Jiangsu). It is also unusual for a peak below circa 600 m to be called a "mountain" - are we sure this is not Purple Hill (Jiangsu)? Britishfinance (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether Nanjing or Jiangsu is to be used as a disambiguation, or whether "Hill" or "Mountain" is to be used, is to be eked out in a move discussion. I don't have a stance on either question, but above all, "(china)" is by far the worst option of the three geographical entities.
What a nonsensical post you have made You work in finance and this is what you label the presentation of hard data as? Are you some sort of BNP / EDL / Tommy Robinson supporter? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
And another nonsensical comment. Britishfinance (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, your implicit claim that the mountain in Nanjing, replete with a cable car and observatory, is not the primary topic is not supported by the pageviews statistics presented above. Dodging this with red herrings, etc. will not change that fact. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
There are many Purple Mountains in the world, bigger and more important than the one in Nanjing (or in Kerry). Trying to advocate that the English-translation of a small Chinese hill is the primary topic of Purple Mountain in English WP is nonsense. Nonsensical quotes of pageviews will not change that fact, because it is a fact. Put "Purple Mountain" into Google.com and see what comes back (hint: nothing to do with Purple Mountain in Nanjing). Britishfinance (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Small Chinese hill where Sun Yat-sen and a large number of his notable contemporaries are entombed. And pageviews holds greater precedence in move request discussions than amateurish Google web searches. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Now we see why you started off these nonsensical comments; you are a Chinese editor advocating for the English-translated version of a Chinese hill (Purple Mountain) to be the primary topic for that term in English WP, when there are many bigger Purple Mountains, all of which rank above the Chinese hill in Google. I'm sorry, but while there is no obvious primary topic for Purple Mountain, it definitely is not your Chinese hill. Britishfinance (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

1) I am not Chinese, 2) Knock it off with the speculation on my motives. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsensical and funny. I am sure you have better things to do, as do I. Britishfinance (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
If you had chose "Purple Mountain (Jiangsu)" or the title I chose to move to, neither this spat, nor the time wasted on bd2412's part, would have never happened. Naming conventions exist to be adhered to, not to be trampled on as you had done, wittingly or not. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I have not "trampled" on anything. I mistakenly used a small "c" instead of a big "C" in the new name, that is all (which bd2412 fixed). Your change of the name to Purple Mountain (Nanjing) is an improvement I think, but not my concern, although potentially incorrect versus Purple Mountain (Jiangsu). However, your posts here and snide remarks are not regarding this issue; they are to advocate for Purple Mountain (Nanjing) to be the primary topic of Purple Moutain, which is nonsensical in English WP. Britishfinance (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
No, blundering with the lowercase is besides the point; the point is that the "(China)" disambiguation for an intraprovincial topic is prohibited by the naming conventions I linked to. I say intraprovincial because something such as the Pearl River is not confined to just one province-level division. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
bd2412 (an admin) seems to disagree with you (or, maybe made the same miske as I), are there more Purple Mountains in China? Regardless, your name also is probably wrong as well. I see you have attempted to WP:G6 delete the "Purple Moutain" disambiguation page so that it can be taken over by the Nanjing hill?? Nonsensical. Really nonsensical. Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
bd2412 has not posted any discussion at that naming conventions' talk page since 2005, and, as you noted, likely made the same mistake as yours simply by leaving the page after correcting to uppercase. And his status as an administrator is not relevant to how a page should be named. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you need a Wikibreak, and get some perspective. Britishfinance (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Medtronic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

user:Jytdog Correct me if I am wrong, understanding that you have more experience, but I didn't revert your edits? I re-wrote the sentence and added brand new references to meet your concerns (which I referred to in the edit summary as hoping that it was an improvement)? Is that an Edit War (maybe it is). However, I think you felt that the statement needs to be made explicitly regarding Medtronic as largest tax inversion and not inferred from a table (this your OR concern as I understand it). There are alternative references that I could provide that state this such as this (which was updated to May 2018),[1] however, would that mean that I an still in an Edit War? How was my first edit "outright fraud" when the reference that I attach shows it to be true - i.e. Medtronic is the largest corporate tax inversion in history? How do you interprit that as fraud? I have done decent work on this article, IMHO, to tidy it up, add better references and even give a table showing Medtronic is the biggest global MD player. The tax aspects of Medtronic, however, are also notable? Am I completely in the wrong here?

References

  1. ^ TARA LACHAPELLE (16 May 2018). "World's largest tax inversion doing little to inspire investors". The Globe and Mail.

Britishfinance (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

See the note below. The claim you edit warred over was that Medtronic was the only big US medical company to do an inversion. That was in both edits. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Jytdog But my "claim" that Medtronic was the only big US medical "device" company (you left out my word "device" above), to have completed a tax inversion is a fact. It is not WP:OR, or "aggressively fraudulent editing" (as you called it), it is fact. I have given a table of the top 10 medical device companies and only one, Medtronic, has an HQ that is different tax location to its real HQ (e.g. inversion)? When you removed my edits, I didn't revert you (which I could have done, particularly given the aggressive wording you used; instead I added new references to help you), and footnoted (and referenced via Bloomberg's article listing all US inversions in history), that outside of Medtronic's $110 bn inversions, the only other US medical device tax inversion in history is Wright Medical for $3 bn? And this action, which should have proved the statement beyond doubt, instead caused you to delete the material - again - and issue an "Edit War", plus the "Final Warning on Topic Ban" below (I will reply to that next). That does not seem logical behavior to me? Calling someone "aggressively fraudulent" when they are stating a basic, accepted, and referenced fact, is not fair. When that person's reaction, despite the aggression of the challenge, is to materially improve the referencing but the next action is an "Edit War" warning and threat of "Topic Ban", that does not seem right to me. That cannot be how WP works. That is unbalanced behavior? I am not going to list the acronyms - surely you can see this?
User:Jytdog Just saw on your Talk Page (User talk:Jytdog) you were given an indefinite ban from Wikipedia and have left. Speechless. Britishfinance (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Final warning on tax inversions

You have been warned in the past (e.g here about WP:OR on irish tax inversion stuff. In the Medtronic article, This section as you left it was outright fraud, with not one of the 3 refs mentioning Medtronic, as I noted here.

When you added back content later today, leaving that section like this, you again violated the WP:OR policy by pulling your own observations out of a chart. You need a source that says that "Medtronic was the only major U.S. medical device company to have executed a corporate tax inversion to a tax haven" as of some date. You cannot add your own research to WP. If you don't understand this, please review WP:OR. Your editing on Medtronic unambiguously violates that policy. Since you appear to have a consistent pattern of doing this, you are also apparently abusing Wikipedia as a soapbox, which is a violation of the WP:SOAP policy.

If I find any other example of you doing this, I will be requesting a TBAN for you with respect to Ireland and taxes. The pattern of editing will not be difficult to show. Please stop editing in this way, and save everybody the drama. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

user:jytdog. As per the section above, the fact that Medtronic is the only major US medical device company to do a tax inversion is a straightforward - not complex - fact. That is not "outright fraud" or WP OR. It is just a fact, and it now properly referenced. Your words and tone are not appropriate.
In addition, you reference that I "have been warned in the past". But the reference you quote was some an odd single-agenda editor with less than 50 WP edits, who wanted to delete whole sections of the tax haven article (not tax inversions). Myself, and other editors, upgraded references - sometimes to a ridiculous level - to respond to the single-agenda editors ridiculous challenges. Eventually, I just used the quotebox function to stick the explicit statements from the leading economic journals (and referenced to a readable online version - e.g. don't take my word for it), and they disappeared. Using that incident, and editor, and evidence for "you have been warned in the past" is just wrong, and misleading.
In addition, you say I have been warned in the past on "Irish tax inversion stuff", but that is also not true. Even the single-agenda editor above, was not referencing me on Tax Inversions or Ireland (it was the U.S.). I have logged many edits on the WP tax inversion article, and have had several senior editors go through it, but no accusations of WP OR? I have also re-written the tax inversion section of the Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland article, and no WP OR accusations (to date). It seems like you are trying to manufacture an argument for your earlier (see above) Edit War warning, but is just not true, and very unfair. You final assertion that my behavior "unambiguously violates", and that I have a "consistent pattern" is just wrong and so bizarre that I am not sure what else to say.

What I really want to say

user:jytdog The reason why I took the time to respond to you (despite you accusing me of "aggressive fraud"), was that I had encountered you before on WP. Even though your interaction with me was harsh (nothing like this one), as I saw you re-edit my work, I realised that I did not understand WP. It inspired me to read ALL your material on your TP about WP which was excellent and clarified a lot of things for me (I can't overstate how beneficial the experience was to the standard of my editing; maybe from junk to less-junk I hear you laugh!). However, this interaction is different. This is you manufacturing something that is not true and doing so in a hyper-aggressive format. I feel like I have met the WP equivalent of Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now - someone using the WP tools to wage their own brand of war. While WP is all about Content Rules and Community Rules, you seem to have dropped the Community Rules. However, the Community Rules are not just about respect, they directly impact the Content. The interaction above it an example - if we have worked together with AGF, we would have produced better content; instead, we have degraded or sub-standard content for Medtronic.
It seems you have gotten yourself into a negative place (despite the undoubted skill level of your editing, and the beneficial impact you can make to WP luddites like me). You should take a break from WP and drop the Colonel Kurtz mode. It will not do you any good long-term and ultimately, will affect your own enjoyment of life and your mental headspace (trust me, I know this from experience - the film was right!). Sorry to preach, but I did not want to make this into a pure advocacy thing on this specific interaction. You have a great skill level, and a great passion for WP, and hugely improved my skill level (and my enjoyment of WP), but you are down a tunnel that is not going to do you any good on WP (our even outside of it). Kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Jytdog Just saw the indefinite WP ban on your Talk Page (User talk:Jytdog). Sorry things ended up like that for you. I see you scrambled your password, which I think is the right call for you personally. Pity our main interaction was this one (and the above), however, I wish you good luck. Britishfinance (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Branislava Ilić

Hello. Please, check article Branislava Ilić now , because I have added several new references which testify notability of the person. Both old and new references belong to national level of authority in Serbia (national theater, national television, national newspapers...) and thus I assume it is safe time to remove your "notability" tag. Please, tell me your opinion. Sincerely. --Stripar (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The Open Championship format and qualification

Hi Britishfinance. Thanks for reviewing the The Open Championship format and qualification article. I notice you added a tag highlighting excessive bolding of terms. Was this a concern with the main body of text or the table below? If it is the body of text, then this is consistent with other articles (e.g. 2018 Open_Championship). Would you have a suggestion for distinguishing a category from its contents other than using bolding. Thanks Jopal22 (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jopal22. Usually, you want to try and avoid too much use of bolding of terms in an article (see WP:MOS). I have amended one of the lists for you which should help. The table has a lot of bolding in the first three columns. It is not serious, just a guide. Britishfinance (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Britishfinance. Thanks for you input. I am not sure this did constitute excessive bolding though. The change you made makes it difficult to differentiate between the category and the items that sit within that category. I much preferred it before, and I can't think of another way of making it visually friendly--Jopal22 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I have found a presentation I can live with Jopal22 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Jopal22. Very nice. Britishfinance (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Irina

Hello. You deleted article Irina Barzhak. Significance is shown. She published a book. There are sources. She is also a well-known journalist. Author in federal editions. Sources were shown in the article. Is it possible to restore an article? Thank you very much. Namerst (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Namerst. The article Irina Barzhak was deleted by an administrator on the 13 January 2019 under WP:A7 (Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). It failed to show references that asserted the notability of the subject under WP:GNG. I would read WP:GNG and see if you can provide suitable references that would meet this test. hope that helps. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
(happenning to look in here_. Normally, having published a book (except a self published book) is sufficient indication of possible significance to prevent A7. However, I can find no actual reference that confirms publication of the book. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello. 2. Namerst (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Could you recover the article?Namerst (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Dahod railway station

I am interested in the criteria you used for approval of this article. It is based solely on two database sources, Indiarailwayinfo, and a similar clone, NDTV. Neither is press that would establish notability. There is a discussion going on about the notability of Indian railway station articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#RfC_India_railway_stations. You invited to join. Rhadow (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Notability tag on Farmhand (comics)

Thanks for reviewing my new article so quickly. In response to the Notability template, I point you to WP:NCOMIC and my sandbox, which has more information I have not yet added. If you still think notability is an issue, I'll see what more I can find. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Argento Surfer. It is a good article and well referenced, and it was a borderline call (as the author has their own WP page, and the press coverage is good). If you could insert references from Comic Book Roundup (or other sources explicitly mentioned in WP:NCOMIC), that would do it (I can see that it is covered there). You can then take the tag off yourself. Great job, and thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Othman Alhaj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chadian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 PDC Calendar

Hi. I noticed that you move 2019 PDC article to a draft. I think that was a sensible action. However, someone quickly recreated the mainspace article. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this is.Tvx1 18:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tvx1. I "draftified" it as it had zero references. I see that a reference has now been added so it can be re-assessed and tagged if still under-referenced. I would only "draftify" an article that is devoid of any form of reference - after that, as long as it is notable (e.g. not a candidate for WP:AfD), then issues are tagged. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ted Mann (journalist)

I am curious why you tagged this with a notability tag. Bridgegate might not have big in England but it was huge in the US. Several careers were ruined by it and it played a role in Chris Christie’s failure in the 2016 and why Trump distanced himself. If Mann is credited with breaking the story, that makes him very notable. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Postcard Cathy. I was aware of it but in patrolling the page, was not 100% sure of the event's notability and that he was definitively the journalist that had broken it, hence the tag. Totally happy however for my tag to be reverted by editors who know better. Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
okay, I didn’t want to take it off without saying something first. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Postcard Cathy. thank you for that. Britishfinance (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear BritishFinance: It is great that you check articles for copyright issues, and using tools like earwig can be very helpful, but before you complain about copyright on a talk page, please read and check the actual page, so as not to waste the time of content contributors. As in this specific example, an article can get a high percentage on earwig simply by citing an overlapping set of sources as another document on the same topic, and citing sources is never a copyright violation. With best greetings, Martinogk (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Another aviation accident article without references

Is Air France Flight 091. Would you like to move this to Draft space also?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

More serious measure was merited due to copyright violation. Britishfinance (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Hi @BritishFinance: It's great that you are checking the notability of topics and reviewing new pages but I do think you should take a closer look at the notability of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Rudnick. There are actually several articles that discuss the topic in detail, not just mention it in passing. Here's one

https://axcessnews.com/entertainment/breaking-entertainment/why-festive-entrepreneur-andrew-rudnick-chose-to-enter-the-retail-beauty-industry_8199/

Here's another

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-man-behind-the-matzoball-christmas-eve-singles-parties/

and another

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/187629/matzo-ball-singles

there's also this source

https://axcessnews.com/entertainment/breaking-entertainment/why-festive-entrepreneur-andrew-rudnick-chose-to-enter-the-retail-beauty-industry_8199/

I know your edit was in good faith but I think you may have made a mistake on this occasion.

Best regards, Purple flowers by defaultt@lk 12:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Purple flowers by default. Thanks for that. I am going to move this to the Talk Page of the article in question Andrew Rudnick which is the best place to discuss and ensure that a record is kept of the facts covered. Britishfinance (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

your moving articles to draft space

I bet you only mean good. But could you just give me a little more than only a few minutes for submitting an article (stub), please? This is getting close to burocracy. -- Kku (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Kku. If you are creating an article with no references and incomplete text, then within a short period it is going to get deleted or moved from the Mainspace. When building an article, use your Sandbox or the Draftspace to bring it to basic standard, not the Mainspace. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
You, dear Sir, are actively ignoring the time factor. Please to reconsider, for the future. thanks. -- Kku (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
A completely unreferenced article whose text is still not coherent on the Mainspace, almost an hour after its last edit, is going to attract a WP:CSD. I prefer to "draftify", particularly where the editor is not new. As a courtesy to others, it is not fair to treat the Mainspace as a sandbox, which I am sure was not your intention. Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Usuário

Usuário:Genesis 954/Testes was a copy of pt:Usuário:Genesis 954/Testes so I've moved it on to User:Genesis 954/Testes.

Usuário is the portuguese for User. While User: works on all language wikis, the translations don't work on enwiki. Hopefully the titles will be blacklisted soon - MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#User pages. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cabayi. Thought as much when I saw on the en-WP NPP list, and thanks for the clarification. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Page on Dhammika Dharmapala - Additional information

Dharmap1 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Dear Britishfinance, Please note that there is a publicly available CV with alternative biographical information about the subject that could be cited instead of the newspaper articles that have raised concerns about victimization:

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/CV_Dharmapala_IIPF_Bd_Mngmt.pdf

Thank you very muchDharmap1 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dharmap1. I have replied to his on the Dhammika Dharmapala talk page. Britishfinance (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm DGG. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Paul Scates, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Question Re Speedy Deletion Beatriz Esguerra Art

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Bcbtech (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Britishfinance! Just wanted to touch base in regards to an article that I had submitted last week that had been marked for deletion. I'm including some rationale behind why it should be included in Wiki and more about the background here. Apologies if that was unclear in the original page!!

Beatriz Esguerra Art is one of the key art galleries in Bogotá, Colombia. We created the page as it had been listed on the colombian gallery's page, but did not exist. That page and listed galleries are "within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia" and WikiProject Colombia "a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colombia related articles on Wikipedia".

Was hoping you could restore the page so we can make some of the following additions so we can continue improving the representation and coverage of Latin American Art and Culture across Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any other ideas. Thanks so much for the help on this!

Per the request for page relevance, the gallery:

  • Had already been listed on the gallery list for colombia, and required it's own page (redlink)
  • Founded in 2000 by Beatriz Esguerra, Curator at Gold Museum and Biblioteca Luis Angel Arango, as well as Editor and Chief at Bogota Museum of Modern Art[1]
  • Recognized as one of most important and high profile art galleries in Colombia as far as it's representation of Colombian and Latin art locally and abroad[2]
  • Represents key Colombian Artists and coordinates exhibitions for artists in collaboration with the Embassy of Colombia: example coordinating the exhibition of the State Visit of the President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2016) to the UK in 2016 [3][4]

A few more citations from key Colombian Sources:

Bcbtech (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://theculturetrip.com/south-america/colombia/articles/the-10-best-colombian-artists-and-where-to-find-them/
  2. ^ https://news.artnet.com/market/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-colombian-art-market-151304
  3. ^ https://www.artrabbit.com/events/oro-spirit-and-nature-of-a-territory-by-pedro-ruiz-maddox-gallery
  4. ^ https://www.artsy.net/show/maddox-gallery-oro-spirit-and-nature-of-a-territory
  5. ^ https://www.semana.com/gente/articulo/mujeres-la-vanguardia-del-arte/410754-3
  6. ^ https://www.jetset.com.co/edicion-impresa/temas-revista-jetset/articulo/artistas-colombianos-en-artbo/153707
  7. ^ https://www.larepublica.co/ocio/galerias-de-arte-bogota-2799477
  • Hi Bcbtech. You are writing highly promotional articles on private galleries in Colombia, thus using Wikipedia as advertising, which is not permitted (see WP:PROM). Beatriz Esguerra Art was deleted by an administrator under WP:A7. I am sure there are some notable galleries in Colombia suitable for Wikipedia (although I am not fully sure that any are private), but the private galleries you are writing about do not meet WP:GNG, and are not written in a manner that is compatible with Wikipedia. I have put the List of art galleries in Colombia up for deletion (per WP:AFD). Even if it survives this process, it will have to be mostly deleted as it is unreferenced and not clear whether any individual gallery could meet WP:GNG. You should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on notability (per WP:GNG), and promotional articles (per WP:PROM). Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Britishfinance, thanks for the response. Just thought I'd mention that I did not create the List of art galleries in Colombia, I have a background in Colombian and Latin art and would like to continue to contribute that knowledge to Wikipedia as the knowledge is lacking. I came across the list of galleries, was familiar with them and thought it would be helpful to continue to add information and citations. Bcbtech (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Just passing by, Bcbtech, we rarely accept articles on private art galleries. Many of the ones we have were added in earlier years when standards were lower, and it will be a long time until we remove the ones that need removing. If you do any, make sure it has major 3rd party references for being one of the most prominent, and that those references are more than press releases or notices. Start at the top with the most notable and go slowly.. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund

Hi. What did your reference to "en-news RS" and "RS" mean in your Delete nomination for Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund? What do the acronyms "en-news RS" and "RS" mean? Please comment on the Deletion page. Thanks... Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stevenmitchell. Have now replied on the AfD page of Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you put comment in front of each comment?

Why do you keep putting Comment before comments? No one else does that ever, there no possible reason for it. Dream Focus 23:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? Britishfinance (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Howard Edelstein

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Howard Edelstein. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Netoholic @ 22:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Britishfinance! I want to thank you for all your work cleaning up the article Howard Edelstein. Just one comment: you changed "Howard Edelstein is an American corporate executive" to "Howard Edelstein was an American corporate executive". I changed it back, because we only say "was" about a person if they are deceased. If they are still alive but no longer a whatever-we-are-calling-them, we say "retired" or "former". In this case I think he still is a corporate executive so "is" is correct. (Maybe it depends what the meaning of "is" is? J/K) Just FYI. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Thanks for that - it makes sense. all the best. Britishfinance (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for your calm good sense on immigration and crime. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I need guidance

Hello there, I need your help with something. Recently, whenever I find someone doing disruptive editing, I go to warn them. A number of admins come to me and tell me I cannot give advice to so-called "veterans". Where does it say I cannot do that? It is clearly unfair and against Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I have been indefinitely blocked without any warnings once and had a hard time fighting for recovery. However, I see several "veterans" overprotected by admins, perhaps because they are "close friends". Wikipedia is suppose to promote diversity. I absolutely don't see that. Whenever there are contentious discussions, this "veterans" get the upper hand and support from the admins.

I am not trying to say all admins are like this, some are really kind and civil. I am trying to keep myself away from these people as much as possible. I want to create a positive environment and earn support and respect from peers in this community. This site has so much potential and should be turned away from the wrong hands. Any advice you would like to give? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: I don't that have experience. Most admins I meet are pretty reasonable and rational (remember, they are volunteers too, giving their time freely). I generally have no desire to engage with disruptive editors. I am here freely, and therefore I want to enjoy myself. Wikipedia is almost infinite in my view. If I find a part of it that I don't like, and it doesn't involve vandalism (I do know the tools to use for that and will engage immediately), I go somewhere else. Otherwise, why be here? Wikipedia isn't supposed to be anything other than a structured/searchable collection of verifiable facts from secondary high-quality sources on notable topics. In 100 years time, Wikipedia will be a bot that creates and deletes its own articles without any need from us. Britishfinance (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
further discussion 1

Hello, Wizard! I noticed your question here. I see you have asked this same question at multiple user pages, so apparently you are open for comments from anybody. I haven’t interacted with you but I have seen you in a number of places, acting in ways that caused other people to criticize you. Let me see if I can explain why. The first place I noticed it was the grave-dancing incident, where you chimed in on the page of a blocked user to tell them they deserved it, and persisted when people asked you to stop. Bad judgment at the least.

Checking your contributions: you are way over your head at ANI and should respect people’s advice to stay away from that board. I see you acting there as if you are an administrator, making NAC closures [1]. I see you chiming in like an old pro with comments like “I am surprised how many time TRM gets away with this type of stuff”, and recommending topic bans and “consequences." I see you telling people to “calm down” and lecturing them that “the most fundamental procedure is to reach for consensus with civility and proper arguments” with snide additions like “I hope this helps both of you. I am also assuming you were not familiar with this?” That was incredibly rude. As for your proposal of a two month block of TRM, that was so out of line it made me wonder if you have some kind of longstanding feud with TRM?

Anyhow, you appeared out of nowhere in December and became very active in telling other people what to do, and it has caused a bad impression. Please act less bossy and more like someone who is here to build an encyclopedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Oops, messed up the ping. Pinging again. @ImmortalWizard: -- MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Of course I am here to build encyclopedia. And yes I don't like users like TRM constantly getting away from disruptive editing. I don't see my comment as offensive (I have received way stricter "advice"). I don't like that editors like TRM basically bully newcomers and the inexperienced. I just wanted to be the voice of the voiceless. But guess what, I first need to gain reputation at first. All the actions I am taking are for the betterment of this encyclopedia. Granted, I agree that I got too ahead of myself and I apologize. I am still not really convinced I was gravedancing with BMK. I just gave my 2c and had to defend myself while they were tag teaming. I just happened to get involved once in that conflict prior to the discussion. Now if you think BMK is experienced and understanding, have a look at his comments at Talk:Ben Shapiro. Yes, I have developed grudges against both TRM and BMK for their uncivil actions depite having so many "experiences". I know these grudges are not worth it and will not end good for myself. However, I do trust a lot of editors and admins here and still look at the bright side. The bad are too much to handle for the good and I just wanted to lend a hand on this weekend. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@ImmortalWizard: BMK, TRM ?? I have almost 40k edits and never met them? Sounds like this is not your first time around ? Do yourself a favor and start to enjoy yourself. Avoid them and go elsewhere. There are a million other things to do on WP ??? Britishfinance (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Britishfinance: IKR. They just happened to be doing the same thing I am doing. There might be millions of things to do but I may choose one. Good that you never met them. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I don't want to reveal my real name but I hope you trust me that I have official diagnosis; I am editor who has autism and OCD. It doesn't mean I am looking for any excuses at all. I am just asking if there are ways in which I might be able to limit my number of edits per day (like a 30-something). I am not a tech savvy, hence external tools or softwares won't help. Any type of supervision or some admin action to limit my edits for a month will be helpful. I don't want to create any troubles and definitely did not mean to bother any of you.

Sometimes we forget that there are just other homo sapiens who are typing on their keyboards. Fun fact: I am an introvert who spents much of their time behind the screen. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wizard, you are welcome here and you will find there are many Wikipedia users who fall on the spectrum, including administrators. I was going to recommend this essay but I see you have already read it. Maybe you could talk to some other users with the same issue and find out how they deal with it. See Category:Wikipedians with autism and Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome.
The request to limit the number of edits you can make is new to me, and I doubt if there are technical ways that we can enforce that. My own suggestion: get a kitchen timer (or use the timer on your phone). Set it for 30 minutes or whatever you like, and give yourself a rule that when it goes off you get up from the computer and go do something else. (I would recommend something outdoors but that isn't always possible during the winter.) My other suggestion: find ways to edit here that focus entirely on content, without putting yourself in conflict with other users. I totally understand your temptation to want to straighten them out or advise them, but people on the spectrum are famously unable to WP:drop the stick so it's probably best not to start.
I wish I could be more help, but I think you would do best to post on the talk pages of some people in those categories. If none of the names look familiar to you, maybe I could suggest a few who are currently very active. Also: rather than cluttering up Britishfinance's talk page, maybe we should move this discussion to yours. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
further discussion 2
Hello Britishfinance, you described WP as a "structured/searchable collection of verifiable facts from secondary high-quality sources on notable topics." Well spoken! I take ImmortalWizard's point that "veterans" sometimes band together and protect collections of articles that don't meet your definition. There are islands of unreferenced or under-referenced articles mostly of OR that are protected from deletion or redirection. Without this threat of deletion (which I believe would improve the encyclopedia), these articles just grow as collections of random observations. Rhadow (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rhadow: I am pretty active at AfD myself in recent times. Destruction is as important as creation to any vibrant process. My parents had a whole room that was a library of encyclopedias which was considered perfect at one time, but is now not so (and even wrong in many areas). Give me an example of the collections you speak of. Britishfinance (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Britishfinance: two that come to mind are cricketers and Indian railway stations. Both are protected by arguments that sound like this, "The consensus is that all members of this category are notable." In Sri Lanka, many club teams are judged to be of national status. As a result, a player who made a single appearance gets an article, even if we don't know the player's first name. Take for example, M. Gazali. In India, there are 8,500 railway halts. Certainly, a ground level halt is not notable, especially if it never got any press. In both cases, WP is simply a recitation of some database website like Indiarailinfo or Cricketarchive. Beyond that, the rest of the article is all OR. Alternatively, a single datum (location) is stretched into an essay about all the places in India from which a traveler from this station may connect. That doesn't tell a reader anything. As far as I can tell, every station is connected to every other in the country. So what? I am sensitive to claims of systemic and cultural bias, but with automatic translation in the browser, I find this a weak argument. When one of these articles comes up for discussion, the same small group comes to its defense. For the rest of editors, the matter is simply not worth the effort of argument. Rhadow (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rhadow: It's funny because I had the same issues with cricketers. I asked for amendment in WP:NCRIC at WT:CRICKET, but it was quickly tormented. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rhadow: @ImmortalWizard: Unfortunately cricketers and railway stations are not a focus for me. I do find the GNG re stations to be almost useless. For any reasonale station with an amount of throughput, lots of incidents happen which get recorded in RS and by proxy the station appears notable. I have given up on stations, but as there is no COI/PROMO aspect, I don't pursue it (and I have never been able to think of a metric/defn that would solve it). Cricketers are even lower down my priority list than stations. Again, per my first comment, there are a million important things to do on WP, or, things that do involve COI/PROMO and should be culled. For me, the power of WP is being able to effect such things? As I also said above, in 100 years time (or maybe less), all of this will be replaced by a bot, so if it is not important, why sweat it? Britishfinance (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Those very bots will be instructed by controlling humans. I have read somewhere[citation needed] that future AIs and bots are being created with wide references to mostly Wikipedia, even by the academics. It will be worthwhile to spend time for the good of the future gens. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@ImmortalWizard:@Britishfinance: In short then, WP will be a reliable resource for living persons and history. Sri Lankan cricketers, distant railway halts, and every episode of obscure television shows will be unmonitored backwaters of chat. We can only hope that machine learning algorithms will be attentive enough to recognize that articles updated with mostly unreferenced assertions should be disregarded. Else the value of WP will be cast into doubt. Even its role as a gazetteer will fall into disrepute. To wit, Toolihalan. There is no evidence that this is a recognized place. Sure it has a road named for it, but does the place exist? Rhadow (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to User surevey 1

Hello! There is an ongoing survey going on at User:ImmortalWizard/User survey 1. As a fellow Wikipedian ImmortalWizard would like you to answer some questions. It wouldn't take too long, and your participation will be appreciated. Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Altering a message that I sent

@Anthony Appleyard:. Sorry about that. I didn't delete any of your text but I wanted to insert into the brief sentance, given that there seemed to be no clear proposer of the AfD (your bullet point looked like the first vote), what had happened; which I had to do for myself. I don't think I diminished/altered your bullet point, but just clarified to editors, by inserting text, who want to participate in the AfD, that the IP-editor is the source of the AfD? Was that so wrong? Sorry if you felt so, it was not my intention to cause any upset. Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Passion According to Andrei / Andrei Rublev (film)

No hoax, and you have a full reply on your Talk page. These are two separate films according to the review board at the Criterion Collection. Use the correct template if you are genuinely looking for article improvements. Please note that you have no support for your reading of this on the Talk page even though you have listed it for several weeks. It appears that you have not seen both of these films. You should make clear on the Talk page whether you have seen the two separately released film or it you have not seen them. Reverting to the old format of one article perpetuates the long standing problem at Wikipedia for this article of editors forcing edits into the article wrongly and without discrimination as to these two separate films. The one was fully censored in 1966, while the other was released in 1969 in Soviet Russia. CodexJustin (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: This article is a duplicate of another article with only tiny differences that are all unreferenced. The duplication is a problem and is therefore tagged accordingly. However, the lack of any referencing for these tiny differences (and the rejection of the editors on main article to having these items merged, means that this could be a hoax or false). You need to give references to at least support your thesis - there are none presented. However, even if you provide these references, it is still likely that without explanation, that this article will end up on AfD to force a merge/redirect. I have been patient, but you are not helping me to support the reason why a massive duplication of a large article exists on WP for a few tiny unreferenced differences? The lack of interest by other editors demonstrates that they ignore this article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@CodexJustin: Copying this to the Talk Page of the article which is the best place to discuss. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be edit warring on a film which you have not seen. Please make plain if you have one of the other of these 2 films. Your request for comments on the Talk page has been ignored by other editors because you appear not to have seen the film. The article have already been reviewed as a satisfactory article by Wikipedia. Please stop edit warring as you have no support on the Talk page for this. You have been informed at least 3 times that the editorial board at the Criterion Collection has released these as two separate films with different run times and different release dates. The lack of interest from other editors indicates that you have no support for tag bombing the article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Am going to copy this to the Talk Page of the article in question The Passion According to Andrei, as it seems this will have to progress to AfD. Author has created an article which is effectively an identical copy of a very large (and GA-rated) WP article on a Russian film but with only a few small extra edits. Not only do we have a duplication issue (over 97% identical), but we also have the fact that he won't even supply references for these edits, so it could be a hoax (or POV) etc. Britishfinance (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
You have been referred to the citation in the article to the Criterion Collection release of this film several times. You appear to be intentionally refusing even to make even a simple Google search on the Criterion Collection for this film while accusing other editors. Criterion Collection has released these as two separate films. You appear not to have seen either of these 2 films. CodexJustin (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I have put this up for AfD. I tried to engage with you for months now on this. However AfD is a good process, so lets see how that goes, Britishfinance (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!!

I'm so glad you noticed the SPAs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wapt (logiciel). I noticed yesterday, but I wasn't sure where to bring up the issue! Thanks so much! ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Philipnelson99. Glad to be of help. You took the right route however as sometimes I think editors can be too hard with COIs/SPAs (it is not technically prohibited). As long as they play inside the rules and provide proper WP:GNG on this AfD then good luck to them. However, I have found from other experience with COIs/SPAs on AfDs, that tagging the AfD and tagging the SPAs are good tools to help to keep things honest and prompt COIs/SPAs to keep inside the rules. Happy editing. Britishfinance (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Howard Edelstein article

Britishfinance,

I saw the content and references you removed from the Edelstein article. I checked them carefully. The ones I restored were all, contrary to the reasons you gave for removal, valid references. In some cases the links had changed. In others they were behind paywalls, e.g. the Boston Globe pieces you stated did not exist. In others, e.g. a Wall St. Journal piece, the online archive is from WSJ's national wireservice and is not the full version in the print version of WSJ that I cited that did mention Edelstein's connection to or role in the subject of the article.

As you know, there is no requirement that RS references must be accessible online. Please do not remove these sources again. You are of course welcome to raise your concerns on the article talk page and I will try to respond in detail so that normal editing processes can resolve any disagreements we may have. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @SPECIFICO: When you have written a BLP that is WP:PROMO with potential WP:COI issues (here is your final version[2]), a concern that has been expressed in very strong language by other editors at AfD (here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Edelstein (2nd nomination)), your references come under full scrutiny for WP:V. Even now, you have restored references such as this "Global Investment Technology, July 19, 2004" which are almost unverifiable (and likely not even an independent RS). In addition, a material amount of the references did not even make mention of his name (e.g. [3]), but were being offered as support for PROMO claims about Edelstein's actions.
The comments at this 2nd AfD by other editors, who have gone through the references and claims that you have restored from the de-PROMO'ed version, (see [4]; which was reviewed and discussed at the Deletion Review; and see my Talk Page above), should be taken on board by you. You should be listening and reacting to the concerns of your fellow WP editors, instead of paying it lip-service and just restoring this kind of material, some of which in my view has no long-term future on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the SkyWay Group

You're doing a great job cleaning up the SkyWay Group article. It's gradually beginning to make a lot more sense. You've made some valid changes to the wording; later I'll check to make sure that they still make sense in relation to the specific references. It seems a little reductive to say, however, that the company encourages 'large' investments; they do more than this according to many of the verifiable references. I'm not even sure that they encourage specifically 'large' investments at all; I'm sure they encourage all types of investments. 'Risky' investments was agreed upon with another user as this is exactly what they say in the Lithuanian article I referenced and what they claim anyway on the SkyWay self-promotion sites. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander: Thanks for that. Please do change any wording as you see fit. When I saw this article first I was about to reach for the G10 button, but as I read the references, there are some good sources and they are referencing major banks/regulators etc. Make sure these references are fully cited (e.g. include the quote= feature for key sentences, and where the news source has a WP article, make sure that the publisher= is linked with [ .... ] so AfD can see they are WP:RS), and as I said on the AfD page, try and introduce the key short sentence of what they are saying in the article (e.g. see the Catherine Blaiklock article, which is highly contentious but has had minimal edit warring as a result). Britishfinance (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Britishfinance (talk · contribs) I love the changes you've made to the opening paragraph. I just wish we could include the name of Anatoly Yunitskiy in it somewhere as he is not only the inventor of the technology but the primary shareholder, the director of many of the companies and the spokesman for the company who attends all SkyWay events and is present at all international negotiations (and whose name appears in almost all verifiable references). I can't see, however, where you could put it! –~~ -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: Put it straight after the first sentence in Background. HOWEVER, make sure that what you are saying is fully referenced to a quality RS(s) as connecting a person into a potential G10 situation will raise the bar even further on this article. E.g "According to [major newspaper(s)], he is also the main shareholder, director and XYZ". Don't overstep the RS, and only stick to what they are saying specifically about him. cheers. Britishfinance (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: Once you have it in the body (and referenced), you can then add a short sentence to the lede saying "Anatoly Yunitskiy" is the main inventor and shareholder of the group." Britishfinance (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Britishfinance: I've paid good attention to your advice and I'll do it very carefully with sufficient explanation of the referencing in the talk page. Thanks for that.
@Britishfinance:I've gone and done what you suggest. Let me know what you think. Your approval would mean a lot to me but your advice as well if you think I could word it better.
@Britishfinance:You were right to change the title of 'Evaluation of safety...' to something else; we're not really sure that the Belarus project has anything to do with the evaluation of safety. And it would seem from all verifiable sources that they are still working on the test site in Belarus. But how can it be claimed that the Russian project is any way 'actual'? We only have verifiable references saying that it was rejected and taken apart. And is a 'test site' even if it is still extant really a 'project'? Maybe something like 'Testing of technology' would be more appropriate. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zaxander: Tried something else. Keep the section heading title very simple. Britishfinance (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Britishfinance: I like 'marketing techniques that have attracted the attention of regulators' a lot because it's so much more true to the FSMA resource. I was actually trying to change this myself while you did it and I couldn't come up with anything; then I discovered that you'd beat me to it. But how can 'potential projects' be used to describe a testing site that was proposed and afterwards rejected AND a testing site that is half-completed. Maybe 'Potential test projects' or just 'Test projects' would work better. Maybe we should actually put them in different categories. I hate the idea but it might be necessary.
@Zaxander: Maybe call them "Failed Projects" or "Test Projects". Key thing is to keep the heading simple and clear. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes I'm sorry about the long text; it must be very confusing. This is the first time someone's accused me of being a vandal and considering how much time I've spent just trying to ensure misinformation isn't spread via Wikipedia it feels pretty painful. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised this is the first time such an accusation has been made against me. But pages and pages of explanation doesn't help anyone does it. Should I ignore future accusations from SPAs?Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Zaxander. AfD is decided by policy not the length of responses. Respond in the briefest way to any points of policy raised, or new proposed references that you feel are unsuitable (either because they are not from an independent WP:RS, or from a self-published source WP:PRIMARY, or not verifiable WP:V). That is what the closer of this AfD will look for. They rest is immaterial, and raises flags that the arguement does not hold up. Britishfinance (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I know - I just tend to type long texts which is a problem I have to solve. Is it too late to go back and change it? All I have to really say is 'These accusations are unfounded. Look at the many dubious sources in Kovitsky's 'String Theory' link and view the history of the talk page for an accurate retelling of real concerns that were voiced and ended up resulting in the name change and consensual agreed-upon changes'. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Zaxander. You can go back and alter your comments, BUT, if those comments have been responded to with other comments, use strikethrough. You can also just start a new bullet titled Comment - summary of objections, and then list briefly your points. Britishfinance (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the good advice. I hope it's now a more succinct reply that is more likely to actually help the cause it's defending.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Zaxander. Much better! Also, when you are discussing new refs, just paste their URLs into your comment at AfD inside hardbrackets [ .. ], so that people can see the evidence and a closer will see that you had refs to support your comments. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I need your help and advice again. On the 'SkyWay Group' page the headings were updated from 'unrealized projects' to two different categories: 'abandoned' and 'future'. Unfortunately, the Dharamsala India project has now ended up in a category it possibly doesn't belong in. I found this when translating the Norwegian site which includes it as a 'planned project' for 2020. As far as I can see, the reference we use on the English site, and the one on the Norwegian site, are both critical of the project but they don't actually discuss its abandonment. It may therefore still happen as far as I can see. I made a few proposals on the talk page on what to do about this, and your input would be more than appreciated. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have answered on the Talk Page, which is the best place for such discussions; your first proposal seems to make sense. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with 123movies

I just wanted to thank you sincerely for all the help with the 123Movies page. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mosaicberry: Thank you for that - appreciated ! Britishfinance (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Britishfinance,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

On giving warnings

Noticed a few of your reports at AIV, so I just wanted to drop you a line about warning after the fact. It's okay to give multiple warnings if they keep editing, but there's no point in dropping multiple warnings of elevating intensity after they've stopped editing. For example, if someone has made multiple offending edits and you find them after the fact, a single, higher-level warning should do. Otherwise, they're not actually serving as warnings. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Amorymeltzer. Will do. Would you have therefore given this editor a single level 3 (or level 4) warning in lieu of the previous unreported editing? I find myself coming across these type of situations via the pending reviews patrol, where a vandal's past edits have gone unnoticed. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Eh, use your judgment; I probably would've gone with three just because it's about the same length and still has the "may be blocked" message like 4, but a 4im would've worked just fine given the material/edit content. If it's less harmful and/or not a BLP, I might drop a level 2, maybe 3 if it's egregious. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Amorymeltzer. Will do. Britishfinance (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.

Hello Britishfinance,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.

RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

List of association football players considered the greatest of all time

I seriously doubt the article have encyclopedic value and he is likely difficult for correction due to WP:OR but I hope it can be at least corrected to form like that (at least in draft version). Due to fact recentism here is the biggest issue I have started correction of this page with diagram in my sandbox (I put here copy from this page but honestly I do not have idea how to correct this diagram). What do you think to remove all experts with no article (per WP:WTAF) and later add diagram to this list? Obviously article still will be hosribble but it would be at least much better verion possible to correction and escape from recentism as showing ballance? (I truy find idea how to correct this article)? Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dawid2009. That chess example is also very interesting. I would not try to save/amend this article as it is TNT in my view and whatever about this AfD, in the long-term, it will not survive - it is just too OR. We have all seen the AfDs where borderline arguments are made to support an article but 12 months later it is SNOW deleted. I do think that support for the article is around the fact that editors would like to see a list(s) of greatest players. Surely, there have been very notable polls on best players from major sports publications, major sportswriters/authors, or even player of the year type awards? Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable on soccer so can't directly point to these lists, but I would be surprised if they didn't exist, and therefore a great high-quality article could be created chronicling them? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

totaliatarianism

why did you revert my edit? 83.185.94.11 (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi 83.185.94.11. Sorry, I thought that you were removing a picture of Franco and misinterpreted your edits as being closer to vandalism; please feel free to revert me and carry on with your editing. happy editing and best of luck. Britishfinance (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

why did you remove my link?

hi why did you remove my link? --Won96 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Won96: Per WP:ELPOINTS: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article". Britishfinance (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Catherine Blaiklock

I'm more than a little surprised at the response that I have had to this my first edit. Once aware of the rule not to involve myself in an "edit war" I desisted with my edit. I am however perplexed by the rationales so far provided for the re-edits of my initial edits in so much as they are subjective and on the face of it not related to specific policies within Wikipedia. First, I am informed that a "lede" would not contain this information. A quick Wikipedia search proves that to be an incorrect assertion. I direct you to the "lede" of one Nigel Farage which enters into significantly more detail without edits.

Secondly, you inform that it is accepted to link to independent third party sources. This too is subjective. I specifically used the link to Hate Not Hope to confirm the veracity of the investigation. I believe this to be the correct course of action. It seems others disagree and that the source of the investigation isn't indepndent. I find myself asking, independent of what?

My reason for my edit was to highlight a person in the public eye who had made racist and anti-Islamist comments - comments which forced them to resign from political office. The edit was pertinent to the sentence in which it was inserted and used a proper citation.

It is my belief that the reasons for these re-edits could be a number of factors, factors I don't care to go into. Suffice to say I believe these re-edits of my edits do nothing more than censor the facts.

I won't re-edit or engage further. It seems rather pointless when the comments and facts can be changed at subjective whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.164.133 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@86.14.164.133: WP is a consensus-built project based on policies and guidelines (per WP:PAG)):
Firstly, we rely on high quality independent secondary sources for our facts (per WP:RS). The Guardian reference is a much better reference than your Hope not Hate reference, as the Guardian is completely independent of the event (Hope not Hate is not), and is a very high-quality source in the UK. The Guardian article contains full details of all the unpleasant things Catherine Blaiklock was tweeting and carries much (much much) more weight than anything from Hope not Hate could have. That is at the core of how WP works.
Your instance on using Hope not Hate could be interpreted by supporters of Catherine Blaiklock that WP's article was using biased (which the supporters of CB consider Hope not Hate to be) sources and that the article was therefore unsound. We avoid any "greyness" by keeping our sources to the highest quality. Only in that way does the integrity of our work get upheld.
You may also note that I have updated Hope not Hate's WP page with their Catherine Blaiklock "scoop" (which is a notable event for them), but again using the Guardian as the source. You may also see that Hope not Hate's article is "protected" because various IP-editors have attacked it in the past.
Finally, if you think there is a specific fact you feel that has been omitted on the CB article, please mention it on the Talk Page and if we can find quality sources confirming the fact, it will get included on the article asap. Hopefully, you will understand our methods a bit better. They are particularly important in "contentious" articles like Catherine Blaiklock's.
Britishfinance (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The Richest Man in Babylon

WP:NONFICTION says that "an exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included. Unless the list has encyclopedic value it is better to convey this in the synopsis". My edit summary removing the table of contents says that "a book's table of contents should never be included in a Wikipedia article about the book", which is my own opinion but not contradictory to WP:NONFICTION in this particular situation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Metropolitan90. Thanks for taking the time to come to my talk page to explain. I had included the contents list under the WP:NONFICTION criteria of: "Unless the list has encyclopedic value it is better to convey this in the synopsis". This Contents list dates from the first 1926 edition (which I dug up from archive.org), and also contains the original wording and format of the different groups of parables, which the book is famous for using (and are sometimes misquoted/misspelt in articles about the book). I noted that the Intelligent Investor (which is linked to on the article), also gives a full Contents listing, although it is the 2003 edition (different from Graham's original edition). I thought a reader might find such Contents useful and interesting. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Webtoon

Hi. Might you have some input to offer at Talk:Webtoon § Linkfarm? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Why did you decide to remove my uses of the {{interlanguage link}} template, which provides a link to the other Wikipedia while still showing that we don't have an article in English wiki (and possibly nudging interested editors into creating it)? PamD 22:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@PamD: Isn't it more useful to give readers a blue-link to their Wikipedia Hungarian articles, which they can translate with one right-click? I think the red-link implies to most readers that such an article doesn't exist and therefore not to click on it? I didn't realise it myself despite the fact I had been editing the article (and contributing on it at AfD). Not sure therefore it is such a useful tool (by definition, hitting a blue-linked hu-WP article implies there is no en-WP article)? However, revert if you feel strongly about it. Britishfinance (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The small blue "hu" link goes to the Hungarian article, and disappears when the English article is created. With your method, we could still have a link to the Hungarian article after someone had created an English article, as they wouldn't know about your link. I can't immediately find a policy or guideline suggesting either your or my technique as preferred. PamD 23:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: Pity the colour wasn't also blue (or at least not red). In fairness, your work on rescuing the article is what will (hopefully) keep it (and got me interested in also helping it at AfD); you also have a lot more experience than I. You decide for both of us. all the best. Britishfinance (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyKey (musician)

Hello. I am wondering why you labeled this one speedy delete. A withdrawn by nominator is usually a WP:SKCRIT. If draftified it is not deleted, so I am puzzled by the closure SD. Quoting: The result was Speedily Delete. Deleted by Fastily under R2 (non-admin closure) Britishfinance Thanks in advance Wm335td (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wm335td, updated the close as withdrawn and draftified. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
My pleasure, better to record the accurate result, which was the AfD being withdrawn because the article was draftified. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please be more cautious with WP:NAC

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Lupo, while I certainly appreciate that you closed this in my favor, I need to caution you about making bold non-admin closures. Of five people who commented, I was the only one who argued to keep. Overlooking a 4:1 numerical inferiority certainly meets the, Close calls and controversial decisions criteria. In the future, you should leave ones like this to an admin to close. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  • RoySmith, I relisted this to get consensus on your !vote (which I felt was compelling, and was why it had gone unchallenged by deletes who had done no real work/analysis on the AfD). When S Marshall chimed in after my re-list (himself is an historian and long participant at AfD) asking for closure based on your work, I went ahead and did that. I didn’t act in an unthinking manner and I think the result was right and not bold (otherwise, I would not have closed it). I am conscious in more contested AfDs of helping by !voting rather than closing. Hope makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    • RoySmith, for example, this is an AfD I could have closed as Keep yesterday Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Genovese (and certainly No Consensus), but given the effort and energy expended by the nom, I decided to !vote instead and help the nom see why it was a Keep. I have a good number of AfDs under my belt, BUT, am always conscious from personal experience, of giving noms and !voters the courtesy that their efforts should be closed appropriately and respectfully. Hope that makes sense, and I don't want you to come away with the impression that I in any way am looking to assert bold-closes. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand all that. Still, it really was not an appropriate AfD for WP:NAC. Nor do I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Genovese would have been a good NAC either. I can see that you've been very active, which is wonderful. If you want to get involved in more complex AfD cases, however, my suggestion is to run for admin and get community approval for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Couple of other tips ... probably best to stay clear of anything I'm [[WP:HEY]ing as we've collaberated on a couple of articles and discussions and you've plonked a bloody great barnstar on my talk page but it's kinda like a Sligo man told me in Havant ... "It you wear that (adrenelin) (very) yellow jacket in Dublin they'll think you are a guard and ...". I'm still recovering from watching the televising of French's novel and the backdrops of Booterstown's Marsh and the Poolbegs and Dublin Bay knowing I've worked on the associated articles. More seriously Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lansweeper while as far as I can see was the only possible result could have really been the better from an admin close (less chance of a challenge) and I tend to think the better ones always hang off that little bit longer. But at least you gave a reason which is great. Again with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadline24 (3rd nomination) perhaps better to have left to see if an admin would close or if relisting give a hint for what is needed e.g. ... are these sources sufficient or can someone provide additional ones. I also have a personal aversion to the reversion of relists on AfD's as I regard that as logged discussion; but I have some sympathy for Barkeep49 's reasoning in the recent use-case especially for non-curated page especially as creator has not disputed. Anyway for heaven's sake dont listen to all my tips! Best regards and keep up the good work 'cos what I am saying here is only fine tuning detail.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Britishfinance,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Irish Fiscal Advisory Council.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Irish Fiscal Advisory Council.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Britishfinance,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Britishfinance,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Britishfinance,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of English Variant

Hi, I seem to notice you are using British English for articles about the Republic of Ireland when Irish English might seem more appropriate and using a corresponding template on the talk page. I sort of have a bucket and shovel approach to this (which I assume is about right but may not be) which is England/Scotland/Wales/NI based article ... use British English; Republic of Ireland ... use Irish English; India ... use Indian English. For most practical purposes at my level of competence these three are likely broadly equivalent and I'd likely write the same way myself. I'm not sure if there is policy defining this but is there any reason you are not use Irish Englsh for obviously Republic of Ireland articles? I'd also suggest considering not to self-assess articles to which you have added significant content that could be controversial ... I've not seen one of your self assessments as incorrect and from memory I believe its permittend up to 'B-class ... I'm just not sure its best practice but this is a personal view. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Djm-leighpark. I had some issues with US-based editors mixing US spelling into some of my Irish articles (as some involve US firms a lot). I didn't realise that there was an Irish spelling template but I will use that instead. I understand re the rating point. I checked this with an admin who said that it was not against policy but that to err on the side of caution (which I have always done, and haven't been reverted yet; touch wood). My last one was on Gemma O'Doherty here. I agree however that it is not something that I really want to do, however, I also don't like leaving an article for months that have been materially expanded/upgraded with an out-of-date rating? Anyway point taken and fairly made. Britishfinance (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to the 2020 WikiCup

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The 2020 WikiCup began at the start of January and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you are interested in joining, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Creative editors like yourself seem to enjoy taking part, and many return year after year. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [5]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom internal market

I am creating an article Draft:United Kingdom internal market, but I am waiting for the Internal Market Bill has passed before publishing it and need a second opinion to ensure my article meets Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV & WP:SIGCOV.

I would also like someone external to help edit the page, as having input from a variety of editors other than me will help to improve and expand the article and fill in areas that I may have missed. ChefBear01 (talk)) ChefBear01 (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ChefBear01 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Newspaper of record has been nominated for deletion

Category:Newspaper of record has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Britishfinance/Archive_1&oldid=1006649104"