User talk:Pulrich

Belated welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Pulrich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —68.239.79.82 12:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're new here, and probably wondering what "edit any page, any time" means.

These links may be helpful:

Learn how to write and edit articles: Wikipedia:Tutorial
Learn about the policies and guidelines: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
Ask questions if you need help: Wikipedia:Help Desk

Welcome, new WikiGnome

Hello ... I don't know how you consider adding {{Notability}} and {{Unreferenced}} tags to articles as the kind of "useful incremental edits" that a WP:GNOME normally makes (something like this is more typical), but welcome anyway.

What prompted this msg is noticing that you are adding comments on talk pages with the DATE as the subject heading ... this is not normal etiquette, but on the pages you probably have seen as examples, it was an artifact of cleaning up previous posts that did not have any demarcations ... in the absence of trying to come up with an appropriate subject/title, I just used the date of the first post in the tread ... in some cases, the half-dozen messages went back over a year, and I needed to make 2-3 sections to delineate them before adding my new one to the bottom.

The second etiquette thingy is that new messages with topic headers should always go at the bottom, not between existing sections.

You have already figured out that ":" is used for indenting replies, with each one indenting one level further to the right ... when it gets Too Deep, or the discussion changes direction (but not enough to start a new section), then start from further to the left again.

Another trick is that a line that contains only "-----" (five dashes is sufficient) will create a line across the entire display window, e.g.,

Note that at the top of the each Talk/Discussion page, between the "Edit this page" and "History" tabs, is a small tab simply labeled "+" ... click that to create a new message at the bottom of the page, with a "Subject/headline" window that takes the place of your having to manually bracket it with "==" in the body of your message ... this is particularly handy when the page is Very Long (no need to scroll down the edit window), and it also saves confusion from having the name of the previous section appearing in the edit summary as the default, which is what happens if you click the edit button next to the last section header in order to add a new one at the bottom.

Last bit ... be sure to put something in the Edit summary window that describes what you have done ... uncommented edits may be summarily reverted by anyone (and often are), usually with the simple summary "rvv" for "reverted vandalism." ("rv" for "revert" and "rm" for "removed" are the traditional shorthands used.)

Just some "Helpful Hints for Nuggets" from yer Friendly Neighborhood Anon-IP WikiGnome.

Oh, and I almost forgot ...

You never get a Second Chance to make a First Impression!

Even if you have accepted the inevitability of their deletion, you really owe it to yourself to say something at the current AfD discussions for your articles ... your silence may be interpreted as, "I don't care about you OR your effing rules and procedures!" ... memories tend to be long, and editors encountering a discussion of your contributions for the first time in future debates will often review any past discussions, note your lack of participation, and form a Negative Opinion that will cause them to be less charitable toward you in their decision making process ... trust me ... I've seen it happen ... it's not a Pretty Sight.

BTW, no thanks needed to User:Jlao04 (talk · contribs) and myself for reverting the repeated vandalism of this page by User:202.82.31.75 (talk · contribs) (click the History tab at the top of this page for details :-) —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 06:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers

Thank you for pointing out tips on how to add comments to discussion pages.

My point in adding {unreferenced} or {notability} to some users' pages was to highlight a kind of double standard.

As a newbie, I had signed on to Wikipedia using my real name and providing my e-mail address, which clearly shows my name. I was unaware of the {coi} rule, so my addition of several new pages generated a {coi} alert that had certain editors or commentators scambling to the alarm and busting my chops for it.

By contrast, other contributors, slightly more savvy and aware of the rules, have probably used pseudonyms to post similar articles about their own works or those of their friends/relatives and have therefore not generated a firestorm of tut-tutting.

If the {coi} is a problem for the biography, please delete it along with the others. Then please suggest who would be appropriate to post something similar in the future.

Well, since you are a newbie, I guess I should point out a couple of things ...

Users cannot really DELETE any content once it has been saved ... all of the earlier versions on this Talk page are still there for anyone to view, such as this one from before the most recent attempt by 202.82.31.75 (talk · contribs) to delete sections of this page, and that is why no one has bothered to restore it again ... it just ain't gonna go away unless one of the Administrators does their SYSOP magic.
If you really want to start over, without the stigma of past behavior, and don't want to create another account because of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and having to deal with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (which can lead to being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia, temporarily or even indefinitely), then you can try following the protocol provided by Wikipedia:Right to vanish.
For some editors, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is a "Kill it before it grows!" issue that must be nipped in the bud to (a) prevent repetition by the editor in question, and (b) serve as both an example and a warning to other editors.
Conflict of interest only represents a part of the problem with your contributions, which largely has to do with your lack of familiarity with Wikipedia:Notability criteria, and that is the basis for the three articles being taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, i.e., Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the article about yourself, Wikipedia:Notability (books) for your novel, and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for your publisher ... in that arena, violation of the conflict of interest guideline is just a Very Bitter icing on the cake.

As for the article on that is still under discussion, the issues are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Attribution ... it really doesn't matter who creates the article so long as the subject is notable based on verifiable reliable sources ... at least one administrator is of the opinion that MD of a major branch of a large multinational corporation is notable in the same way as a British MP, and does not require any further attribution (see WP:COI/N#Douglas Carswell.)

As it turns out, conflict of interest is neither a sufficient nor valid reason for deletion of an article, nor is lack of attribution if there is a reasonable expectation that it can be found if looked for ("just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't there to be found"), as in the case of an MP who couldn't have been elected to parliament without readily available press coverage from major publications such as The Daily Mirror ... and that is what it will come down to, whether or not RS attributions can be found.

"turn on a TV program" is not the same as "has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable", which is one of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) ... even if only one out of every 10,000 people in the world (one-hundredth of one percent) appears on TV on a regular basis, that's still 600,000 people ... are all of them notable enough for Wikipedia articles based on that fact alone? If so, then how do you distinguish between someone who appears on camera for 5 minutes every day in a local market from one who has the same amount of face time in a national or global market? Why does that person who gives the nightly business report on a TV station in Boston have an article, but that guy who gives one on CNN does not?

The difference is that the former has won a Peabody Award for excellence in broadcast journalism, and the other has not ... in other words, the former "has received significant recognized awards or honors" (again quoting WP:BIO) ... so who determines "significant recognized?" Well, not being notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not a prima facia argument for exclusion from that category, of course, but take a look under the Awards and recognition for Vanessa Williams and you'll see that the New York Music Awards, one of which she won eight times in consecutive years, does not have an article, even though it gets 4,640 results from a Google search ... but I think you see where I'm headed with this.

"scan any major business periodical" is not sufficient either ... personally, I have neither the time, the inclination, nor much optimism of finding "published secondary sources that are reliable," as in "major business periodical(s)" (to use your words) ... can anyone provide a citation for an article in the South China Morning Post for which she has been the subject, and not just a mention that she has won an award in one of the (how-many?) categories for the umpteenth time (back to that "significant recognized" thing again!)

Of the dozen references currently in the article about her, nearly half of them are attempts to establish the notability of the sources of references which are not even cited ... where the article says, "research polls of Institutional Investor^[1] and Asiamoney^[2] have repeatedly chosen," instead of finding author, date, and page (who, when, and where) of articles that support the allegation, the reader finds "it is not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia, but it's not a fictitious publication, and here is their website to prove it" ... again, I think you can see where I'm headed with this.

Having said all that, if you really meant "please delete it" as you wrote in this post, then simply replace the article with a {{db-author}} tag (be sure that you're logged in a Pulrich, and the admin will confirm from the article's edit history that you created it and made most of the edits), and it will be gone within an hour ... or Some Other Editor (including myself) could do that and put "author requested - see User Talk:Pulrich#Thanks for the pointers and WP:COI/N#Paul Ulrich" in the edit summary ... very simply, you put it out there, and it can't be taken back now.

So that this thread won't be quite so glaringly obvious, and to make this page less cluttered by this Very Long reply, I have encapsulated it in a navbox with a "show/hide" button ... BTW, if you use {{User}} to sign your posts, you still have to add "~~~~~" (that's five tildes, not four) to add the date/time stamp.

Happy Editing! —72.75.100.232 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to The Simpsons

You changed George H. W. Bush to President George H. W. Bush ... because of the Wikipedia:Protection policy, I can't repair the damage you have caused to the article ... besides, "You broke it, you fix it." —72.75.100.232 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons

Hi, thanks for your work on The Simpsons. All the article needs is a complete copy edit before it can become a featured article again. Could I perhaps get you to do the same for the sections below the production section?

Thanks again for your help. --Maitch 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Simpsons (Annoyed Grunt)-star
		I give you this award for doing a complete copy edit of The Simpsons article. It is now well on its way to become featured again. Maitch 11:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you haven't done any edits to the Merchandise section yet. --Maitch 11:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BTjian

FYI, see User talk:BTjian ... apparently, this user was unaware of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 (Recreation of deleted material) ... they are suspiciously knowledgeable for a "new" user. —72.75.100.232 09:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing your own talk page

Please see Wikipedia:User page#Removal of warnings and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments ... remember, people will always be able to see older versions of your talk page like this one and this one, so your connection to the previous incarnation of Jing Ulrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) can never be completely obliterated, despite your most recent attempt at obfuscation. —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jing_Ulrich.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jing_Ulrich.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]