Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Welcome to Wikidata, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

It's good to see you here too. You have been busy; great! Robin Patterson (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Military properties

Good evening! I can see that you are dealing with military Properties
If usefull I have collected my self the enclosed Properties

Military properties

Jean de Lattre de Tassigny (Q81114)	Q8018776	Peter Ustinov (Q55796)	Carl Gustav Fleischer (Q3499537)	Bjarne Øen (Q4570107)	German battleship Scharnhorst (Q155222)	Army Norway (Q1771854)	Bundeswehr (Q56010)	Operation Weserübung (Q150939)
commander of (DEPRECATED) (P598)	commanded by (P4791)	military branch (P241)	military or police rank (P410)	position held (P39)	conflict (P607)	headquarters location (P159)	has part(s) (P527)	order of battle (P4220)
French Far East Expeditionary Corps (Q2997796)	Q21651731	British Army (Q222595)	major general (Q157148)	military officer (Q189290)	World War II (Q362)	Lillehammer (Q3745117)	German Navy (Q56015)	Norwegian Campaign order of battle (Q7061041)

Breg Pmt (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Your username after your death

Hello 👋🏻,

Jeff G. and I were wondering what would happen to your username after you die 💀? Would you let one of your loved ones request a rename to the year of your death? -- Donald Trung/徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 18:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Whoever notices me dead first, I hope you will keep an eye out for me! If I do not log into my Google account for 1 month it sends a message to my daughter that I am probably dead.

You are welcome to leave her your username, password, and instructions in your will, or to choose a new username like RAN at M:Special:GlobalRenameRequest.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

COVID form

Hi there,

I've created this form that help set up items like Ronald William Lewis (Q89957906) very quickly. I hope it speaks for itself but if you have any questions I'd be happy to help. --1Veertje (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Nice job, thanks! --RAN (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I should tell you about the hidden feature where if you put in "Tuesday" it will get the last Tuesday before the publication date of the source you're citing as the DOD or if that's not given the last Tuesday before today. I should fix that if the news article is published on a Tuesday it takes that day. At the moment it will be off by a week. It's why the DOD is a free input field. Only English is supported for now. 1Veertje (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Long Time, No See

Welcome back! I hadn't seen your name in a while and did a double take. I hope that all is well with you. Alansohn (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked in English Wikipedia, which is a shame, I find probably three errors a day that go uncorrected. Working here and on the Library of Congress project adding their photos with context to Commons.

check out my tools

Hi! I think you might like my tool New Q5 and its sibling covid-obit. --1Veertje (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

SPA - Swedish Portrait Archive

I saw you used SPA. I have a tool I am developing for uploading pictures if you are interested

• video
• Add to common.js see my User:Salgo60/common.js

 importScript( 'User:Salgo60/spa2commons3.js' );

- Salgo60 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Salgo60: Excellent, thanks! I wish they added the dates for the publications they are taken from, it will help date the photos. I notice most are released under a "creative commons no commercial use" license, but most appear to be in the public domain. Is there any plan to upload all the ones that are in the public domain? Is there a way to let the database creators know you have more information? Some one might be listed as "L. Olson" but when I find the full name, I add it to Wikidata, but their database should be updated too. --RAN (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Another video

a) Omar who has scanned 880 000 pictures started without sources and books so the dates we dont know but it books from 1900

b) yes licensing is open and free https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ BUT can they set copyright for something they just have scanned...

I havent argued with them. All scanned are in category c:Category:Uploaded_with_spa2Commons if we should change license

b-1) if you find a opicture with a specific license let me know I can change the script to read the licebse info

c) There are more Facebook groupos open group / for members / technical groupo

d) upload all - no plans I guess its to many "normal people"

e) I can just click on the name and update it. I guess you need to be member... let me know if you would like to be member I can pay for you but I guess I have to tell the people your Facebook account number

- 23:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• They just approved my Facebook! How much does it cost to be able to edit? Have they considered adding a link to the person in Familysearch at SPA? --RAN (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I can pay its abt. 100 SEK or something. I guess its easier for everyone if I pay with the Swedish payment system sv:Swish
  • Family Search: You can add URLs. I tried to convince them using Wikidata Qnumber for locations but it was never done - Salgo60 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I am https://www.facebook.com/richardarthurnorton

• I also wish the people that do the Swedish Death Index would just put it online, instead of making you buy a version on a USB drive. --RAN (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The Swedish Death index I guess will never be online. The people developing SPA has "cracked the CD" so we have the data ;.-) And I asked the owner of the data https://www.rotter.se/ and get first a maybe that we should be able to match all people in SPA and set a death date. But they changed and it was a no, I guess genealogy societies needs to earn some money and right now its just by selling USB... - Salgo60 (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Do you add the familytree function at Commons: Commons:Category:Anton Julius Winblad ?--RAN (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• havt seen it but it makes sense... I am happy seeing father/mother/child in the Wikidata infobox.... in sv:Wikipedia it normally doesnt appear.... - Salgo60 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Member SPA

I got this answer

• 1) Log in with your facebook account and register on the page https://swedishportraits.com/membership
• 2) select how you will pay I guess paypal is your inky option

Let me know or ask in the FB group if you have problems - Salgo60 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Unanitz

I tried to figure out from where you took this name variant (Special:Diff/1527514807). I fail to find any sources beside Wikipedia that associate "Unanitz" to Alatskivi. Per sources like [1] and also your own notes on Wikisource Unanitz is in Ingermanland. Hence "Unanitz" for Alatskivi is probably wrong as Alatskivi definitely wasn't in Ingria (Ingermanland). I also traced Wikipedia info down to your edit comment where you mention a library inquiry (en:Special:Diff/501391964). The latter however doesn't explain much and apparently also constitutes unwanted original research (en:WP:OR). 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:B9BA:AFCE:64AE:9C12 10:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

it came from "Han war född på Alatzliwi 1662 ( Stjerman i fin Matr . fåger på Unanitz i Ins germanland ) , och dog i Malmø 1737. Rortan bar 3 bånkrader och en liten dålig orgel mes 2 stammor . De Jyske Handels Expediter hafwa på egen koftnad åt sig ..." see; https://books.google.com/books?id=3VdiAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=%22Unanitz%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-1-PxzZ30AhWNlWoFHc8FB-YQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v=onepage&q=%22Unanitz%22&f=false Have I misinterpreted it?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

My understanding of Swedish is limited. If I get it right then "född på Alatzkiwi 1662" means that he was born in Alatskivi. However, what is the part in brackets (..."Unanitz i Ingermanland" – "Unanitz in Ingria") about? I still don't think that it could suggests that Unanitz stands for Alatskivi as the latter wasn't in Ingria.

As for birth place, there seems to be some sort of confusion around it in sources. Other sources that you have referenced on the other hand explicilty say that Cronman was born in Ingria. Perhaps this confusion is explained in some source, or do we know which sources are more reliable in this matter? 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:FB:6438:6C23:DF4 21:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with you, so I have created a new entry Unanitz (Q109606988) and will add a note to the transcription at Commons:File:Johan Cronman (1662-1737) in Karl XII's officerare biografiska anteckningar.png about the confusion, and the question of whether they are the same place or not. As you can see at the translation there is difficulty figuring out which battles described correspond to our entries at Wikidata, which may be using a place name from another language. We tend to only have entries for major battles of Swedish wars. --RAN (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

To me the confusion is about whther Cronman was born in Unanitz or Alatskivi, not about whether the places are the same. I don't see what exactly in some source may suggest the latter. Though, it'd nice if someone fluent in Swedish and otherwise proficient in reading such documents could explain what exactly does given source say in brackets about Unanitz. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:88D9:622B:4D50:8640 11:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of F.A.G.

Greetings, On your user page you wrote several notes about your utter confidence in the reliability of user-generated geneaological information on Find-A-Grave. I propose that it should be regarded as "generaly unreliable" unless an entry is proven otherwise, somehow.

Firstly, F.A.G. doesn't include any real sources, other than photos of the sites themselves -- but there's no authority control, so conflations are easy, mistaken identity runs rampant, and besides, how reliable is a grave marker inscription, anyway? Have you ever correlated them with birth/death certificates? They can vary wildly just because of various needs to put on a good face for posterity.

Secondly, F.A.G. tends to aggregate data and it accretes in there as people submit more and more. Therefore, they err on the side of completeness and indiscriminate collection of facts, rather than their correctness. I myself have submitted many updates and corrections, and never was I required or even requested to provide a source for the data I found. Now I had meticulously checked sources and they're in my genealogy trees, but it's simply impossible to attach sources to F.A.G. facts and data. You can't do it. Forget it. You can put a text obit in there, but that's not a source. You can make a citation, but that's not a formal attachment.

F.A.G. is fundamentally unreliable, and so without a total makeover/redesign of the site to change its purpose, F.A.G. must be regarded by us, and other researchers, as suspect.

I can't tell you the number of times I've found fake, misleading, conflated, and simply wrong data in user-generated family trees. Those errors propogate well, too: amateur researchers love to pile on the fake "facts" cribbing from others. Then that gets shoveled into F.A.G. uncritically. I submit updates all the time and never has a manager questioned anything, messaged me for any reason, nor ever rejected my unsubstantiated changes.

In fact I would enjoy seeing one or two celebrities mess with F.A.G. as they've messed with Wikipedia. What if Stephen Colbert or Jim Gaffigan got their fans to vandalize F.A.G. and insert outlandish data in there, or even data that's subtly false but flies "under the radar". They could have a field day with Richard Arthur Norton's Ultimate Source of Truth... Elizium23 (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• You are conflating an Identifier with a reference. If you do not want Findagrave as an Identifier, then lobby to have Findagrave delisted as an Identifier, and we can delete it from every entry. I never said that I have "utter confidence" in Findagrave, as you mentioned, both Wikipedia and Wikidata themselves are also crowdsourced, yet the Library of Congress links to Wikidata in their LCCN database and Wikipedia was found to have fewer errors than Encyclopedia Britannica. Every data set has errors, the error rate determines reliability, and the ability to make corrections. You wrote: "I would enjoy seeing one or two celebrities mess with F.A.G.", odd that vandalism brings you joy, but everyone deserves some joy in the lives. BTW, none of the data points are derived from Findagrave, Findagrave is used as an Identifier, not a reference. Findagrave can have a picture of a tombstone which has birth and death information, and confirms where someone is buried. Again, lobby to have Findagrave delisted as an Identifier, so it can be removed from every Wikidata entry. Having a slate of Identifiers at Wikidata allows the information to be corrected across platforms, when an error has been detected. At one time I searched for Wikidata entries that had two different years for birth_date, I stopped the search at 5,000. By your definition, Wikidata is unreliable. --RAN (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Imperial University of Dorpat student ID

Wikidata:Property proposal/Imperial University of Dorpat student ID - to make serious and publicly available references easier to find. I just got a visit on my talk, questioning notability of students from the (European) Imperial University of Dorpat (Q28024477) which I didn't understand, since role=student (conceptual) and the role-having human (material) seem to fall under "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" and identifiers providing a link to further "serious and publicly available references".

A user raised concern because the ra.ee-archive containg digital copies of student registry books - the primary source for the IDs - requires a log-in for items to be seen. Maybe you can address this with respect to the requirement "publicly". Anyway, secondary sources of the IDs exist. BergwachtBern (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest it by editing this page and adding the following template with a suitable reason: {{unblock|1=<the reason for your unblock request>}}. If you are logged in, and the option has not been disabled, you may also email the blocking administrator (or any administrator from this list) by using this form. See Wikidata:Guide to appealing blocks for more information.

---

⁠ --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Unblock

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) block log • ipblocklist • crossblock • luxo's • unblock • remove gblock • contribs: +/-

---

Request reason:

No valid reason given, no due process. This appears to be revenge for complaining about Wüstenspringmaus deleting entries out of process. I guess if you cannot win a debate by citing policy, you can always block the person you disagree with to end the debate

Decline reason:

Can you make an unblock request based on how you are going to change your editing behaviour, going forward? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

---

беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | français | македонски | Nederlands | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenščina | svenska | 中文 | +/−

Pinging Ymblanter, Fralambert and Lymantria from the discussion at AN. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wüstenspringmaus: Personally I suggest you change this block to main-namespace only, which will stop most potential dispute while allowing further discussion of the issue. GZWDer (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would stop the problems, as he could continue his abuse of RfD (and sometimes AN). The reason for the unblock request is unacceptable and shows me that it would not be a good idea to allow such comments from this user in the project namespace imo. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 13:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion a partial block from creating new pages/items would be best. I don't think it is appropriate to exclude them from discussions — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Creating inappropriate pages is a valid block reason and indeed there is consensus about that at WD:AN, but being blocked at enwiki is IMHO not relevant. Playing the revenge card is a very weak way to question a block based on consensus at WD:AN, it is however true that user brought their many creations of inappropriate items under attention by critisising their deletions in strong wordings. Those strong wordings make me doubt severely of user understanding that their creations were not complying with notability. Therefore I would not like to see user create more items. I'm not sure if it is of much use to switch to partial block for main space only, wordings of this request do not entirely convince me. It is not about "... winning a debate ..." but reaching agreement and act on that agreement. On the other hand, their views may be heard. As a conclusion I'll stay neutral on a partial block. --Lymantria (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• You are blocking me based on policy changes you are hoping to enact in the future. The current policy is Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." You are trying to enforce English Wikipedia rules at Wikidata. --RAN (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  No. I think, there is a clear consensus among admins (here and here) that these created items are not notable. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• 3 out of 72 people with admin rights is mathematically not consensus. 3 out of 23,910 active users is mathematically not consensus. --RAN (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: @Deansfa: @Yann: @Dronebogus:

My block

• User:Ajraddatz User:Mike Peel User:Koavf User:Jasper Deng User:Bovlb

I believe I have been permabanned from Wikidata without the person applying the ban going through the proper procedures. I was not warned of a potential ban, nor was I allowed to advocate for not being banned. What got me banned was asking that Wikidata items that were deleted out of process be restored: Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Q126487673. The Administrator that banned me had only been given access to Admin tools for about a month, and at the time had less than 3,000 edits. I am hoping you will unban me.

I am being blocked based on policy changes that a small group of people are hoping to enact in the future. The current policy is Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." The entries created by me or the other involved editor fit this policy, they were linked to an obituary or other serious and publicly available news article. I believe the two administrators are trying to enforce English Wikipedia rules at Wikidata. An obituary certainly is "serious" (not satirical like The Onion) and "public". The two people advocating for my ban from Wikidata have an interpretation of Wikidata:Notability that includes restrictions that do not actually appear in the wording.

Here are some of the comments about the new interpretation of Wikidata:Notability that more closely aligns with English Wikipedia:

• "Wikidata is only supposed to be a knowledge base for people, events, and things that have something that make them really standout and have references. Wikidata is not an obituary site." (my emphasis added for clarity) User:Masai giraffe at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q126487673
• "I don’t think there should be one on every single family member just the ones with significant actions." (my emphasis added for clarity) User:Masai giraffe at Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard
• "Perhaps the wording of WD:N needs to be tightened to make it clearer what is regarded as notable for Wikidata's purposes." (my emphasis added for clarity to show this is some possible, undebated, future change to policy) User:MSGJ

• Summary: I do not believe that Wikidata was designed to solely serve Wikipedia community, and any changes to the wording at Wikidata:Notability must be made with full community consensus. No one should be permanently banned for violating this new interpretation, where the requirement is that people need to "really standout" or be involved in "significant action[s]." Once again the current policy reads as: Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." The entries that were deleted were linked to obituaries or to other news articles. --RAN (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Responses

It doesn't seem like other people are misunderstanding the application of WD:N here. I can't support an unblock until you recognize that the community does not agree with your interpretation of the policy and agree to do things differently in the future. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Ajraddatz: Can you explain how an obituary is not serious or public? --RAN (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, at least to an extent. But the rest of the community doesn't, and regardless of what is specifically written in the policy, this is a collaborative effort and we all need to work together to figure out what is acceptable. I know you think you are right, but you're completely missing the point. This is about working together on what content should be included here, not wrapping ourselves in a specific wording of the policy and refusing to budge. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: 3 out of 72 people with admin rights is mathematically not consensus. 3 out of 23,910 active users is mathematically not consensus. --RAN (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Also a fallacy - we don't get 23k or even 72 people in discussions. We need to work with the people that show up, there is no secret silent majority that agrees with you. The path forward here is to accept that people disagree with your actions, work to understand why even if you disagree, and make changes to avoid upsetting others. You can continue to argue your point of view in discussions, but ultimately, if nobody else agrees then there comes a time when you should drop the stick and worry about other things. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Avoid upsetting others", you mean do not challenge someone's deletions because they have the power to ban you from Wikidata? I get it, but that isn't the way it is supposed to work, but sad that it is. --RAN (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am glad with the way that Ajraddatz tries to explain what has led to the current situation. Let me try to bring my 2 cents. Building wikidata is a collaboration project. In such a collaboration it is not helpful at all to state "I am being blocked based on policy changes that a small group of people are hoping to enact in the future", as if you are mr. know it all and other (respected) collaborators are misunderstanding the project's goal. We'll have to deal with slightly vague notions of "serious" sources describing the entity and "structural" need, disagreement will appear every now and then. I'd like to suggest to you to admit that the notability of some of the items you are fighting for is controversial and put creation of alikes on hold. That would help to convince admins (like myself) that your block might be lifted. Then a discussion could be started on the interpretation of "serious sources describing an entity" and other parts of the notability criteria, for instance by an RfC. --Lymantria (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  P.S. This all has nothing to do with English wikipedia criteria. --Lymantria (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• I would assume you would have an RFC first if you are going to define "serious" and "structural" as being different from the way they have been used for the past 10 years. You also permablock the editor who differs from your interpretation. What got me permabanned was opening my mouth here: Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Q126487673 opposing deletion. The message you send is: if you oppose someone's opinion and they are an admin you get permabanned. If you want to skew that debate you can do it by permablocking someone you know would oppose this redefinition and scare away others from expressing their opinions because they too risk permablocking. --RAN (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's your interpretation of what happened. It's a pity you keep seeing it this way. It seems you have opened your mouth, but not your ears. --Lymantria (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review

• Q108053223
• Q108052901
• Q108053097
• Q108054042
• Q108054098
• Q108053980
• Sofus Aksel Hogh Pihl Q130262989
• Peter Lauritz Gotlieb Pihl Q130266015
• Petra Sigvarda Nilsen Q130263047 RAN (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Partial unblock

Following from discussions at Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#RAN:_Admin_call_for_unblock (permanent link, I've partially unblocked you - you remain blocked from editing mainspace only. The purpose of this is to make it easier for you to constructively participate in the ongoing discussions, and I hope that this will lead to you being fully unblocked. Unconstructive participation may lead to the block being reinstated in full, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Richard, do not admin-shop by emailing me and other admins about it when there is no need for privacy and your block has been relaxed enough to allow you to participate in the project space and talk page space, and thus you can post at WD:AN if you want to appeal the block again. Unfortunately there was no consensus for a full unblock; haggling over alleged procedural violations is frankly not appreciated, for there are no such firm procedures on Wikidata. Wikidata:Blocking policy only states that if a block or unblock is controversial, it should be discussed at AN. If you continue to admin shop, the full block will be reinstated with no talk page or email access.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Jasper Deng: The rule reads right in the block notice: "you may also email the blocking administrator (or any administrator from this list)". [my emphasis added]. You call it "admin-shop by emailing", but it is actually what the rules says to do. Correct me if I am wrong, if I am wrong please correct the rule book. --RAN (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • What I said supersedes what the block notice says, because you are abusing that invitation. Emailing me and other admins will not get you unblocked any faster, and quite frankly your walls of text won't either. And you will not get an unblock considered again without using {{unblock}}, which will also (in your case) require a WD:AN discussion. Anything that doesn't go towards either of those ends is a waste of time and will be considered misuse of your talk page and/or email. Such would be dealt with accordingly; this is your only warning.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Richard, why didn't you constructively participate in the discussions, like I was asking and hoping you would do? Instead you just continued as before, and your edits to your user page have been particularly disappointing to see. Unfortunately I now have to support the full block, until you can demonstrate change here on your talk page. Mike Peel (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

My name on your user page

Hi, I'd like to ask you to remove my name from your user page as I don't share the opinion that only "famous" people should be represented in items, I simply follow WD:N for RfDs that I create. That we differ in our views on WD:N does not mean that you can publicly assign an opinion to me that I don't share. Regards, Dorades (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have removed the word "famous" that you object to. I am retaining the discussions on the topic of keeping or deleting humans where people discuss the meaning of "serious and public". I refer to these discussions often and need to keep track of them. --RAN (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

At first, thank you for the modiciation. I have to say though that I don't feel comfortable being listed like this; it feels like being marked as someone you oppose together with other people. Also, I don't understand why you copied a discussion between me and another user from my user page. --Dorades (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• You both make good arguments that I want to refer back to them. As you know "serious and public" for humans is under intense discussion and may undergo a major change. I just want to keep track of good arguments made on both sides of the discussion. You make a good argument, there is nothing sinister in being able to refer to it in the future. If the discussion was anywhere but a user page, I could just link to it like I do with the other discussions listed, but we all clear out user pages once an issue is resolved. --RAN (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning users on your user page and "supervote"

I am concerned about the use of your user page. I notice that you have answered Dorades about an objection on how they were mentioned at your user page. Still I see you divide users into "libaral" and "conservative" on when humans are notable to have a wikidata item. While in fact I see that there is discussion on what sources should be considered in line with Wikidata:Notability, in particular the phrase "... described using serious and publicly available references". I see the division you are bringing as unproductive, and ask you to stop this. It is not nice to see your contribution to a discussion labelled as "conservative" (or "liberal") and it is quite unnecessary to paste complete discussions, while you could also link by using Special:PermaLink. I urge you to stop this splitting the community and search for agreement instead.

Apart from that I strongly oppose to your use of "supervote" for the explanation given by an admin to explain their admin action. At WD:RFD there is no voting, but exchange of argumentation. An admin weighs and decides. The admin is not supervoting and I expect you to withdraw this comment.

In general I expect you refrain from further schismatic actions. It might lead to full reinstation of your block. Enough is enough. --Lymantria (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This is also canvassing. If you do this again, you will be reblocked in full. Do not abuse your access to the user talk namespace in that way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This reaction to my call above makes it even worse and more dividing than the original. I'll reinstate your block to full block. --Lymantria (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

...schismatic actions lol Serial Number 54129 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access

Due to this, I've also revoked your TPA. @Jasper Deng, Mike Peel: FYI --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 11:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wüstenspringmaus: That seems like an innocuous edit to keep track of discussions. I'm restoring talk page access. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)