User talk:Travisritch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Travisritch, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Wolf530 18:03, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Upper Canada College

First, I'm not an administrator. Second, the UCC picture is, in fact, copyrighted as is evidenced by the "© City of Toronto 1998-2004" text at the bottom of the website that you took the image from. Their copyright clearly states: "Except as otherwise provided for under Canadian copyright law, such Web site, materials and images may not be copied, published, distributed, downloaded or otherwise stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or converted, in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner." (emphasis added) If you have the permission of the copyright owner (which it seems you do not), then you would have to place that information in the image information. Also, since the image is copyrighted, the {{GFDL}} tag is invalid.

I'm not trying to be mean, so please don't take it that way. Wikipedia just has a policy against using copyrighted images without permission. Darkcore 02:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to remove the picture. When you take the new photograph, then you can replace it with the new one. It's not the building that's copyrighted, it's the photograph *of* the building that's under copyright. Darkcore 03:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And, yes, I will leave it alone once you get the new picture or you get permission. Darkcore 03:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are the one being self-righteous. I have nothing against your school, but I do have something against blatantly POV, marketing-style writing. Wikipedia is not free PR. Darkcore 09:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] David Ritch

First off, I do not know of your previous arguments or confrontations with Darkcore. So, I'm just looking at the article and it's place in the Wikipedia. I think your father, in light of his accomplishments and receipt of the OBE, has sufficient notability to merit an article in the Wikipedia. So, I don't want it to be eliminated forever. However, right now, the fact is that the article is not very neutral. Since this is an encyclopedia, all articles must have a neutral point of view (NPOV). It's hard to write with a neutral style on a subject that you feel strongly about; one's family members definitely fall under this category. Now that I think about it, the article is probably not vanity.

That said, I think the most appropriate thing to do is to rewrite the article using the Wikipedia style. Maybe the list of positions your father held can be one section, then his award, and then any other information. I'm guessing that if you abide by the rules, and remove some of the "flattering" language, then the article will be saved. There have been plenty of articles that have been listed of VfD, rewritten, and then accepted by the community. Oh,here's another suggestion: can you find references on the internet, like a press reference or other honor. That might help it too. In fact, I'll try to find some time to work on it, and alter my comments on VfD. Cheers, Bratsche (talk) 16:31, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and would you consider creating your user page? It might help (Who knows? Anything could help!!) "Red-linking" suggests to many that you are a new user, and don't really know the ropes yet. It also looks pretty, too :). Thank. Bratsche (talk) 16:35, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me, you can bring it up with me, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't go around telling people that we are arguing or having problems when we most certainly are not (at least as far as I am concerned). I really don't understand your beef with me, nor do I understand what you mean by "arguing for months" (as you claimed we have done on Bratsche's talk). I came across this article in Recent changes. Honestly, I thought it read like a resume, was poorly written, and overly ingratiating (and clearly I am not the only person who thinks so). Regardless of who wrote it, I still would have put it up for deletion. You need to grow up and realize that not everything is about you. Darkcore 03:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to "tie me to a chair with red tape and force [you] to read [my] Wikipedia 'white paper'" as you say (whatever that means) nor am I looking for a "civil association" with you. The UCC crap is old news (if that's what you're referring to) and as for your father's article, this is just VfD. I have no vendetta against you - honestly, I couldn't give a rat's ass about you - but you keep appearing on my radar like an annoying gnat and I really wish you'd stop. Stop reading into things (like the fact that I haven't contributed to VfD in 5 months or whatever - I contribute as I please and I'd really prefer that you not spy on me) because this is not about you, your father, the Cayman Islands, or anything. I have my own views, you have yours, and I hope that you have enough maturity to allow me mine and I will have the decency to allow you yours. Most other Wikipedia editors would have left clear alone of this by now, but you, for some reason, have not; just accept the fact that your father's notability is in question (which is why I nominated the article for VfD - and as you know, this does not necessarily mean the article will be deleted) and work on improving that article, rather than annoying me on my talk or spreading rumours of conflict between us on other people's talk pages. This is a polite request: please stop. Darkcore 04:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Ritch, cont.

So, I did a pretty big rewrite to the article. I tried to remove some of the statements which seemed to praise a little bit excessively, and I cleaned up the list of positions. I also added a bunch of headings. Now, I think you should add some info, as I'm sure what I changed isn't all right. Just check it over. I'll tell some of the people who voted delete if they would consider changing their votes, too. Cheers, Bratsche (talk) 04:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sweet success. Your father's article was kept due to no consensus. This was probably partly due to one of the voters changing his vote, after I notified him of the changes we've made to the article. So, go out and edit something in celebration!! Cheers, Bratsche (talk) 02:29, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Ritch, again

Hi Travis, sorry I didn't notice your post on this article's talk page sooner. Ways to get the tags removed from the article: 1. The neutrality tag: Introduce some sources, and cite them according to WP:CITE. Saying good things about a person is fine as long as they're true and you can prove it. (But don't go overboard; this is an encyclopedia, not MySpace.) 2. The Wikify tag: Add a few more internal links and an infobox. For an infobox template, go to WP:WPBIO and scroll down to the template section. You might consider adding a "see also" section for stuff that isn't linked within the main body of the article but would still be of interest (for an example of this, see the Judo article. If you have any external links (besides links to your references), a separate section for those would be good too. 3. The cleanup tag: There are a few spots where you've referred to Ritch by his first name. Change those to either the last name or a pronoun. Also, take the bold off the list of government appointments. Once you've done that, the tags can be removed. RedRollerskate 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Royalcarriage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Royalcarriage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 159.92.57.11 lifted or expired.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use multiple/anonymous accounts to blank David Ritch‎ as you did here. It's a violation of both our Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policies. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Ritch

Hi, thanks for your message regarding the David Ritch article.

Firstly regarding my not speedy deleting the article. The speedy deletion policy explicitly says that articles that have survived AFD previously should not be speedy deleted. After carefully having another look at the arrticle since your message I agree that all the substantial content was added by yourself and without the previous AFD (on which I note your argument for keeping helped sway the debate to no consensus) it would be a marginal speedy deletion candidate. If you wish to take this to another admin or to either the administrators noticeboard or the Biography of living persons noticeboard to get another opinion I will quite understand but am reluctant personally to go directly against policy (especially as I have only been an admin for just over a week now!).

I could understand you reluctance to go through AFD but would note that if the article is deleted then the AFD could be courtesy blanked as per WP:BLP. However a quick google search by myself turned up some sources to establish notability that make me doubtful whether it would be deleted at AFD or not. I can quite understand your concern over the article which has major BLP problems. I am prepared to make an attempt tomorrow to completly rewrite the article from sources I can find on the internet to resolve many of the problems with the article - in particular its completly unsourced nature. Let me know whether you wish me to attempt this as I hope this would make the article no longer be a problem. Davewild 22:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now completly rewritten the article, everything in the article is fully referenced. I had to get rid of several sections that I could not find any sources for, making the article probably rather dry and it could probably do with some work on the prose (which I would never describe myself as very good at!). I am sure it can be expanded by others but at least it is now BLP compliant. Davewild 11:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the redlinks I think any of them which have the potential for articles to be written about them should be left as redlinks to encourage others to create articles about them. Any of them that don't have such potential can simply have the links removed. You will have a far better idea of which is which than me! As to the bit about being a top real estate lawyer I could see that being a reasonable addition to the legal career section saying something on the line of 'The UK legal magazine ????? has described him as one of the three leading real estate attorneys on the Caymen Islands' so long as it is independently sourced. By including who made the opinion it makes it more NPOV. Davewild 13:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)