TheRoyalTrust

Hello, TheRoyalTrust, and welcome to the English Wikiquote, a free compendium of quotations written collaboratively by people just like you!

• For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
  • See also What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
• To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
• Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
• Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
• When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~~~~) and saving.
• Be bold.

To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 00:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

English Wikipedia AfC

I'm aware of the AfC decline of w:Piet Emmer and the involvement of the Qwerfjkl (bot) trial in setting up that situation and would expect Qwerfjkl to note the negative outcome to a new contributor to the English Wikipedia and to report that as part of their trial. I need to see if that impacts how the article is handled here and if a VfD procedure is appropriate to give the community here that chance to review that situation but even should that happen I would strongly urge TheRoyalTrust to remain calm and not panic as I am minded the community here would decide to retain the article under a discussion process. I need to take a good fresh look at this tomorrow. While S0091 reason at first seemed over harsh but perhaps warranted in the light of possible controversies in the slave trade area albeit there seems no notability issue and that article would have easily survived an AFD in mainspace with possibly a couple of {{cn}}' needed. Thankyou. User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 00:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. TheRoyalTrust (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheRoyalTrust: Your global contributions to seem have have an unusual spread for a new user, as does this response [1] for a new user. Don't give and information you don't feel comfortable to give, but do you have any explanation for those many contributions which seem more indicative of an experienced user? I'd also like you to confirm, by simple yes or no, if you have any w:WP:COI with Piet Emmer? (AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPLY ANY DETAILS THAT COULD LEAD TO YOUR IDENTITY BEING REVEALED), a simple "yes"/"no" response is requested and you are also entitled not to respond. Edit requests from people with COI's can be managed, albeit scrutiny will be higher. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 21:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have edited on Wikipedia before, but I feel that there are gangs active on Wikipedia with far too much power, maybe they are paid by governments to edit, maybe by private entities, but they are pros, they are not private individuals, and they work together, they also control certain topics, and they have more rights than others, because they protect each other, they block you if you make a mistake, but will not block their mates if they make that same mistake, it is a rigged system. This is why, for example, I myself do not edit pages on colonialism and slavery or immigration, because I know my edits will be reversed, and maybe they will find a reason to block me, as they have done to many others, you can just search for this on google, and you will find hundreds of such cases. And if they have your personal details, like your name, they will write negative things about you, that will end up in the search results in order to smear your online reputation.

As for the unusual spread, of the two gentlemen in question, they are both respected scholars on the same kind of topics, both specialize in Colonial History, and since Colonialism and Slavery and also immigration are hot topics these days, very polarized, and also very one-sided, and since Dr Piet Emmer and Dr. Bruce Gilley illuminate colonialism and slavery from a different side let's say, that is unusual but based on facts, and also in a civilised and respectful way, and since much of the information on these topics, especially online and on social media are a direct copy of Wikipedia, I saw it fit to include the profile and thesis of these two gentlemen on Wikipedia as well, as I think this will benefit the online debate around these topics.

Thank's for listening. TheRoyalTrust (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm also including the criticism of these people in the article, so it's not part of a marketing campaign or anything like that, it's just purely informative, They also have no idea who I am, and I don't do it with their permission either, I just see the online debate being dominated by a particular narrative, and this people represent a different narrative, I think that by giving other voices a platform as well, this benefits the Public debate. I am just a concerned citizen, nothing more. TheRoyalTrust (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

BOT and AFC combining to give bad new user experience on enWP?

@Primefac: Congratulations on your election at the ARBCOM December 2022 elections, albeit I personally am opined there was some interference in said process. Per your candidate statement I observe your claim a to be doing work on "some long-term goals in collaboration with the WMF to better increase the safety and well-being of our editor base, in particular our newer editors." (I've stressed the in particular our newer editors.). I am minded TheRoyalTrust (TRT) was likely failed over their w:Draft:Piet Emmer creation between the actions of the trial BOT leading the article AFC and then having a poor and confusing comment made during the AFC review.

• The article was placed in the AFC path by the bot in trial. In my opinion it was likely TRT was intending to get autoconfirmed and place the article into mainspace themselves, given their global activities and experiences. In many respects this article looks similar to w:Bruce Gilley they were working on. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 21:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
• The rejection at AFC by S0091 seems correct due to the nature of the uncited content and the use made of primary sources, especially with significant claims not supported by w:WP:RS sources. S0091's home page has good advice, albeit I'm not convinced S0091 followed their own advice. I would have expected an AfD keep albeit it would have been necessary for cleanup or at at a minimum tagging {{NPOV}}, {{cn}} etc. BLP and contentious subject may be good reasons for stricter rejection criteria but pointing that out to the reviewee is surely best practice if that is relevant rather than hoping they somehow can be expected to find that out themselves.
• The AFC comment by S0091 does not appear helpful, seems not correct: "Most of the content is unsourced" seems actually wrong and likely to be confusing to a new user. A comment such as "Some of your content of this w:WP:BLP article is unsourced and other content needs to be supported by w:WP:Reliable Sources and not simply primary sources." or similar would be more helpful and not leading what appears like a reasonably competent editor to threaten to walk from the project.
• I observe a comment here of concern of possible discriminatory treatment of those mandatorily sent to AFC. And this use case can arguably have happened with Qwerfjkl putting TRT onto this path as part of the trial and with failure to monitor the remediate the indirect consequences of that BOT's actions.

Primefac, can you please review these actions and ensure these comments are made to the BOT trial. The sister Wikiquote project relies heavily but not exclusively on the assessment of articles on the English Wikipedia and therefore these matters are of concern here, and is part of the input that might cause me to send and article here into a deletion process. Thankyou. -- 21:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC) -- —This unsigned comment is by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 January 2023‎.

Thank you so much for your efforts!!! TheRoyalTrust (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Piet Emmer

A page that you have been involved in editing, Piet Emmer, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Piet Emmer. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 10:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove the vfd template when it being discussed

Hi, thanks for your contributions. But please do not remove vfd-new when it being discussed, this will cause disruption and repeatedly doing this will lead you to a block. Lemonaka (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason why the page was nominated (because it did not have an English Wikipedia page) has been resolved, Emmer's page on the English Wikipedia has been approved, so the reason for the discussion has become invalid... Thus the discussion page and box can be removed... TheRoyalTrust (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And there is no discussion it has been siting there for a month, without discussing anything... TheRoyalTrust (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@TheRoyalTrust You can send the reason to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Piet Emmer, yep, it looks a little bit bureaucratic, but this is just the policy. Lemonaka (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks. TheRoyalTrust (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Solved Lemonaka (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. TheRoyalTrust (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: Not solved. I would have preferred a link had been made from the start of the discussion on my talk to here. Additionally per the claim " has been siting there for a month, without discussing anything...". Per special:Diff/3259305 4 March 2023 I as nominator changed my position from per-consensus to keep with a comment backing the !vote that had indicated that an article had now been persisted on the English Wikipedia. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 08:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Also note the generic discussion I have raised at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Consequences of failure to do timely administration which has relevance to this discussion and the case is presented as an example. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 09:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)