User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Hi there Mr Norton. I came across you totally at random. Looks like you've run into some unpleasantness. That sucks, and you have my sympathy. That doesn't mean I have any idea who did what or why or when or whose fault it was. Just that, right or wrong, it sure sucks to get piled on so heavily and then shown the door after being here so long. I do feel badly for you.

On the merits, quick glance shows that you seem to have some fair points about some things at least. But we'll not talk about that now.

Anyways, when I made the

awards, I was adamant that they applied to everyone the same, always, whether you were banned, dead, serving ten to twenty in the Iowa State Penitentiary, or anything else. No political considerations can ever enter into it. Therefore allow me to award you your current service award. You are at an extremely high level, highest I've seen. I'm sure that, regardless of anything else, that you have made many valuable contributions to the project, and I thank you for your service.

I have some ideas for a possible appeal if you want one, contact me. Regardless, godspeed and dread nought. Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- A well deserved award. RAN's titanic contributions to human knowledge will continue to benefit humanity for at least as long as there's an internet. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I was just blocked at Wikidata after asking a new Admin guy to restore some items deleted out-of-process, that were created by a third party, their response was to permaban me without any warning. See: Wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2024/09#h-Q126487673-20240910172200 If anyone con contact someone from the WMF and send them the link to the ban, it would be helpful.

- The noticeboard discussion you linked to is truly shocking. Sadly my contacts at WMF have long since left (not that they were ever able to assist much with reigning in permabanners or even with memorializing fallen heroes.) I hope someone else is able to help, or if not I guess maybe you could take your talent & energies to a non WMF project, at least for a while. There are changes underway in the collective unconscious; it's possible in another five years or so, Wikipedia will once again be relatively hospitable for inclusionists. PS - unfortunately, it's probably best not to reply. Deleting messages from your talk page is one thing, but there are admins who might see taking part in any sort of conversation that's not about getting yourself unblocked (on this project – not on other projects) as a reason to revoke Talk Page access. PPS Hope you saw Herostratus's kind offer to contact them about ideas for appeal, maybe there will be some way for them to help if you email them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

vested contributors and consequently, no one is given a pass for the content work they have done or could do. The foundation respects that and will not intervene. Richard was given multiple chances to fairly appeal their block and instead continued to try to sow divisibility by listing users on his userpage as holding views they did not necessarily hold.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• I think he is referring to keeping track of the permaban/deletion debate by listing people with a more liberal view of Wikidata:Notability and inclusion, and linking to their arguments; and listing people with a more conservative view of Wikidata:Notability, and exclusion and linking to their arguments. Somehow this is seen as sinister. They also objected to me linking to the archived permaban debate on my talk page, it has been removed twice now, and I am now blocked from using my Wikidata talk page. The rational was that adding the link to the debate was "misuse" of my talk page. Remember this all started by Wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2024/09#h-Q126487673-20240910172200 asking that several Wikidata entries be restored that were deleted out-of-process. RAN (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dear Mr. Norton. My name is Mr. Louton, a grandson of Edgar M. Louton and a great-grandson of A. G. Louton. I have recently taken note of the helpful changes you've made to articles/commons connected with my family. Though I'm not an editor myself, I'm glad to see that the articles and information on them has been improved. There has been some in-family re some of the info in the articles, which I've been told is innacurate etc, but such information has been removed within the last 12 months. I beleive my family should continue to be documented this way, in a manner which is objective, free and fair. Thanks for your contributions and hit me up if you need any info etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedl07 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with

section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Clean up talk page while blocked

Hallo Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), last year your account was blocked on en-wiki for an undefined time and later on the right to edit your talk page was restored. You recently did 5 edits on this talk page ([1]). None of them had to do with discussing your block like a request for an unblock. All 5 were edits to remove previous discussions started by others on this talk page. As far as I know you are not supposed to do that kind of changes when you are blocked, even though technically you can make changes to this page while logged in. You don't need to give a reply on my edit here but if you continue editing this page while blocked, for other things than discussing your block I might contact an admin to review the possibility for you to edit this page. - Robotje (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point me to the relevant ruling that demands that I not remove expired notices from my talk page? RAN (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the notices you removed were expired or not. It is more about that you are using the ability to edit this page for years in a row only to make changes that has nothing to do with discussing your block like requesting to unblock. At Wikipedia:Blocking policy you can read "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own user talk page (and hence, the ability for them to create unblock requests) during the duration of their block. ... " So there is a strong relation between allow only editing that talk page and discussing the block and more specifically creating an unblock request.

Pretty much at the top of this page you can read an admin wrote after adjusting your block "... While we do allow blocked users some latitude on their own talk page, just coming by to delete things off your talk page without even attempting to get unblocked over such a long period of time just seems unproductive and frankly, unhealthy." Some time later another admin added there "... I shall restore your talk page access. However, I have also declined UTRS appeal #93760, and my advice to you is that making another unblock request is almost certain to be a waste of your time and anyone else's time who reviews the request." So also that admin made the link between being able to edit this talk page and creating an unblock request. To me it feels like you abuse, for many years in a row, the possibility to edit this talk page exclusively for edits that has nothing to do with getting the block lifted. The 5 recent edits I mentioned above are perfect examples of that behavior. - Robotje (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:HenryMoskowitz.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:HenryMoskowitz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 17:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply

]