User talk:The Retiree

. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience.

How can I fix this? The article is no longer an orphan. I don't know the difference between Draft and Live (mainspace?). I moved the article from Sandbox to Wikipedia Drafts, and thought the moderators had moved it to Live (mainspace?) and that there would be a redirect on Wikipedia drafts. Any help that you can give to me is most welcome. I want to join the Wikipedia community as a contributor, and I want to do it right. I also notice that some of the external links have been removed - is this because they were not referenced in the article? The Retiree (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly still an orphan, as there are no other mainspace articles listed in What links here. Please take the time to go away and read what it says at WP:Orphan. As for external links, you will find advice at WP:External links. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is this not a mainspace article -

which is at the top of the article The Retiree (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:DE-ORPHAN it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Anne Puckridge - biography of a living person

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with the message "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification" The Retiree (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Retiree (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sections 1-3 of the article contain no inline citations. Inline citations are required for BLPs.

So what sort of help do you need? Whoever wrote those sources was going off of some source. If it is not a published source, therefore not verifiable by readers, it will have to be removed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

]

I am sorry, but you are now talking a different language. What was the recent edit that has been flagged as inappropraite? maintenance category - would that be Category:biography articles of living people? The Retiree (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Retiree. It seems like you've having some problems figuring out how Wikipedia works. That's fine and lots of people (even some who've been editing much longer than you) have trouble getting the hang of things. Perhaps it might be a good idea for you to slow down a bit and try to regroup. Some general things for you to consider. (The words in blue are links to relevant pages. Some of these links are given as short-cuts; so, don't be put off by them.)

1. Are you connected to Puckridge in some way? You don't need to answer this per se, but if you are then please read
   administrator
   so there's not a lot leeway when it comes to this.
2. Why did you create the article? (Again more of a rhetorical question) If you created it to be
   WP:BLPSELF
   .
3. If you have specific questions about the content of an article or suggestions on how to improve it, then the place to discuss them would be on the
   edit warring
   no matter how "right" you believe you are.
4. All Wikipedia editors are basically the same. Some have more experience then others, but they all can basically do the same things. That is why disagreements over article content tend to be best involved though
   WP:BEHAVE
   ; so, they moderate things to a certain degree and can participate in discussions, but they mainly monitor the project for problems.
5. The Wikimedia Foundation runs many different project besides (English) Wikipedia. All of these projects are members of the same family so to speak, but they are all independent from one another and have their own
   WP:COMMUNITY and own policies and guidelines. I'm bringing this up because you uploaded an image to Commons which has been flagged for problems; so, you will have to address that on Commons. Please see c:User talk:The Retiree
   for more on that.

If you've got any general questions about any of the above, please feel free to ask them below or at the

]

Thank you for this - some of these I have answered as our messages will have crossed. It is fair to say that I have been mauled on Wikipedia today, and, as you say, I maybe need to regroup. As a new contributing person to Wikipedia, I thought that I had done a really good job in terms of citation, but apparently not. Food for thought. I will read your comments more fully tomorrow but all of the :WP references emphatically make my point with regard to Wikipedia. You have been very kind in laying this out for me, and I will ponder for sure. I have alot to contribute to Wikipedia and I need to find the right way of doing this.

Thanks for taking the time to lay this out for me - I appreciate it The Retiree (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to add that writing an article from scratch is quite hard to do, and many first efforts don't even come as close to being as well written as the one you created about Puckridge; in fact, many end up being deleted quite quickly for

policies and guidelines.

Finally, please do be put off by the short-cut links I and others are using in posts. They can be confusing per Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! and some of them might seem a bit "subjective", but they are really only intended to direct an editor to a page where they might find information that's helpful; so, they are sort serving as the messenger, but are not really the message itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I've asked about the article at

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History has lots of members who are really experienced at working with military biographies and one of them may be able to find some sources on her military career, etc. or provide other suggestions on ways to improve the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I would just like to thank you for the trouble you have put into this. There is much to digest and work upon, and I will revisit parts of the article. Ms Puckridge is someone that I have never met (and we are not related in any way), and it was only after reading about Veteran Affairs Canada inviting her to be on the Unsung Heroes float at this year's Calgary Stampede. I reached out to her via a third party friend, and when she sent me her biography, I thought she had the notability to be on Wikipedia. Before drafting anything I read the Emmeline_Pankhurst and whilst Puckridge does not have the same place in history as Emily Pankhurst, I though it was a good model to use. I have been in contact with Ms Puckridge and asked her if she can send me appropriate verification with regard to her education and time spent in the Indian Armed Services during the Second World War. She has written to the British Library with regard to her military service. I looked up Bangalore University Alumni (on Wikipedia, of course!) and found that their Alumni only goes back to 1953.

I will learn from this, and hope to improve my Wikipedia writing expertise. If there are reference manuals, or tutorials, that you can point me too, I will be very grateful - I will be starting with YouTube, since I have seen some on there, and Wikipedia has its own tutorials that I can also look at.

Thank you, again The Retiree (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing your post about this at the Teahouse, the easiest thing for you to do would probably be to add

]

Apologies - I misunderstood the process. I developed the page in my Sandbox, and then moved it to Wikipedia drafts, thinking that Wikipedia Moderators would then move it to the live system. Please delete this draft The Retiree (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot delete the draft since I'm not an administrator. You can request the draft be deleted by adding {{db-g7}} to the top of the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now marked this for deletion - many thanks The Retiree (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Retiree! You created a thread called Sandbox at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi The Retiree! You created a thread called Live Wikipedia Page at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi The Retiree. I've reverted

, etc. are things that can be usually worked around, but removing/refactoring comments made by others is not a really good thing to do, except under certain specific cases.

Generally, if you want to respond to something someone else has posted, the best way to do so is to simply post your comment below theirs and and one indentation level. It's possible to insert replies into another post, but the Wikipedia software works a little different that used by other online forums and doing so tends to create more problems and unnecessary clean up. You may also accidentally remove/refactor something someone else posts and change the meaning or flow of their post. So, it's best not to do so.

If you post something that nobody has yet responded to and you want either remove it altogether or correct something, you can usually do so without problem. If, however, you want to remove/change a post that another editor has responded to, you should follow the instructions given in

. Sometimes even changing one word in your post can affect the meaning of the response and change the entire context of the discussion; so, it's best to follow REDACT unless it's a really obvious correction like a typo that has not possible affect of the meaning of your post.

So, if you want to re-add your post in a way that avoids the problems mentioned above, then feel free to do so. You can find some general guidance on how to properly use talk pages in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Annette Carson.jpg

Thanks for uploading

- just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lichtenstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Category:Frozen Pension, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Retiree! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 10:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could these comments be any more patronising? The Retiree (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are standard text for any declined article - not about your draft in particular. David notMD (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yes I feel the same way whenever I receive a templated text. It is however just a templated text that is sent automatically when a draft is rejected, and as you can see from "lend a hand to help new editors like yourself!" this template's intended audience is brand new editors. You don't have to submit articles as drafts, you can

primary sources on biographies, it's better to cite the newspaper coverage of it instead. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you (

move

and then in the page name do I put Parent Article/Child Article as the name of the page?

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

An article you recently created,

) 22:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Can you please identify for me the parts of this article that you deem unsatisfactory - I have made the changes the you (and others) requested and I was informed that I could move this article to Mainspace myself, which is what I have done. Thank you. The Retiree (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC) DGG: Can you please clarify what changes you would like me to make to this page before it can be moved back to mainspace? The Retiree (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. You are apparently using Wikipedia to advance a cause: in the three related articles:

• Draft:Annette Carson
• Anne Puckridge
• R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

with large amounts of the same advocacy material in all three articles. Wikipedia may not be used for the purpose --see

It seems that you may possibly have a conflict of interest with the subjects covered in those articles, so see also

DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the formal notice above, for the record. Less formally, I advise you on thebasis of many years of experience here that you are likely to have more sucess if you do not push so hard The extensive use of primary sourcesand other problems in the legal article might not have been noticed, and the notability problems with the Puckridge article, had you not tried to write the promotional article on Carson. As it is, I will guide you to the best way to deal with this. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC) . Thank you for these comments. On the Talk Page of R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, there is this: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.", so on that basis, the changes that I have made on that page have only improved it, so, if there is anything on that page that breaks the Wikiproject law rules, please let me know. of the

is extremely harsh since I have no interest one way or another, so, could you please explain where you think the conflict is? I would like to remind you that Wikipedia editors around the world have different views on editing. For example, can you please explain to me how this page List of vegetarian restaurants made it to Wikipedia, with further links to individual restaurants - there appears to be a clear conflict of interest here, not to mention the commercial aspects, which also not supposed to be allowed. Why am I being held to a different standard than these articles? The Retiree (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

I had this discussion with other Wikipedia editors some months ago, and I thought that I had answered all of their questions, and the article was to remain in Mainspace. Why, after all of this time has the article now been moved back to mainspace? This person is Wikipedia noteworthy for serving in all the armed forces in India during the Second World War. I doubt that there are five women alive today who could make that claim. Compared to pages and pages on Wikipedia on vegan restaurants. Again, why are the Wikipedia pages that I have developed held to a different standard than other Wikipedia pages? The Retiree (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC) I would further add that I did have many more citations originally, but I was asked to remove them. The Retiree (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to justify advocacy by making what I consider a rather unrealistic claim of notability: ("I doubt whether there are 5 women who can make that claim" does not show that any or all of them are notable at least in the WP sense. _ It's not just counting citations--no amount of miscellaneous notices amount to coverage in depth. The only reason I didn't list it for a deletion discussion is that the standards at Draft are-- as they should be -- much lower than in mainspace, in the hope that articles will improve. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you haven't answered any of my questions. The Puckridge article has been heavily edited by a number of editors, and was in the position of being acceptable (to them). This article was done and dusted several weeks ago, and now it has been moved back to draft - I am very confused by the editing process. How many editors does it take to look at one page?The Retiree (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

some specific advice

1. The Puckridge article will never meet our standards, and trying to get it accepted will hurt the others, besides being a clear indication of COI. 2. The notability for Carson depends mainly on her writings. The list of writings needs publisher stated., and the account of the case shortened even further. A reliable editor is working on it so it should see further improvements. After he's done some more, I'll see what I can do. 3. The article on the case is probably acceptable also, though it needs shortening, and considerable improvement in presentation.

1. The 2 plaintiffs & the 2 successive ECHR cases are somewhat confusing. Some of the summary material goes into the lede paragraph. The summary should be relabelled Background, , and the background material or a separate section or the chronology should mention whatever administrative proceedings there were before the case in the high court. I added some clarification.
2. Section 3.1 is where the confusion starts: it deals only with Carson's case. . A parallel section is necessary for Reynolds. Section 3.2 is where I really got confused thefirst time I read this. I think about the combined appeal. This needs to be said. The material given seems to concern Carson only; what was said about Reynolds?
3. When the same point is raided by successive successive appeals, it can be abbreviated a little; when the same point is made by serval judges in the same case, it can be abbreviated greatly--there is no need to quote each statement unles they say something substantially different.
4. As for style: don't overlink--we link only the first time something is mentioned in the article. When giving names of the judges, we usually abbreviate the tiles after the first mention. Lord X, not Lord X of Y. After a few times we just give their last name .

Perhaps this will help. I could abbreviate the article myself, but you will do it better. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Re: your points above: 1. as I said above, the Puckridge article was edited by multiple Wikipedia editors sometime ago, and they seemed happy with the result.. This has been in Mainspace for a while, so I do not understand why it has been taken back to draft. Can you please put it back there? 2. Carson - I have reduced the "legal challenge" section, and I see that your "reliable editor" has made a number of other changes. I have now resubmitted the article for review. I don't understand what this expression means "The list of writings needs publisher stated" - all of the (non-fiction) books that she has written have their ISBN numbers as links, so I do not know what you are looking for here. 3. I thought that the presentation is standard Wikipedia style so I am not sure what you mean when you say "considerable improvement in presentation" is required - can you please clarify?[reply]

1. "The 2 Plaintiffs....." - I have renamed the "Case Summary" to "Background" and I have clarified who was involved in which Court case, so, hopefully this is clearer/ I have shortened the "Background" section.
2. I understand your confusion regarding 3.1! This only covers the Carson case. I have now changed this - there is now a separate section for Carson and Reynolds - I will complete the section on Reynolds tomorrow;
3. The name of the page should probably change to be something more generic since it involves Carson, Reynolds and the class action group for the ECHR hearings. I would be grateful for any advice you have on this
4. In terms of neutrality, I give one point for the plaintiffs, usually followed by a point for the Secretary of State or vice versa. I have worked quite hard to achieve this, but if you think I could achieve this in a different way, please let me know. I could group them together and have separate sections: Points for the Claimant (Carson, Reynolds, Class Action); Points for the Defendant (Secretary of State).

The Retiree (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC) After looking at

, I cannot believe that there can be a problem with the length of this article (these pensions cases were in the court system for three times as long as Roe v Wade). I have also been taken to task for using the term "landmark" as a peacock tern, and yet it appears in the Roe v Wade article. Can you please now take off the restrictions, or advise me of what else I need to do? Thank you. The Retiree (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this link from article space to your sandbox survived several months! Do not do this again, it is an obvious circumvention of policy. We do not link to user drafts from article space.

]

I've just removed five more instances of a link to your userspace in that article. I would have thought that it would be obvious that this is not done. We are not a self-publishing operation. Pinging

talk) 07:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I was trying to clear up some confusion that I had created with DGG, and showing intent for articles that I am hoping to publish. All of the articles that I have reference will be submitted for review shortlyThe Retiree (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the amount of work that you've put into the various British case law articles, but they're not written as Wikipedia articles. Articles should primarily be prose based off of citations to secondary sources, whereas these articles are direct reports written almost entirely from primary sources. For reference of what would generally be expected of an article about case law, see McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd or Griswold v. Connecticut. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Thank you very much for your helpful comments and useful example. You were correct when you said that a lot of work has gone into developing these articles - 6 months in fact. I worked for law firms for most of my life, and law firm partners want information delivered to them in bullet point style, rather than prose - it is tough to get out of that habit! I will get redrafting now. If you have a couple of minutes, maybe you could be kind enough to review the precursor to these law cases - Annette Carson's biography page. It has previously been reviewed several times, and I hope that it can now be released into main space. The page is

]

I just took a look at the linked article and I'd say that at a glance it looks good enough to be accepted to mainspace. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. The Retiree (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC) I have now transferred the article to mainspace - would you be able to remove the tags at the top of the article? Thanks. The Retiree (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tags, but I'm going to leave it in the new pages queue because I haven't gone over the sources in detail. A reviewer should take a look at it soon, no further action is necessary on your part. That having been said, you may want to make some edits so that your quotations conform to

MOS:QUOTE, as italicized quotes are not the suggested style. This will not be a make or break difference for whether the article is accepted, but complying with the manual of style is strongly encouraged nonetheless. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks very much for being so helpful - I did notice italicised quotes in your example, but, if you would like me to remove them I would be happy to do so.The Retiree (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the kind of thing you'd need to fix if you want to submit the article to

be reviewed for good article status, but otherwise isn't a big deal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Since I am redrafting anyway, there is no reason why I can't change it. The redrafting will take a few days, but perhaps I can let you know when I have redrafted an article, and I would be grateful if you could review them. I very much appreciate your help and comments.The Retiree (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished the overall Case Summary -

) 01:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC) I have also now redrafted the first two hearings, and I would be very grateful if you kindly review these. The pages are: ]

Hello, The Retiree. It has been over six months since you last edited the

".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

this link

. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]