User talk:Richfife

Archive is here.

Because you took part in the CfD on the associated category, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curly bracket programming language may interest you. Pcap ping 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richfife! A few years ago I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Pinball. After letting it sit mostly untouched for a while, I've returned to it, and am looking to do some serious work to revamp it. I would like to invite you back, as I believe that at least I, personally, should be able to keep up with it more frequently now, and help make it a more productive endeavor. I hope to see you there! Fractalchez (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Chrome screwed up on me. I certainly did not intend to delete the section, I was adding a paragraph to the end. Chrome has screwed up several times when I did a drag & drop edit.

Thank you for uploading an arguably useful image. IMO, the floating toys suggest a greater depth, substance and specificity in the idiom's context. I presume your intention was witty, but I think this image serves a practical function. In other words, the words and arrows are an implicit invitation to parse the elements of what is otherwise glossed over.

I can imagine someone wanting to delete this photo; but I would argue that this image arguably enhances the utility and quality of the article. --Tenmei (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides. If someone removes it, I won't put it back. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: es:Babies & bathwater. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Thanks! Photos wind up in strange places. I've been hemming and hawing about that for a while. - Richfife (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RoseTheRiveter.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richfife, you recently drew attention to a comment I made on the Robert P. George talk page: "To be completely clear about it, I don't believe that Mr. Sullivan should be used as a source in any article about conservative writers, least of all those who have criticized homosexuality. That was why I reverted the John Finnis article back to an earlier version (I reverted this article back to an older version for the same reason)." I have no reason to apologize for that comment, and would like to explain myself a little more carefully. I noticed that someone had added content about homosexuality to John Finnis, and that this content was sourced to a book by Andrew Sullivan, a known homosexual. As it is my view that homosexuals cannot possibly be objective about anything related to homosexuality, I removed that content from the article, and reverted it back to an older version. If you have a problem with that, all you need to do is to go to the article and revert me in turn. If consensus favors your version, I will not edit war or revert back. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with that comment are pretty self evident, so I'll trust that anyone reading this can see them without my help. - Richfife (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An unfortunate attitude. Well, I'll shortly explain what I've done on the talk page of that article. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... The has nothing to do with either Finnis or George or their articles. Please re-read my posts. - Richfife (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let the conspiracy theories flow: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christopher_X._Brodeur. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Many Farms, Arizona, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Navajo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have edited Metro Walk and this article is currently under a contentious debate on a possible merger or deletion, your opinion on the matter and content might be useful in resolving the issues and reaching consensus, perhaps you would then like to do so at your convenience. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

A link I added to hudsonlee.com was removed. While I accept this may be because it's a blog, there are at least two other links on the page to a similar blog, so what I'd like to know is what criteria the other site meets that mine doesn't?

All the best,

Hud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudweiser (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I read that you're a computer programer. Is it possible that you also programed some Star Wars games from LucasArts? Morgan Katarn (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you also programmed other video games from LucasArts or just these two games? Morgan Katarn (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you also programmed games like Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II, Jedi Outcast, Jedi Academy and the Knights of the Old Republic series?? Morgan Katarn (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well but did you also program Star Wars Jedi Knight Dark Forces II?? Then you probably know where my name comes from, right? Morgan Katarn (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks! Well ok then, happy editing on the Wikipedia. Morgan Katarn (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I've noticed your interest in articles relating to C/C++ and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject C/C++, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to C and C++. If you're interested, please consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. --—Sowlos

Thank you for that heads up. You're now the second person to alert me to a policy I wasn't aware of. I've actually read over the template before, but I so frequently see in-character voiceovers as narration that I just assumed it to be policy. Much obliged. Corvoe (speak to me) 23:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, concerning this edit of yours, I would like to inform you that this template should not be substituted but put directly instead. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Richfife, many thanks for your time. I will try to explain this. The article's author, Manuel Pérez Grueiro, seems to have traced the genealogical tree of George A Romero up to five generations, or so it is said in that article. In Spain those genealogical trees must be build through parish records, as there is not any other kind of published source. According to Manuel Pérez Grueiro, Antonio Romero, born in Neda and whose parish records could be consulted, had three children, Jorge, Pura and Nena, and those three kids were born in Galicia but moved as a babies to Cuba. This article has been published in the local history review 'Revista de Neda'. We can trust that researcher more or less, but it is still a published research making a lot of sense and supported by other data. For instance, when we look for the distribution of name Romero in Spain we can find that Romero is 6 times more frequent in A Coruña's province than in any of the Castilian provinces (although that can't be taken as a definitive data). Another supportive data, yet not definitive, is that Galician community was one of the most important Spanish migrant communities in Cuba whereas the Castilians weren't (mainly because their distance to the ocean and harbours): es:Inmigración_española_en_Cuba. Then, how to demonstrate the, otherwise likely, Galician origin of George Romero's father? The only way is to scan and publish the parish records.

On the other side, the information about the Castilian origin is quite weak and could be explained by a mistranslation. George Romero's father is meaning that his origin is from Spain, to keep himself apart from Spanish or Hispanos from American countries, like Cuba or Puerto Rico. So he added 'Castilian, from Spain", as example of the Ultimate-Spanish European Spanish. Could that be understood as a Spanish from the region of Castile? Yes, of course, but also in a more general context as a European Spanish, particularly in that sentence when he compares himself with Cubans and Puertoricans.

I believe that the best solution is to keep both options. One is, at least apparently, more historical, and the author provides precise details such as the exact town, A Mourela do Medio, with only 126 inhabitants. The other one is from a closer source, but still quite vague and not provided in a clear context: they were talking about not being 'American', instead of talking about the exact town where he came from. Both sources are equally unreferenced, and it's a shame.

Many thanks again for your time.--Xabier Cid (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Yank Barry. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geni.com & other similar websites (like Mundia.com) are mostly user-generated, some of the information is sourced from official documents or published books, some is from user-written family trees. I am not sure there is an official policy specifically on not using this type of geneaological website, but when dealing with a BLP I tend to err very much on the side of caution so, in my opinion, the reprint of Ruth Favlovitch's Montreal Gazette obit & the Canadian Jewish Review social scene blurb pass but the apparently-unsourced assertions about birthdate & other Yank Barry biographical details would not. I have recrafted that particular paragraph using the Gazette & Ca Jewish Review as sources - please weigh in on the talk page, adjust my edits, etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say, Rich, even though you called me an SPA hose, I have really no problem with any of your viewpoints. If you've noticed I haven't argued for anything to be deleted or for negative information to not be there. I have gone on zero campaigns other than defamation of my own username and having my contributions deleted. My point is I have not argued or posted fluff or anything not factual. I honestly feel like if the two of us worked on this page it would be in great shape. I've never said anything that is untrue should be added. Never. Why would I continually be mentioned in a negative way to admin? Because I think Yank playing with the Kingsmen recently should be on his page? That bothers me. I have researched many other artists, the same way I did the Nobel Peace Prize, and it doesn't seem to be an issue on any other page. Now if the Nobel Peace Prize nominations are against Wikipedia policy then that is fine, but it shouldn't be on any other pages regardless of who that person is, in my opinion. Anyway, Rich, even though we disagree sometimes you seem like the kind of guy I could have a discussion with and you don't come off like some other editors. For that I think you.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rich, are you back from wherever it was you were going for two weeks? I'm just curious about your thoughts on this whole deal. How did the media get that "not my best moment" quote? I understand if there are things your lawyers have advised you not to speak about, but I'm just curious about your overall thoughts. Obviously the "threatening his livelihood" quote was bad, but beyond that? There are other editors who are much more obvious about being anti-Yank Barry. Other than what I read I don't know what went on before I arrived. I've talked with other editors who have said the page has gone through many incarnations, both positive Barry and negative Barry. Thanks in advance for talking with me Rich.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, you need to correspond with legal@wikimedia.org about it. So, someone is going after everyone who has edited that page? I wonder if they will include the various SPAs in the threatened lawsuit... Shearonink (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richfife. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re [1]: in modern Standard English, "cannot" is the form used. (This can even avoid ambiguity: "you can not pay me for my time, but I hope you will!") You will find "cannot" as the headword in modern dictionaries; "can not" might appear as the definition, but not as an alternate form of the word. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get that "cannot" is more commonly in use. A search within my gmail backs that up, but there is no unanimity and there is no English standardizing authority (let's be honest: All language standardizing authorities are farcical), so the statement 'in modern Standard English, "cannot" is the form used' doesn't make sense. As far as ambiguity goes, it's up to the writer to choose the form that avoids it. So as I said, the original written form is the preferred one for a couple of reasons. It respects the author and it is an objective way to avoid disputes which often have strong arguments in either direction. I see this as an extension of this, although in a smaller scale. I'm willing to be wrong about this, though. If you want, we can bring it up in the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style talk section. There may be existing discussions but I can't find them (too many false positives). - Richfife (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've replied to your comment on the Escobar: Paradise Lost talk page. Sorry it took someone so long to reply. I hope my comments help! - Excelsior16 (talk). 20.25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again! I have recently found out the actual answer to your question and thought I'd let you know if you see the pre-production section I hope you will get a clearer answer than just my opinion. Have a good day :) - Excelsior16 (talk). 23:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I appreciate it. - Richfife (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, the reason that I reverted as I did on this article is that User:NavajoNationHeritage has been adding a lot of text to this and other articles that is loaded with capitalization, formatting and punctuation errors, and often is not adequately sourced. After cleaning up after this editor for a while, I began trying to persuade him/her to take more care with edits, and to work within Wikipedia policies and style, but to no avail. S/he continues to edit in this way that diminishes the quality of the articles, so I have desotrted to removing these detrimental edits. When you restored the user's edits here, you restored the capitalization, formatting and punctuation errors. I have tagged the sections needing clean up. Are you planning to fix these errors? If not, then do think that the article should be left looking like this? Ground Zero | t 15:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Locations that are primarily populated by people that do not speak English as a primary language are going to be represented, on average, by Wikipedians with a lower competency in English. Putting the hammer down on them is a one way ticket to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. I'll get to it when I have time. My Wikipedia time tends to come in 4-5 minute increments. - Richfife (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that is why I took a soft approach at first. Ground Zero | t 15:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richfife, Bell Pottinger has been moved now as you'll see. Any chance you could revisit our discussion on the talk page at some point? I've left a couple more points there. Thanks very much. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richfife, any more thoughts on this (discussion here)? Thanks. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The -ize ending is not wrong in British English, it is just not compulsory. The spelling system using the -ize ending is used by Oxford Dictionaries and hence is often known as Oxford English. British newspapers, however, invariably use the -ise spelling. Of course, the article should consistently use one system or the other. SpinningSpark 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. OK, I'll just leave 'em alone in the future. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were one of the co-developers then you must have heard about lawmaker, good times. I could never figure out how to make my own levels though lol. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. Thanks for pointing it out! It must be an extension of the much simpler in-game editor I wrote during development. - Richfife (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, yeah it is what enables people to create their own maps. It still does work on an old OS that supports it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richfife. I've removed your dubious tag, with an explanatory edit summary. I appreciate it that you justified the tag when you placed it, thank you. I would normally have the courtesy of discussing this with you first before doing something aggressive like removing a tag placed by a regular, but my concern is that that particular claim is the root of a DYK currently on Main Page. I'm a regular at WP:ERRORS and claims on Main Page can't be sustained with a tag like that without damage to Wikipedia's credibility, hence the urgency. Please don't restore the tag for now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's off MP now, so replace the tag with justification if you like. Or we can discuss here, or at article talk. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"claims on Main Page can't be sustained with a tag like that without damage to Wikipedia's credibility". I really, really, really don't like the precedent this sets. If there's a problem with the claim, remove the claim or change it to "The First Korean woman to visit the Antarctic research stations" or pop a "known" in there somewhere or something. - Richfife (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check my track record at ERRORS, I do that all the time. This claim seemed to stack up perfectly well. The point I was trying to make is that I'm usually more courteous to other editors, not that the tag should have remained. I prefer discussing things than stomping around in my size 9s. Sorry if that wasn't clear. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From template:dubious: "Add { { Dubious } } after a specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced but which nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely." This fits that case fairly precisely. I'm going to put the tag back. - Richfife (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Let's take it to Talk:In-Young_Ahn - Richfife (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richfife. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richfife. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2014 Richmond, California municipal elections has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Secret Service (pinball) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jungle Lord has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only finding coverage in wikis, sales sites, blogs, and web forums. Clearly not a notable pinball machine.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jungle Lord is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungle Lord until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WorldwideBoxOfficeLeader has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richfife. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ave Maria (Rossi), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richfife. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ave Maria".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of World of Watches characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World of Watches characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]