This is an archive of past discussions with User:Edwardx. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There's a lot more to add--they are a very large extended family, many of whom are/were prominent and lived in historic chateaux, etc. I am getting bored with them though. They must be large shareholders of Schneider Electric still.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
We're not getting paid, so if you get bored it is entirely reasonable to move on to something more interesting. Happens to me frequently. Edwardx (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It's more than the coverage of French chateaux and third republic politicians is dismal. I can't realistically do more than create stubs for most of them, but the chateaux could all become feature articles and the politicians at least C pages.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Many people are reluctant to start articles. And many of the stubs we create get expanded by others later. Don't lose any sleep over it! Edwardx (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And happy to be one, just so long as our fellow flâneurs don't confuse us with badauds. And perhaps someday, someone will write about us... Edwardx (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The flaneur observes but does not act and thus, like us, is notable only as a collective phenomenon, but that's how we prefer it isn't it? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a credible view but one that implies a more active role than we generally like to admit. The theory is that everything worth writing about will one day find a place here, so we are merely filling in the gaps in a random way, but I am more inclined to the view that the act of observing affects the object observed. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
On reflection, it would be more accurate to say that there is a curatorial element. Well-written and well-presented articles are more likely to be read, and more likely to influence others to add to them and to create articles on similar topics. So we do affect the general flow. Maybe they would all eventually be created anyway - I'm not so sure. Edwardx (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I was arguing that they won't all be created eventually and that we are not merely worker ants building something that will one day be complete. We affect the world by our choice of topics and what we write. The idea that we are neutral and it will all be done eventually is a fantasy to allow us to disclaim responsibility for our work. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Well spotted. It was in the reference, so the journalist must not be very good at maths. Btw, do you know how to find the coordinates and add them to the infobox to add a map? I have been adding another editor, but it would be very useful to learn how to do it. They suggested looking on Google Map, but I am not sure where. Or if it's complicated and you want to do it, that would be helpful too.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I use UK Grid Reference Finder. It works for non-UK places too. If you type in "Reugny", then it gives you Latitude and Longitude. "Manoir de La Côte" doesn't work. You could try to find it by exploring the map generated. For the UK, you can get Grid References from the Historic England site. For example, TQ 28997 79614 for Buck House, and that usually gives you a more accurate Latitude and Longitude than a mere postcode. It wasn't until I discovered Nearby on Wikipedia Mobile that I really appreciated the need for geolocations in articles. Edwardx (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy McMullen until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Beerest 2Talk page14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently he left a message on the talkpage suggesting there were errors and it should look like the French article. The thing is, everything is fully referenced here and they may not like what was published in the press, but it's not made up... The french page is much shorter and does not mention the trinity for example, even though that's in all the newspaper articles. Do you think I should just ignore the message on the talkpage or take it to WP Biography? Sorry, not your article, but something similar may have happened to you in the past, so I hope you don't mind the question.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The English WP page all looks uncontroversial to me. I think you could respond asking what precise changes in the article they are looking for, why, and what the citations are.
I may just ignore it for now. It sounds like he wants to control the content (or even get the page deleted if it does not say exactly what he wants). He may want to censor the Christian part, but that's in all the newspapers, as is his nickname. I don't have the patience to get into wiki-drama over this (or anything).Zigzig20s (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I've replied. At least he is trying to discuss this first rather than just deleting what he does not like. I also try to avoid drama here - I'd much rather spend my time creating content. Edwardx (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The Pastor name came up again. Btw, the Caroli family could probably do with some articles. Another prominent family.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No. It looks fine to me. Of course, it could be expanded, but that could be said of nearly all articles. I try not to worry about tagging, even though I generally have a strong dislike for it, and just focus on the articles that people are trying to delete! Edwardx (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Edwardx. Sunrise Ruby, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 15:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi again. Do you have the strength to deal with this? They've removed referenced info about her engagement and added unreferenced drama about her father-in-law. It is again turning into a gossip attack page. It sounds slanderous. Can we not just restore what was there before as what's been added is unreferenced?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I fixed it. Will you help if someone tries to start an edit war? I don't have the patience for edit wars, but I think everything needs to remain referenced and slander is absolutely unacceptable.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I've put Francesca on my watchlist. Sometimes it's easier, and nearly always less stressful, if other people get involved with one of "our" articles. Edwardx (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Just realised you created his son. Are you able to find much about his father please? Apparently they own many of the biscuits I see in supermarkets and refuse to buy.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Having spent many weeks in Turkey, I can assure you that their biscuits are mediocre at best. If you're going to eat things that are bad for you, then quality over quantity is the way to go. I'll try to have a look later. Edwardx (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget your camera - there might be notable people without images! (not keen on ending sentences with exclamation marks, but they are a convenient shorthand to let others know that something is meant as a joke) Edwardx (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
And his brother Nicola Bulgari, both now expanded with the tax evasion story that helped them jump the queue of "missing" billionaires. I will add more family members, but don't expect much more than stubs. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
On 2 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sunrise Ruby, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Sunrise Ruby is the world's most expensive ruby, most expensive coloured gemstone, and most expensive gemstone other than a diamond? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sunrise Ruby. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Your article count is now 16 ahead of what the stats say but according to those stats you have only had three deleted? I think arbcom should get involved straight away. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
SuperSecretCom have been looking into this for over a year. The draft 500 page report concludes that some are redirects and some are new articles over redirects which are muddying the waters. Where do you get your numbers from? Edwardx (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope their report will be published soon, once Tony Blair has had a chance to respond to any criticism of course. I simply use the number provided using the article count tool. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
UK report: Progress on an image release from the Bodleian; National Library of Scotland residency comes to an end; and Glasgow Museums develop a Wiki Working Group
USA report: Wikipedian at the Centers for Disease Control - NIOSH
Open Access report: New Topic Page; Open Access and the humanities; Wikimania & Wikidata
Edwardx, please consider this your last call on this nomination. There have been significant issues raised, and the QPQ hasn't yet been supplied even though a month has passed. I hope to see action on this in the next couple of days. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I was surprised and wanted you to double-check. The wealth must be redistributed privately among the family members.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you've noticed that Forbes and other often state "John Doe and family", as it can be very difficult to disentangle just who owns what. Edwardx (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a shame. I would argue that they are the French version of the Mars family--selling us plastic instead of food, allegedly--with more private redistribution of wealth than the Marses because of internalised socialism. Somebody ought to write a sociological comparative study about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Misunderstanding. I do care about the Bonduelle family, and think it would be great if there was more coverage. However, I don't care whether a particular individual was born in 1958 or 1959. Edwardx (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Humour is tricky on WP - it works much better with editors where an in-person rapport has been established. For example, at editathons or meet-ups... Edwardx (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I may suddenly have a "a little cold" as Huguette Clark would have said. Btw, how does one organise an edit-a-thon? Perhaps we don't need to wait for the powers-that-be to decide for us.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Incredibly, I have realised that I know one of the younger Bonduelles... I had never thought about his last name, probably because I don't buy Bonduelle "food".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Currently this article relies on one source and may fail notability guidelines. However you may be able to find some more sources to add from the German version of the site: [1].
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Ditto51 (MyTalkPage) 10:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to split Brenninkmeijer family? They have a C&A store at the listed Hôtel Louvre et Paix, where the Nazis were based during the war...Are you able to find out who they supported during the war? Probably a different generation, but still. They are German apparently...Zigzig20s (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the Torygraph, "The dynasty - which in the run-up to the Second World War counted the flamboyant Luftwaffe chief, Hermann Goering, as a friend - has deliberately cloaked its actions in mystery, never giving a newspaper or television interview. Senior staff were reputedly made to sign an oath of secrecy. They were also instructed to put messages to head office in code." And, "In 1937, the family wrote to Goering, speaking of having successfully "penetrated the position of power held by Jews in the textile industry". They said: "Since the foundation of the firm, no non-Aryan has ever been employed by us." " Secretive dynasty with ruthless streakEdwardx (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Possibly hiding in plain sight? Allegedly. Let me know if you can find out who the Chairman was at the time, etc. It may require a German speaker to find good references.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Too many people with similar names, plus it's almost all in German or Dutch. I'm giving up - we can't do everything! Edwardx (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Edwardx, hope you are well. I wondered if Edward Rayne might be a possible DYK nomination. He turns out to be a very interesting character...there's the competitive bridge angle, the Royal Warrants and the fact that he is credited with putting London Fashion Week on the map. Jean Muir described him as the best British shoemaker of his age. Oh, and he saw and very probably touched the feet of Vivien Leigh, Elizabeth Taylor and many other stars, although no refs to go with the touching bit unfortunately! Libby norman (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Libby, that is a fascinating article. And a fellow Edward to boot (ho ho). Perhaps something like, "Edward Rayne, known for his Mr Magoo glasses, "the best British shoemaker of his age", was European bridge champion aged 26". I've been spending too much time on billionaires and must get back to something more fashionable... Edwardx (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
He looks like a very unlikely fashion icon despite the august name – I do enjoy the idea of the man in the pebble glasses being leader of London couture and a crack bridge player. Above sounds a great hook. Libby norman (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm always open to good hook ideas on my DYKs. Sometimes we get too close to our subjects to notice the "hookiest" angles. Edwardx (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Want to help me expand this one? I only saw it by happenstance, on a stroll...I wonder if there is a whitewashed mystery/history.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That looks pretty thorough. If it was one of my church artciles, I woulnd't bother to add anything else before moving on to another new article. There are just too many churches in London and most are not really that interesting, even if they are often listed. Edwardx (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Formerly. It closed down. The building is still listed though. Btw re: Christianity. I disagree. There is a war on Christianity. Let us pray there is no earthquake because of it!! (Two exclamation marks.)Zigzig20s (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've expanded the article - Westminster turned down a 2012 request to convert it to a house. Don't worry, I'll still do church articles. Edwardx (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Edward is exaggerating about the oligarchs, but plenty of recruiters as usual. There's a real jobs boom in the city right now. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Very strange that the pub should be listed, but not the church. Yes, I should get out of Knightsbridge/Mayfair a bit more.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe just the one true oligarch, but how many do you really need? Sometimes it makes little obvious sense why some pubs and churches get listed and some don't. And some must be quite marginal one way or the other. Edwardx (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Not a billionaire, but a champagne socialist, in case you are interested. There is more about his views on the European Central Bank, etc., but I find him too annoying to expand it more for now.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't take you long to cite references properly, without 'link rots', out of respect for the other editors. I seem to remember this was pointed out to you during the ANI. You're creating unnecessary work for others with those link rots...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Often it's a note to myself and I do go back and do them. If I don't then others invariably do. That's the way we work - collaboration with everyone sharing the burden. Why don't you do it? Is your time more valuable than mine? I took the initiative to create the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The misapprehension here is around the idea of "unnecessary". There are very many editors who self-describe as wikignomes, and actively seek out these sort of tasks. And some of them have very efficient semi-automated workflows. Indeed, some of the same people also design bots to fully automate these sort of tasks. As "content creators" we might find all this behaviour curious, but that's probably because we have different preferences for how we like to spend our time here. And of course, little of what we do or don't do here on WP could strictly be called necessary! Edwardx (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for identifying a notable person and causing others work by creating a stub. I agree it would be better if I had done nothing and hoped that someone more competent would came along and create a long fully formed article in one masterful edit that required no further contributions from anyone else ever. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The stub is good, but not the link rots. That does not take long to fix. It was in your ANI; I think you should learn from it. Many editors are put off by link rots and will simply not improve/expand stubs because of it. You are suggesting your time is more valuable than others (since you're the one who created the mess). Again, that was all explained in your ANI.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean "your ANI"? You speak of it as if it was a trial. If it was, it wasn't about that, and in any case I won - all the articles were restored if you recall. The linkrot tag was only mentioned once. On this article, the reason I didn't put them in was because it was 1.00 am in the morning and I anticipated that other people might well want to run with the Katie Cutler article due to the amount of publicity she has had since winning the BEM. That, in fact, was what I was suggesting above. I don't usually bother with topics that I think will probably be done by other people soon anyway. I prefer what, in my judgement, probably won't be done if I don't do it. I don't want to fall out with you ZigZig but I think it might be better for both of us if you stayed away from me and my talk page for a while. With apologies to Edwardx for taking up his page with this matter. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Calling the subject of an article that someone has created a "nobody" does seem unnecessarily antagonistic. Are Francesca Hilton and Andrew Getty vital additions to the project? Or indeed, some of "my" billionaires who are perhaps only notable for inheriting huge sums? And anyone who is active enough on WP will get mentioned at ANI sooner or later - I'm surprised that it hasn't happened to me (although I have been blocked). Edwardx (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
All academics publish a lot. That's part of the job description. It does not make them notable, just like bartenders serve a lot of drinks. However, their research may (and ought to) be cited to expand notable topics. Yes, billionaires and prominent heirs are notable, unless you are far left, because of investments and philanthropic engagements, etc. I give up. I am rather cross.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Please take your crossness and your "constructive criticism" elsewhere ZigZig. You have no cause to be cross with anyone. You have just created a big drama, and I have finally run out of patience with you, over the fact that an article created less than 24 hours ago, in the early hours of the morning, still has bare urls as references. It is your own eccentric behaviour that is in question ZigZig. If you don't like the current state of an article please just get on and improve it. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You are doing sterling work. I must try to find time to catch up with the Guardian and Independent obits and fill in the gaps with people who didn't fight in the war. Edwardx (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you criticising the Telegraph's coverage of war heroes? When was the last time a social worker or media personality charged a German machine gun position? That is what I would like to know. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Or, as one fictional British officer said when asked why he always carried an umbrella, "Knew no Jerry would carry one. Had to prove I was an Englishman, you see." Philafrenzy (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Without looking at it again, that he founded it - the organisation did and gave it to him as the first recipient? And something about the years - it's older than something else says. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Well spotted. Although we are short of good secondary sources, there appears to be a Tom Wheatcroft Trophy started in 2002, and a Tom Wheatcroft Memorial Trophy started in 2010 (first recipient being Kevin in 2010). If you look at these articles, you can see that the trophies are physically very different: Tom Wheatcroft Trophy and Tom Wheatcroft Memorial Trophy. I will add a section about the newer trophy to the Wheatcroft Trophy article. Edwardx (talk)
Free candy...
...if you can find out who built the hotels along the Sousse coast, when, and who currently owns them. I won't be summering there after what happened.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but it's either not referenced, or the references are no longer available online to double-check. Btw I'm surprised the weird collector was not arrested.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Kevin Wheatcroft does seem a bit eccentric. I guess someone has to have the world's largest collection of Nazi memorabilia. Surprised it's not an American. Edwardx (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Only in Germany and on eBay, as far as I know. If we make Nazi memorabilia illegal, then why not anything to do with Stalin, Mao, etc? Edwardx (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I think/hope it's banned across the continent at least, since it was invaded. Perhaps it's time to find some good references and add a section about its illegality and where, since when, etc., to Nazi memorabilia. I think it's too awful to even think about it tbh.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Missed that - excellent news. I've high hopes for Suicide Sarah, Wheatcroft and the Dog Meat Festival. Trying to focus on DYKs were great hooks are possible. Edwardx (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I did think about seeing if there was a suitable image of Idi Amin and maybe something like the image on Nazi memorabilia, but doubted whether either would get as far as the front page. Edwardx (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The only acceptable pic for Sarah would be of Sarah. We were lucky on the dog meat. Maybe there's something on Wheatcroft. I will have a look. Today is the last day for Cannon Hall, Hampstead which I have not done properly yet, nor do I have a free pic. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the people of Finchley, St Pancras and Islington, the little man, the yeomen of England that made this country great, the shopkeeper and the clerk, and everyone who fought in two World Wars, I say we will not be ignored any longer. Our day will come and we will have our Wikipedia articles. Y. Varoufakis. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Edwardx, can you please check this nomination to see whether you're satisfied that the issues you raised in your review have been adequately addressed? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I like the concise style you have adopted for Henry Charles Angelo the Younger. It helps to keep our carbon footprint down. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
His grandfather's ghost just appeared to me and told me the rudiments of expert fencing. Expect a stab in the dark when you least expect it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
People are living longer, thankfully, so the list will grow at a slower rate than it previously has. THANK YOU SCIENCE. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I have only just started on the articles, I still have a large number of images to upload and I suspect you do too. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
MediaWiki2LaTeX can put different pages from a Wikimedia wiki into a PDF. It can now make a PDF with around 5000 pages. Previously this was 800 pages.
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Meetings
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Wikimedia will take part in Google Code-in. This is for young students who want to help with open source software. You can read more. Experienced technical Wikimedians can mentor students.
