Talk:Eddie Foy

message: Chickens peck at red spots because it is hard wired into their brains, humans can resist the urge to obsess over a red link. It catches the eye, but we do not have to peck at it. I already wrote that I am creating the article, and no Wikipedia rule demands that a redlink be removed if the article can be written. I am sorry that it feels like a blemish on the article to you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:REDLINK, write the article first. BMK (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it again, the reference does not support it. I only added him to Eccentric dance because the term appeared in the Foy article. But it is not supported by the reference used in the article or any of the references in the article on the dance style. If you can find a reference add it back, and add him to the list too. And add the reference to the dance style article as well. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I sourced it.  I'm not touching your user space. BMK (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to be punitive here, but: teamwork. Let's work together to put the unfortunate copyvio event behind us and then move forward. Herostratus (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to read the sanctions which have been imposed on RAN, go to WP:Editing restrictions and search for "Norton" -- however, I can tell you that he is not forbidden to edit in mainspace, but he cannot create new articles there. BMK (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about whether WP:Redlink or WP:Write the article first takes precedence, no matter who creates the redlink. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

text: *I was invited by  to comment. Other than $0.02 I added to the recent ANI - I can't recall ever having dealt with him but I could have either way, but check our histories to satisfy yourselves. That disclaimer said, I think the apparent conflict between WP:REDLINK and WP:Write the article first is easily resolved: the former is an editing guideline, which is to say it has achieved consensus sometime in the past to be more than an essay; the latter is an essay, which is to say the original draft was the opinion of the original author and presumably the current draft is the opinion of the last author but nowhere has consensus been sought or achieved on whether any version of the essay ought to be a guideline. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for your comment.  I will note, however, that RAN's "inviting" you to comment could be a violation of WP:CANVASSING depending on how he went about it. BMK (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do you disagree with my comment or only using an opportunity to continue your attacks on the guy? If you stick to the thread of what we're discussing and not digress into things like the back-and-forth that played out at WP:ANI, we may find a resolution. Comment on the comment, not on extraneous stuff. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's a very good point.  I only bothered to note the "invitation" to you from RAN after RAN himself accused an editor who disagreed with him of having been solicited to do so by me -- this was on another RfC started by him at Talk:Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital. (He later backtracked on the accusation a bit.)  I, at least, accused nobody of anything, merely pointing out that RAN's invitation to you could be canvassing depending on how it was done.  WP:CANVASS proscribes selective notification and calls for neutral wording, and it's not clear to me how many people RAN "invited" to come here.  If he has canvassed, uit's quite pertinent to the RfC, and should be taken into account by the closer. BMK (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Just one correction, RAN's sanction was a community-imposed one, but ArbCom has since endorsed it and made it an ArbCom sanction. That decision can be found here. BMK (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I believe the answer to your question is that other editors are completely free to move RAN's userspace articles into mainspace if they wish to, but by doing so they take on total responsibility for them.  This is the exact equivalent of an editor restoring the reverted edits of a banned user. BMK (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's the rub. One reason people will be reticent to moving this guy's drafts to article space is precisely that such actions will be under heightened scrutiny by people with pre-conceived ideas. Aren't all editors are responsible for their edits; it's a given, right? But when someone points that out, it has a chilling effect; which maybe intended especially by using wording such as "total responsibility". I think by arguing that an article is not likely to be created when you chill anyone who may attempt to do that doesn't advance the ball. No one should be allowed to create copyright violations, and this would have perhaps been better solved by banning the perpetrator, but for whatever reason it wasn't done (and if it had, we have nice rules that nothing he contributes stays). So... whether or not anyone were inclined to move drafts into article space doesn't mean that the articles will never be created. We have articles on lots of crap, that just hits the minimum notability threshold (or at least no consensus that it falls short). We don't have articles on lots of important historical figures, like Roman consuls, as I mentioned at ANI. A redlink appears at the list I cited at ANI for Marcus Fabius Vibulanus (consul 483 and 480 BC). In fact, redlinks for him appear in other places as well. While whoever inserted the redlink may have acted contrary to the essay, it was perfectly fine for our editing guideline - whoever writes the article, and as an eventualist, I will assume someone will write it eventually, won't have to search far and wide for all the articles that mention the consul (this one with a rather common name) and where to integrate the links. Thinking ahead avoids dead ends. So, I stand by WP:REDYES as guideline trumps any essay - and you haven't responded that you disagree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, all editor are responsible for their personal edits, but the purpose in pointing out that anyone moving one of RAN's articles to mainspace is responsible for it is not to discourage them from doing so, it's to head off any complaints on the order of "I didn't make this article, RAN did, so any problems are his, not mine."I've only looked at a couple of RAN's articles in his userspace, but I saw nothing in them that caused me to believe that those articles are pre se problematic.  But RAN does have a history of copyright violations, so if it turns out that I move one of his articles to mainspace, and it turns out to have copyvios, that's my responsibility. That simply means that if you think a subject really ought to have an article, and RAN has written an article, it's best to make sure that there are no problems in it before moving it.  That's no more onerous than making sure a source is actually relaible before citing it. BMK (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and as to whether MOS trumps essay, sure, why not -- but then policy trumps MOS, and IAR is policy.I'm not a MOS-absolutist, I'm a reader-oriented editor who believes that whatever is best for the reader is best for the encyclopedia.  In this case, redlinks sitting around for an indeterminate period, waiting for RAN's sanctions to be lifted, do not benefit the reader. BMK (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Just to note, the RfC was started by Richard Arthur Norton, nto by me.  I think it's a pretty silly idea. BMK (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: From above: "The question for the RFC is: Does the one redlink in this article have to be removed. ..." asking if the guideline or the essay are the rule of law. The text above this concerned the argument so was included. But true it has become a pissing match over a trivial issue. But it is an important issue and apparently a divisive one with a surprising number of people siding with the essay over the guideline. Because the guideline was not enforced, the redlink removal has already moved to a second article, then ANI against me to try and ban me from adding redlinks. As the number of active editors shrinks, it gets harder to enforce guidelines without bringing it to the attention of people with an RFC. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no redlink in the article. And even if there were one, the specific word or phrase would need to be pointed out. There is no brief neutral statement or neutrally stated question. Right now, the statement is only a self-righteous personal attack on another editor, and makes no sense as an RfC. And as I mentioned, the appropriate steps to take before filing an RfC were never observed -- there was no attempt to discuss on this talk page. This appears to be a knee-jerk malformed reaction to an edit war. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlink 

message: * If the article is expected soon, redlinks should exist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Restore the redlink

message: * Keep it unlinked on site management grounds (rather than the merits of the red link itself). The editor in question (Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )) is (I understand) supposed to not be working in article space unless or until he cleans up his past copyvios. @Richard Arthur Norton, I'm not up on the details of your situation, but my understanding is that you contributed a lot of copyvio material. This may have been inadvertent and done with the best of intentions (again, don't know one way or the other, but let's assume this in kindness) but even so, a massive copyvio cevent is a severe headache to clean up. Would you see your way to clear to helping with this tedious and important task before moving into other areas? This would be a kindness. Whether even adding the   brackets constitutes "editing in article space" is debatable I guess.
:I'm not trying to be punitive here, but: teamwork. Let's work together to put the unfortunate copyvio event behind us and then move forward. Herostratus (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to read the sanctions which have been imposed on RAN, go to WP:Editing restrictions and search for "Norton" -- however, I can tell you that he is not forbidden to edit in mainspace, but he cannot create new articles there. BMK (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about whether WP:Redlink or WP:Write the article first takes precedence, no matter who creates the redlink. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was invited by  to comment. Other than $0.02 I added to the recent ANI - I can't recall ever having dealt with him but I could have either way, but check our histories to satisfy yourselves. That disclaimer said, I think the apparent conflict between WP:REDLINK and WP:Write the article first is easily resolved: the former is an editing guideline, which is to say it has achieved consensus sometime in the past to be more than an essay; the latter is an essay, which is to say the original draft was the opinion of the original author and presumably the current draft is the opinion of the last author but nowhere has consensus been sought or achieved on whether any version of the essay ought to be a guideline. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for your comment.  I will note, however, that RAN's "inviting" you to comment could be a violation of WP:CANVASSING depending on how he went about it. BMK (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do you disagree with my comment or only using an opportunity to continue your attacks on the guy? If you stick to the thread of what we're discussing and not digress into things like the back-and-forth that played out at WP:ANI, we may find a resolution. Comment on the comment, not on extraneous stuff. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's a very good point.  I only bothered to note the "invitation" to you from RAN after RAN himself accused an editor who disagreed with him of having been solicited to do so by me -- this was on another RfC started by him at Talk:Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital. (He later backtracked on the accusation a bit.)  I, at least, accused nobody of anything, merely pointing out that RAN's invitation to you could be canvassing depending on how it was done.  WP:CANVASS proscribes selective notification and calls for neutral wording, and it's not clear to me how many people RAN "invited" to come here.  If he has canvassed, uit's quite pertinent to the RfC, and should be taken into account by the closer. BMK (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Just one correction, RAN's sanction was a community-imposed one, but ArbCom has since endorsed it and made it an ArbCom sanction. That decision can be found here. BMK (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I believe the answer to your question is that other editors are completely free to move RAN's userspace articles into mainspace if they wish to, but by doing so they take on total responsibility for them.  This is the exact equivalent of an editor restoring the reverted edits of a banned user. BMK (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's the rub. One reason people will be reticent to moving this guy's drafts to article space is precisely that such actions will be under heightened scrutiny by people with pre-conceived ideas. Aren't all editors are responsible for their edits; it's a given, right? But when someone points that out, it has a chilling effect; which maybe intended especially by using wording such as "total responsibility". I think by arguing that an article is not likely to be created when you chill anyone who may attempt to do that doesn't advance the ball. No one should be allowed to create copyright violations, and this would have perhaps been better solved by banning the perpetrator, but for whatever reason it wasn't done (and if it had, we have nice rules that nothing he contributes stays). So... whether or not anyone were inclined to move drafts into article space doesn't mean that the articles will never be created. We have articles on lots of crap, that just hits the minimum notability threshold (or at least no consensus that it falls short). We don't have articles on lots of important historical figures, like Roman consuls, as I mentioned at ANI. A redlink appears at the list I cited at ANI for Marcus Fabius Vibulanus (consul 483 and 480 BC). In fact, redlinks for him appear in other places as well. While whoever inserted the redlink may have acted contrary to the essay, it was perfectly fine for our editing guideline - whoever writes the article, and as an eventualist, I will assume someone will write it eventually, won't have to search far and wide for all the articles that mention the consul (this one with a rather common name) and where to integrate the links. Thinking ahead avoids dead ends. So, I stand by WP:REDYES as guideline trumps any essay - and you haven't responded that you disagree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, all editor are responsible for their personal edits, but the purpose in pointing out that anyone moving one of RAN's articles to mainspace is responsible for it is not to discourage them from doing so, it's to head off any complaints on the order of "I didn't make this article, RAN did, so any problems are his, not mine."I've only looked at a couple of RAN's articles in his userspace, but I saw nothing in them that caused me to believe that those articles are pre se problematic.  But RAN does have a history of copyright violations, so if it turns out that I move one of his articles to mainspace, and it turns out to have copyvios, that's my responsibility. That simply means that if you think a subject really ought to have an article, and RAN has written an article, it's best to make sure that there are no problems in it before moving it.  That's no more onerous than making sure a source is actually relaible before citing it. BMK (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and as to whether MOS trumps essay, sure, why not -- but then policy trumps MOS, and IAR is policy.I'm not a MOS-absolutist, I'm a reader-oriented editor who believes that whatever is best for the reader is best for the encyclopedia.  In this case, redlinks sitting around for an indeterminate period, waiting for RAN's sanctions to be lifted, do not benefit the reader. BMK (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep it unlnked until an article is in mainspace

message: I do not think there should be an RfC tag on the discussion above, because none of the very clear steps or guidelines in WP:RFC have been followed. No attempt was made to discuss the matter beforehand on this Talk page. No brief, neutral statement of the issue was posted underneath the RfC tag. Nor was any brief neutrally stated question asked. This seems to be a personal quarrel directed at a single editor, following an edit war less than three hours old, without any attempt to discuss the matter on Talk. Softlavender (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note, the RfC was started by Richard Arthur Norton, nto by me.  I think it's a pretty silly idea. BMK (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: From above: "The question for the RFC is: Does the one redlink in this article have to be removed. ..." asking if the guideline or the essay are the rule of law. The text above this concerned the argument so was included. But true it has become a pissing match over a trivial issue. But it is an important issue and apparently a divisive one with a surprising number of people siding with the essay over the guideline. Because the guideline was not enforced, the redlink removal has already moved to a second article, then ANI against me to try and ban me from adding redlinks. As the number of active editors shrinks, it gets harder to enforce guidelines without bringing it to the attention of people with an RFC. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no redlink in the article. And even if there were one, the specific word or phrase would need to be pointed out. There is no brief neutral statement or neutrally stated question. Right now, the statement is only a self-righteous personal attack on another editor, and makes no sense as an RfC. And as I mentioned, the appropriate steps to take before filing an RfC were never observed -- there was no attempt to discuss on this talk page. This appears to be a knee-jerk malformed reaction to an edit war. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The RfC tag on the discussion above 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Eddie Foy, Sr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140912160228/http://eddiefoy.com/FoyFamily.html to http://eddiefoy.com/FoyFamily.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eddie Foy Sr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121021157/http://www.ryanfoy.com:80/bio.html to http://www.ryanfoy.com/bio.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121021241/http://www.ryanfoy.com:80/resume.html to http://www.ryanfoy.com/resume.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure)  Silikonz💬 20:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 January 2023 

message: Correction: Richard Foy played the ukulele, not Bryan Foy. 2600:1003:B122:4022:8D23:F313:C59B:6836 (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chips Off The Old Block