User talk:Richard-DIP

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Richard-DIP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An extended welcome[edit]

Hi Richard-DIP. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An extended thank you

Hi user:Ronz. Thank you for your advice. I hope you don't mind if I share some thoughts...

Maybe you should add another advice to your welcome text block: the very basic rule of Wikipedia: "Administrators, long-time users and users with thousands of contributions are always right, no matter what real life proofs or what common sense / sanity and reason tells you."

Are you referring to the Sally Bretton article?

There is one source that says Bretton was 39 in 2015 ("The Telegraph"). This doesn't even mean that she was born in 1976. (Could be 1975 as well.)

There are many many sources that say Bretton was born in 1980. Among others IMDb and "Le Parisien" (a daily newspaper from Paris with a circulation of nearly 230k).

In the 1990 film "Can You Hear Me Thinking" Bretton plays a ten-year-old girl. Of course, she could have been 14 at this time, but common sense tells you this was very unlikely.

But if an admin, a long-time user or a user with thousands of contributions says that she was born in 1976, this must be the truth.

By the way: the Wikipedia article says Bretton played "Martha Lloyd" in "Death in Paradise" from 2015 to 2017. Well, "Martha Lloyd"'s first appearance was in the last episode of series 5 of "Death in Paradise", which aired in 2016. Of course, "2015" may refer to the year of production instead of the year of airing. But: "Martha Lloyds"'s last appearance was in the sixth episode of series 6, which was produced in 2016 and aired in 2017. So: what could be right? 2015-2016 or 2016-2017? Neither nor: the truth is 2015-2017, because a long-time user says so.

--Richard-DIP (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the year of birth possibly being '75 according to The Telegraph. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for other sources with other dates, if you want to provide reliable sources (IMDB is not reliable), I'm happy to look them over. If you look at the article talk page, you'll see an explanation for why 1980 is commonly offered and why it's likely incorrect. I've not done much investigation myself, but have instead relied on what editors have commented upon on the article talk page. I hope you'll consider joining the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]