Hi Rick,

welcome to Wikipedia :). Not everyone gets that loud feedback when joining Wikipedia to improve articles (on the other hand, there are people in this wiki who are doing such lovely work that one couldn't be loud enough to applaud them). I am quite confident that there are a lot of people around who will be offering their help in the policy jungle and style advises and explaining all the aspects of Wikipedia. Simply ask and someone will answer. I would love to hear from your experiences in Wikipedia after those days of work are over. -- Mathias Schindler 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rick Jelliffe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Srleffler 23:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing reliable sources when adding statements to articles, and demanding citations for uncited controversial claims, that's the key. With proper citations an article about Nazi UFOs can survive a deletion attempt. Gazpacho 09:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksRick Jelliffe 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man might help you to understand Wikipedia culture. WAS 4.250 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksRick Jelliffe 03:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were still some assertions in that article that seemed out of line with the available sources. For example, that you were asked to edit articles about "Microsoft products." I've edited it further. Gazpacho 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For additional insight into wikipedia dynamics and passions read this Wikipedia mail message. Some people are willing to devotes hours a day to pokeman - others to diacritics. The questions used to further each side's arguments are very typical of Wikipedia debates. People will carry on about the most minute things you can imagine, and at the end of it all, many times, we have an article with an astounding level of detail and sources. Then again sometimes one side just gets angry and carries on in a way that forces us to block them. WAS 4.250 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rick_Jelliffe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Npettiaux (talk • contribs) 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robert Harris (poet), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://april.edu.au/harris-r/index.shtml. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick. I blog for SocialFresh on paid COI editing on Wikipedia. You may have seen there is some discussion on whether it is a reliable source for Wikipedia per se, but I did want to see if you were interested in doing a Q&A for the blog. I saw your comment on the COI Editing article and figured it was about time someone get all the facts out.(sort of like I did here)

User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blog post is up here and I've shared it on the Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia page as a potential source to balance your section with your point of view. User:King4057 16:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Please feel free to ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
I recently marked the two articles as reviewed/patrolled. In both of these articles, I have added "lead too short" maintenance tag. Somebody should come along and fix it. I would have done it myself, but i dont have a computer right now. I might do it after 10-12 hours from now, or maybe later than that. Thanks again for creating these articles. They are very good. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 09:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I did not know what else to put in the USB_(Physical) and USB_(Communictions) articles that I split out from USB. I guess some summary of the topic (rather than a summary of the intent of the article) would be expected, but in both these articles it is intrinsically a sea of details, and not particularly summarizable in any useful way. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Australian Synthesizer Manufacturers, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rick Jelliffe,

It seems self-evident to me that this website does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. Apparently, you disagree. Please explain why you think that this website is acceptable for use in a biography on Wikipedia. In my opinion, there are far better sources available about LaRouche's support for conspiracy theories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I recall that I responded to this at the time, but not on my personal talk page. My memory is dim now, but here is my perspective now. (Please feel free to ignore since it is a stale issue.)

Yes, I agree that a LaRouche site is certainly not a reliable source for information in general. However, it is a reliable source for what the laRoucheans say, which IIRC was how it was used. So I think if there is problem with quoting them for that, it would not be on the grounds of WP:RS but because of WP:OR, i.e. that citing a primary source could be considered original research.

Regards,

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erasmus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles V. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us 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) 06:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CorrectedRick Jelliffe (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Via media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City of God.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CorrectedRick Jelliffe (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Via media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apostolic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected~~~ Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not allowed to change what you wrote in a discussion after someone has replied to it, per WP:REDACTED. Thus, you must fix it accordingly in the manner in which is described in WP:REDACTED. Raulois (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I looked for strike-throughs, but could not find them, so I wrote "Update" and an explicit note.

I believe I have added the appropriate markup now. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can reply to my response to you in monasticism and ordination section. Raulois (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on the Talk page of the Erasmus article from the POV of a Wikipedian.

Cheers,

Rick Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas More, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Erasmus

added a link pointing to Pliny

Thomas More

added a link pointing to A Man for All Seasons

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Erasmus

added a link pointing to Stoic

Huldrych Zwingli

added a link pointing to Luther

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erasmus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stoic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bible translations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nubian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m planning to stat to revise the John Fisher article to ameliorate it, can you help me with it? I’ll be able to help you with other articles that you need assistance. Raulois (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Glad to help on Fisher. I am more aware of his life, circle and times than his theology.

What do you think needs to be done? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I went ahead and made several improvements to the article, which are mainly documented in the Talk pages. In particular, I have added some more detail on the Hitton allegations (from a Foxe, a Protestant source who would have mentioned torture if it was seriously rumoured--as he did with More) and the porridge poisoning, and also removed some phrases that were complained of as being too hagiographical.

The article seems structurally sound and well-linked to other articles. The main issue I see is that it needs a lot more citations for the statements: the "hagiographical" text would be acceptable if there was WP:RS citations. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bien joué, thanks for reciprocating your good will by which I do likewise in the articles that you need help therewith. I’m going to commence augmenting the biography and subsequently move onto his theology. I’ll scrutinize the article and give you a circumstantial précis thereafter. Raulois (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new additions look good, and I have simplified them. Do you have any citations for them: What are your sources?

By the way, I was wondering why you use alliteration so much? It is a little like Anglo-Saxon poetry:

"Acknowledging Fisher's aptitude for learning, and being financially well-off,

his mother assented to his admission into the University of Cambridge." Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plowboy trope, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rick Jelliffe. Thank you for your work on Plowboy trope. User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Wycliffe's Bible, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Pataria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patarenes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to disambiguation page intended. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Censorship of the Bible, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Renaissance and Reformation Latin Secretaries and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rick Jelliffe! Having an article draft 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! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the colon is appropriate here and the comma usage makes the sentence "unparseable." According to MOS:COLONS, a colon "introduces something that demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before ... [or] introduce[s] direct speech enclosed within quotation marks," and "a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it."

The sentence "Since the Gospels become, in effect, like sacraments" is not a complete sentence; it is, rather, a dependent clause which needs the other part of the sentence for completion, therefore making the comma the most appropriate punctuation mark, per MOS:COMMAS.

I'm reaching out before I restore the comma to understand your position; perhaps there is something I've missed that you can point out to me.

Best,
Packer1028 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely right. Apologies. I have put in your comma backin (and decluttered others):

Since the Gospels become in effect like sacraments, for Erasmus reading them becomes a form of prayer which is spoiled by taking single sentences in isolation and using them as syllogisms.

It is still a clumsy sentence. Maybe this would be better:

For Erasmus, the Gospels are in effect like sacraments: reading them becomes a form of prayer which is spoiled by taking single sentences in isolation and using them as syllogisms.

Would that be better?Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the late response. Either one works for me.

Best,
Packer1028 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rick Jelliffe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Renaissance and Reformation Latin Secretaries, 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) 18:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rick Jelliffe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of Renaissance and Reformation Latin Secretaries".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I see you've been making some improvements to the Middle English Bible translations article. Could you please fix references #4 and #17 to remove the red error messages? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Middle English Bible translations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flemish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick Jelliffe. Thank you for your work on Patrick Durusau. Another editor, Mgp28, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I couldn't find sufficient evidence to convince me that this person meets Wikipedia's criteria for an article about an academic WP:NPROF. I suggest adding sources to support this to make it clear that this article should remain.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mgp28}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mgp28 (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Purvey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Thorpe.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Fourth Council of the Lateran, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Paues' fourteenth-century Middle English New Testament. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and those sources should be reliable and independent. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I will find more references.

However, I disagree about notability: one of the long-running notable claims for Wycliffe's translations were that they were the first into Middle English, and Paues shows this is likely not the case and, to some extent, partisan (if well-meaning) mythologizing for religious polemical purposes. This is quite a big deal, within reason, because it adds credibility to e.g. Thomas More's claim to have seen other Middle English scriptural translations in the libraries of big houses (historically pooh-poohed as him being confused about Wycliffe translations not packaged up with Lollard material.)

I also disagree that it relies mainly on primary sources. The primary sources are the texts themselves, which are not quoted at all. Paues' prefaces and academic notes are WP:RS not primary sources.

I will move the discussion to the Talk page of the draft. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]