User talk:Ronfleishman

Status and Advice

 * As reviewing administrator, I deleted the draf on hte basis that it was essentially advertising for the individual. We do not permit advertising even in draft space. If you want to start again, try to write much more briefly and without superlatives or puffery.  DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

ok how do i retrieve the work i did already so i can edit it down?? Ronfleishman (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC) sorry about that, i didn't think it would be deleted so i didn't save it and was writing on the fly, really it was my first pass, when i write i take several passes to get the text right then once i have that perfect i begin to reference it providing citations and references for everything. which is what i thought draft was for?? Ronfleishman (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry one last thing:

Do you really think say he was criminally indicted for money laundering and such is a promotion of him???

come on, gotta be truthfull and tell the whole story giving proper, truthfull and complete background.

Ronfleishman (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's part of the version as most recently edited by you:
 * Since then the Server Side Software making massively multiplayer online gaming possible developed by Alex's Company has generated Billions of Dollars and is being used by literally every gamer in the world. Microsoft included Alex's server side software and or derivative works thereof in the Microsoft Developer Kits and over night literally every Microsoft developer around the world was building game sites and used the software Alex's company developed.
 * If you fail to see anything seriously wrong with this (even as a mere draft), you are unsuited to editing any encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

well you may be right but when I'm writing i write it all out fast while it is flowing what i want to say, almost like in "the zone", normally i do numerous rounds of editing down to take out any sensationalism after i am done my first pass.

fact is that information of microsoft including the server side source code in their developer kits is public information and can be access by going to the microsoft website where developers sign up with microsoft and pay for the developer kits. so that too has been verified exactly to the day microsoft included it. thanks for your input, i do appreciate your feedback Ronfleishman (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

but of course i don't have an issue with spending some time on that to put in such a way so it is kosher Ronfleishman (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you write it out quickly, then there's no reason to do this within Wikipedia. Just use a text editor (my own current favourite is Geany) to write the first draft on the hard drive of your computer. Then, still using the text editor on your own computer, remove what really ought to be obvious hyperbole (such as that over night literally every Microsoft developer around the world was doing this or that). When the result no longer looks promotional, add at least one source for a major claim within it, so anybody can see that there's something to what you're saying. When you've reached this stage, post it as a Wikipedia draft. (Here's my own favourite among my first drafts.) And thereafter bolster it with references. -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

More advice as promised
I do not think that Wikipedia is the place for what you want to do. You wrote on the talk page that Mr Thorn "has been badly maligned by all parties involved. I am merely setting the record straight"; but see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You can decide after you read the following whether you want to proceed.

Wikipedia has three fundamental content policies:


 * WP:Verifiability, summarised as "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." The point of published is that readers should, in principle, be able to check the source of what they read. So things you only know because Mr Thorn told you when "we discussed everything that happened" are not admissible. Reliable means sources with some editorial control and fact-checking, such as mainstream newspapers. As you write, imagine a hostile critic looking over your shoulder saying "Who says so? Can you prove it?".


 * WP:No original research is linked to that. An encyclopedia does not publish anything new: it only summarises what has already been published in reliable sources. In particular, note the prohibition of "synthesis": "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."


 * WP:Neutral point of view: Wikipedia is not for WP:Advocacy, campaigning or promoting any particular view of a question.

Even draft pages which are too far outside those principles my be deleted, so you should work offline until you have a draft that at least looks as though it may become an acceptable article.

There is also a test for inclusion called Notability, which looks for references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see also WP:Notability (summary). The references in your draft (court documents and company listings) are not enough to show notability in Wikipedia's sense. Has Mr Thorn's dispute with Microsoft had any press coverage?

Another important policy is WP:Biographies of living persons. See particularly WP:BLPPRIMARY.

You should consider what a general encyclopedia reader might want to know, not the story Mr Thorn would like to tell. What you were writing looked more like the sort of extended biography suitable for a magazine, rather than an encyclopedia article, which should be concise and concentrate on the essentials. I do not think, for instance, that Mr Thorn's athletic record at elementary school is relevant. The requirement for reliable published sources will in any case cut out a lot of material which must come from Mr Thorn's own reminiscences.

You tell me that you are not employed by Mr Thorn, but since you are here to "set the record straight" about him, and it seems you are planning a film about him, and your draft used a picture uploaded two days ago by User:Alexanderthorn, I think you must be considered to have a WP:Conflict of interest in respect of him. That does not mean that you cannot edit, but you do need to be careful, and read the advice in the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. In particular, when your draft is complete, don't post it directly but use the "Submit" button to send it for review by an experienced user, who will either accept it or give you feedback.

There is excellent advice for people in this situation, from a very experienced Wikipedian, at User:Uncle G/On notability: "'When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.'" If you want to proceed, that would be a good way to start. There is more advice at WP:Your first article. JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks John, i like that paragraph, so i discussed it with the two people that are assisting me on this and we reviewed a few other profiles of Public Business People such as yes: [Bill Gates] Alex also learned to program in basic and "computer language" as bill gates's author put it, Alex learned to program in basic, ascii, fortran, cobal and even learned punch card computers before computers where revolutionized by Jobs and Wozniak (i have great historical computer experience myself)Alex wrote programs for games in college (but we're unable to document the games which where class projects so we can't include those) we also find many falsehoods in bill gates profile and deficiencies or half truths or bold lies in his profile so you as a reviewer cannot use bill gates statements as a factor in your reviews as there is so much published information on court proceedings against bill gates that isn't included where by the real author of many programs and much source code in "windows" are authored by other people that where settled out of court or are not yet settled but listed in dockets and filings, such as in Alex's Case his real claim to fame is that "the server side source software that his company developed in 1995 revolutionized the games business and is being used by every gamer around the world to this very day,

This is factual and very well documented in the courts, Alex just hasn't received any "fame" for it due to the allegations levied against him which he was cleared of all wrong doing in court that is fact and easily documentable. but the press didn't really cover it at all because they covered the allegations against him not his revolutionary server side software that he was the visionary to develop it long before it was possible to do online) so if you read something that conflicts with what Bill Gates or microsofts profile say you may not use that false information in regards to any determination of what Alex has done and already has proven in court and is easily documented.

[Warren Buffett] i think Bill and Warren share the same author but it is a good guideling non the less

[Richard Branson] we love Richard Branson We are going to use the above profiles and others as a guidelines as to how to limit ourselves on what we can say and what websites or publications are within the boundaries of acceptability. Including how to use Alex's companies websites in the article.

I also have 2 outside third parties i will be using to play devils advocate for me.

but again as i mentioned numerous times already, i was not even finished typing out the first pass (in draft with the page clearly marked in capital letters that it was a work in progress)

So in essence you as a reviewer too must remain unbias. and i think you deleted it way to soon, so can we agree to give me enough time to complete the article which may take weeks as i have started and will be editing it much farther down to acceptability to be inline with the other above mentioned profiles.

so with that in mind, can you now undelete that page so i can continue. Regards Ronfleishman (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're getting it. Wikipedia demands reliable and published sources (not "dockets and filings"); you're not suggesting that you have any. And although it's been made clear that Wikipedia doesn't accept promotion, you're still talking about your biographee's "revolutionary server side software that he was the visionary to develop". -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hoary, you are not getting it. No, I will not undelete that page. You have already asked DGG, who deleted it, and he declined. It was totally unsuitable - almost entirely unsourced, and probably unsourceable, trivia. You really need to start from a clean sheet along the lines suggested above. Work offline until you have something that might make an acceptable article.


 * You said the Buffett and Gates articles looked as though they share the same author. Wikipedia articles are the cumulative work of many authors, as you can see by clicking the "View history" tab. If they look similar, it is because Wikipedia has developed a "house style" for biographies. I should have explained that nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article, not its first author and certainly not its subject. If an article about Mr Thorn is accepted, others can and will edit it, and you will not be able to insist on your preferred version. Disagreements about content will be settled by discussion on the article talk page.


 * With all respect to Mr Thorn, the three you cite (Gates, Buffett and Branson) are in a completely different league as regards notable achievements, and much more detail is therefore appropriate in their cases. The only notability asserted for Mr Thorn is the claim that "the server side source software that his company developed in 1995 revolutionized the games business and is being used by every gamer around the world to this very day." That is an exceptional claim which requires exceptionally good, multiple sources - see WP:REDFLAG. If "the press didn't really cover it at all", then Wikipedia will not, either. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi All, Pleasure to meet you all, thanks for the advice, by virtue of the fact that Alex won a Gold Medal in wrestling in his Province (same as a state) and went to the JR Olympics and won a Silver Medal in all of Canada make his a notable public figure and eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. That much is clear, so we can put that issue to bed. Thanks for all agreeing to that. just on its own nothing else added. now we just have to figure out how to write the rest of it so it acceptable, citing it with good references should not be an issue as all was in the news and is on sites such as bloomberg and S&P and news papers as well as government websites, so i have no problem with citing good and reliable sources that did the research and reported on it long ago. so that is not a major issue to overcome either.

Why did i create the page in draft??? (that seems to be the real issue here) Ronfleishman (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

.....because that is what the Wikipedia instructions tell you to do, they clearly state on the newly created draft page: that you can take your time and create your article in draft so long as you edit it within 6 months of creating the page. to give a person all the time they need to write and edit the article.

I myself am quite old (now in my 80's, for about 10 years i worked as a Journalist with plenty of writing credits when i lived in Israel and i write true, complete and unbiased articles that are supported by third parties, sometimes it takes a while to complete, just like wikipedia says "Draft" is for.

so please tell me why your instructions differ from what wikipedia says to do????

thank you, your all so kind and well educated and working together i hope to learn something from you all on the use of wikipedia. Lets make this a positive experience for everyone, Including the subject Best Ronfleishman (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@all one thing i want to say to all of you, i had just created the page and i do not feel i was given the opportunity to edit the page, i wasn't even finished typing out the text let alone edit or insert references. it was deleted before i even had a chance to type out the text.

so undelete it an let me finish it 190.219.146.35 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)