Welcome!

Hello, Rick Norwood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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:Where to ask a question, 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!  -- Longhair | Talk 15:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Rick Norwood/Archive 1

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Peter J. Skandalakis 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RangersRus (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is who Peter J. Skandalakis is: https://fortune.com/2025/11/14/pete-skandalakis-trump-georgia-election-interference-case-fani-willis-rudy-giuliani-mark-meadows. It seems strange to consider this person not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a lot of pointless or bizarre edits lately, which seem to be out of character. The whole Talk:Main Page#Important things that happen seldom appear on the Facebook front page was a waste of time, with you not answering any relevant questions about the section title,, but see also things like this, or this and this (what have the section headers to do with the topics?), or this pointless post, ... I reverted your edit[1], you are reinserting BLP violations with an edit summary which doesn't make much sense. Fram (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fine. I won't try to answer all of your questions, but I will be happy to answer any one them. I'll start with the first, but please ask any of the others you want answers to. I understand that you think there is a problem with the section title. I'll end this section, and start a new section with a different title. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply here, and what I assume is the "new section with a different title"[2], only reinforce the impression that you don't really know what you are doing half of the time. No idea if the account is compromised or what the problem is, but too many such pointless or bad edits really becomes disruptive. You don't seem to be reading what others actually write. Fram (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone any suggestions on how I can deal with this? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never interacted with you before, and came here after seeing your several posts on WT:Main Page. That talk page is for discussing issues and questions for the Main Page, not to determine if you can get a response from other editors. I reverted your thread because it was off-topic. You mention that you are looking for a "response". What question are you looking for a response to? Please be clear about the question and if you ping me here (not on WT:Main Page) I will try to respond. Z1720 (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Has anyone any suggestions on how I can deal with this? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know why you are this confused (or confusing), perhaps it has something to do still with that nasty fall you had and a doctor check-up may be useful, but in any case I would suggest to stop editing Wikipedia for a while, until you again better understand what people are saying to you and what the issues with your edits are. Fram (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• You say "how I can deal with this?" What is the "this?" you are referring to? What is the original question or issue that you would like advice on how to deal with. Please explain it as if I have not seen any of your previous posts. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Has anyone any suggestions on how I can deal with my long block from Wikipedia Home Page:Talk (see above) Rick Norwood (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are blocked from that page because you keep posting a request for a response, like the kind I reverted earlier today, without explaining what question you want editors to respond to. I asked above what specific issue or question you wanted a response to on WT:Main Page, but you haven't explained that yet. Asking for help lifting the block isn't the original issue I was asking about. If you can articulate below what issue you want people to respond to on WT:Main Page, I can perhaps help. However, access to edit the page will probably not be returned before the 31 hours block expires unless you explain what issue you want editors to help with. To ask more succinctly: what issue or question did you want editors to respond to on WT:Main Page before the block was issued? Be as specific and detailed as possible. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Talk:Main Page) for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see above, I've been blocked from editing Talk:Main Page for 31 hours. I've asked for advice many times, but so far the only advice I've gotten is "Give up!" Any other advice from anyone here? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What help are you looking for exactly? At no point in your confused discussions on the Main Page talk has anyone said “Give up!”. Stephen 20:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained in detail. You are one of many asking this same question, but there doesn't seem to be any point in my answering the question again.Rick Norwood (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The person who said "give up!" did not say that here, but in one of the many places I have asked. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We are continually asking because several editors cannot figure out what your concern or question, cannot find where you explained the issue, and the follow-up questions are not answered. Please, take some time below to post, in detail and with specifics: What is the original issue or question you had on WT:Main Page before the block was issued? Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered this so many times that I do not care to answer anymore. My time is valuable. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You spent quite a time few last days redundantly "asking" other people for "answers" or "suggestions" about some literal nonsense while evading any clarifying (too)good-faith questions from them, claiming you "answered" them already (you never did it the way reachable from your profile). Then just repeat it ad nauseam. You don't see time of others as any valuable, neither you see your own one that way too [see (You can reply here or anywhere else you can think to contact me. I plan to check back every ten minutes. | [3])]. Don't know if its a some testing of a language model, plain trolling, or mental impairment, successful mess of "protected-from-vandalism" page, including moderators bee-lining here with those patient "explanations" is an immense travesty. ~2026-57655-1 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Rick Norwood. I don't know whether I can help, but let me try. Your partial block from Talk:Main Page is not very long, it's 31 hours, but let's see how much of this we can get sorted out first.
  You originally wrote there: "Why do we even pretend to have news on the Facebook front page when the most important things are so seldom listed?" I assume the "Facebook" was a mistake and you meant the Wikipedia Main Page. It's a fair question, but a couple of people have tried to answer it. The "In the News" segment is pretty small: I see there are currently 4 items in it, and I think I remember seeing 5 sometimes. So it obviously can't cover every current news story, even in the United States; and since English Wikipedia doesn't have any regional focus, the editors who decide what goes there try to keep it balanced between different parts of the world. They also try to always cover certain kinds of things, like major sports championships, deaths of well known people, space exploration news, and disasters. Look at the bottom of that box on the Main Page and you'll also see "Recent deaths" and "Ongoing"; "Ongoing" includes a number of other major news stories, including "U.S. immigration enforcement in Minneapolis" and "(protests)" after that; those link to the articles on the ICE operation and to the protests over Renee Good's death, respectively. As someone mentioned, the discussions about what to include happen at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (linked at the bottom of the section under "Nominate an article"). Here's the discussion where editors decided not to include Killing of Alex Pretti as an item in the In the News section.
  Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Broad analysis, for example of "the president of the US" (I'm quoting from your response to someone at Talk:Main Page), like one might find in the Opinion section of a newspaper or in a Facebook post or a political news-and-analysis site, doesn't fit well in an encyclopedia (and neutral presentation of facts is a basic rule here).
  Editors are basically equal here; remember, assume good faith. There's no obligation to make a user page (or even to register an account, although there are things unregistered editors can't do). So your assumption in this edit summary that a red-linked user name means "a nonexistent name" isn't fair to the editor you reverted. Whatever the merits of their edit, you were assuming bad faith on mistaken grounds. (Your revert got undone, and I looked at it because Fram mentioned it in the "Are you okay" section above the block notice. Fram says your revert put back material that violates the rules on living people. Your edit summary makes a suggestion of conflict of interest or masquerading: "writes in the first person as if he is Straczynski ". Has there been relevant discussion on the talk page for the article? If you don't understand why you were reverted or still have concerns, that's where to ask.
  I see a number of people trying to help but not sure what you mean. And Fram gives some examples where your edit summary doesn't match what you did; for example in this edit all you did was remove a space, but your edit summary is "update to Jan 22. more later". Before you hit "publish changes", remember to check that you've responded the way you planned to, and that your edit summary matches what you changed. (If the edit summary is just a way of noting the edit for yourself so that you remember to come back to that article, please don't do that. It clogs people's watch lists with mysterious edit summaries and unnecessary changes; excess spaces aren't displayed to the reader, so there's no reason to make an edit just to zap them.) In text-only exchanges, it's easy for people to misunderstand each other; I think that's been happening here. I hope this post helps a bit, and I'm sorry it's so long. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  May I ask what drew you to this post?

  You said: "I don't know whether I can help, but let me try. Your partial block from Talk:Main Page is not very long, it's 31 hours, but let's see how much of this we can get sorted out first."

  I have very seldom been blocked at all during my more than twenty years here. so this seems long to me.

  "Why do we even pretend to have news on the Facebook front page when the most important things are so seldom listed?" My meaning was "News about Facebook"". I should have used the phrase "about Facebook" instead of the phrase "on Facebook".Rick Norwood (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "I see a number of people trying to help but not sure what you mean." This has only been a problem for a few days, and the same people repeated delete what I post here.

  More later, either later today or early tomorrow. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not Yngvadottir, but to answer your question: News about Facebook is usually too niche for Wikipedia's main page, which typically focuses on international events or national events with large implications (like a change in leadership). An event in an individual company usually does not meet that high standard. If you think an event should be posted at ITN, please nominate the article there. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You do not seem to have read by reply to Yngvadottir. I answered this there. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi again; I'm afraid I'm confused now. So you were using Trump and the Minneapolis conflicts as examples of US-centric news, not as examples of "the most important things" that don't get featured often enough? And you really did mean news about Facebook? In that case why did you deny having mentioned Facebook? Can you possibly link to the discussion you refer to here as having received support: "This has been discussed several times at WP:ITNC, once received overwhelming support. Was anything done?" Or at least give us some key phrase to search for in the archives?
  I'm not sure why you think the English Wikipedia Main Page should feature more news about Facebook. And why the wording "Facebook front page"? when you say you meant "News about Facebook"? Did you post in the wrong place? Or do you have some prose-checking widget operating that might be inserting the word "Facebook" when that's sometimes not what you mean?
  I know you wrote that you would return later, and I should go and do something now myself. So I apologize if I'm responding too quickly and you had intended to clarify later, or if I'm just being dense. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank for your response. I really appreciate it.

  I chose Facebook as one example. I now know not to even mention that word. I certainly didn't intend to say anything at all about Facebook. I was talking about Donald Trump. I do think what Donald Trump does is newsworthy. I don't think this US president has ever been mentioned on "In the News". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you started this conversation, if anyone had understood what you were trying to say, we could have pointed out that Greenland crisis was on "In the News". That's very much a story about Trump. And then the week before there was 2026 United States intervention in Venezuela, which is also undeniably a Trump story.

Like everything on the main page, the point is to highlight articles the reader might not have seen yet. So it makes sense to focus on the current events themselves, not the US president himself. Everybody already knows who he is. ApLundell (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland crisis was top of the "In the news" section on 2026 January 20. 2026 United States intervention in Venezuela – 2026 January 3.

Other examples: Operation Metro Surge/List of Renée Good protests is in the "Ongoing" section since two days ago; 2025 United States federal government shutdown – 2025 November 6. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for explaining (though I'm still a bit confused; not unusual for me). I see ApLundell has given some examples of recent In the News items covering actions by Trump. It's probably deliberate that Trump's name doesn't always appear in the blurb, since the editors try to keep them short and focused on the event, and since some are ongoing rather than single events/decisions. That goes for the protests in Minneapolis, for example. I also think you may have happened not to see the coverage in In the News of Trump's election, re-election, the assassination attempt ... I imagine there have been quite a few items on the major milestones. But for specific things, including Trump's political career, there are of course better places to look for complete coverage than the Wikipedia Main Page. I go to ap.news.com myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[4]Doug Weller talk 18:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rick Norwood (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Norwood (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces (Talk) for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  asilvering (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick, sorry about this. Can you tell us what, specifically, you need help with? I'll see what we can do. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rick: I've thanked Asilvering for that offer of help. I'm very sorry to see you have another partial block, and concerned by your recent posts. Is it the draft article, by any chance? In case it is, I'm going to see if I can help out with that. But I work slowly these days, so wait a bit. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, push him asap to search for a medical help, if somebody have some way to contact him some other way too. Its very alarming neurological condition even if it some weird trolling from his side. ~2026-60050-0 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am Rick Norwood's stepdaughter (I created an account just to address this). I'm handling his care and my brother is handling legal and financial things. As you have noticed, he is very much in cognitive decline and has been diagnosed with Alzheimers and is under legal conservatorship. What you are seeing is the best version of himself he is capable of being, and the disease is progressive so it will get worse from here. You guys should consider at what point he should no longer be able to make changes on Wikipedia. If you could pass this along to others involved I'd appreciate it.

Physically he's in good health for 84, he's safe and his needs are being met as best we can manage. We're trying to let him live in his apartment as long as possible before we bow to inevitability.

Thanks!

Erin Ehamedi (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Big thanks for directly addressing and clarifying it precise way. Sadly many wikipedia admins are also exists in a borderline imaginary world, and wrote a long essays regarding editing procedurals to him; not really helping by doing so. ~2026-62992-5 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring this matter to the Arbitration Committee as non-public or confidential information may be involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person handling care, and am not bound by any confidentiality. I've shared relevant information. But you are free to do whatever. Ehamedi 17:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC) original TA removed asilvering (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2026 [reply]

No one is accusing anyone of breaching anything, but I believe this situation should be handled sensitively and discreetly, rather than in a public discussion here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I posted here as there were a few people who expressed concern that his account was compromised or he was medically at risk. I wanted to resolve those concerns and make yall aware of the issues that will become more significant. Ehamedi 18:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC) original TA removed – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erin, thanks for this. Please remember to log in when you post (you'll notice you have some other notifications as well). -- asilvering (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Referred to Maggie Dennis. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Rick,

Firstly, we'd like to thank you for your long service on Wikipedia. We've been lucky to have you as an editor all these years.

However, you have been blocked by the Arbitration Committee due to the disruption you are now causing. We understand this may be disappointing.

You may email the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org) about this block if you wish to discuss a path back to editing.

For the Committee,

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]