Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 83

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85→Archive 90

With sincerity...

"Sunflower Award"

Your work as an admin is not being graded,
But it certainly is much appreciated,
To know that you see with vision that's clear,
A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear.

Thank you for all do!

Atsme✍🏻📧 14:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"ear, ear". Let's hope he carries on Forever. [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan block reduction

Block reduction
Block reduction

What you've done here is quite risky, especially when the user just broke her promises shortly after getting unblocked. I personally would've kept that block indefinite. She is known for being deceitful (often through sockpuppetry) and her words should be taken with a grain of salt. It wouldn't surprise me if she breaks her word again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

She's young and excitable, and I can easily picture my kids being the same. She's still blocked, and that gives time for people to raise concerns on ANI and elsewhere. I have to AGF she didn't really realise she was breaking sanctions, and she did apologise afterwards immediately, and the content in question didn't look troublesome, and the blocking administrator was cool with it. I have spelled out exactly what the issues are, and short of putting in words of one syllable, I'm not sure what else I can do. Let's just chill and see what happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Age doesn't justify anything here. Regardless, I do hope the conditions you laid out there are actually obeyed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
A number of people are complaining on ANI that the block is punitive, even when reduced to 24 hours. Anyway, age can be useful as a predictor for future disruption. Take a 15 year old who's being a bit of an arse. Come back in five years when they're 20, there's a reasonable chance they will have grown up and cringe at what they did back then. Now take a 65 year old who's being a bit of an arse. Come in back in five years when they're 70 - chances are they'll be exactly the same, if not worse. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. (But you can try and impeach them). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It's been quite the day for me reversing blocks, hasn't it? :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
You're getting good at it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Years ago, I first heard someone say "Anyone who doesn't believe they were an idiot as a teenager is still one." I've yet to see even the slightest hint of evidence that this aphorism isn't entirely true, and I've seen much evidence to suggest that it is. So my advice is to not worry too much about permanently banning the 17 year old (who will likely be reflecting on what an idiot she was at 17 in just a few more years) and worry more about whatever other pages are on your watchlist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Gone awry
Let's hope it doesn't go awry. This episode reminds me of an incident years ago on the other website I am staff on where some young users likewise could not listen to requests to stop... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I've run, or been close to the management of, several forums in the past. I saw a hyperactive 17 year old who basically lived his social life on the forums and annoying just about everybody by replying to every single fucking post with "that's interesting", "thanks", "cool" etc etc. IIRC he got put on a hard "no more than 5 posts per day or you get banned" limit, and two years later, he was a pretty good poster making insightful comments. Then there was a girl who ended every sentence with "lol", which backfired when another member was upset their dog died, to which she replied, "sorry to hear about your dog lol", offended about 10 people and got kickbanned. On the other hand, I have had intelligent and reasoned debate with people, and been very surprised to find out later on, that they were 15 years old. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
In my experience on that other website, there is little correlation between age and maturity, probably because what adults don't have in terms of immaturity they often more than make up with what I'll politely call Firmly Held Opinions. It also seems to me that teenagers tend to vary their maturity depending on environment, i.e if they are in a formal environment they'll behave like mature adults and when they go to an informal one like stereotypical teenagers. I believe that https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229707000536 may be related. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Would you be able to hide the IP edits on Lawrence O'Donnell 1 2 as they are BLP violations. GhostOrchid35 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like another admin with oversight privileges got to this already, but I can't tell whom. It sounds like the thing GorillaWarfare would do but I don't have access to the oversight log. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Waterloo East railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Eastern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

China/Hong

Morning. I'll leave this and this with you. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

.... and as good as my word, both semi-protected for three months. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed the unsourced info, as neither countries have announced their entry yet. Hopefully that's not a blockable offense. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Apoorva (actress)

Apoorva (actress) can you please move it to the user page ill improve it Iamheentity (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Done - User:Iamheentity/Apoorva (actress) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chas Hodges

On 23 September 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chas Hodges, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

rabbit rabbit rabbit rabbit
rabbit rabbit rabbit rabbit
yup yup rabbit rabbit
Not forgetting....
Fortunately, I have another bottle of beer tucked away in my piece of period furniture. --Arthur Negus 123 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. you put Sainsbury's to shame.
Gertcha When your talk page is vandalised by a sock
Gertcha When they come off a 24 hour block
Gertcha If they complain about breaking policy
Gertcha Cause the trolls dragged you off onto AN3 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Meh. You grumpy old admins are all the same.... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Now I don't mind having a chat. But you have to keep givin' it that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Beer flood? Now that's a nice way to go on the paper. Alex Shih (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Greg Herman / Fashion Designer: Page deletion

Dear Ritchie333,


We hope this email finds you well. It was brought to my attention by one of Greg's associates that his Wikipedia page was deleted. Per our research, we noticed that it was you that removed the page. We were shocked to find this out. We could understand if some edits were required, which have been done in the past number of years by your fellow contributors. But a full deletion of a page- we believe that was extreme. Your reasoning/ position for removal was sited as (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Please elaborate. Per our review of the copy, we don't see that. Instead, it is a realistic portrayal of our client. Greg Herman - both the individual and the brand has and continues to contribute greatly to the world of fashion- namely accessories.

We took a second, third, and fourth pass, as did others in reviewing the article- and while it could use some edits, none of us thought it was unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was a true and accurate depiction of Mr. Herman, his early life, career, etc., and feel that the deletion was unwarranted. I understand that Wikipedia must be filled with tons and tons of articles that need to be deleted, however, this is not one of them. Greg Herman, his history, this article, has been part of the Wikipedia community for many many years and he's been listed in the various Wikipedia lists. He has contributed so much to the fashion community- his philanthropy through design (which we were planning to add), his history, and groundbreaking work to help and spearhead a boutique designer market that is still struggling in a sea of imports, his TV accomplishments, etc., were all wiped away at a push of a button in the world of Wikipedia.

We are advocates of anything and everything community. We also understand the difficult task you have at hand in keeping it all real and honest. Greg Herman- the person, the brand, the fashion designer, etc., is a real and authentic voice that has and continues to contribute nationally and abroad. I appeal to you, our team appeals to you to please restore his page. We are not very knowledgable in the inner workings of Wikipedia, but (if possible), perhaps you can be the monitor of the article as the page evolves in the future. Thank you for all your help in this matter.


Best,

Robyn Davis


～～～～

The article was largely full of claims without any citations to high-quality, reliable and independent sources, which is an absolutely essential requirement for biographies of living people as it prevents libel and slander getting into articles. The prose contained unsourced text such as "While living in Impington, a village just north of Cambridgeshire, England, Herman became inspired by his weekend trips to London, where he immersed himself into the heart of England's fashion scene. It was at his home in Cambridge where he designed his first few bags, which were later sold at the very stores that helped to influence his creative vision." and if you cannot see how that is completely inappropriate prose for a neutral encyclopedia article, you should not be editing this article in any way shape or form.
If this person is genuinely important enough to be in a worldwide encyclopedia, somebody else will create the article as a matter of course. (Talk page stalkers - if you think you can create a BLP-compliant stub on this person, please just do it) I see that your request to restore the article on Requests for undeletion has also been declined. Therefore, I don't think I have any consensus to undelete this article, even if I wanted to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


Ritchie333,

Thank you for your prompt attention, along with the information and clarification. Both you and other Wikipedia members have been very helpful in this matter and it s very much appreciated. While I understand that restoring the existing article in it's current form is not possible, can we open a dialog as to how to establish a new one and/or could you aid with that. A conversation at the very least to establish his name back into the Wikipedia community. Whatever assistance you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again and have a wonderful day.

Best,

Robyn

～～～～

Hi Robyn; basically in this scenario I try and write a new article myself if I can. To do that, I have to start off with basic source material, and in this case that would be a google news search for "Greg Herman" fashion. If I could have got 2-3 hits from that, that were dedicated pieces specifically about him, I could have probably written something. Unfortunately, I need to have evidence of that source material presented in the article, so anyone else can fact-check it at any time, and they also need to be there to prove this is a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Without that, I'm afraid there's not much chance of being able to write a new article :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Ritchie333,

Thank you again for your help and I hope you has a great weekend! I was traveling and apologize for my tardy reply. I totally understand. I included below some links regarding Greg in this message. He has a number of articles on him, however, many of his published accomplishments predated 'Google' and are not avail online. Hopefully these are of some help, and at the very least could aid you in helping to establish a page for him and his name back into the Wikipedia world. If you need any additional info, please let me know. Again, you've been extremely helpful in this process and I thank you very much. Have a wonderful Monday!

Best,

Robyn

～～～～

https://books.google.com/books?id=_F0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=greg herman designer los angeles times&source=bl&ots=5G6tYVCcAG&sig=Rzc1qMyBZ98oNCfIJpHnzrGkL1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiil9iMvd7dAhUBCDQIHQ-TAisQ6AEwA3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=greg herman designer los angeles times&f=false

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/30184

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/sep/03/news/ls-18970

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/23/business/fi-13336

Rev-del request

Hi, I wonder if you could rev-delete the edit summaries left by Special:Contributions/184.175.102.29? The edits were nonsensical and appear to have been made with the goal of defacing article histories with swastikas, "Sieg Heils", etc. The user is currently blocked, but the edit summaries remain. I would appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Should all be scrubbed. That sort of stuff has no place on this project. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you; much better! There are still two swastikas left; they are at the bottom of the page here: Special:Contributions/184.175.102.29. The specific edits are [2] and [3]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Done. Vanamonde (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both! @Vanamonde93. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Houses of the Holy

On 23 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Houses of the Holy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the cover of Houses of the Holy was designed by Hipgnosis and based on photographs taken at the Giant's Causeway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Houses of the Holy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Houses of the Holy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Irn Bru. Made in Scotland. From Gerdas.

Congrats, love the rabbits below! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you noticed how Gerda sounds a bit like Gertcha? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't. It doesn't even sound like Gerda as most Englis-speaking people pronounce it ;) - Guess what: all GAs that I nominated are reviewed! That hasn't happened since I started ;) - Time to write a new one, I guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
32 different ways! :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I think since I started writing GAs in 2012, there has only been one instance where I've not had at least one on the queue, and that was during a 2-month wikibreak in 2016. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
You can’t beat a good Gerda fork, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent behavior

Your behavior as of late is becoming increasingly problematic and indicative of an administrator who thinks they are bound to a different set of rules than everyone else despite saying that admins should be held accountable for their actions. Recent examples include disparaging other editors in order to undermine their credibility (your comments about MelanieN in an RfA that was not about her and your comments about Widr when I echoed his concerns in a CU vote about someone else), hounding me at different RfAs and different pages (I can reasonably be assured that you will respond to any comments I make at any page even if my comments have nothing to do with you), and ignoring other guidelines such as WP:TPO and removing comments you don't personally like that do not violate any policy. I'm taking the liberty and letting you know my objection to your behavior as a response to this comment where you state Editors should be able to criticise the project’s administration and state their views provided they do no descend to personal abuse... Thanks. Nihlus 05:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Has this really been bothering you since early August ? That's quite astonishing and worrying, really. Nick (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Considering the level of day-to-day crap I see from editors and admins alike, Ritchie's comments seem to be little more than exasperation with blinkered incompetence. Have you tried to look at his comments with a gram of AGF, rather than accusing an admin of hounding (without any evidence)? Perhaps not trying to stir a dramah pot would be a better start to the day for most of us. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is, Nihlus, is that in my view you don't really seem to like contributing to the actual writing of the encyclopedia very much, and don't have very good dispute resolution skills, and consequently you end up picking fights with people for no reason. For example, if I examine your mainspace contributions, the only content you have contributed to in the past two weeks is an mild edit war on One World Trade Center over the alignment of an image, whereas if you look at my mainspace contributions, you can see a huge range of articles worked on over the past 48 hours. In the specific instance you cite, you decided that TonyBallioni should not receive checkuser privileges and cited another editor's comments who said they had a "Terribly self-important, generally unpleasant know-it-all approach" and accused him of hat-collecting. You didn't supply any diffs to back up your argument, and I thought your wanton unwarranted criticism was an unpleasant cheap shot, so I asked you a direct question; "How on earth did you conclude that Tony was hat-collecting?". You did not answer. Elsewhere I see you templating a longstanding editor and having a go at a longstanding editor where I am not surprised that you felt you had to have the last word.
I think you should check your assumptions over what my working relationship with MelanieN is. We've worked together on several different articles in the past, such as Ika Hügel-Marshall, Beer in San Diego County, California and Laura Lee (sex worker) and generally had a good and congenial relationship. See WP:SQUIRREL.
My advice to you is to stop trying to be an admin; it won't work. Find a topic you want to work on, or monitor new page patrol for new articles, clean them up and improve them. You'll gain a lot more respect than just getting the hump every time sometime disagrees with you. Chill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Typical response at this point. You just cannot help yourself from trying to disparage others in order to make yourself look better while at the same time derailing topics and deflecting criticism. I suggest you stop thinking you're better than anyone on this site whenever you try to whip out your edit count or comparing whatever you've done lately. People contribute where they can, when they can, and how they can. You've developed a pattern of berating me for not being up to your level of content editing, and it's one of the very reasons I don't want to be. That kind of behavior makes content editing unpleasant with your haughty attitude and the way you look down on others who find enjoyment elsewhere. The next time someone brings up an issue with something you've done or the next time you disagree with something someone says, I challenge you to try to talk about why someone thinks that or why someone said that instead of going through their contribution history to poison the well. Nihlus 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
You linked to Wikipedia:There is no Divine Right Of Editors. This essay includes the following: "They block without good reason and refuse to unblock. Bad cases may even WikiStalk the blocked userpage to weed out any unblock requests." I'd like some hard evidence with diffs that I have ever done that, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Way to cherry pick what you want out of that while ignoring the big nutshell at the top: Just because you are an established editor, you are not above the rules, nor are others below you. Nihlus 16:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
You're like a Conservative MP, Nihlus! "Strong and stable!" "Leave means leave!" "No deal is better than a bad deal!" You don't answer the questions I ask, you just answer the question you'd like to answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You know what an encylopaedia actually is, I suppose? 90% of grief on this site would disappear if those unprepared or unwilling or unable to work on content (broadly construed) would go and find a social media site to play with. If you can't or won't "do" content, you should be asking yourself if this is a worthwhile hobby for you, 'cos it sure as hell is not improving the encyclopaedia in any way, shape or form. The dramah board clique who wouldn't go near an article if their lives depend on it are one of the worst blots on this site - sitting pontificating on others without an actual clue on how to carry through the core rationale of why we are here: to write a fucking encyclopaedia. If you can't do that, stop being a pain in the arse to those who can. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't appear to be finding enjoyment elsewhere though, from what I can see of your behaviour in recent months, the only enjoyment you appear to be deriving from Wikipedia is getting into bizarre fights with editors for no apparent reason. It's all very strange and disconcerting. Nick (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Another stalker here. This needs to decisively conclude, either with Nihlus putting money where their mouth is and seeking some kind of formal sanction against Ritchie, or with Nihlus avoiding making contact with Ritchie. All the preceding conversation demonstrates is a marked disagreement between Nihlus and Ritchie, and is (realistically) a complete waste of time and energy. We should all get back to making some more content for Wikipedia instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I do have to thank Nihlus for pointing me towards Wikipedia:There is no Divine Right Of Editors, it looks a lot better (and more amusing) since I improved it this afternoon. Meanwhile, I am anticipating that I will throw another GAN on the pile this evening, if I can finish tidying up and double check sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
What, do you think all your useful contributions to this site make you more valuable than anyone else?? The correct answer is "Yes." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
My contributions are awesome. I mean, they're like the best contributions evaaah. You're all getting sick of how awesome my contributions are, is the crowd with me? Yeah, this Podunk, Alabama Beer Hall Putsch is really great, you guys are so awesome! What are we gonna do with Jimbo? LOCK HIM UP! TheDonald333 (talk) (cont) 09:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, we get it, Donald. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
O clap your hands! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
.... or even just the sound of one hand clap. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Somewhere, on a corner of the internet, there is an argument about whether Jon Anderson says "This is a song call-ed Clap" or "This is a song called The Clap" immediately before the song. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
In the article, I thought I was extra correct saying The Beatles for their revolution, but no ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
ps: should the revolution be mentioned in the lead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hang on, which article are we talking about? I just mentioned The Wikipedia Revolution on another thread and like Tigger I'm all confuzzled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The clap article (a little above) which mentions use by The Beatles in Revolution 9, - see Main page. Every now and then there's somehing hooky in classical music, - clap please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not your employee or servant

My milkshake brings all the gentlemen to the 0.9144 metres

Please avoid leaving edit notes like this in the future. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

What would you like me to do instead? If I don't think an article meets the appropriate CSD criteria (which are deliberately narrow as unilaterally deleting an article without discussion can upset people), I won't delete it. If I haven't got a clue what to do with the article (which in this case I don't, as I tend to stay away from medical-related articles as I feel I don't have enough subject expertise to edit them) I will suggest something to the tagger, who I assume has more of a clue what to do with the article than I do. I hope that all makes sense. On a related note, I'm surprised we don't have an article (or at least a redirect) on the phrase "I remain sir, your humble and obedient servant" which is commonly seen on civil service correspondence to MPs seen on files in the National Archives. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"Hey Bitches!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Oooof. Just take a chill pill, CL-Threesie
I just got epilepsy. GMGtalk 22:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I got a sudden urge to put on some REAL MUSIC instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't have deleted it. Your servant, Drmies (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That is a phrase that marks out a gentleman, and is thus all but extinct in the modern world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"My milkshake brings all the gentlemen to the 0.9144 metres" ooof, even by R333 standards that's baaad - TNT 💖 22:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
All the best puns are the worst ones. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Michael Hardy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for John Cunliffe (author)

On 28 September 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Cunliffe (author), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kama_Chinen_(2nd_nomination)

The keep arguments were WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, someone bringing up a mention in an article about someone else and a WP:PERX statement, while the Delete votes cited policy (BIO1E, GNG and others). Please reconsider. » Shadowowl | talk 20:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am at a complete loss to understand why longevity articles cause more heat than light, but they do. As I said in the close, I could have relisted it for another week (and if you're unhappy with the close, that's the option I recommend) but I just felt we'd end up in the same place; plus the arguments were getting heated, and would probably stay that way for any remainder of the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I am at a complete loss to understand why longevity articles cause more heat than light. Thats because most of them aren't notable. I've relisted. » Shadowowl | talk 20:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah blocking Congress

See [4]. Natureium (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I just get a subscribe message when I view that page. I just think blocking the Representatives right in the middle of an extremely controversial confirmation has a huge possibility of being misinterpreted in the extreme. A block like that is controversial at the best of times, but at this specific point in time, I think it should only be done by WMF staff, and only then with extreme caution. Sure, protect articles because of BLP, that's neutral and acceptable, but shutting out every Representatives IP from editing .... yikes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Jaw, hit floor. Is there already a discussion about this somewhere? - TNT 💖 20:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it’s justifiable when someone is posting personal addresses and phone numbers of congresspeople. There’sNoTime, clearly you haven’t been on IRC recently. Natureium (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't been on IRC ever, I don't even know where it is. Is everything there logged and accessible by anybody in the same way as diffs, so there is full accountability and transparency? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
You can open that in a private window and you should be able to see the page. I haven't read it yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Or use archive.org GMGtalk 20:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Just for clarification, did someone actually block the entire US House of Representatives? Even given the very serious abuse, that's a pretty brassy move w/o any kind of discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Yes they did. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
On simple merits, under normal circumstances, a 12-hour range block would be acceptable (but a week?) The block instructions for admins state "These ranges are allocated to major governmental organizations; blocks of these organizations have political and public relations implications of which the Foundation's press relations team must be aware. Avoid long blocks of these addresses, and be especially careful in formulating your block messages because your block message will probably be seen and commented on by the press." As an administrator, I can see some of the redacted edits, and believe me, if Trump got hold of those he could make the WMF's life .... unpleasant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking that maybe this needs to be discussed on one of the noticeboards (AN?). -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I mentioned it here on the CheckUser appointments threads. Okay, I'd already opposed Oshwah, but the question was more to make people who have !voted "support" double-check their view and make sure they're absolutely comfortable about doing it. I haven't gone to ANI yet because I've spent too much time on ANI today and have had enough. I'm not going to stop anyone else raising it there, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Um. What I see on Special:Contributions/143.231.0.0/16 does not exactly sound all constructive and libel law compliant. Perhaps it's indeed better to keep them blocked until the charade blows over and not just a 12 hour block with a high recurrence risk. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Looking forward to that cheeky DYK hook that names someone called Brett as an expert in the Devil's Triangle (drinking game).... oh no, hang on .I think we have just done that one for someone called Donald...?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Essay directory

I have been trying to find an essay which says something similar to "don't invent the problem". But I can't recall the name of that essay. Do you know what essay is it? Any TPS? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it WP:AINTBROKE? Or WP:SLOP? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Thanks a lot! I was looking for WP:AINTBROKE, but SLOP is a little similar too. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

IAdmin

Hello Ritchie333, per your request I've added temporary IADMIN access to your account. Please keep in mind this is a stop-gap process, and getting Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators to closure is still important. Please follow that page for developments, I expect once done there will be a period for temporary grants to get processed to permanent ones. Regarding your specific request, please thoroughly review Wikipedia:Gadget regarding the expectations of adding new gadgets before adding a new public gadget. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

RevDel Request

Can you RevDel the edit summary for this IP edit under RD3? [5] funplussmart (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 14:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeking some advice

Greetings,

so after Tutupaca, Taapaca and Ubinas passed at FAC I was thinking of going back to articles which I wrote earlier and bring them up to FAC readiness, which often would require a total rewrite. Some of these articles such as Coropuna are currently GA and if I were to rewrite them for FAC there would be a period where they bear a green star despite being very unlike the version that passed GAN. This issue has held me back, any advice. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly possible for a GA to change substantially, while still meeting the criteria. Have a look at this diff which shows the differences in The Beatles (album) between when it passed GA four years ago compared to now; it still meets the criteria despite numerous changes (although not really a significant amount in my view). I don't most FAC reviewers just take the article as they see it, and would only complain about it being a GA if it very obviously did not meet the criteria eg: too short, too much unsourced content, obvious spelling / grammar errors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

If you're around, may I please trouble you for a revdel? Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, where's the beef? Er, diff? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Oy, missplaced link. Here it is (edit as well as edit summary). Innisfree987 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
RD2 (isn't that a droid?) dispatched. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Ha indeed. I thank you both for the help! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red invitation

Hello. I was wondering if you wanted to join WikiProject Women in Red. I've seen your great work on Did You Know alongside other WIR editors on Catherine Kerrison and Renee Powell. You are not obligated to join, but if you are interested I would love to work with you for this WikiProject :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: (are we related?) I have to give credit on those two articles to Megalibrarygirl (with a side helping of SusunW on Kerrison), whose prowess at working on BLPs like these two just leaves me feeling like Wayne and Garth bowing down saying "We're not Worthy!" I am conscious that at times I feel like I have become the Official Megalibrarygirl Fan Club (TM), but it's because she is always eager to help, and so I am happy to bounce things in her direction. In terms of the project, I obviously support WiR, and do help out where I can, but writing new articles on women just isn't my area of expertise. I have joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green, which takes existing articles about women and improves them to GA, which is more of my "bag", so to speak. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: That's even better. I did see your GA nominee on Carol Kaye. I would review it but I have a vested interest in it cause I read a book about the Wrecking Crew. And no we aren't related (I don't know what you mean by that lol). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333 methinks he meant your surname (333) LOL. Ritchie is a valued ally and he doesn't recognize always how much he really does contribute. I'm happy to let him delude himself, because he haunts places I would never go and says, hey, this needs work. SusunW (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Well what we do (and by extension, what WiR does) is teamwork. We all club together, with our different specialities. I put my admin specs on and look for things we can rescue, you do the rescuing. Everybody's a winner. Nobody ever gets yelled it, nobody's edits get reverted, and we look back, and think "job well done". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, while I'm here, I spotted Draft:Elizabeth Alker earlier today. She presents the BBC Radio 3 weekend breakfast show, so she's got to be notable; I'm just unsure of what sources to arm myself with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

While I'm here! I'll have a look. It can be surprisingly uneven which journos have any secondary source coverage, relative to their real-world significance, but a music journalist sounds like an incredibly pleasant subject to turn my attention to just now, so I'll be glad to dig in as best I can. Thanks for the flag. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Annoying vandal

207.236.93.210 is obviously not here to help build the pedia. Surprised they've been allowed to keep on keeping on. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've given them a week, given the previous blocks and the apparent lack of constructive intent. Atsme The issue is we very very rarely indef IPs, given the possibility of collateral damage. Ritchie (or anyone else), if you feel comfortable upping the length, go ahead. Vanamonde (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Uh oh...collateral damage?? Wasn't aware, and afraid to ask...but I do have a vivid imagination. Atsme✍🏻📧 23:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: Other individuals who might be using/might want to use that IP address for legitimate edits. Vanamonde (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Ohhhh...I get it. Thank you for explaining, Vanamonde. I just learned something I should have known; i.e., to look at the bottom of the TP. Atsme✍🏻📧 00:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Pls note: Questionable behaviour by Philafrenzy

Hi Ritchie, since you've been the sponsor of Philafrenzy's failed RfA, I'd like you to take note of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alessandro_Strumia Imho this daringly unencyclopedic stub raises dire concerns about the author's attitude towards Wikipedia. And he even dares to lie about it - “hijacked“, huh? Also, still no summaries. Grrr. But pls make up your own mind. Best regards Gray62 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The version as written by Philafrenzy here is a short stub, but there is a claim to WP:PROF, and there are numerous book sources here to use as a starting point for expanding the article. The primary contributor seems to be DanyelCavazos. I'm not going to !vote "keep" just yet as I'd like to expand and add citations to the article first. Andrew Davidson and Whispyhistory may be able to help in that respect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Also, my complaint was based on an embarassing mistake by me. I must have screwed up when comparung versions. Philafrenzy's stub was ok. I apologized. Sry for raising a lot of brouhaha about nothing, Ritchie! Gray62 (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but you raise a legitimate point that the article is (currently) lop-sided in neutrality and needs sourcing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Err...out of curiosity, why didn't you call me out for this?! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, because I like to leave talk page discussions up and let all you lot comment on them. Either a thread is suitable for viewing, in which case it stays up for ~30 days until it's automatically archived, or it's completely unsuitable for WP full stop, in which case it gets blanked and revision deleted. I like free speech, even if it means I might have to leave up a message like "Excuse me Ritchie333, I'd just like to let you know that you're a total libtard fuckwit - TRUMP FOR 2020!!!!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes I know. Please answer the question Mr Howard. So why didn't you say anyting to me about it?! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It's dealing with the relevant point of what I was instructed to do, what I was not instructed to do, what I did do, what I did not do, but I did not overrule him ... I assumed you'd have "got the hint" from the edit summary, and starting a thread was superfulous, and likely to lead to off-topic conversation. Of course, if you'd like me to start an off-topic thread on your talk page.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you had, I would have been able to say "Gosh Ritichie, thanks, as I didn't even know I'd done it". Know what I mean? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Did you threaten to overrule him? Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It's dealing with the relevant point of what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do. I gave SerialNumber54129 my opinion. I gave him in my opinion in strong language. But I did not instruct him. (On a related note, how on earth did we get from Zippy and George to Michael Howard?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to block him Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
There's something of the blight about him , to be sure :) sorry R333 for polluting your page with Messrs Howard and Widdicombe; all I meant was, was that your original edit-summary made it look ike a misjudgement rather than a misclick. But, no: I make few of the former, many of the latter. Hence the (attempts at) clarification. Right! 13:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me Ritchie333...

Fancy using the word "total". I'm shocked.

I'd just like to let you know that you're a total libtard fuckwit - TRUMP FOR 2020!!!! 123.456.789.101 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

For the talk page stalkers, Mike W has rangeblocked 123.456.789.0/16 as a sockpuppet of Put In The Putin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Good. This is the same guy that keeps posting on my talk page, the jerk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Fancy using the word "total". I'm shocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC) ... I wouldn't want to add Fuel to the Flames here....


@Ritchie333:. Not an expert here but appreciate your call for suggestions. A search on his work on neutrinos and physics would be a good starting point. [6][7]. Does that help. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I was able to find quite a few more sources including that NYtimes piece, which I mentioned at the AfD Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yup, I wasn't really sure where to start on Strumia's article, but there's definitely more than just the recent kerfuffle in the news. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to chime in and say thanks to Galobtter for providing those references in the deletion discussion. I was able to use them to expand the article a fair bit. I'll be away from it and WP in general for a while thanks to deadlines at work (which is probably a good thing — I don't want to get too snippy), but at least now it reads like a fairly ordinary academic bio and makes a decent case for passing WP:PROF even without the recent dust-up. XOR'easter (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think Galobtter needs a medal of service, or something, for all the queries he's fielded at Talk:Donald Trump. Rather him than me! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN deserves it, not me; has 4 times the edits to the talk page and had to deal with the talk page during the height of the election Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
A cheerful view of the Scottish countryside. From Top Places to Assassinate Trump, Amberley Publishing, 2017 p.14 ISBN 978-1-451-62171-6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A719 road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnberry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Well would you adam-and-eve it, we don't actually have an article on Tunberry the village (although it doesn't help that maps sometimes call it Milton). Despite the constant disambiguation notices covfefe. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_83&oldid=1145712312"