User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Draft:Catholicism and Nazi Germany

It seems no one seems to have picked this up a couple of months after you moved it into draft namespace, and its author can no longer speak for it, so I deleted it. If you think it merits further review, feel free to undelete it, but also advertize it somewhere where someone might notice it, so it doesn't just linger. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joy: No, I think we're good. Given its length and it's small number of citations, I thought it may have been using new material that could be cited elsewhere. Upon further review just now, it seems like it was using citations that were elsewhere with a ton of unsourced material there to make it into an article. If I restored it and cut it to the actual sourced material, that's already cited elsewhere (the citations just have names and page numbers) so double-checking it without the editor around will just be a circular game as I suspect it's actually unattributed internal Wikipedia copying going around. The rest is unclear whether it's accurate or just POV nonsense or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

National Kidney Foundation Singapore

Hi Ricky, thanks for dropping your message in. I drafted the article from scratch in one single revision, then made some tweaks from there. Do let me know if you require any further information.--Tdxiang (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Basketball players at the 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four

I think that your closing of this discussion as delete was wholly inappropriate. First, your assertion that the question of why the Final Four vs. the entire tournament WAS answered. This is the unit of performance that the NCAA, the governing body of the event, tracks in its record book and I linked the online version. Second, the "policy" (WP:PERFCAT) specifically does NOT cite sports as an example, which is really odd since it is one of the most significant areas where performance by event (World Cup, olympics, Pan Am games) is prevalent as a type of category. In short, people cited a guideline for the arts to expressly use it in other venues (sport, politics). I certainly hope that you will use the same standard when a category like Category:Footballers at the 2012 Summer Olympics is CfD'd as this is the EXaCT same application of this guideline. I also feel like a sport example needs to be added to that guideline if this is how it will be interpreted. Rikster2 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rikster2: You don't need to be so aggressive to start. I understand that the PERFCAT policy doesn't cite sports but it seemed like there was clear disagreement on the applicability with that. However, I note both the number of delete votes and the fact that there wasn't a response to the larger overcategorization concerns (which I believe was the theory behind why PERFCAT is applicable). The votes to delete cited overcategorization concerns *and* cited PERFCAT as a policy. The keep voters seemed to me to be arguing about PERFCAT as it is doesn't mention sports while not really responding about the actual overcategorization concerns. Bagumba noted that (it would be rare) but you could at most have 3-4 categories for each individual, but even Bagumba then noted that sports alone isn't the best criteria. At noted in the nomination itself, subcategorization for playoffs below the final levels aren't done (using Olympic trials as an example or all players in the playoffs themselves). Now, Bagumba and you both argued that the Final Four *is* the final level itself but (a) Bagumba's point that this is an "uphill battle" about the "unique significance of college athletics" isn't based on policy and sounds more like advocacy than a policy and while you do cite the Final Four handbook by the NCAA for the fact that it does separately distinguish the Final Four itself (versus Eight or Sixteen or even the final game itself), (b) I still don't see a overall consensus supporting that viewpoint based on either rationale you or Bagumba provided. I haven't done any outside research or outside examination on whether categorizing all Final Four participants is more akin to a category of Olympic athletes themselves or to the NBA playoffs, but within that limited discussion, it seems like the consensus supports the latter. This may require an RFC to clarify or you can take the particular close to DRV if you would like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Block this guy

Please block user:98.183.200.178 for 1 month. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D535:E2BB:57E4:837D (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Stephen G. Woodsum

Hello, Ricky81682. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Stephen G. Woodsum".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:EricCable_WP:NOTHERE

The Magic Admin 8-ball picked you because you were the first admin I saw on Recent changes. Thanks for looking into the matter. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Good work begets more work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised about the block of EricCable. While it's not the standard, I didn't feel legally threatened. I felt like they were making an appropriate though misguided and factually inaccurate statement about the license status of an image. WP:NLT#Copyright notes that these are not considered legal threats. Whether it was polite (or disruptive) or not, is up to your admin discretion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The point isn't whether or not you feel threatened but the fact that he is using the threat of legal action to get what he wants. It's no different than people who post "well *I* would never sue but I'm just saying, Wikipedia has some serious liability here if we word things that way." The point is, the proper response is to go through Wikipedia's copyright policies here and ask about it, not threaten to send in your own lawyers to enforce it. I imagine if he proposed to delete the file at FFD saying that he would like it delete and since it's not being used anywhere, most people would support him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

To clarify what I thought they meant (

"Wikipedia policy is one thing, the law is another"

): I think they were saying that the law gives one the right to recede licenses although Wikipedia policy does not (a statement, which is factually incorrect). I don't think they said that the law is on their side and they are gong to enforce it through taking legal action. Though admittedly, they said that they are going to enforce the right somehow (

"I can and will rescind license"

). From the context of the discussion I inferred it is through (disruptive) editing, because they already claimed that one of their edits amounted to rescinding the license (again, incorrectly). I think editors are allowed to discuss Wikipedia policies vis-a-vis the law. Sometimes this is a valid argument (eg. fair use does give one more rights than Wikipedia's non-free policy, which is our application of fair use). Anyway, I'm not disputing your administrative action. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disputing policy is fine. Threats are not. I suggested on their talk page that they rescind the threat and list the file for deletion. They can argue policy grounds there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:African American missionaries

I see you closed this discussion. Would you say there is a consensus that it is for missionaries who are African-American? If so, can it be renamed to Category:African-American missionaries as a result of this discussion, or do I need to post a new request? StAnselm (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree if that was your intention. Otherwise, the current wording is more akin to Category:American missionaries in Africa. Yeah, between the merges and the delete, the actual name seemed to get lost. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

re: cool down

You're the admin. I wasn't finding fault, just a comment. — Ched :  ?  11:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean it as fault. I'm just trying to understand the policy logic. Neither of those reasons for blocking have a specific time limit behind them. As I said, I'm fine with an unblock but I'm not seeing a reason why, especially if he's not requesting it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I see it's moot now anyway, but: Yes - you're fully right in policy. AND, it's really not something I want to break a lance on anyway. I admit - I was not exactly "conventional" when I had the bits, it was just a thought. I was never in favor of "indef" for a first block is all. Cheers and Best Ricky. ... oh, and FWIW - I do know you're not a trigger-happy admin, and I think you do damn good work. — Ched :  ?  22:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I don't like to use indefinites either but time limits would only make it a cool down block and I would have unblocked after ten minutes just as long as there was a calmer resolution to the file dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:1958 establishments in Burkina Faso has been nominated for discussion

Category:1958 establishments in Burkina Faso, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A question...

Why are User:Callmemirela, User:Ivanvector and probably others allowed to have an image in their signatures when WP:SIGIMAGE clearly prohibits it?  Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think those are icons and not links to images. However you can bring it up at that talk page or WP:VPP or elsewhere and see if there's a policy reason behind that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Translational Research

Hello, Ricky81682. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Translational Research".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Stale drafts

Willing to help out on getting these done, but would like some clarifications on procedure, so I don't waste the time of a lot of admins. Saw the ANI discussion regarding SwisterTwister, which is how I became aware of this backlog. I've CSD'd a few using the G6 (housekeeping), G6 (blank), U5 (webhost) designations, and so far, none have not been accepted (although there are a few still pending). I noticed that Legacypac had nominated one using the MFD process (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yflcsandi/Breakfast Seminars), and you commented "Replace with {{inactive userpage blanked}} Old and stale but no reason to delete." So my intent is to continue to use G6 Housekeeping, when the subject is either un- or poorly referenced, and does not meet notability criteria; or G6 blank; or U5 when it is simply promotional. But when would I use the option you used above? And should I be using the MFD process at all? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason or procedures here which is why the backlog got so bad. I think SwisterTwister has an overly aggressive view on U5 so many of those aren't deleted (you can watchlist the actual Stale draft categories and see that there). Note that G6 for blank drafts should be defined as only the default text and that the user has to be inactive for at least a year (not just the page). MFD is commonly an option and there's no consensus there on these. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You can see from the MFD talk page and WT:UP that there's no real consensus on when to blank, when to delete or when to redirect. Personally, I don't even know anymore. I can't even get a consensus on relisting MFD discussions as people call that a deletionist tactic for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I've already gotten some feedback on my talkpage, from another admin who's been very helpful. I'm bound to make some mistakes, which is why I'm starting off slowly. The other admin's suggestion on the use of A7 is good instruction. Regardless, thanks for the instruction. Will try to lend a hand. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Great. You can also look at User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report for a list of old non-G13 drafts hanging out in draftspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:1747 establishments in Pakistan has been nominated for discussion

Category:1747 establishments in Pakistan, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

P.S. It wasn't me... Kleuske (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I know who it was. WP:DENY is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

For info

Please see this. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Enquiry

Thanks for closing that out. I understand that I'm not following procedure. Do you have any advice? I've been following this article as an interested observer ever since the newbie asked me for help. She has been bounced about by the AFC process (IMO) and she has cut down a good "C" type article to a stub start and that is still gathering criticism for viable but not good reason. For some odd reason the editor was not pissed off but stuck with this process for month after month. At what point should I stick my oar in and rescue this person? I had tried once before, but I think I was not assertive enough. Is it not possible that a closing admin would have decided that the AFD draft article was not to be deleted but still allowed the AFC process to continue? Is there a nice way of rescuing new editors who get entangled in our (broken?) processes? This is not the first editor who I have seen this happen to.... There appears to be no closing admin in the AFC process. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

First, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caring for our Watersheds for the chaos that can be created with this. :) Did you talk to the AFC reviewers? I've seen people take the discussion to WT:AFC and hash it out there. I know some reviewers have a habit of basically demanding AFD non-violating work while others basically go for "is this enough to be a stub". See this recent one. The main issue is that the MFD discussion is about a draft and if there was more arguing about it overall, then I could have started an AFD discussion on the same thing but that would be totally different and chaotic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just so I understand...

Just so I understand...

1. I have zero free speech even on my user page? What you deleted mentioned no one by name
2. There is no way to prevent Lugnuts from trolling me? Obviously he is watching my every move.
3. Can I prevent him from watching my user space?
4. Can I prohibit him from posting on my talk page?
5. There is no way to "block" a user like on facebook?
6. It also seems that since he had created thousands of articles, most of which are one-sentence one-cite stubs, he is untouchable. He can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants.

In my opinion, it's BULLIES like him who make participating in Wikipedia suck.

As for the FFD on the image, thanks for your guidance on that. I will never upload any original image of mine of which I think retaining copyright is worth it. If you look on Special:Upload you will see nothing that says "Once uploaded it ceases to be your property and cannot be removed."

Thanks again.  Eric Cable  !  Talk  14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of speech applies to governments, not websites. You have no constitutional right to use Wikipedia's resources to insult other people. There is an extensive series of policies at WP:UP about what is and what isn't appropriate including as I linked to you WP:POLEMIC. Not so thinly veiled insults at other editors isn't appropriate. If there is an actual issue you have about someone hounding you and following you around, how does your user page statement resolve that? I don't see anything other than you proposing Azhar Attari for deletion and Lugnuts reversing it. So we have a proposed deletion that is rightfully reversed by anyone and you responding by commenting on your userpage unless there's a backstory here I'm not aware of. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that Lugnuts is hounding me by the evidence that he saw what was on my user pages as it 1) did not mention him by name and 2) contained no links to his user space. So let me ask the question again: Is there a way to prevent him from watching my user space? Eric Cable  !  Talk  00:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How about you not do thinly veiled insults at Lugnuts instead? I don't think it's particularly crazy for someone to check your userpage after you nominated their article for deletion. Your response however was not appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am asking you nicely to please answer this question: Is there a way to block Lugnuts from looking at and posting on my user space? Thanks in advance. Eric Cable  !  Talk  03:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

To "block" an editor from seeing something? No. From commenting about it? No. From posting? Lugnuts didn't post on your user space, did they? Are you talking about your talk page? Again, wasn't all of this started because you proposed an article for deletion? Do you think it legitimately should have been deleted? I don't get this. You propose an article for deletion, someone else reverses it, you post insults on your userpage and you are mad that they are bothering you? Is this how you act in real life with people? It's very passive-aggressive.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question.  Eric Cable  !  Talk  03:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't want this to drag on any further (apologies to Ricky in advance for clogging up his talkpage), but I feel the need to add a few points to what @EricCable: said. Point 6, yes I create thousands of articles, but that doesn't make me "untouchable". The same rules apply to all (rulez iz rulez, afterall). Now lets look at the chain of events. An article you created gets taken to AfD. You jump on any user who gives a delete rationale and add them to your (hilarious) shit-list. Obviously having one of those isn't acceptable, and when this is brought to your attention, you call editors Nazis. Again, not acceptable. You're then blocked, and once off your block, one of your very first edits is to prod this article. How random! The same article that is linked on my userpage as the 25,000th I created. Your rationale is "WP:UNENCYC, WP:N, Per WP:SPORTCRIT". Now I could make some vague sweeping statements about Americans knowing jack about cricket, as I assume good faith that you know all about WP:NCRIC, what first-class cricket is, before you prod'd the article. The individual is clearly notable. Which is most odd, as before you deleted it, your userpage said this about notability - "The Question of notability is, in my opinion, the worst thing about the Wikipedia Community. It would seem that there are people who have the attitude “If I have not heard of it, then it’s not notable.” This absolutely stinks. If there is enough information out there to create the article, then it’s notable." I won't have an issue if you like to take it to AfD, or indeed any of the 2000+ cricket biographies I've created, but watch out for the boomerangs. And as for saying you didn't mention me by name on your latest personal attack, it's clear that you mean me, as I have created "over" (ugh) 26,000 articles. There's only handful who have created more. Now if any of that is incorrect, Cable, then your more than welcome to explain on my talkpage. What would make this even sadder is if you were some ex-military type who's gone off in a huff on the internet. Oh, wait... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the full sequence going back to the last ANI discussion. I was (and am) presuming that the prod was in good faith and the nomination was based on a misunderstanding of WP:NCRIC which I've seen plenty of arguments about at AFD so it's not totally out there. Nevertheless, it seems like a moot point now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I reported your vandalism to WP:ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.98.39 (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record: This is NOT ME. I'm trying to be Retired but I can't have people thinking I am sock puppeting. Eric Cable  !  Talk  13:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amy-Leigh Hickman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bexhill and Strike Back. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sigh... asking for help again.

Ricky, I was hoping you might offer some suggestions for dealing with HughD on yet another page... I've been involved with the Ford Pinto page (mostly related to the fuel system fire controversy) since last summer. Recently HughD decided to follow me to the page. March 2nd was the first time he edited the page (or related pages). To the best of my knowledge he hasn't edited any other automobile pages. In 5 days he added 200 edits. That would seem like some sort of tend editing in and of itself. For an editor who accused me of following him it would seem like this is exactly the sort of following that is questionable. Beyond the volume of edits he violated the 3RR rule [1] and has showed his usual indifference to the concerns of other editors on the talk page. This includes not engaging or addressing concerns of others (Bold with out revert and discuss), and WP:TEND by nesting his replies to my concerns within my comments. I've asked that he not do that. The first two times I moved the comments. The last two times I've just removed them. Basically I think he is trying to be difficult as a way to get back at me for sins real or imagined. Anyway, do you have any suggestions for good ways to handle this. In the short term, lacking a better plan, I will step back (as I did with the Southern Strategy article last December). However, per the February talk page discussions, I have been working, off line, on an article update. Thus I don't want to just leave because Hugh showed up. Anyway, I am looking for advice. Thanks. Springee (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricky, I would like to reiterate this request for help/suggestions. HughD continues to disrupt the Pinto article and as in the past refuses to accept when 3rd party editors disagree with him, basically the same old BS. He has also taken to following me to other automotive pages (prior to March 2nd HughD had no history on auto pages) and undoing my edits. At the Crysler page, here is my earlier edit [2], and HughD's reversion today [3]. I admit I took the bait and reverted his edit twice. He is now at three reversions today and no comment on the talk page. I have added a talk page noticed here [4]. I think it is clear that HughD is seeking out articles I've worked on as a type of wiki-hounding. I don't honestly mind except that those articles are getting subjected to the typical HughD edit warring BS. The Pinto Talk page has a number of great examples. Is this an ANI type case? What other options do we have to get HughD to chill out? Thanks, Springee (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: See [5]. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:History of the Sultanate of Ifat has been nominated for discussion

Category:History of the Sultanate of Ifat, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Dorra Group

Hello, Ricky81682. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Dorra Group".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: PinkAndBlue Network (March 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wiae was:  The comment they left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:PinkAndBlue Network and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wiae /tlk 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Ricky81682, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! /wiae /tlk 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, this message shouldn't have gone to you. You can delete it and I'll post it on the submitter's talk page. Apologies. /wiae /tlk 20:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017

You gotta re-create the WikiCup 2017 signup page Σα'ί'νι (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What page? I have no recollection about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sandi Gelles-Cole (March 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sandi Gelles-Cole and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Onel5969, that's what I get for fixing typos. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John A. Rock, MD (March 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John A. Rock, MD and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: All One in Christ Church Fellowship: Bridal, Apostolic and Prophetic (March 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:All One in Christ Church Fellowship: Bridal, Apostolic and Prophetic and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

The RfC has expired. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Siri tour center (March 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wiae was:  The comment they left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Siri tour center and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wiae /tlk 03:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Ricky81682, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! /wiae /tlk 03:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gig Harbor Academy (March 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gig Harbor Academy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Repokar (March 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Repokar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Collectrium (March 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RadioFan was:  The comment they left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Collectrium and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Disruptivator (March 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RadioFan was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Disruptivator and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RadioFan (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Derry

Greetings Ricky81682. I noticed you placed the {{Discretionary sanctions}} template on the talk page for Derry. I couldn't find any reference for it at Wikipedia:General sanctions or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015. Do you remember where it's listed or where the ArbCom decision to afford discretionary sanctions for the article is located? Thanks, Mkdw^talk 02:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: the template links to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_decision so I think it was related to the Troubles, which I think is related to the naming issues with the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Mkdw^talk 16:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'm curious what inspired you to take your precious free time to tweak my userspace draft in this edit? Did you like it? Did you hate it? Did you think something in between? And.... more importantly.... on what basis did you react that way? Thanks in advance for your additional feedback. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I was just sorting the draft from Category:Userspace drafts to Category:Userspace drafts from February 2016. The category is sorted with drafts going back to September 2004. Otherwise I didn't look at the page at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks./ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Mass edits

Hi there. I notice that in recent days you have made several thousand edits arranging WikiProject banners on talk pages. I would like to ask in future if you would please get bot approval before carrying out these kind of tasks. There are many reasons, which I could explain if required. They would preferably be carried out on an alternate account as well. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm not a bot. I'm manually merging Template:WikiProject Political parties into Template:WikiProject Politics with the proper paramaters (see this edit). I'm using AWB because it's not so terribly complicated but it does require review. The banner rearrangements are part of AWB and I do support the inclusion into boxes and the alike if that's the issue. It's in the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell because it requires manual review following this discussion. I think there's roughly 2000 translucations remaining. Is there a particular problem with these? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You are not a bot, but I am somewhat astounded that you would make this many manual edits (have you not got a life?!) when a bot could be used instead. The problems include the following:

• Bot authorisation ensures that the changes are positive and not controversial. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this particular run, but it could easily happen with another editor that bad edits would slip through and it would be a terrible job to clean up.
• Making this many edits on your main account obscures your other edits which makes accountability harder.
• Without the bot flag you are cluttering editors' watchlists.

Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A bot couldn't do these edits, could it? I'm also merging and tagging the importance within the politics group as well which is minor. The holding cell has TFDs from 2014 that haven't been done either and I've been at botrequest with my own requests to delete tens of thousands of pages for months with no response. In the future, I'll let this sit in the holding cell with the others then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Martin. Mass semi-automated edits make reviewing contributions infeasible. At least use an alternative account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That's one big step in resolving our concerns — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome young sock

Hello, young Tippopotamus, welcome Wikipedia! Why redirect little Ricky? Confusing! Anyway, hope little Tippopotamus like. Here helpful pages:

• Hrair pillars Wikipedia
• Make article
• Help!
• Help, help!
• Make article bigger
• Er... what this for..? How write picky ?

Hope little user enjoy and edit smart like Bishzilla! Please sign talk pages using, er ... many tildes (~~~~) ('zilla can only count to three, regret!). If helpless, check out questions wikipedia, ask on 'zilla talk, or put {{helpme}} on own talk, get help soon. Again, welcome! Also welcome in pocket any time!  bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC).

Yeah, I figured a redirect makes more sense than a talk page I probably won't check. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:PERM Request

AWB access has been enabled for your alt account, I also flipped the confirmed flag so it should avoid some captchas now. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes templates

I closed the TfD you created at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_2#Rotten_Tomatoes_score_subtemplates. Would you mind handling substituting and deleting them? Listing them at the holding cell would be a huge waste of time. ~ Rob^Talk 01:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I slapped a speedy delete tag on all the ones that already have no transclusions, so at least some of them will be taken care of by admins handling speedy deletes. ~ Rob^Talk 01:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 the holding cell is fine if people work on it. I already cleared up over I think 7k translucation of Template:WikiProject Political parties but this one will be a lot slower and more monotonous. I'd say ask for a bot to handle it but I've been trying to get a bot operator to take on Category:cite doi templates since September 2014 with little more than 100 out of 51k deleted. I may just have do it manually though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can even figure out how to do substitution. Look at the mess of code at Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/0111257 and try and figure out the nonsense yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh, the substitution is what I'm having trouble with as well. It's absurd, and it hardly makes sense to go around adding safesubst's to all the templates by hand. I'll figure something out. This is going to wind up being manual and messy. ~ Rob^Talk 02:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parrot-Hood (March 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:  The comment they left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Parrot-Hood and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:AvianStudies and fixed the submitter in the draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You mean you aren't interested in parrot raising? ~ Rob^Talk 07:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Look above. That's what I get for fixing submit typos. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

MfD close

Hi there. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green (2nd nomination). However, regarding your summary, it wasn't me who argued that the nomination was in lieu of a review, but rather Robert McClenon. Perhaps you could correct that for the sake of accuracy? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about the mix-up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682. Just wanted to point out that you accidentally linked to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green (which was closed as a keep) in your edit sum for Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green and not the aforementioned second nomination (which closed as a delete). Not sure if you can fix that or if it even needs fixing, but it seems a bit confusing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed although I highly doubt anyone would care in the future. - Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:PERM request

Hi Ricky81682, as an admin you can use the Special:UserRights tool directly, and can use it to update your own alt-account as well, you don't have to go through WP:PERM. I canceled your request on there (by moving to this discussion). Note, for autopatrolled - patrollers only care about new articles so if you are not creating articles with your other account, this flag is basically useless. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I should have just done that lol. I don't know, it felt conflict-of-interesty to me lol. Maybe I'm being too paranoid. The flag is stopping the categories from showing up in their parents with a delay (the parents keep getting C1 tagged comically) so it's actually needed. I take care of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That seems buggy - but absolutely no worries on this! If you want an "approval" for the record then here you go : Approved :D — xaosflux ^Talk 02:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking to restore saved article in Sandbox and Talk

Regarding (and apologise but cannot find same in your archive in relation to your deletion) 21:58, 5 January 2016 Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) deleted page User:AspieNo1/sandbox (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AspieNo1/sandbox)

Work on article has been held up due to indecisive outcome of Irish general election.

Been looking on research off wiki on subject contents on the internet often gets deleted; some content since November of interest may well be Clare Public Participation Network Secretariat member, Irish report to the Secretariat of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability and home being Registered Political Party HQ for Fís Nua (New Vision), an Irish Green Left Political party, especially in relation to work as 4th term applicant Seanad Candidate in administrative panel.

Would like work to date reinstated, and call for support again in specialist autism team on review of sources and how to reattach photos now approved in Wikimedia which were attached when an article.

AspieNo1 (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand you, User:AspieNo1/sandbox was started in February 2012, deleted from mainspace per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Matthew Wise in August 2013 and you stopped work on it in January 2014 when it came up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AspieNo1/sandbox two years later. Do you have actually independent reliable sources that discuss Wise with significant coverage that you intend to add to the page to show notability and move this forward? I don't care about "calls for supports" (I guess that you mean you want other people to do the work for you) and I really don't care about photos you want to attach, "approved" (meaningless term) or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Pamela El-Feghaly

While I'm not going to argue the end result, I disagree that Draft:Pamela El-Feghaly was negative. It seemed to be created by a boyfriend saying he was dedicated, etc. Heaven only knows why he chose to do that on Wikipedia, but I didn't see it as even remotely negative. ~ Rob^Talk 04:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The words "Sorry I'm busy fucking bitch" don't belong attached to a name, even if it the boyfriend who created the page joking around. That's the problem with MFD, so much is so obviously wrong, just what technical reason is the problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening User:A2soup/MfD RfC

Hi Ricky. Sorry for starting like a third simultaneous discussion with you. I wanted to discuss posting User:A2soup/MfD RfC to VPP as a way to establish a central consensus on how userspace drafts should be handled. I understand your argument that individual discussions trump RfC results, and I agree to a limited extent. However, I think your theory of deletion discussions is a little off. The purpose of the discussion is not to determine and weigh the opinions of the !voters, but rather to determine the correct application of policy to each case. This is not because we are terrible bureaucrats who live and breathe policy, it is because policy is a stand-in for collective consensus. Not everyone has time to routinely participate in deletion discussions (especially not at MfD), but most people can weigh in on central consensus-forming discussions. So consensus is better carried out when deletion discussions are about the applicability of policy rather than the opinions of individual !voters. This is to essentially restate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

Also, as I already argued at ANI, deletion of an entire type of page requires consensus, even if it is non-controversial. An action that dramatic requires central agreement before it can proceed, just to make sure everyone is on the same page and understand what is happening. Just because the current deletion is proceeding slowly does not make it a less dramatic action than if it were performed in a single day.

Also, on a practical point, policy discussions are already happening whether you think they are useful or not, whether WT:MFD or WT:UP or WT:N or ANI. The current fragmented state of affairs is helping no one.

For all these reasons, I think we really need to establish a clear central consensus on how to handle stale userspace drafts.

To accomplish this, I would like to post User:A2soup/MfD RfC to VPP. Before I do this, I would love your help in refining it. I want the results of the RfC to be something we can all respect and get behind, and for that to happen we need to feel that the question was stated in a fair and unbiased manner. Feel free to edit it as you see fit, and we'll see if we can't make an RfC that can settle this once and for all.

Do you agree that proceeding with the RfC is a good idea? If not, please respond to my arguments above as to why not. A2soup (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with it but I think on a fundamental level, it's nothing more than a strawpoll. As an admin who does close discussions (not just at MFD), you have to close based on what the views at the discussions are, not on the basis of some RFC or poll about how those views should be done. No one is going to ignore the actual discussion if a year from now, all of us left sans one who just points to a poll about our views. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools came about because someone proposed an essay about how they feel these outcomes should go and enough discussions went that way to make it solid. I'd say you'd better off drafting an essay or the like about what constitutes "problematic" stale drafts or something like "userspace drafts are supposed to be permanent" or "[[WP:NODEADLINE}] means not deleting drafts ever" and arguing by pointing to that and then getting a consensus to support that as a policy. I suspect Legacypac or someone on that side can start a counter-essay and then we can see if others follow one or the other and we work out a middle ground. In reality, I think people have reduced the actual stale userspace drafts at MFD (MFD is getting filled with draftspace now) and are blanking pages more (more being more than zero) so it's not like there isn't some movement towards a consensus. Otherwise I'd say go for it and see what people say. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

To your specific point about strawpolls, aren't strawpolls how we determine consensus around here, so that it can be recorded in policy? You make it sound meaningless, but it is my understanding that this is the basis for how consensus-building worked here? I like your point about the essay, and as long as my participation is discussions is not regarded as disruptive, I may follow that route instead for now. If an RfC is to come (and I think it will), it will be nice to have essays and counter-essays for !voters to read. A2soup (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Take it to village pump if you want but you still aren't advocating a policy though. You are literally asking "hey if this page violates one of the policies we have here, what should be done?" The problem isn't that we have severe disagreements about what to do when we see a page that "fails GNG and its subject appears unlikely to ever pass GNG". The problem is that there is going to be wide disagreement about whether an individual page "appears unlikely to ever pass GNG." Is a lack of sources enough? Does a minor league baseball player count? Does an actor starting their career count? Does a rapper who just dropped their first mixtape count? The point is you presume that there is some wild disagreement here where people are in some sort of idiotic fight to destroy good content: we are not. The issue is not deletionist or inclusionist but meta:eventualism or meta:immediatism and once the issue is actually seen as such, we will move along. I frankly would not object if we had some proposal that say, absent the CSD violations, all the drafts in stale drafts that aren't atrocious should go into the Abandoned Drafts project and be tagged and have a null edit to them and we'll come back to them in at least a year since people are now more aware of these pages. But that's me and there's others who think that's too little and other who think that's too much. But that's because *I* am willing to discuss actual resolving outcomes here. Again, for all the attacks I'm getting, I didn't have to take your "potential" scale seriously and I did and I did set up a project to use that scale. My issues are when there's still a "well, now that we have this project, we still can't let any page go to MFD" clearly showing that there's going to be zero flexibility and just criticism abound. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate you taking the "potential" scale seriously and setting up the project. I have been very busy in real life in the past couple weeks (and will be for a few more), otherwise I would be tagging drafts right now. Come May, expect to see me working at the project. I don't mean to criticize anything you've been doing - I obviously disagree with you, but I've had no problem at all with your conduct. I didn't make the WP:TEAM accusation at ANI, and I don't agree with it - the issue for me was wholly with Legacypac's actions.

I do wonder what the MfD/project balance is though. Am I allowed to categorize pages currently at MfD? I would imagine not. But is it then just a race between the project and MfD for drafts? I can see that going badly in terms of MfD getting overwhelmed (it's already been too crowded recently). Thoughts? A2soup (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, don't just tag it. I'd say suggest keeping/draftifying it and saying you'll tag it. Since the alternative is you ask for it to be restored, moving it to draftspace and doing the same thing, and if you do just that afterwards, I think after a while people will get the hint. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we have to move the pages to draftspace? You didn't move all the ones you tagged, and I'm not sure it makes a difference in the end. Also, are you saying that you would be okay with me asking for the restoration of pages that I don't intend to work on in the short term? A2soup (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but it's a suggestion for an MFD, I don't know. I wouldn't object but it's probably best to ask the closing/deleting admin about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:N Pandian

Hello, Ricky81682. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "N Pandian".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

International news

Ricky, it is only fair to ask that you read the news describing Egypt's 2013 military coup before handing down a judgment on a topic this important. -Darouet (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge of Template:WikiProject Political parties

I noticed you made large numbers of edits to complete that merge. Thanks, but I hope you know there are easier ways to use AWB for mass edits than to sit there yammering away at the Save button! You can use AWB for automated edits if you file a WP:BRFA. You may also want to read WP:ASSISTED, since the speed of your edits probably indicate a BRFA should have been filed even if you intended to do the actual clicking of the save button yourself. ~ Rob^Talk 00:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I wasn't just yammering at the save button, I was also retagging numerous pages with importance and class criteria. But as noted, in the future, I will file at BRFA and use any alternate account rather than do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, if you were manually reviewing your edits, probably no need. I just noticed some instances of very frequent edits (10 within one minute) that seemed to be more like repetitive clicking. I find that tasks that require >500 edits are generally better to fully automate if possible (i.e. the time to file the BRFA, do a trial, etc. is less than the time to just run through the task in a semi-automated manner) unless there's something in the task that requires human intervention. ~ Rob^Talk 05:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward on managing drafts

Hi Ricky,

I think we, you and I, are not nearly as far apart as it might seem. We have numerous close agreements in many separate discussions, but I am genuinely overwhelmed by the number of different locations that the discussions are located at.

At WP:ANI you wrote:

So the problem is that it has a list of old userspace drafts? Should the category be deleted? Should all the categories at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard be deleted or suspended? The Oldest People project was a decade of chaos with Arbcom cases and no one considered suspending or deleting that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course not, I think to myself, I never advocated deleting the list, or dissolving the WikiProject, even though others in the maelstrom may have said that. I know nothing about WikiProject:Oldest People, but is suspect that you are correctly suggesting that there is something to be learned from that experience. If you simply tell me what that it is, I am very liable to take your word.

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aponiatowski11/Regis Historical Society, you proposed a solution that I would even call over-accommodating. I would like to preserve possibly useful material in old drafts, but not probably not useful material. There may be a line there that we could agree on. I have not thought of a good proposal, but maybe "is referenced, to reliable references, references that are not already used in mainspace", or "contains WP:V-satisfying material on a plausibly WP:Notable topic, material that is not already in mainspace".

I apologize for my occasional hyperbole. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider, for example, the case of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A Second Man in Motion/Marcy Winograd, specifically my recent comment. Is that the sort of draft that might be above an agreeable line for preserving? Downsides: BLP, possible promotion. Upside: public person.

I do think that it is not best for it to stay undiscovered in userspace forever, or for it to be moved to draftspace where it is very unlikely to be discovered by anyone who really cares about a past failed public office candidate. If you think the line should be a little higher, I could agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SmokeyJoe: At the risk of stepping on some toes, I'm going to briefly interject here. I definitely agree some compromise is needed on both sides, from what I've seen, and setting a particular standard is a good idea. I think the most damaging thing that's been going on from my brief walk down "MfD lane" is that both sides have occasionally taken the hard-line stance of "stale draft --> delete" or "not directly problematic draft --> keep". I think it's clear to both sides that the solution will lie somewhere in the middle. There's clear cases where stale drafts can be useful, but there's also a lot of instances of people using wikipedia as a webhost or platform to legitimize their cruft, and we have to discourage that (both from a cost perspective and to keep Wikipedia focused on being an encyclopedia).

My suggestion would be to create a standard lower than notability but higher than nothing that a subject must meet to warrant a stale draft to be preserved. Something to the effect of "asserts a credible claim of a possible path to significance" would be reasonable, probably. Note the similar language to the A7 CSD criteria. My concept is more-or-less that a draft should meet A7 or contain information that leads a reasonable editor to believe it likely will meet A7 in the future. For instance, a band that just started in their parent's garage would fail that bar. A band that had started playing a show or two in their hometown would generally not meet the bar. A band that had started touring regionally but had yet to sign to a label would meet the bar since they have a semi-likely path to a future claim of significance. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we start policing recent drafts for such a standard; that would devolve into a WP:BITE issue. I just think we have to have some bar lower than "post pretty much whatever, WP:N doesn't apply." At a minimum, there should be a chance that the info could help the encyclopedia in the future. Hope that makes some sense. ~ Rob^Talk 04:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fine too. On the other hand, I think the issue is keeping these drafts in the inactive user's userspace. Even if blanked, that's just plain odd unless you legitimately do believe these people are coming back. I mean, I've pushed and suggested using Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard so it's by time and not alphabetically by the username, because it makes more sense. There's no one really being a complete idiot arguing that a three-week-old draft needs to be deleted here. If you think that it could be something in the future, I say just offer to adopt it because you think there's something there. It doesn't require a ton, just you want to spend some time looking so look at it on your own time. I do the same damn thing with G13 postponement, something it's almost close to garbage but if I think there's a weak chance, I'll support it. You do that enough and there's going to be a drop-off to other than the most ridiculous of drafts. Otherwise, I think we really need to consider a draft prod option: as long as one person supports keeping it, it can be kept but as long as someone is looking at it, I really couldn't care less. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 and SmokeyJoe: I proposed a weak suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Wording_for_stale_userspace_drafts, basically "do you think it could ever become a viable article". It doesn't matter what it is or how it got there, just its potential. Still not going to solve a lot but it's cuts down a lot of the arguing as long as we don't the "infinite monkeys given enough time can make this into the same thing at Barack Obama" argument. And yeah, the Regis solution is one I've proposed before and I think it's one option that really helps not discourage those old editors if they came back but also doesn't just ignore the draft today to become another issue later. It's the same thing I've suggested with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:U.S. Route 33 Business (Stanardsville, Virginia). It requires a little creativity which MFD doesn't actually encourage lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Since that's being rejected and no one cares to actually provide anything beyond "you all are violating policies I just made up", I suspect this will continue on until Arbcom comes into the picture. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress''

I'm trying to understand ... What is the technical issue on Template:Bioguide that resulted in you having to create ''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress'' I'm wondering since the creation any title with at least one instance of two consecutive apostrophes is blocked by the title creation blacklist due to them sometimes causing wiki markup issues on pages when linked. As you can see here, putting that title in a {{No redirect}} template makes I appear wrong since it activates the markup: ''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress''. (See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 20#Several redirects that have wiki markup in their titles (Ironically, I think I posted the link to this discussion on your talk page a year and a half ago for unrelated reasons.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: The template's setup was weird in that ''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress'' was showing up in Special:WantedPages as a page that every use of that template was linking to (it still says that those link there for some reason). The template itself is using another template template:USGov but none of the other uses have italics in the agency parameter. I just noticed that the template which used to have the text Biographical etc in italics now does not do that any longer. Maybe it should be deleted. - -Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I see now, thanks. With that being said, I have performed this edit to Template:Bioguide which removes the need for the existence for the redirect you created. After all of the pages that transclude Template:Bioguide have been refreshed/purged/null edited, the incoming links list for ''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress'' should be empty. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I deleted the redirect then. The problem is that the actual Biographical Directory is in italics and should be written that way. I think the only way this gets fixed is if someone removes the layer of translucation and just directly uses the contents of the underlying template. The Directory isn't an agency so it is screwy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And yeah, about that, I tried to use {{!}} to make the italics appear, but it didn't work, probably because the link is in a named parameter. I may try to figure it out, maybe. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Should have just used the template name. ;) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ironically enough, I just spent the last few minutes looking at Template:Include-USGov trying to figure out what is going on with the agency= parameter that is causing the linking issue referenced here, and my eyes started watering like I was cutting onions. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Abandoned userspace drafts

When I added this question to WT:UP, I was rather hoping for an answer from you, as the reasonable voice on the delete side of these discussions, which might help me understand why there is so much effort and emotion being put into actually deleting old userspace drafts, when it seems to me that {{Inactive userpage blanked}} is just as effective at removing a draft from a "backlog" and from any need for maintenance. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: from my perspective, as having worked out on WP:WOP userspace drafts, I'm more concerned about editor conduct than the particular drafts so I'm worried about extremely promotional pages being blanked with a template because there's really nothing stopping people from undoing it the next day and moving on (that happened a lot with people who created their own tables of the Oldest people because they didn't want to work with the mainspace one). If you look at what I propose for deletion at MFD, it's almost all copies of pages that either exist in mainspace, were created in mainspace or were deleted from mainspace (by the same editor or others). Otherwise, actual old drafts? If not overtly promotional, blanking makes sense but my larger view is that what we should be doing with abandoned drafts is more like what AFC does at Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions: have it actually reviewed by someone and if they think it's worth keeping, put it in Category:AfC postponed G13 and review it again at some point. I proposed just putting abandoned drafts into AFC but that was heavily opposed.

Otherwise, if even one person said they think a draft is worth keeping around because they think there's value in it (not the "keep it in that abandoned user's place in case the person ever returns"), they can adopt it and we can all move on. As you can see at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, I'm fine with a system that tags these drafts but like the ones from 2011, they'll again fall into being ignored. Also as I said at [[-- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Else, I'm willing to discuss the matter when the other side stops treating this like a WP:BATTLEGROUND with bullshit "you're enabling this" nonsense. You're lucky I'm not like many admins who just use U5 and G6 very aggressively on these drafts and don't tell anyone because no one can figure it out. Maybe I should just do that since being "reasonable" only gets me shit upon even harder. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no particular wish to keep any of this stuff, and would support some sort of G13-like automatic speedy after due time, but there evidently isn't consensus for that. What concerns me is the waste of time with endless repetitive and inconclusive arguments at MfD, and game-playing with dragging pages round mainspace - AfD - DRV to get them deleted by hook or by crook, and particularly the resulting ill-feeling, when none of that would be necessary if these abandoned userspace drafts were simply blanked. We're talking abandoned pages here, so it's not likely that the author will unblank it next day; if he does, it's evidently not abandoned, and if too promotional is subject to G11 or MfD in the ordinary way. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: I agree. I do not support the "move to mainspace for disruption" routine but I also don't have any issues with it being discussed in AFD. People can vote in AFD to draftify or userify pages so if they didn't, I assume it was with a good reason and I assume that a consensus to ignore that is a consensus to ignore the procedural wonkery in favor of the actual content. As I've repeatedly stated, some of these abandoned drafts are being supported for deletion and it's on some basis. If you ask the people who support deleting more of them, that's not really helpful so I'd like a concrete rule about it: I prefer the "no conceivable change of becoming a plausible draft" that DGG has used before. Compare 1, 2, and 3 versus this one. Same user, same situation, literally just the different drafts. If people can agree on that, we'll have a line to work with but I see that we are still in the "I think the whole thing should be ignored, oh that page can be deleted but don't you dare try to make a rule out of that because the whole thing should be ignored" zone. That's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rico Dinero

Hi Ricky,

I think you should reconsider the close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rico Dinero. The keep opinion was from a banned editor, and irrelevant to the deletion rationale. I cast a !vote now in the MfD history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to chime in and support this. I am confused as to why you closed on the !vote of the 166 troll, who you must know is a troll since they have been hounding you for some time. Why? A2soup (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Because he knows he's hounding an innocent man. It's a guilty conscience.

I was hoping Ricky would respond. A2soup (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe and A2soup: Prior attempts to ignore/revert that troll has lead to accusations that I'm being biased since it's someone personally hounding me and has been reverted/DRV/ANI/other discussions. Given that the editor's comments have been given weight in some places and WP:RBI in others, I defer on the side of letting the troll have leeway rather than another DRV fights down the line but I was just closing the discussions based on the comments there. I'll revert and remove the comments based on an interest to discuss this further. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4

This edit of yours was totally inappropriate. As it says in WP:ADMINCOND, Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.. Disagreement is fine. Resorting to profanity to express your disagreement is not. Please consider retracting your statement. Thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment withdrawn, struck and collapsed. I'm dealing with a close death this week and I didn't realize how much it was actually bothering me to make me lash out like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies too. It is not my intention to keep repeating a criticism, noting that it is of something defensible, and past. I think I understand Ricky's frustration and feel bad about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Part of this is because this wasn't actually my idea. I jumped into it though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Sorry! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Some dim sum for you!

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 08:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Re-establishments

Hi, in checking an empty category I came across this edit: [6] Why the multiple dates established? – Fayenatic London 20:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Probably being an idiot or sleep deprived. I think I was adding each and every change as it changed in country which is dumb. Only the first one belongs of course. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The intermediate categories can go, then. – Fayenatic London 07:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

On a similar note, Category:1630 establishments in Dutch Brazil has been emptied on the grounds that a territory (Dutch Brazil) cannot be established in itself. – Fayenatic London 20:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Let me see if I can hunt around a find others like that. I think it was done at one point but it logically doesn't make sense either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ricky81682. You have new messages at Philippe's talk page.
Message added 03:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-Philippe (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Popblack

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Popblack, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Um, what? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Artemis Fowl characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gormenghast. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:HMCS Preserver (AOR 510).jpg

Why did you close this as 'relist at FFD'? On FFD, you can only list pages in the file namespace which have a locally hosted file. If there is no locally hosted file, the discussion must be at MFD - and a bot forcibly closes the discussion if listed at FFD. FFD is clearly not the correct forum for pages like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• It relates to an image, and the discussion involves CSD#F2. It belongs at WP:FfD. The bot may have to be fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:FFD#What not to list here says that such discussions belong on MFD. See also Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 6#Deletion of local image description pages for Commons files. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

My understanding was the same as SmokeyJoe's but Stefan2 is right. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading part VII, part 4 puts it back at MFD. I've reverse all that right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Something new every day. I wonder who came up with that rule but I added it in a mangled fashion to the MFD header as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User:LskAndrew

Greetings! Briefly, User:LskAndrew is cross-wiki harassing User:LxAndrew by impersonating the last one, making him look as gay (in a pejorative manner) and making other not very pleasant remarks (like threatening to kill him). Both are basically from Russian Wikipedia (where the harasser is already blocked, same as ru.wikinews and I recently blocked him at ru.wikiquote). I guess, he should be stopped by stewards or somebody like that, but I'm not familiar with that kind of affairs, therefore I tried to lessen the damage in ways that were available to me. GreenStork (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Upd: in ru.wikipedia he is also blocked for Sock puppetry. GreenStork (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Bringing this to your talk page

Sorry for not posting a full reply the other day. I was posting from my phone while walking around outside, and some asshole elbowed into me with the apparent intention of knocking the phone out of my hand. Japan has weird "etiquette" rules that aren't actually legal restrictions and are widely disregarded by the Japanese public, but have the unfortunate side effect of encouraging wanton vandalism. My screen shattered as much as my faith in humanity, I just signed what I had written and clicked "Save page", but comppetely missed the substance of the post I was responding to. Sorry for that.

Anyway, I know it was a good-faith mistake on your part, but saying the IP was never reported as a sockpuppet is somewhat missing the point. Some twenty dynamic IPs in that range had already been (fruitlessly) reported here, with a large number of admins, two of whom (Yunshui and Drmies) would later become Arbitrators, recognizing unanimously that it was my stalker evading his block, but with no agreement on what to do because ... it's a dynamic IP -- what on earth could they have done?

(See also the IPs' failed campaign to delete every article I created.)

Anyway, no harm no foul. I know you didn't know this, and it was my fault for not providing all the details up front.

Cheers!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a review process

Ricky, I understand your comment here.[7] Is there a way to get an opinion on the mater without opening up a new poop storm? Not long ago I thought Hugh had violated his topic ban only to be told now he didn't. I don't want to open another ARE only to be told, no that wasn't a violation. In addition to the one above which I think may be borderline, I think this one is a violation given the content[8] ("As Witherspoon researched the options starting around 1993, Exxon had embarked on a public campaign casting doubt on climate science as a basis for strong policy actions. Internally, the attitude was different.") Anyway, I would love some suggestion with regards to properly dealing with HughD's behavior. Springee (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think arguing in the discussion is going to solve it. A one-sentence throwaway comment, fine but otherwise focus on the actual issues and yes I see that most people in that discussion feel like it's been discussed before. And yes there is a strong difference in opinion on what the topic ban covers which is why its wording comes up again and again for debate. I see that more editors are finding fault with the editing, less so a topic ban edge game but more akin to a WP:BLUDGEON strategy that is frustrating but it is what it is. See Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing to get an idea of what I see. I'm one of those who quit many areas entirely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I do see what you are getting at. I see the recent two edits as boundary pushing but arguably not over the line. However, they are combined with generally disruptive behavior it makes for behavior that certainly is detrimental but hard to definitively state violates rule X. Thanks. Springee (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ricky, again I'm asking about the TBAN. I think Hugh's recent edit is again a violation but I also think my recent frustration with his various edits and behavior may cloud my judgment. Thus I'm asking this as a sanity check. I've asked Dennis Brown [9] and Bishonen [10]. These recent edits by Hugh are adding the Mother Jones citation back to the article[11], [12]. These edits seem very similar to and include the same article as edits identified by Dennis (and your comments as well) as violations [13], [14]. What are your thoughts? Springee (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Mixed martial arts classes

Could you please check my addition of a Redirect class to Mixed martial arts. I am sure I created the Category correctly but the Redirect tagged Projects have not migrated out of NA class nor does the Redirect tag show up. Is there something I should have done that I didn't - curious.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• PRehse Should be working now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Uh oh...

We better watch it, lest someone realize that we're secret twins separated at birth. [15][16] EEng 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• All things considered, it's been long enough since we had a debate on these issues. I think the topic bans have gone off by now but I suspect those editors won't return if they don't get 100% of what they want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

UFC 157

What is the current status of creating a "UFC 157" article? Theepicwarrior (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The current status is that the deletion review you started has a few more days to run, and you apparently haven't read WP:BLUDGEON, as you said you would. Or, if you're read it, you haven't taken it to heart. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have read it. I am just trying to do what is right as I believe UFC 157 should have its own article. I want to thank Ricky81682 for helping me. What does OneI5969 mean by saying "Endorse AFD discussion, but permit new draft"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_25#UFC_157 It is the last comment on the page. Theepicwarrior (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

These individual comments may have educational value to you, but you really need to wait to see what the closer writes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nehemiah Corporation of America

Thank you for your recent assessment of this article. Your finding that it was at "Start" class suggests that you see a need for substantial improvements in some areas. I would greatly appreciate learning what aspects of the article should be improved. Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

NewYorkActuary I can't think of anything in particular. Maybe you should consider taking it for GA review? That's not my expertise though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about deletion of my draft

I was submitting a draft on a topic call Alkylsacharides and was notified it was delieted by you. Did I do something to initiate this? Can I start over? Tx, Coastal Edward T. Maggio (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Edward T. Maggio: I was talking to you in the IRC chat too. I thought you had created one on your own so I deleted the version I started. But either way, I've restored Draft:Alkylsaccharides. Please go ahead and work there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

A question about an image backlog

I noticed a backlog at: Category:Wikipedia_files_with_the_same_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons

And thought I would help out. I read the instructions, which mostly appeared to make sense. I had one question which I guess I could ask at the talk page but that page has very little traffic. No post in the last three years (intriguingly, the latest post is a tool to help with the process but the tool itself is a dead link).

Because I see that you have handle some of these I thought I would asked the question directly to you.

Item 4 in the instruction states "The file was properly uploaded (preserving GFDL required history of revisions) if moved to Commons instead of being uploaded independently." (Emphasis added).

My naïve reading of the bolded phrase is that the history of the image in Commons should contain the complete history of the image on Wikipedia. I glance at a couple and it does not. The history on Commons starts with the move and doesn't include edits prior to the move.

I am guessing that I'm missing something, but before I take any action, I want to make sure I understand this requirement.

For example, this link: File:HammerwoodDerelict.jpg Shows the Commons version of the image. If I go to the Commons page and look at the history, I see only two entries starting with the move: link to Commons history

That doesn't include all of the prior edits on this image is seen here:

Wikipedia history

I'm not bringing this up as an example of one that was mishandled but one I believe was handled correctly. My question is whether I'm reading the instruction for too literally and expecting to see the 2015 edits in the Commons history.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I'm not sure what do you think is missing. The English version has a single image, with the same description and license. It was copied there by another editor but that editor copied the actual description and license including that User:Zadradr uploaded his/her own work and licensed it under CC-3.0. The second edit to add GDFL wasn't in the original and actually had no chance in the licensing so it's no change. Now I agree that it doesn't include all the prior edits to the description but the image itself hasn't been changed. There's no technical way to copy all the edits in the local description so I don't think anyone would demand that. If say there were multiple versions of the image uploaded, I'd say each version needs to be copied there but that's such a minute concern I doubt that ever happens (most of those are non-free image resizings requiring the prior versions to be deleted). Ideally, the edit summary would say "copying image from en:File:HammerwoodDerelict.jpg so that if there's an issue it could be found but that's done so I don't think anything is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this may turn on semantics. When I saw " (preserving GFDL required history of revisions)", I read that as follows:

the GFDL requires that we maintain a complete history of all revisions, whether those revisions affected the image itself or just affected the text associated with the image.

I now think I should treat GFDL as an adjective and interpret the sentence as:

we must maintain a history of revisions but only those that are required by GFDL , which includes any revision to the image itself but not necessarily those to the associated text.

I guess I simply assumed that moving an image from Wikipedia to Commons would carry the entire history of revisions but that appears to be an incorrect assumption.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The actual text from the uploader, the description, hasn't been changed. The only change was adding a template. I guess one could say that it was done wrong but it's not clear to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work! (And two comments)

First of all I want to compliment you for recently resolving a number of very long and complicated ANI reports in the most neutral possible way that I could see. (Even though the decisions did not all go the way I wanted, but that means nothing).

I just want to clarify:

1- Maybe I was misunderstood. I never ever said that an "admin was tricked" - I was saying that there are 2 Users who were deliberately trying to trick an admin. But I know good and well that the actual cause of the ban was the "talk page comments" (and the fact that the user did not even take time to acknowledge the problem). That is why I opened a totally separate ANI on those two Users who TRIED to trick an administrator in order to get a user blocked, and as soon as you said to drop it - I did.

2- Even though there was a personal attack on me (this past week), - and you asked me to ping your talk page, (I would maybe propose a two way 0RR to avoid any contact),- I think that your later comment (battleground mentality) is pretty much telling me to forget about this whole issue now.

If there is nothing more to say just ignore/delete this comment. CaseeArt ^Talk 04:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If the complaint was about the users tricking, then the focus should have been a boomerang focus on them. It seemed to me to be a larger defense about EM Gregory's editing which again, may have been an error or may not have been but either way, the fact that the wording was changed (and "advocating an act" versus "associating with advocates" is not a minor difference for a BLP on such a topic) and EM Gregory called it an "error" acknowledged that it was problematic. It doesn't warrant blocking but it doesn't also warrant ignoring it either. My resolution was a topic ban for a relatively small time period with the hope that EM Gregory recognizes that being sloppy on that sort of stuff is not wanted and to not create more work for others regarding BLPs in that topic area. As to the other editor, if there is evidence of conduct now that is problematic, I'm open to hearing it. However, I am not going to overturn another admin's choice to not act on conduct against another user, especially when the administrator was the one who conducted the SPI report. It doesn't accomplish a ton and just encourages more excessive repeated reports everywhere until people get what they want. As noted, the SPI report didn't go into the civility of the comments (since they are acknowledged to be the same user) but at the same time, it was months ago so a warning about it, however the comments are made, I think is sufficient as frankly civility blocks are not particularly popular or really conducive to doing a lot. Half the crowd will scream we aren't children and the other half will argue about whether the editing was right or not, not whether the language in the summaries was appropriate. I don't like interaction or 0RR bans and I didn't see any links that show revert warring that warranted either. As I noted, move on for now as I suspect something new will pop up in that sphere separate from the past actions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. In either case I am on a temporary break from editing articles to catch up on real life. P.S. - I do feel bad that the "users tricking" report went so off track - I need to learn to stick on track. In fact it was such a coincidence.

Order of Events:

Incident	Time
I filed New ANI	07:37, 9 May
E.M. Gregory (old) case closed with ruling	07:46, 9 May

(Practicing My first wiki table)

As you could see, I filed the ANI 9 minutes before the final ruling. It's impossible that I thought an admin was tricked because no ruling was even made yet. On the contrary, I thought that maybe the reason it was closed so quick (9 Min) afterwards was because of my ANI, to avoid further escalation and "battleground".

I feel particularly bad about the "tricking" case because I just noticed that user Nableezy who tried to trick an admin to block Gregory, - has a user page |that contains "a wall of shame" of editors who were blocked. (looking through edit history shows that all those on the "shame list", edit pro Israel). Now, after seeing this same user "falsely manipulate" an action in an attempt to get another (apparently pro Israel) editor blocked - is just more disturbing. I thought that at least a block would leave evidence and help prevent such actions. However I have no reason to bring it up again because %99 it will fail especially after two separate independent admins already interpreted it to be an ANI on E.M. Gregory.

PS: If this conversation is a waist of your time - you don't need to respond. CaseeArt ^Talk 03:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Hey Ricky81682, thank you very much for your assistance on IRC for the user group removal. If anyone asks you about it, please just send them my way. Thanks again! --FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 05:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Anytime. I'll remember to refer to you if anyone asks why User:NottNott's account creation rights were removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:1637 in Dutch Brazil has been nominated for discussion

Category:1637 in Dutch Brazil, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alt-right, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David French. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:List of Cheers characters

You don't have to review it, and I guess it might not be necessary. I just submitted a request for my lack of confidence. I guess I'll let you move it right away? --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll watch it and look at it tomorrow. If no one else comments, I'm good with that. I don't know how you could oppose the topic since it already exists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The recurring characters are less notable than main characters, IMHO. If that's not the "topic", what is? --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it should be kept split. The issue is the main characters have their own articles as well so it's kind of duplicative. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm planning to merge the recurring characters list someday, but not now. I just felt tired. By the way, look at List of Friends characters. It also has individually notable main characters, even when duplicative. Also, List of The Big Bang Theory characters might also the same situation. --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 - I was going to approve it yesterday, but couldn't because of the existing redirect. I thought I a G6 request for the existing redirect to be deleted to prepare for the move. I agree there is some merging, reorganization between the different lists which needs to happen, but no reason not to have this list in mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Onel5969 and George Ho: Page moved over redirect. I'll leave the remaining work for you all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Battle of the Plains of Abraham

Good move. This very advanced draft should have been turned into an actual Wikipedia article a long time ago... somewhere in 2010...

Basically, this draft is the English translation of what is already live at fr:Bataille des plaines d'Abraham since (apparently) the 14th of July 2009[17]. That complete rewrite was possible in the French-language Wikipedia because the initial content was very weak, contrary to what was (and what still is) at Battle of the Plains of Abraham.

I would still suggest what I suggested on January 23, 2010[18] on the Talk page of Battle of the Plains of Abraham. I doubt that I will find time to work on this myself any time soon... it would be awesome if someone wanted to pick up where I left off... more than 6 years ago! :-) --Mathieugp (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to come back. Do you think I should move the page back to your userspace? It seems unnecessary in draftspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Fuzzy kitties!!

Chrisw80 (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deleting userspace hoaxing

RE Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Skylercloud/Jared Felix (future). For what it is worth, I approve. While I think you are over-easy on nominating worthless things for deletion, you have always been appropriately conservative in the admin role. Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Anytime. It's two different hats and I do respect the difference. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible move?

Hi, I noticed you were involved in the move of β-lactam antibiotic. Per WP:ENGLISH, I recently moved (or initiated a move) for the articles Beta-lactamase and Beta-lactam. It makes sense for β-lactam antibiotic to match, or the others to be move-reverted. There is also β-Lactamase inhibitor, which should also be consistent. I'm not sure about List of β-lactam antibiotics. Did you have any thoughts? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Man you're asking a lot of me. I have no recollection of that. I think I was patrolling G6 requests. I have no idea. I'd suggest either starting with a move request on one page and linking to the others or going to one of the relevant projects about the subject. Note that the first one uses template:DISPLAYTITLE to get the Beta there so is that your idea? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay no problem, thanks for clarifying. I initially found Beta-lactamase with a DISPLAYTITLE suggesting β-lactamase, which sounded like a more reasonable title. I did the move, then ended up requesting a revert due to WP:ENGLISH. Along the way, I moved β-lactam to Beta-lactam as well. Now I'm thinking that my actions may have been incorrect due to the existence of these other articles, and that many scientific articles don't follow WP:ENGLISH. I'm reluctant to ping WikiProjects at this point, but may consider reverting these two moves. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Austin Petersen presidential campaign, 2016

The deletion discussion was about Austin Petersen himself, not his campaign. His campaign is separate from his person as the campaign itself is an organization. With that said, WP:ORG and WP:BIO have different criteria and if this page is to be deleted there should be a separate discussion and not a speedy deletion. I had attempted to determine the criteria for a presidential campaign but no one discussed the criteria. As well this page was originally a draft which was approved by User:Namiba to become an article. For these reasons the page should be restored and put up for a proper deletion discussion. Acidskater (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The campaign was not significantly different. It was still largely sourcing the same non-reliable sources as did the main one and there was no significant coverage of the campaign. Just moving it around with slight wording changes does not change the general principle about it. If you can show me that there exists significant coverage of the campaign, I'm fine with restoration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

However, I am willing to restore a version to draftspace, after which point you can ask the original closing administrator or make a requested move request. However, the talk page comment stating that this was necessary because of the election results coming up in a few days is not persuasive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Washington Times
• Washington Times
• Washington Examiner
• The New Yorker
• Glenn Beck
• Glenn Beck
• Glenn Beck Show
• Reason.com
• Newsmax.com
• freebeacon.com
• Uptown Messenger
• Live Action News
• PJ Media

I think that's a good start. I should also note that in the discussion on the talk page I directly stated that the nomination result had no bearing on the campaign's notability, something I have said in similar discussions before, so I agree with you that the argument of waiting for the election is not persuasive. Acidskater (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of those have no mention of the campaign than a passing mention. Others are not a reliable source. As I said, a version exists in draftspace but I'll defer on whether it's notable enough for a separate article from the 2016 Libertarian party campaign. Nevertheless, Draft:Austin Petersen presidential campaign, 2016. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

So a Washington Post article all about his campaign, Washington Examiner post all about Matalin endorsing his campaign, multiple appearances on Glenn Beck focusing solely on his run for the Presidency, as well as multiple mentions in other national publications? I can understand the reason article not being reliable (didn't realize it is a blog) but Newsmax Media is a trusted source, The Washington Free Beacon is a trusted source, and even if the others aren't considered reliable (which I believe they are), how much more coverage is required to consider notability? The only sound reason that made it so Petersen himself wasn't notable enough to get an article was that he is not a notable individual outside his campaign and even though his campaign was getting coverage that didn't make him notable enough to pass WP:BIO. The major statement used to defend this reasoning is based on "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." from WP:NPOL. This is also why so many people misconstrue the idea that he can only be notable if he gets the nomination but that is incorrect as he just needs to pass WP:NOTA guidelines. Beyond that the campaign is getting a lot of coverage, much of which I didn't list including coverage on NowThis News, Dana Loesch's radio show, and many others. I think there needs to be a serious review of this by other administrators and I believe criteria for Presidential Campaign pages needs to be created for WP:NOTA as there are no guidelines. At what point does a campaign, especially a national campaign, become notable enough to warrant an article? If I had more time I would list another couple dozen sources covering his run for the presidency (a.k.a. his presidential campaign) right now but I'll just have to wait till later. Acidskater (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the admin who closed the original discussion. Discuss it with them or take the draft to WP:DRV. I note however that the draft has ridiculously poor sourcing and while you are dumping pages and citations on me, the draft is the item that needs work. Again, the standard is whether it can pass WP:GNG which is very broad. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The sourcing in the article does need updating, something I was trying to do before it was speedily deleted but will have pick back up now that I can access the draft. My argument isn't against the deletion of the Austin Petersen page but for an actual discussion on the merits of an article on his campaign vs. Petersen himself (something not discussed anywhere). Your position that they are one in the same is what I am arguing against and there is no consensus on whether or not that is true (so the admin who deleted the original Austin Petersen page has little bearing on what I am arguing). And besides, the lack of sources in an article doesn't change notability- "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." as quoted from WP:NEXIST. So the fact that there is significant coverage (which the coverage does not have to be directly about the subject as per WP:GNG - "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") reliable independent sources are covering his campaign (including CNN coverage which took place between your last comment and this one) creates an argument that his campaign is notable as per I am not contesting a deletion request, I am contesting your speedy deletion on the grounds that his campaign and himself are the same subject. Even more so I want to get a proper discussion, not just you and I going back and forth, with actual 3rd party users who can give a proper outside opinion as I believe there should be a campaign page for John McAfee as well. I am arguing this on your talk page because you are the admin who speedily deleted the page and the fact that it was speedily deleted is exactly what I am contesting (I can't state this enough). Acidskater (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I also ask you give us access to the original talk page (or restore it's contents to the draft talk page) as there is a discussion going on about edit warring by User:Bunco man at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring involving edits with that page. Acidskater (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I forgot about the talk page. It's all restored at Draft talk:Austin Petersen presidential campaign, 2016. The discussion is moot there since Bunco man was already blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people mentioned by Herodotus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syennesis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romina_palmisano

Guess now you can die in peace. Mshamsi28 (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sang Bleu (tattoo): issues

Dear Ricky81682, Thank you for attracting my attention on the issues of lack of focus of my article. As you can notice in the very first sentence of this stub that "Sang Bleu" is the name of a project that contains a number of elements around the theme of tattoo, that I clearly cited and described. However, if this brings some confusion, I am willing to take some time to clarify things further. I will be grateful if you could by reverting back this article to a draft mode and give me a second chance to improve it and make myself clearer. In the spirit of Wikipedia, I appreciate your understanding of the newbee I am. Thank you. Bilishti95 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)