User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 69

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 ← Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 → Archive 75

Reporting a User

NineTimes (talk • contribs • logs • filter log • block log) He's being rude, unprofessional, abusive and adding unreliable sources. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wikni/User:NineTimes

Not only that but he follows his edits with statements in bad taste. He's being unnecessarily rude and outright attacking people. Here are some examples.

"→‎East Asia: removing pics, Bollywood is not about few people. Also what is with your fetish for aamir khan and forbes, he has his own page" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/808550907

"What do you mean "too many pics". Why have pics at all then? These are important people related to different aspects of the industry." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/808549953

"His Turkic ethnicity and Afghan link has been explained on this page. Stop adding Afghan everywhere" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/808506869

"New Bollywood (1990s–present): srk has his own identity, they are not three musketeers or a band of boys" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/808366936

"It is watched mainly in South Asia, not all of Asia. One or two film can be exception. Even BBC relates it primarily with South Asia only." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/808056983

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finland does not exist

OK, so your close on this was The result was delete. The key problems with the "keep" arguments here is that they were overlong or were challenged by others, whereas the "delete" comments stood their ground... too many people think this article is unsalvageable and its quality of sourcing is just not good enough.

I request that overturn this decision, thanks. Here's my reasoning:

The result was delete. The key problems with the "keep" arguments here is that they were:

  1. "overlong" -- don't you mean "properly developed and closely reasoned, with examples or other cogent exposition of details as needed". I mean, wait, this is now a bad thing?
  2. "challenged by others" -- I mean, so? Arguments are almost always challenged in these discussions. That is what the discussion is for to some degree. See Socratic method. They weren't successfully challenged. They weren't challenged with any proper and correct references to our rules. And you haven't said that they were.

"whereas the 'delete' comment[ers] stood their ground". But I mean so what? Sure a lot of people stood their ground on a basis that approximates "Nyah nyah cannot hear you, I don't like the article and I'm standing my ground". How is this a virtue.

"too many people think this article is unsalvageable and its quality of sourcing is just not good enough". Well but wait. Who care what people who are wrong think? OK, so here are the sources, from three continents:

Analysis of the sources (which was in the disscussion)
  1. The Guardian. Reliability: They're an old and famous publication; the assumption would be that they fact-check their articles. They're large enough to probably be afford to do so, and it would harm their business if they didn't. No evidence has been presented that they don't have some kind of fact-checking system. Notability: One of the most-read news publications on the planet. . Length of material: A paragraph, 117 words.
  2. Vice (magazine). Reliability: Read the article. 20 years old, "print magazine and website focused on arts, culture, and news topics"..."the magazine later expanded into Vice Media, which consists of divisions including the magazine and website, a film production company, a record label, and a publishing imprint"..."Vice magazine includes the work of journalists, columnists, fiction writers, graphic artists and cartoonists, and photographers. Both Vice's online and magazine content has shifted from dealing mostly with independent arts and pop cultural matters to covering more serious news topics"..."Entire issues of the magazine have also been dedicated to the concerns of Iraqi people, Native Americans, Russian people, people with mental disorders, and people with mental disabilities". OTOH they are an Immersion journalism entity and have some other non-standard. They're a large operation it looks like. I don't know what their fact-checking system is. They've probably got something but can't be sure. Notability: Circulation 900,000, website is Alexa rank 115, so yeah. Length of the material: Complete long article.
  3. Indiatimes. Reliability: "Indiatimes is the flagship brand of Times Internet...an Internet subsidiary of The Times of India Group, under which some of the largest websites in India, The Times of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times and Maharashtra Times, operate", so they're large enough to afford a fact-checking system. The assumption must be that they do have a reasonable fact-checking operation absent evidence to the contrary. Notability: Based on the above quote, widely read in India. Length of the material: Short article, about five paragraphs.
  4. MSN: Reliablity: Large and famous operation bearing the Microsoft brand, so presumably reasonably reliable. Notability: Alexa rank 43, so yeah. Length of the material: short article -- couple paragraphs, 238 words.
  5. Culture Trip: Reliablity: Don't know. It's a real operation, not just somebody's website. The executive team is nine people. Never heard of them and there's no proof that they fact check but no indication they don't. Notability: they say they have 11 million site visitors per month. Whether that's true or whether that is high or low amount I don't know. Length of the material: Complete long article.
  6. Skeptoid: Reliability: Dunno. They're a lot more than a random website, they have a board of directors and all that. They're a charitable operation, their mission statement is "Skeptoid Media produces free educational materials and STEM-focused informational and entertainment content, made available to educators and individuals worldwide, concentrating on critical thinking and scientific skepticism." What that says about their fact-checking I don't know. Notability: No idea. Length of the material: Complete long article.
  7. Bodahub. Reliability: No idea. They look like to be a real operation and not just a random website although this could be false front. Staff size unknown, so I'm skeptical that they're very reliable. Notablity: Dunno. Length of the material: Complete long article.
  8. Studentabladid: Reliability: Probably not very. I think they're more than just someone's website, but can't prove even this. Notability: My guess is "not very". Icelandic operation, which FWIW there's another country writing about this (four so far). Length of the material: Couple paragraphs.
  9. A Particular Act. Reliability: They're describing Sheehan's show which they hosted, so very reliable for this particular set of facts. Notability: None. Length of the material: Couple paragraphs. It's about Sheehan's act rather than the meme itself.
  10. Art In Liverpool: Reliability: Seems a reasonably sized operation, and probably reasonably reliable for this material. Notability: Some, probably, but just in Liverpool. Length of the material: Couple paragraphs. It's about Sheehan's show.
  11. Helsingin Sanomat: Reliability: It's the largest newspaper in Finland, so yeah. Finnish operation, so that's a fifth country chiming in. Notability: Largest paper in Finland. Length of the material: Can't tell, since you need subscription to read it.

That's eleven, and most (not all) of them are pretty good. And I know there are more, although I don't know how many or if any of them are any good.

So look, Ritchie333. I want you to look me in the eye and tell me that it is reasonable to argue that this level of sourcing cannot sustain an article, that any article -- an article about a politician, a book, a sporting event, a shipping company, a battle, a species of moth, a high school, a musician, a variety of cheese, or whatever -- with only this level of sourcing (four complete long articles along with some shorter pieces, in eleven sources (five of which are bluelinked) from three continents should be destroyed on the basis of insufficient sourcing.

I want you to tell me with your own words that this is a reasonable argument which, if enough people espouse it (for whatever reason, and I think we can probably figure out what the reason is) -- will win the day in any AfD.

If you can't, then I request to overturn your decision, thank you. If you can, I still request you to overturn your decision, since this would be against our notability rules and would probably put half of our 5 million articles on the chopping block. Herostratus (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Um, there is a query above this one with the same question, do we need the same question twice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Well but I didn't see that (I often don't read thru a person's talk page before posting my comment), and anyway I don't see the harm in more than one person making a comment on some issue since different people may have different perspectives to offer to a conversation? Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "An alternative outcome was Sandstein's suggestion to merge, as that would be a compromise, but nobody else picked up on it",[1] but my vote was neither keep or delete, it was merge like Sandstein's.[2] So I would like you to at least reword your closure because it reads like you had overlooked my comment. And since no one opposed the merge votes or argued against them, I would also like to know if you have any problem with the merge. Merge is still a compromise. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did miss your merge comment, sorry about that. This AfD, in my view, was a borderline "no consensus" but the deletion arguments seemed so strong I felt almost certain had I closed it as NC I'd be yanked off to a deletion review. At least here I have the option of userfying the article, where it can go round the drafting stages and end up in mainspace via that route.
@Herostratus: I get it that you're upset I deleted an article you spent time working on, who wouldn't? I have restored it to User:Herostratus/Finland does not exist while we work out what to do with it. I have to re-iterate that your time would have been better spent further improving the article, and specifically adding additional sources, while it was at AfD than going into an in-depth argument about the sources; it tends not to be an effective means of communication. I also need to stress that I have no strong opinions on what we do with this article; I simply took a judgement call based on strength and feeling of who turned up to the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Now see, I was briefly considering to close that AfD before I decided that there was something more important for me to do. I was thinking a "no consensus" close since a) a number of the delete arguments were really perfunctory and only weakly and partially addressed the keep arguments grounded in GNG, b) "this is just plain stupid" is not a recognized deletion rationale and people were in disagreement on this and c) it seems like people were working on addressing the "this is way too uncritical of an obvious falsehood" problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah most of the delete !votes were WP:DOESNTBELONG- perhaps 3 or 4 of the deletion arguments even tried to argue policy. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 11:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, the only rules mentioned by name in Delete comments were one to WP:FRINGE and one to WP:NOT. Neither of these apply. WP:FRINGE applies to actual beliefs. If any part of the article had implied that for the question "Does Finland exist" most people and all experts say Yes, but there there is a small but not entirely unsubstantial minority that says No then it would apply. But the article opens "...is a satirical conspiracy theory...". Bielefeld Conspiracy is also not Fringe. A Modest Proposal is not Fringe because there was not an actual serious minority view that children should be eaten. As to "Delete per WP:NOT" IMO that's worthless without further elucidation on what specific part(s) of WP:NOT are intended.
There may have been references to rules where the rule wasn't mentioned by name; It'd be unusual but possible, I'm not able to look over the text very closely right now.
Which brings me to another point: there's only one of me. I (and another editor) did pull up several more good refs, but I didn't have time to figure out how they might best be used in the article text and insert them with any required changes. I have seen many AfD discussion where refs were pulled up during the discussion (that is one of the goals of an AfD) and people changed their minds because of this. I believe that the operative paradigm (I think this is even written down somewhere) is whether sufficient refs exist, not whether they are in the article already. It's common to throw up the refs to save the article and then worry about putting them in later. It's not a good use of time to work much on an article that is under threat of deletion.
I believe you're say saying that if the article had been fixed right then you wouldn't have deleted it. Right? That is... let's just say it's a mistake, and we all make mistakes (God knows I've made many) and no problem. Herostratus (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Not quite, it's more that if you improve an article during AfD, other people pick up on it (and you know when they do because you see comments like "Keep per WP:HEY", which ultimately means an admin has to close it as "keep" because that's where consensus went. Ultimately, throwing refs in an AfD debate without adding them to the article has no immediate benefit for the reader, and said sources tend to get buried and forgotten about in some out-of-the-way part of the project, which seems like a waste. I've managed to turn articles from start / C class to near GA (eg: Cannon Street station) in a matter of days, so it's certainly doable. In any case, the article is now in your userspace, so we've got a route to get it back into mainspace, via AfC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmnmh I'll look into this (not very familiar with AfC).
So I've thought about this some more, wondering if I have a decent WP:DRV case. I think I might, but I'm not going to go to DRV (someone else may and I'd support that, though).
My reasoning doesn't have much to do with your close, or even with the arguments. It's about the 2-1 "vote". I'm inclined to take a headcount differential of that magnitude seriously (some don't). But this local 2-1 doesn't really overcome the fact that the arguments were actually weak (and to be honest your closing rationales were IMO not the best I've seen).
But if the 2-1 is a manifestation of a general majority opionon that these sort of articles shouldn't exist.... that's different. That would mean a de facto rule is in play, and fine -- it's hard to get written rules accepted, and so de facto rules fill the gap. There are de facto rules to keep fungii and railroad stations even though that's not written down anywhere.
So is it? It might be. It depends on what is meant my "these sort of articles" and I'm struggling to get a definition of that the we can use. It is not "internet memes" I think, because Category:Internet memes has hundreds and hundreds of entries. Maybe it's "silly internet memes"... but Category:Internet memes includes entries like Eric Conveys an Emotion ("...the site's owner... has taken requests for emotions, and then posts photos of himself acting out the emotion...). Boom goes the dynamite ("...is a catchphrase coined by Ball State University student Brian Collins..."). Keyboard Cat ("...consists of a video from 1984 of a female cat called 'Fatso' wearing a blue shirt and 'playing' an upbeat rhythm on an electronic keyboard..."). The Hands Resist Him ("...The painting became the subject of an urban legend and a viral internet meme... when it was posted for sale on eBay..."). Loituma Girl ("...is a Flash animation [which] consists of six frames showing the Bleach anime character Orihime Inoue twirling a leek, set to a 27-second loop from the song..."). London Underground anagram map ("...parody map of the London Underground with the station and line names replaced with anagrams ... circulated on the web in February 2006..."). Anton Maiden ("...Swedish Internet celebrity that achieved fame around 1999 by singing over MIDI and MOD-versions of Iron Maiden songs..."). And so on. (To be fair, a lot of the articles (maybe most) in this category are more substantial. But still.)
But I don't think that "these sort of articles" means "silly internet memes" or "internet memes that probably don't have staying power" or anything... there are articles that have a lot of good refs meet the GNG without really being notable in the grand scheme of things, and this might be one. But I mean really, a lot of the articles above meet all those definitions and still exist.
However... a couple of articles were deleted recently... they were a little bit like this one an did fit in the general category of snobbery ("Egad, Jenkins, look at what the peasantry now considers worthwhile; please have my majordomo delete this nonsense, after you bring my tea"). One of them had better referencing than ~98% of our articles, probably.
As near as I can tell so far, I think that the operative de facto rule is "silly internet memes which someone has happened to come across and nominated for deletion", or just snobbery. The first is not really a valid rule, but the second is. I mean IMO it's a horrible rule, but if we want to be snobs and are willing to be consistent about that then it is what it is.
So a couple of ways to determine what's going in here would be to nominate a few of the above for deletion and see how it shakes out. If they're mostly deleted then we can assume that the snob rule is in effect. We could write WP:SNOB but you know how hard it is to get people to agree on written rules, so we could just assume an unwritten rule (but then, the Wikipedia:SCHOOLOUTCOMES closers held that using previous AfD results as a guide is illegitimate, so.... it's complicated).
However, if I did this, it would probably be considered a breaching experiment and closed out of hand. A mass-deletion AfD, same.
I could nominate this article for WP:DRV, point out that the only valid reason for deletion is that an unwritten rule is play (giving Trump orb as another example of this), and see how that plays out and what other voices have to say. At least this wouldn't be a breaching experiment, and might produce some useful data. So maybe this is the best path forward.
Or alternatively open a discussion at the pump... dunno. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Alex Shih (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Start of an edit war

Start of an edit war in the article the Bang-Bang Club The user Xxctly is blanking sections – the section is needed for NPOV – because Greg, Joao and the other never liked the label „Bang-Bang Club“ bevor Bang-Bang Paparazzis. It started Date Today This is the first time I am in an edit war and have no idea what to do. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for 12 hours so you can come to an agreement. The article needs work, but fighting over edits is not the answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You have no idea what to do? My advice: defer to people who speak English better than you do when writing articles for an English language encyclopaedia. And you should have been talking to me instead of apparently random other people. If the administrator thinks the article should have a headline "The Bang-Bang Club in the words by Greg and João", then presumably they too are not a native English speaker. Command of the language of the encyclopaedia really should be a basic prerequisite for editing. Xxctly (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I protected the article because you were both edit warring on it, and wanted you both to stop reverting each other and discuss. I have no opinion on the content - if I did, I would be an involved admin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Drupadmalik

Probably better to message someone on their own talk page, and not the users. Luckily, I did see the message. fish&karate 11:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the point was you were getting a bit over-heated and throwing insults at the other editor. Happens to all of us, such as the memorable occasion I told a vandal to piss off; it just makes it difficult to resolve things later. Like Caesar's wife, you need to be above suspicion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Yay Caesar's wife, remember that story in The Labours of Hercules? — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 13:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 👀
Not sure I insulted anyone, I did call some BLP stuff "nonsense" and "garbage", but that was commenting on content, not the contributor. fish&karate 10:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked them for 48 hours. As the old saying goes, AGF is not a suicide pact. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested mentorship re:RfA terminated with SNOW

Hi Ritchie,

Never lowered myself into Adminship discussions until now, then noticed that one recent case was terminated with WP:SNOW. [[3]]

I find WP:SNOW rather reflects badly on the process. Instead, I believe WP:NOTNOW is rather OK, and I feel would have been fair under the circumstances.

I know this is a wiki, I could just revert Crboyer, then do NOTNOW, but then that closed RfA page is plastered with "please don't touch" notices, and as you can tell, I do care about manners. I also don't want to break anything, or even worse, make bad ennemies among admins.

What would Ritchie333 do? Thanks! YamaPlos talk 14:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think NOTNOW is appropriate here, that's reserved for new editors that join the project and instantly think "I wanna be an admin" without any experience. That's clearly not the case with Crboyer, who has lots of experience and who made a good-faith nomination. A better approach in the first instance might have been to ask him politely to withdraw (as Ad Orientem did at the time) and wait until he did so, but Cyberpower did say the SNOW close was specifically to stop the conversation getting ugly and unpleasant. In any case, Crboyer is still around and editing, so I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Page history

Hello.
An article was recently re-created. Could you please tell me when it was deleted in the past, and why? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There has never been an article with that title deleted - all the edits in the history are visible to all users. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
That's because it was under a different title. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Josie Fitial

Hi! Sorry to drop the ball on Fitial. It doesn't look bad, though, when I took a look this morning. Holidays are kind of hit and miss for me, since I am spending time with my kids. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yunshui 雲水 08:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Reconsideration of Samskip page

Hi Ricky, could you please reconsider the undeletion of the page for Samskip as I attend to work on this. Samskip derives from the Federation of Co-operatives, Samband, which started a shipping company, Samband Line, in 1943. Samband Line, a division of Samband, was changed into a limited company in 1991 called Samskip hf. Samskip employs approximately 1,500 people working in more than 26 countries worldwide as well as agents in other locations. It is a well known company and has a lot of news activity. It should therefore be on Wikipedia, without any commercial text. Sources: http://www.tradewindsnews.com/daily/95272/samskip-to-buy-geest-line https://theloadstar.co.uk/coolstar/euro-container-line-acquisition-a-cool-move-for-samskip/ http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/226064/samskip-to-expand-norway-presence-with-nor-lines-takeover/. Example of related company: Eimskip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eimskip. Please let me know. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellStrb (talk • contribs) 10:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored to Draft:Samskip Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ruth Jones (coach)

I was looking at this sportsball article, and I'm on the fence. Do you think Ruth Jones passes notability? She's from a time period that's hard to dredge up sometimes. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know much about basketball; you might be better off asking The Rambling Man or Lugnuts. A search for sources is difficult because of the nationally famous Ruth Jones. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: - at WP:NBASKETBALL there are notability criteria for coaches, including women's leagues, if that helps. I don't really know anything about basketball either, but that draft looks like it would pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Her death got a two-paragraph mention in the Washington Post [4], so yes, she is notable. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks for the help! I always worry about sports since I'm very clueless there. I'll definitely reach out to The Rambling Man or Lugnuts in the future for further sportsing help. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I forgot to thank Softlavender for the WaPo find. Thank you! I've moved the article out into mainspace. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"Oh! What's occurrin'?" Did someone mention "Dave Coaches"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A strong and stable NHS

A divorce bill of a mere €45-55bn. How many hospitals will that not build every week? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ask Boris to stump up the spare cash, as he promised on his Brexit bus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the good old Brexit Bus... now teetering on the brink.... "You were only meant to blow the bloody Euro doors off!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't talk much politics on here, but I was listening to Sadiq Khan on LBC yesterday, and he was dumfounded as to how Boris still had a job. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Sadiq and Nicola seem to be the only sane major politicians in the UK; that's been evident (to non-Brits at least) for the past 1.5 years. Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Ahem.... are we ruling out those who've actually got a functioning brain? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC) ... and don't be so hard on poor Boris.... "cometh the hour. cometh the man."
Caroline Lucas is brilliant; being the sole MP of a party means she is not bound to any whip or in-party fighting (at least not in the House of Commons) and hence she can state the blatantly obvious without fear of recrimination. Elsewhere, Anna Soubry's alright, and I do at least admire Emily Thornberry's ability to call a spade a fucking shovel. I've met Bernard Jenkin, he would not shut up about how much he liked Thatcher. (note, "met" in this context is watching him give a speech as part of some formal event, and shaking hands and saying "hello" afterwards) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
.... and how I could I forget the one woman powerhouse that is Mhairi Black; never afraid to stand up and say things like "The government is at it - it hae' failed the elderly on pensions, failed jobseekers on benefit cuts, and failed potential homeowners with house prices .... and if it dinnae get fixed, I'm gonnae come over there and stick the head on ye!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
And she's awnley a wee 23? Cripes!! I'm sure Boris had enjoyed many a magnum of Bolli at the Bulli before she was even born! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: DYK nomination of Smash Mouth discography

Hi, I replied to your concerns on Template:Did you know nominations/Smash Mouth discography. Please let me know if there's anything else I should do. - PM800 (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Declined deletion

Hi,

I assume any admin when patrolling CSD request cat, will check the history. The user moved it to userspace after I requested its deletion in mainspace not in userspace. Furthermore, it was duplicate of existing one Crude drug and it's salvageable content has already been merged, so anyway it has no meaning for proper article to be kept in userpace also. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A10 does not apply to any page outside article mainspace, period. For example, User:Cassianto/sandbox is a "duplicate" of Frank Matcham, but no speedy deletion criteria applies to it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Siraj Hussain/sandbox is what I requested deletion –Ammarpad (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
And RHaworth also violated policy as WP:CSD#R2 only applies to redirects from mainspace to non-mainspace. People who continue to violate policy a lot end up blocked. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Didn't Siraj Hussain/sandbox after the re-userification became a redirect from mainspace to user-space which satisfied R2? Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 14:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't the foggiest - I'm off to add some more sources to Tottenham Court Road now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

God of High School

Hey - I was just wondering if you would be OK with restoring the article for The God of High School and moving it to the student's userspace. I think that it passes A7 criteria since it's a popular webtoon that has been adapted into a mobile app game and an OAV. I was about to move it when you deleted it - my intent was to move it back to the student could search for sourcing. It looks like they translated it from the Korean WP page, so I'm guessing that they may be fluent enough to search. (Or at the very least they can use Google Translate to search.) A quick glance shows that there's a lot out there, so it's somewhat likely that there will be enough sourcing to pass notability criteria. (See this and [5]) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Just a quick note - the sig on this was messed up, so I ended up resigning it with my work account. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm generally okay with userfication / draftification of an article that isn't one of G3 / G10 / G12, so sure - restored to User:RAllauigan /The God of High School, if that's okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That's perfect! I figured that you would likely be OK with it, but I didn't want to do it with my main account (Tokyogirl79) because of the whole COI thing. The most I will typically do is move an article to save it if it's up for a deletion that isn't an AfD, as long as the article is remotely savable. :) Thank you! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Paddington Issue

Hi, I've just seen you've reverted my edit, and someone else who also reverted it under the policy that its too much statistics?

What kind of drugs are you on? All it is doing is making the paragraph into an orderly fashion, with proper dates. That's not statistics its called "FACTS" I can recommend a good education class to you if you wish to take it. If you have an issue can you please talk to me via my talk page, rather than constantly reverting it! Kind regards and best wishes.Gwrhst (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page about the revert, and since your re-revert has been undone now by Redrose64 (who while I don't agree with him on everything, knows his stuff when it comes to railway articles), you really need to stop and look at some other article. If you keep on reverting multiple editors and insulting them, you'll just wind up blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

TP Museum

I'm afraid I'm too busy to check the article for DYK-worthiness and fix anything necessary, but if you can get it in appropriate shape feel free to nominate using my hook. Ping me if there are any problems. It's a shame this talent for off-color humor can't be used for the good of humanity somehow. EEng 18:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: There's a small problem that simply saving an article from AfD doesn't automatically qualify it to DYK - the article has been around for years, it's not 5x expanded or a GA (nor is it likely to be in future), so unless we can pass a "special toilet-humour extension" through, I would guess we are out of luck. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Why can't it get to GA? EEng 16:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Nobody wants to improve it - indeed, I'm not sure if anyone can get suitable enough sources to make it get close. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletions

Thanks for your comment. It's been interesting.

Don't get angry.. Get even!!!

I kid, I kid. Such an imperfect world.

Party on. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I should also note that several editors stepped right up, cleaned up, and expanded articles I created. It was cool to see. :) FloridaArmy (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ritchie333. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

why 'Chalein' page/article deleted?

Hi Ritchie333,

Thanks for reviewing the page 'Chalein', and bit surprise as you have taken decision to delete the page. let me explain, why the page should exist on Wikipedia. First of all its non-profit carpool/ridesharing services with having the aim to reduce the pollution, road traffic and accidents by encouraging people to use of Ridesharing. by putting this page on Wikipedia people will familiar as to why ridesharing is important to reduce the vehicles from the Road, and what the aim of Chalein. I would call it as advertisements but will get knowledge of ridesharing services and the channel available for it. even though the decision is yours, you have full right to remove it if you fill it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.

but I wish to have the page on Wikipedia, to make aware the people such initiative.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunielpatil23 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sunielpatil23: Essentially, the article told us very little about Chalein or why it's important and significant as, say, Uber, and felt more like a duplicate of an existing encyclopedia topic. With that in mind, you may have more success editing the existing carpool article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yunshui 雲水 11:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of InvoiceInterchange article

Hi Ritchie,

Noticed that the article I created on InvoiceInterchange was deleted. May I request for its contents to be retrieved? Also, is there any feedback I could take note of to make the article less promotional in nature as well? Planning to refine this article so that it can meet wiki's standards, thanks! Fierystar (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fierystar: I have restored to User:Fierystar/InvoiceInterchange. In terms of improving the article, Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch are good starting points. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of my wiki page

````swati28tripathi I think you might require the serial number for answering my query, the serial number is SerialNumber54129. I created a Wiki page about Della Adventures and Resorts. I tried and kept it non promotional, but it got deleted for being promotional. I would like to know how can I create a Wiki page about the Della Adventures without it being looking promotional. Also, i provided enough reference links written by third party and re-known press media of India. I would be very thankful, if you could guide me on the same. Thanks.Swati28tripathi (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)swati28tripathi

Hmm..., ↑↑ is the side effect of such a re-name:)Winged Blades Godric 10:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Swati28tripathi: Serial Number 54129 is the username of the editor who tagged the sandbox for deletion. Essentially, the page looked like advertising copy, and was in a completely inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. In particular, "Run under the aegis of Chairman Jimmy Mistry, the adventure park is established over a massive area of 46 acres" - most people aren't interested in who runs a company (except in limited circumstances such as Colonel Sanders) and provided a link to them suggests the page was more focused towards promoting a person than describing the adventure park in a dispassionate and neutral view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your quick reply. I would make sure to avoid the mistakes you just pointed out. Are there any other mistakes so that i don't end up pinging the editors again and again? Thanks in advance! Swati28tripathi (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)swati28tripathi

The best thing to do is read through a couple of good-quality articles on the same subject matter, and see how they're written. It's not exactly like-for-like, but Brighton Palace Pier is a good article, and deals with the subject matter in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Very little attention is paid to who runs the pier and what the financial situation is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ive posted a Dispute resolution request

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#_Talk:Johnny Hallyday [6] --DerekvG (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Hallyday

I have no patience with editors who yell "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

(In case there was any doubt, I am not saying that you yelled "Vandalism".) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your rewriting of Mackie's

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I put Mackie's up for deletion because I didn't see notability, but I thank you for rewriting it. Potatornado (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hi,

My page got deleted. I wanted to work on it to make it so that it was up to Wikipedia's standards. The draft was called Draft:Robert A. Sauerberg. It was deleted because of copyright. It is very very similar to the biography of Robert Sauerberg that appears on condenast.com . However, my team and I are the ones who wrote and created the bio that lives there- so we're copyrighting ourselves. I'm not sure how to progress - I want to make it so that the bio that appears on condenast.com is of fair use so that I can post it here without it getting deleted. Can you please revive the draft on Wikipedia while I work on getting the original biography cleared for fair use??

Thank you.

-Gemma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmacolon (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gemmacolon: Have a look at User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios - it should explain the issues in a nutshell (which are non-intuitive and obvious, which is why we don't assume malice for people who make them) and advise you on what you can do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone's page got deleted by Richie333, I wanna create it again please. Deleted page is Molise Lesley Maqelepo Nino Grace (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A respectful question

Why did you revert my simple (but correct) edits on the article for Mellotron?

Grammarspellchecker (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It wasn’t “correct”, it was your personal opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Ritchie333, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! NikolaiHo☎️ 22:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You got mail

Apologies if you knew already, but you did get some mail from me. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I did, it's just the wheels of secret cabal discussions[FBDD] turn slowly, and I have replied. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

12 years of editing

Hey, Ritchie333. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
My advice: stick to your violin, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Keith Chegwin

On 11 December 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Keith Chegwin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As Cheggers sang, “see one, touch one, win an award!” Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW-You're mentioned there by someone else.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. We hope (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • With regard to New Page Reviewing, if I find a page like Gay Gaddis which flags up a massive copyright issue in Earwig's copyvio tool, but has some other OK content, am I right to nominate it for speedy deletion under G12, or not? For the moment I have just tagged it for copyright violation, but I can see the category Category:Articles with improper non-free content contains pages that have been tagged for years. What I don't want to do is spend ages trying to disentangle the non-free content, but at the moment I am just wasting time dithering about what is best to be done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    Cwmhiraeth I personally would remove chunks of text/paragraphs with a broad brush - any words that isn't highlighted in red is likely to still be rewritten copyrighted text. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I've reduced the article down to a stub, kept the sources, removed the copyright-violating content, and revision deleted everything with it in. Non-admins should tag the article with {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}} which will alert somebody towards it. Normally I use G12 as an additional "device" for a probably unsalvageable article which doesn't quite meet the standalone A7 / G11 criteria. Since this is a biography of a woman, established policy is to ping Megalibrarygirl and get her to improve it. :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Cwimraeh, instructions for requesting revdel are here Template:Copyvio-revdel - should also specify start id and end id. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for your advice, I will be a bit bolder next time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
The "Where the skies are so blue and the governor's true" barnstar.

Never mind.... as long as the Main page skies are blue, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I refer the honourable gentleman back to User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 46#Okay, great calico and fruit, but..., posted the day before the US election. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Halcyon Days! When we all thought someone else was bound to win. *wipes tear away with crumpled Russian email ...* Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Schon gewusst? DYK?

The German equivalent to DYK has one of my articles today (and tomorrow): "Sonne der Gerechtigkeit, gehe auf zu unsrer Zeit" (Sun of justice, rise in our time), the hook saying that it was a wake-up call against Nazi thinking, and used a lot in the political peace prayers on Mondays. (There's a English version.) I remember standing at The Wall at the Brandenburg Gate, thinking it would stay for (my) life. It didn't! I just returned from a great operatic experience in what was East then. - We hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe the strongest vote for the AfD was in the former DDR along the Polish / Czech border; the closest bit of present day Germany to Auschwitz - Birkenau. Unthinkable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree. (After next excellent opera, and another conductor to write about. [7][8]) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

AfC

I was merely adding a comment that the page was speedily deleted in the past. I didn't say that it was a reason for it to be declined. Also, I have pressing real-life issues to go through right now that have reduced my time for Wikipedia (working 10 days straight, for starters, would certainly reduce the time available for Wikipedia). I have every intention to reply to the comments on my page when I have time for it. I could have drafted a quick, low-quality response, but what would that do to improve the page?

Lastly, I must protest the tone that this conversation has taken. The implied threats that was left is, in my opinion, counter-intuitive and completely unhelpful. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(Update) Also, I must set the record straight about accusations of me "deleting a draft completely out of process". I can't delete any articles, because I am not even an administrator to start with. I have the rights to recommend the deletion of articles (as any editors do), but I don't have sysop rights. I can't do something that I have no rights to. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well my other half has quit Wikipedia because of you. I realise you didn't actually delete the draft, but that's the impression you gave. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking back at the comment I left, I realize now that I may have inadvertently breached BITE as a result. It was certainly not my intention to drive away Wikipedia editors, but at the same time, to blame someone for another person's action is, in my opinion, a bit disingenuous. I have left a message on your SO's talkpage, explaining the situation. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I realise I came across as aggressive as I was communicating off the back of a real life conversation that had made me cross, and for that I apologise. I'm too tired to look at the draft now, but the Google Scholar and Google Books results certainly suggest it is possible to write a good mainspace article on this person. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Based on the number of gscholar cites, that would very easily survive AfD. In most AfD's I've seen, just one paper with over 500+ cites is easily enough (and she's actually a significant author in this case, rather than the say 12th out of 13 I've seen in other cases) And I personally lean towards "it passes C1" than not. I'll actually just accept it now.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

Would this edit summary qualify for removal? 331dot (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think so, it’s not conductive towards writing an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_69&oldid=1143266846"