User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 106

Archive 100

←

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

→

Archive 110

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well R. MarnetteD|Talk 03:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Victoria Warehouse

On 14 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Victoria Warehouse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the side of the Victoria Warehouse in Old Trafford featured murals by Walter Kershaw for nearly 30 years? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Victoria Warehouse), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What's next? Victoria's Secret Warehouse? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you making fun of us just cause we're wearing bras? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Quid pro quo

I nominated David Bellamy to appear at In the News but he was so prolific that there's a lot of work to be done on his article and so his death may not be posted. This would be a perverse outcome and so I've made a suggestion which may help in getting work done in such cases. See Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Quid_pro_quo for the proposal. As you have recently improved the David Bellamy article, you are entitled to comment. Other recent helpers include @Nick Moyes, Martinevans123, Philip Adrian, Helper201, Sunshineisles2, Philip Cross, Sunshineisles2, and Northern Hills: and so it would be good to get their views too. It's good to see so many editors pitching in and this may be a way of acknowledging their efforts. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've been busy elsewhere and didn't have time to improve David Bellamy's article to the required standard. For other recently deceased biographies such as Rachael Bland, Jim Bowen and Judith Kerr, I did find time to fix up the article so it could appear on the main page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, he should definitely appear. Northern Hills (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

For lack of a natural science themed greetings...

Hello Ritchie333: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!!

Thank you very much Ritchie for your thoughtful greeting. You have my very best wishes for this holiday season. May your heart be filled with happiness during this special time.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Ritchie333
	Hi Ritchie333, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,    –Davey2010talk 00:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Ritchie333: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Ritchie333
	Hi Ritchie333, wishing you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year    – Kosack (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Ritchie333! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.Onel5969 TT me 23:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

List of NZ Place Names

Ajf773 was wrong and I hope you acknowledge that? Also could you please tabulate the for and against votes for me and who addressed the issue rather than just voted? What do you do with votes that do not take account of the extensive discussion after their vote? ie they refused to discuss. People who refuse to address the issues should not sway the vote. Thank you. Kelly222 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody else challenged the further "delete" options after the first relisting - that gives consensus to delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean. Lots of people didn't want it deleted. Could you please explain what you mean. Kelly222 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The only person other than you who expressed that opinion was Doncram - one other person wanted a merge, everyone else suggested deletion, even after reading counter-arguments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the article you deleted.

Hi Ritchie333 , i have also contacted the person RHawort and one more person who deleted the page one saidsaid kindly wait and be patient if its accepted then protection will be remove second said contact someone who can familiar with pakistani celebrities or region. You have deleted an article in feb 2019 , i realized that few people have created the article before with no notable links or it was not passing wp:actor or wp:gng but i recreated the article and added the latest news references and newspaper sources and i am sure it is now notable. can you have a look dear ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nabeel_Zuberi it will be good if you can pass your comments or help me to make this article better as you're most senior administrator and i help wikipedia by expanding articles/creating on public figures voluntarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memon KutianaWala (talk • contribs) 10:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Memon KutianaWala: Looking at the logs, you have contributed to several now-deleted articles; which one are you referring to? If you have recreated the article as a draft, a reviewer will assess it for suitability at some point in the future. Unfortunately this process has a backlog as there are a lot of drafts to look at. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wacko (band)

It may be too early for the above red link, but if you haven't already, and if you're into punk, you may enjoy this or one of the several other news stories; apologies in advance for the autoplay videos and for any other ads you aren't able to block. And good Yule :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to be online very much over Christmas, but Ceoil's your man for straightforward orthodox punk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Some mistakes were made this year. I apologise for those of mine which impacted on you. Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: @SilkTork: as a (talk page stalker) may I wish you both a wonderful festive season as well. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Are there some you can still undo? I'd love it if you responded to my earlier question as soon as when you get the chance. Seasons Greetings?Kelly222 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I was trying to think of a suitable reply, but all I can really think of is - I hope you and your family have a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Oh! The indignities some of us have to suffer during the festive season ......... happy XMAS Ritchie333 Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Seasons greetings
	Hope you get to have a go with lego. Thank you for being around and coming back and being there. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Ritchie333: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Nadolig Llawen

Martinevans123 ^{(Santa's Oven-Ready Brexit Centre)} ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

---

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and a Cuban groove... and wishing that you may find a little traditional fun ...

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Martin. Gwasanaethau am deg milltr. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever keeps you going. [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはRitchie333たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Ritchie!

TheSandDoctor ^Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

From my family to yours, wishing you a very merry/happy Christmas and New Year! Here's to 2020 --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Christmas from Australia!

Hello Ritchie333: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(Adapted from Template:Season's Greetings1)

Happy New Year, Ritchie333!

Happy New Year!

Ritchie333,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Lee Jina page

Hi, Can I politely request an email with the content of the page, or have it returned to draft so I can continue working on it. Did not get a chance over the holiday period, and I returned to it being deleted. Thanks! BearMinimum (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@BearMinimum: As I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Jina as soft delete, anyone can request restoration of the article, which I have now done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks!BearMinimum (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy 2020!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Ritchie333,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays

Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Your GA nomination of More (soundtrack)

The article More (soundtrack) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:More (soundtrack) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

New message from DBigXray

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at InedibleHulk's talk page.
Message added 21:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXrayᗙ 21:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter Magaddino PROD

Hi Ritchie. The obit was from his father Stefano Magaddino. You removed the PROD on a false pretense - the page in that case, once you were made aware, should be deleted. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As you can see from the thread two above this, anyone can remove a PROD tag for any reason; although in this case the real reason for removing the PROD tag is because I believe it may be possible to improve and source the article (or, if not, to redirect to his father's biography, as you just stated), and would prefer a full AfD debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. I have looked for sources, books as well, and although he has had a couple run-ins with the law, nothing seemed notable enough for a standalone article, as he is very much in the shadow of his father. There are a couple things said about him on his father's page. I think, as you said, a redirect to his father's article may be a good solution for now. Would you be opposed if I do that? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that sounds fine to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Pinto-Duschinsky

Happy New Year Ritchie. Could you restore this one please? It was deleted as a vanity page on 25 December after a prod of which I was not aware. I think I wrote all or most of it and it doesn't read (in the Google cache) as a vanity page to me. He has written several significant books. Not sure why it was prodded but I notice he is Jewish and writes some politically controversial material so that might be something to do with it. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: As the article was deleted as an expired PROD, it can be restored on request easily - so I have done that for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Prodder's sole edit. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I came to this article and saw it was a restored PROD (by Ritchie333); was surprised that such an article could be deleted by a single edit user (always a flag of COI concern), under such general criteria (the article was not written in any kind of promotional style). I think it should have been declined by the deleting admin, or the user told to take it to AfD? I rarely use PROD (for various reasons), but Is this how PROD works – seems quite lethal? Nice job btw Philafrenzy. Britishfinance (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, thanks. It was never suitable for deletion on a prod. The deleting admin should be pinged. Lots of people have complained about the prod process for exactly those reasons. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As PRODs are supposed to be uncontroversial, and can be declined by any user for any reason at all (including no reason), an admin can't really be criticised for deleting them after seven days with no objections, as that's what the policy says. Similarly, policy also says they cannot object to them being restored. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

But aren't they also supposed to apply a common sense check to them if the stated rationale is clearly wrong or inadequate? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but if the administrator's counter-argument to that is "I followed chapter and verse on policy", there's not much point bringing it up. A quick look at WP:REFUND shows me that the deleting admin (Muboshgu) regularly refunds PRODs there, and I'm certain if you had asked them for a restoration, they would have done exactly what I did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No doubt, but if we are deleting them without applying any sort of common sense check we will be losing good articles because not everyone knows they can get a refund or how to ask for one. Promotionalism, for instance, which it wasn't, isn't ever a valid reason for deletion, it's a need for editing. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Having read WP:PROD there is none of WP:A7 type language (e.g. use of "unambiguous"), outside of the admin providing an "informative deletion reason" (which I think was provided, whether one agrees with it or not). CSD criteria seems stricter than PROD? Maybe it is because CSD can over-ride an author's objection (unlike PROD); however, the issue with PROD is in cases like this where the author is not around? Should PROD not follow CSD criteria? Britishfinance (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think PROD needs to, because stopping a PROD is trivial. As for promotionalism, as you can see in the below thread, I've just cleaned up Hypex Electronics, adding a brief company history explaining its importance and citing numerous sources. So you're kind of preaching to the converted! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you Ritchie, but what if the creator is not around to remove the PROD (or just nobody watchlists it)? Put another way, I don't think an admin would have deleted this article as an A7 (or a G11), however, it was deleted in compliance with WP:PROD? Britishfinance (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the old "Hey, we used to have an article about this - where's it gone" syndrome, where consensus based on who turned up (or who didn't) to the debate determines the result, as opposed to the actual consensus over time. The best example of that is the Mariposa Trust which was deleted five times before consensus stuck. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Very good point Ritchie. Shades of, If an article gets deleted, but nobody was there to !vote on it, did it ever really exist? All the best. Britishfinance (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

re: Recent speedies

Thank you for your concerns. The issue is that "very obvious and unambiguous cases" are a bit ambiguous, which is why of course I am totally fine with my nominations being denied (and coming from seeing WP:CORPSPAM as a problem in needs of fixing, I may well be on the more deletionist side here than some others). If they are, then I'll consider the rationale and upgrade to PROD/AfD when necessary. I don't CSD every article, if you look at my prod log or such you'll see that some get PROD and some AFD without the prior steps. Is there any way to check what percentage of my CSD gets accepted in CSD mode to see what is my hit/miss ratio? Hard data would allow me to reconsider the usage of my CSD noms. (Also ping User:Elahrairah who raised a similar concern with me recently). I hope I am not 'spamming' CSD too much, but I am trying to prevent unnecessary entries from ending up at AfDs where such problematic entries (or simply, spam...) would take more of community's precious time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'm curious as to why many people think that A7s are "a bit ambiguous", when my thoughts at WT:CSD and User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 frames it in a way that it isn't. As my essay suggests, the problem with A7 is that later, when somebody looks at the rationale for deletion, all they will see is a reference to the CSD criteria, and unless it's not blindingly obvious, they'll at best get confused and at worst complain about "abuez adminz!" This doesn't happen with PROD (because they can be easily refunded, per the above thread) or AfD (because the deletion discussion is permanently logged). Additionally, the problem with Hypex Electronics is you should have noticed the article was vandalised on 28 May 2019, trashing the version that showed the company was a dedicated manufacturer of audio technology developed by a notable person and patented by a notable company, which would have led you to the detailed Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers citation now in the article. My "holy grail" of WP:CORPSPAM articles is to discover notability, and specifically reliably-sourced negative coverage (such as bankruptcy or embezzlement), put that in the article, and hope the creator discovers WP:PROUD the hard way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

SoWhy I see you've declined a couple of Piotrus' speedies as well. Hopefully this is just a one-off blip and we've reached an understanding. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie, I read your nice essay at User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 and if you don't mind, I will ask you an opinion about some speedies I will do in the future, so see if we can agree on the line separating speedy cases from what should go to PROD+. Right now I've tagged for A7 "Sevin Rosen Funds" which seems to have no claim for importance, outside having financed a few notable organizations, but per WP:NOTINHERITED this is not sufficient for notability. Or would you think that such an unreferenced claim (some sort of involvement with a notable entity - I've had related speedies declined with argument that 'the company was created by a notable founder', for example) is sufficient to make A7 not relevant? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(tpw) Piotrus, while some disagree with this, an A7 should have a quick WP:BEFORE; in my experience, many admins (rightly) also do a quick google search to see if anything comes up. For example, in the case of Sevin Rosen Funds, a google throws up material on this firm from WP:RS/P, including Wall Street Journal, Reuters etc. Doesn't mean that this is not an AFD case, but an A7 should be unambigious, and when quick BEFORE's throw up material like this, you will find admins (rightly) declining it. Ritchie's very useful A7 guide gives the core test of: could any independent editor reasonably improve this article so it would not be deleted at AfD?, which emphasises this point. Britishfinance (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Of course BEFORE is a good idea and I do it too, through when faced with sources like the two you found I am concerned with WP:ROUTINE (and with such sources often being rewritten press releases). The first source is paywalled, the second has some elements of WP:INTERVIEW. I wouldn't mind if someone declined it, and it ends up at at PROD or AfD, through right now as I am learning about A7, my concern is whether you think it was a valid (if declinable) A7 or not. I don't want to 'abuse' A7, but I also don't want to conclude the tool is useless (or too dangerous to use along the lines of 'you will get blocked if you create too much work for admins'). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, once you are getting into a "discussion" about the refs, you are really in normal AfD territory (i.e. the article above may still be an AfD delete), however, you are leaving the unambiguous requirements of A7. My own sense-check doing A7 is that if it is declined (this happens to everybody as there is variability in the definition and the application of it), then it should be a no-brainer AfD (i.e. almost a snow delete). If I can't get to that on an A7, I move on (but I encounter plently of such A7s doing WP:NPP). Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the article before reading this discussion in-depth, and my answer can be summed up here. In my experience, hedge funds are likely to be an A7; however in this case having read various iterations of the article from a number of different editors, I concluded there were enough "hooks" such as having a notable founder, early founding of Compaq which created the PC industry as we know today, and their financing of Electronic Arts. It's well out of A7 territory. However, to answer the question of "was it an abusive A7" - no, it wasn't egregious and doesn't require any action other than declining it without prejudice to start an AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Page -- Jean-Sim Ashman

Hi there. I created a page which you deleted. I originally created the page a few months ago and it was deleted because of the information I put. I didn't know how to edit and undelete the page that was deleted before so I created a new page. I believe that the new page I created includes information that is beneficial to wikipedia and meets its guidelines. Can you please help me restore/provide me with input on how to restore the deleted page? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl1121 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jl1121: The article was deleted following a discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Sim Ashman - last September. It was then re-deleted as a recreation of an article deleted via a discussion (because the views of the four people who requested deletion cannot be unilaterally overridden). In particular, Amazon and IMDB are generally unsuitable as source material. I have restored the article to Draft:Jean-Sim Ashman where it can be worked on without threat of deletion; when you are happy that the page is complete and informative, you can follow instructions at the top of the page to get it reviewed by an experienced editor. This will give us a new consensus over the original deletion debate. I hope that's all clear; if not, feel free to contact me again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fa11out

Hello! I am not sure the no consensus closure is warranted here at all. Curious to hear the reasoning of it, mostly because it de facto makes SITH's vote/comment valueless. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jovanmilic97: I had another look and I don’t see an issue with relisting the AfD for another week. Do you want me to do this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do if you can, I also plan to comment in that week when I get to have more time. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, all done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 04:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Interview on research about RfAs

Thank you so much for reaching out. I would love to do an interview. Can you send me me an email and we figure out a time to talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henningpiezunka (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll draft something soon. In the meantime, a list of previous RfAs I have helped set up is here. (Also paging LZia (WMF)). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Church of the Cosmic Skull, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classic Rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a DAB page. Fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

ARBCOM case

Hi Ritchie,

I was wondering if you had any idea whether RHaworth was going to comment in the Workshop, or its talk page, I realise it's pretty ugly, but I feel without genuine participation it's got a distinct lean to desysopping which I feel would be a major loss Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I don't have any regular contact with RHaworth other than bumping into him at meetups. I think he has said all he wants to on the evidence page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi Ritchie, Hope all is well,
Nearly an hour ago I reported someone for edit warring (the war occurred at 2:30am UK time), The dealing admin reckons it's not a violation because 24 hours has passed ....,
I work it out that it's only been 9 and a half hours from the edit war to my reporting (11:30am) ..... I really ain't sure if I'm having a huge brain fart here or whether this needs relooking at ?,
Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I have warned the user to start a talk page discussion over the image changes, otherwise they will be blocked from editing the article, via the new partial block functionality. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Haha good to know I wasn't going absolutely mad! :), Many thanks for your help, Have a great day, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I only looked at 3RR at AN3, which wasn't violated. But Ritchie333's approach seems sound. Sorry if I let you down. I'm spread a bit thin, so maybe I should not have closed that report. El_C 12:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: WP:AN3 is, in my view, going to need a review of how we do things, since partial blocks are now a thing. In my view, you should still avoid a block if you can, but a partial block is far less draconian and an unblock request is simpler as you can look for evidence on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. I've only implemented one partial block so far, but you're right that it should become the norm for AN3. El_C 12:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you again, He's now using an IP to edit war[2], I could go the SPI route if preferred, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that partial blocks are a good response to edit warring; not, though, for socking. An abuse of trust such as that deserves no less than a site-wide response. ——SN54129 13:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I semi'd the page for 2 weeks, in any case. El_C 13:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

He's pretty much on a "last chance" warning now; any other problematic behaviour will earn a full block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

..... and blocked. Well that was predictable :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pearl Jam

See the recent edits on Pearl Jam. Lugnuts reverted an edit which improved the article, was well cited and in the legacy section (not the lead) just on the basis of WP:DENY. Denial on the cost of an article's improvement is not a thing that any wikipedian shall be proud of or jimbo himself. You're an administrator so you shall intervene and tell Lugnuts that the consensus was not even reached when regentspark interfered and used that moment for his revenge. I hope you help as soon as possible. Regards 117.234.33.239 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't intrinsically see a problem with your edit. Is there something Lugnuts knows that I don't? I'd recommend starting a fresh discussion at Talk:Pearl Jam and unless anyone can point me at a definitive sockpuppet investigation that proves you are actually something like Russavia editing logged out, I think who is asking the question is irrelevant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. Please see this discussion in the archive of the talkpage. This is the same IP range as this user, who is a confirmed sock, which they admitted to. The same editor came running to you for help last year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Even so, if their edit is good, surely letting it stand improves the article and in a way denies recognition by us not reacting to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I want this discussion to be taken to the administrator's noticeboard incidents. Ritchie333 make it happen. I dont understand this concept of a sudden stop in consensus. It ended on the IPs but nothing happened. Now its time to bring it on the big stage. I hope admins would be fair in making decision. Regards SouthAmerica1000 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. When it comes to users avoiding blocks, you know it's the policy to remove content they have added, including text to articles and deleting pages they've created. Why on earth you pander to them, and worse still, actually stick up for them over long-termed editors is beyond me. Or maybe it's just a personal thing against me. Either way, I find it baffling. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"When it comes to users avoiding blocks, you know it's the policy to remove content they have added" No, the policy says "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)" I'm doing this because I find this content dispute to be a complete storm in a teacup; I would have more sympathy with your cause if the banned editor was doing something like changing the infobox on Jeremy Corbyn to list his occupation as "terrorist sympathiser", but that's not the case . Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Jeremy. Although what that clown Corbyn has to do with this, is anyone's guess. Maybe a smoke-screen to dodge my main concerns about you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:47, 20 January 2020 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

This is ridiculous, can you please have a look at my report at RFPP. Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 23:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Editors need to remember that they are arguing over a real human's personal preferences, and should do so carefully and tactfully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)