User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily

Ritchie333, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen that the nominator had responded to your review with a question. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the discussion then went forward onto the AfD, if the debate closes as keep / no consensus, we can revisit then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Doug Weller talk 15:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hatfield rail crash

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hatfield rail crash you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yellow Dingo -- Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hatfield rail crash

The article Hatfield rail crash you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hatfield rail crash for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yellow Dingo -- Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hatfield rail crash

The article Hatfield rail crash you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hatfield rail crash 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 Yellow Dingo -- Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band GA

Ya silly man, mi no kiddie fiddler, that's Bob MarKley with a "K"

Hello, I was wondering if you are interested in reviewing the West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band article for GA. I enjoyed the work from the L.A. Woman review, so I have full faith we can come to the same outcome with the page. I understand if you are little less interested in this subject because they are not nearly as well-known as the Doors, but the WCPAEB has an interesting story nonetheless.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm on it.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eega/archive2

Hi. I'm someone who is working on a FAC with some strange passion and needs some help (read help only). Currently, I'm working on Eega's FAC; it is an Indian film with a strange concept: A murdered man reincarnates as a simple, powerless housefly and avenges his death besides protecting his lover. I require someone who are willing to participate and review a candidate, and am requesting you. Having said that, i have no intentions of WP:VOTESTACK and you are absolutely free to reject (consider replying, silence is very rude in such cases.) Thank you.

Yours Truly,
Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I don't really know anything about the topic and tend only to get involved in GAs / FAs where I have some fresh insights to bring to the article that aren't noddy stuff like putting dashes in the right places (which I get wrong anyway). Sorry about that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Two Barnstars for You

		The London Transport Barnstar
		I see that you're nearly finished with the GA nominations for the set for London Monopoly board places. As these almost all fall within the remit of WikiProject London Transport, have a barnstar with grateful thanks.--DavidCane (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

		The WikiProject London Barnstar
		Your efforts to produce GA articles for all of these places also enriches WikProject London, so this is doubly deserved!--DavidCane (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry baht that-

[1] Rather in your face to completely ignore everything you had just gone and said and done- hadn't looked up. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving our spat

I want to thank you for taking the time out of your day to address and absolve our "storm in a teacup." I'm not proud of that dust devil, and I feel that I could have done or behaved better (although I couldn't help not having enough time to completely write my comment, should have probably pushed that farther into the future).

TL;DR: thanks for wadding into the kiddy pool to pull us idiots apart. --Vami IV (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Non Nobus Wikipædia

Let me be clear that I am not happy about anyone involved in this dispute as you were all edit-warring on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, it is a silly and pointless spat, and I cannot emphasise enough that you all need to drop the stick and stay well away from each other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Malleus Maleficarum

I saw your invoking of my name on this page. Frankly, I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on or who was pushing what. MM is a bit beyond my normal time frame, and I have nothing on it still out on my shelves (we're packing up to move so my library is much reduced). Probably have better luck getting Eric involved, if you can. For all that Bloodofox (talk · contribs) can be prickly (and I'll freely admit I am also prickly!), he's got access to a good bit of the sources you'd need for this article. MM attracts a wide range of fringe-thinkers - from the wildly out there modern day witches who see the "burning times" when millions died to the opus dei inspired folks thinking that the witches are out to subvert everyone (and Jack Chick had his own wild thoughts on the matter).... the field is full of bizarre thoughts and theories. I wouldn't know where to start and I frankly don't have the time now or for the foreseeable future. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look, anyhow. It does look like an "Eric" article but I don't think he's keen to wade into any more controversy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

CAn't say I blame him. MM would be a minefield. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

USer:Asterixf2

Ritchie - I see that Asterixf removed their block notice twice from their user page resulting in your escalating the block to one week. However, the userpage guideline does not list block notices as protected from removal - only declined unblock requests. I understand that you can justify the original block being one week, but you chose 12 hours. Escalating after the fact based on no violation of policy isn't proper. I'm not sure what a way forward is at this point because I am doubtful that 12 hours is going to result in an end to an edit war, but I would ask that you avoid "giving breaks" in the future and then revoking them.--v/r - TP 19:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly have a quiet life if I had said "you don't want to discuss the block, fine, have a nice life" but in this case I want to listen to what he has to say and get him unblocked, as MM's article is a bit of a train-wreck and it's obvious from a quick cursory look through it that he has done significant and major improvements to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I've had a bit more look into this and I'm looking to unblock Asterixf2 once they confirm they've read the edit warring policy and what the exemptions are. Asterixf2 was correct, Vami IV was in violation of WP:REDACT. That's not an exemption to WP:EW but it is a consideration. I believe that Guy Macon's advice and report were total shit and a complete ignorance of the guideline. Vami IV needs to get some guidance on talk page guidelines and ettiquette as well. If you have any issues with my wayahead, please let me know.--v/r - TP 19:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No problems at all - that's pretty much exactly what I was looking for. As you may have seen, I reverted one of Guy's reports on AN3 and closed another as no violation, not to mention my reply above, so it should be fairly obvious I'm not taking their side on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

TParis and Ritchie333 : I have a strong objection to unblocking him. Take a look at his past record: he has a long pattern of belligerent and disruptive behavior for which he was previously blocked on March 17 (look at his full block log). The edit war with Vami IV was just a small part of that ongoing belligerent attitude, and Guy Macon was taking that into account. See my comments in the following edit : [2] GBRV (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, somebody (and from looking at diffs, I don't think it was Asterix) introduced 15 citation errors (meaning large parts of the article were unverifiable, which is bad) because somebody had shotgunned <ref> tags all over the place. If Asterix is on call to fix that, and make articles better written and more factually accurate, I can take the odd bit of rough and tumble. Our readers don't care about who did what to whom, and neither should we. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I had to revert him for deleting a ton of sourced material from academic publications, which he falsely claimed were "self-published" even though they weren't. How is that improving the factual accuracy of the article? It looks like typical POV-pushing: delete anything that doesn't suit the agenda. I would add that his combative style is also a big impediment to producing a good article, because cooperative consensus-building is key to producing good content. It always is. His repeated deletion of Vami's attempt to explain his position was part of a pattern. How do you discuss anything with that type of behavior? I think it also needs to be asked how you know his content is accurate? Wikipedia is supposed to include all viewpoints rather than declaring one side to be "accurate". If he's deleting lots of academic sources which take the other viewpoint (that's what his opponents are accusing him of), then how does that insure neutrality? GBRV (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"His repeated deletion of Vami's attempt to explain his position was part of a pattern." - Vami was violating talk page guidelines as I have already pointed out. Vami should have created a new item in the thread to expand his earlier comments. That doesn't excuse the edit warring, but please don't use it as justification for a block because he was correct about what the guideline states.--v/r - TP 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

TParisYou're referring to a rule that was designed (if I'm not mistaken) to prevent people from retroactively changing a comment in a way that made their opponent's reply to that comment look bad or irrelevant, which Vami doesn't seem to have been doing. He was elaborating on his perspective, which doesn't violate the intent of the rule. Why didn't Asterix simply move it to the correct place rather than repeatedly deleting it FIVE times, just as he has constantly deleted large chunks of sourced material from the article they were fighting over (look at the edit history)? A few months ago he was blocked for this type of thing (in March). That's the pattern I was referring to. How is this not troll behavior? I'm just flabbergasted by some of the reactions to this. GBRV (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Vami's original complaint was that WP Femininsm was exhibiting ownership of the article. Then Asterixf2 responded to that concern. Vami came back and changed his original complaint adding an entire paragraph accusing Asterixf2 of bad behavior. The order of the thread after Vami's edit makes it appear that Asterixf2 chose not to respond to the behavioral accusations and implicitly does not dispute the accusations. That's wrong.--v/r - TP 22:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

if that was the case, why didn't Asterix just move the new text into a better location rather than belligerently edit-warring well past the 3RR limit, which he presumably knows about? All I'm saying is that his record, especially his previous block in March, points to a pattern of unnecessary bully tactics and a reliance on constant deletion of anything he doesn't like. He even sent me a haughty (and dishonest) response when I restored a large chunk of sourced text which he had deleted (apparently for the umpteenth time) with a specious explanation that turned out to be a lie. GBRV (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That he edit warred past the 3RR and got a block for it doesn't at all dismiss the fact that he was correct about policy. Being right just happens to not be an exemption to policy. And if I were the admin on that case, you would've also received a block for edit warring. The block doesn't mean Asterixf was wrong. I've heard enough of your concerns and they aren't convincing. If you have any other issues regarding this to bring up, please find my talk page. We've annoyed Ritchie enough with the "new message" pings.--v/r - TP 23:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

All I did to Asterix's talk page was add the notice for the first notice (this one) and then failed to sign it thanks to time constraints. Admittedly, I probably should have pushed filing that complaint further into the future so that I could have had time to edit it and notify all involved parties. When I reverted Asterix's removal of that edit and then signed it, he yet again removed it, calling it "Vandalism." I decided I didn't want to fight him on this, so I instead filed this this complaint. I added the notice of this to his talk page, but he removed that too and called it "vandalism." I initially, and erroneously, associated Asterix and his 230+ edits of MM with WikiProject Feminism because I first stumbled upon this while exploring their page and noticing it was the top edited page on their homepage (The reason for its appearance there is because their banner is present on the MM talk page). I tried to expand my arguments on the Neutral POV Violation claim, only to have them reverted. After 2-3 attempts, I resigned myself to my fate and filed the Edit Warring complaint, and included Ryn78 in the title as he had pitched the idea when discussed Asterix's actions on my talk page last night. I do admit wrongdoing in that I participated in the edit battles and let my irritation with Asterix soak into my language. EDIT 1: Believe me or don't, the reason I made that edit to my first complaint for POV violation was to present an actual argument and not to make Asterix look worse. --Vami IV (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Non Nobus

References

Note: I am WP:BOLDLY copying the following conversation here from my talk page so that the discussion can be in one place. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• You [Guy Macon] were so wrong on this and you pushed another editor to be blocked. That's on you. See WP:REDACT which isn't a how-to guide, it's a guideline. Vami IV's edits were in violation of this guideline.--v/r - TP 19:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• He was blocked because of his own behavior; edit warring, WP:TPOC violations, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I tried to talk him out of doing those things. If you think that violating WP:TPOC and WP:EW are acceptable behavior in response to someone not following WP:REDACT you are greatly mistaken. Misbehavior by another editor is never justification for misbehavior in response. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• He was not in violation with WP:TPOC which is what I am trying to tell you - and now you are WP:IDHT. He told you that, and now I'm telling you. The WP:REDACT part of the talk page guidelines, which you continue to ignore, lays out what Vami was supposed to do. If you don't understand that, then do not bother explaining talk page guidelines to anyone else because we don't need your misunderstandings unnecessarily escalating problems in the future.--v/r - TP 22:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I am listening just fine. I am listening to you make certain claims about what is and is not in certain policies, apparently without any support from the actual wording of the policies. Please quote the exact wording of WP:TPOC or WP:REDACT which allowed allows Asterixf2 to delete comments which are in violation of WP:REDACT and to edit war to keep the comments reverted in the face of multiple editors telling him that he cannot do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Somebody needs to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Please take this discussion elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sigh...

Would you mind disabling talkpage access for this IP range: 94.196.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Particularly here (delete this talkpage or revdel edits/edit summaries too). But someone else may already get to this before you even see it, because they pinged about six different admins on their talkpage rant... XD Thanks! :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Welp, Materialscientist has deleted the page... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and you may also want to see this, which was the IP that you blocked Hello71 for edit warring with... not sure who's sock this is that Ponyo blocked though... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be User:Atomic Meltdown, as this user was blocked as Atomic Meltdown making similar edits that the IP had done. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Malleus Maleficarum Ryn78 edits 29 October 2016

If you are able to help: [3]. However, in my opinion, this is WP:Civil POV pushing. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that looks like a huge amount of information to digest. You could try the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, perhaps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help in this case: [4] and fyi: [5] to know what is going on. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hello71 3RR block review. Thank you. ⁓ Hello71 20:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Inferno block evasion

Hello. This edit was made by an editor who was blocked for repeated copyvio issues (my guess would be they speak English as a second language and feel more confident copypasting sentences wholesale) and is now block evading after three unblock requests failed to show any understanding of what they were doing wrong. The user's talk page also has some history of unhelpful WP:OWNership over box office sections. Someone should check this section line-by-line if we're going to AGF. --McGeddon (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; I just felt it was possible to copyedit it into better English rather than just revert wholesale. Or are you concerned the information is not in the sources specified, and it is a blatant hoax? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't followed this user's edits until recently, but their talk page gives a strong sense that they're a film fan with enthusiasm for box office numbers who is sketchy on what counts as a reliable source or original research. I'd AGF if this was a new user, but as a problem editor deliberately evading a block and editing in the same areas (and potentially drifting under the radar of anyone who has these articles watchlisted and is familiar with Josephlalrinhlua786's past edit wars), I'd have said we were in "ambiguous cases" territory. --McGeddon (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The principal problem with Josephlalrinhlua786 appears to be persistent copyright violations. Since (at least via a check through the copyvios tool) this edit doesn't appear to have introduced a copyright violation, I'm happy to take responsibility for saying it is a good-faith (not to be confused with "good"; the wording isn't that great and needs improving) edit that should be allowed to stand. What I would recommend in the future if reverting this sort of thing is use a more descriptive summary than just "block evasion" - say what the problem is. You definitely shouldn't have filed a report at AIV in any case - it is certainly not clear-cut and obvious vandalism requiring an immediate block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Followup

Hi R. Thanks for protecting the template. I think that should take care of things. They were making the same edits on Template:Martin Scorsese but it looks like they may take our posts onboard. It was odd that none of the warnings on the talk page mentioned an article or template - that certainly made your request for "why are these here?" more important. I had only just returned to WikP - the seven hour time difference from the UK always means I am late to whatever is going on :-) - and found the situation. The IP certainly deserved some explanation of what they were doing wrong. I have a slight concern that, with the Seth MacFarlane navbox edits, they have strayed into this persons territory (the Pennsylvania IPs are another clue) but I may be wrong and I am happy to AGF for now. Cheers and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully that's the end of that. I haven't a clue about sockpuppetry, I tend to leave that to the experts at WP:SPI and just focus on the content. I appreciate I was rather snarky on the IP's talk, and for that I apologise, but I really do sincerely believe that people should discuss more and template less, for reasons well-documented at the essays on my userpage. And my experiences from editing logged out lead me to conclude that some editors really do treat IPs like total crap and I don't really feel that much remorse in knocking those editors down a peg or two. I'm not surprised Hello71 is upset about being blocked; if he could have seen it coming, he would have behaved in a way that wouldn't have made a block necessary. I am optimistic it will be a useful learning curve for him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain R. No worries on your posts on the IP talk page from my perspective. I was unaware of the H71 situation when I made my post here but BRD applies to everyone and I couldn't find that anyone had opened a talk page thread anywhere. Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Say, @MarnetteD:, you seem to have a good quantity of clue and civility, have you ever thought about an RfA? Just askin'. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and for askin' R :-) I do think about it occasionally and then I see the grief that the process entails and the double grief that you admins have to put up with and I just don't know if it would be worth it. A grizzled wikignome like myself will just keep plugging along helping whenever possible and, when making a mistake, going to the right people to get it fixed. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Well Rickinbaltimore just got yanked to ANI for no reason at all, but it doesn't seem to have stopped his RfA getting off to a great start. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw both of those. If he is successful I am hoping that he will be distributing delicious blue crabs to one and all :-) MarnetteD|Talk 14:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Hkg1959

Hi Ritchie333. I noticed that you blocked Hkg1959 for 24 hours for disruption. I've been tracking sockpuppets that have been making this exact save vandalism on these very LGBT articles for over a week now, and more have surfaced since (for example, Beestring1). I wanted to extend the block on the account you blocked to be a sockpuppet block, but I wanted to check in with you first and ask. Do you object to this? Let me know. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The 24 hours fixes the immediate problem. If you don't have an LTA or SPI page, get one set up. If you are absolutely sure, no questions asked, cross my heart and hope to die etc etc, up the block to indefinite with a clear rationale of "obvious sock of Beestring1, block evasion" or something like that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Bad ideas for articles

Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair, I'm wondering what other bad ideas for articles can people think of. I'll start you off with Brian May's hair, Lemmy's mutton chops, Ritchie Blackmore's wig and Gene Simmons' fire breathing. What else? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't Lemmy's mole be more notable though? RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well they have appeared as an independent subject. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• There have been several previous failures such as Michelle Obama's arms but the ones that have survived may be more interesting – see body parts of individual people. For my part, I created the London Nose and, now I think of it, it belongs in that category too... Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh my word ..... Hitler's testicles Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be just a little too Kampf?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A propo of nothing in particular.... wondered if you knew of this lady, who sounds right up your R'n'B street, as it were: some lush Hammond from Luis Resto here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Good article reviews

Hi Ritchie. I replied to your comment under my support !vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RickinBaltimore and just wanted to apologise for and explain.[6] Before writing that I looked at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles‎ and didn't see your name on it and thought it was a bit on the nose that you were complaining about not getting your good articles reviewed when you were not really reviewing good articles in return. However that article is well out of date, which is something I should have known about but forgot.[7] I then found User:GA bot/Stats and you have done lots of reviews so my comment was unfair. Appologies again. AIRcorn (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, to be honest the intent of what I want to say on that RfA has been kind of missed; essentially people complaining about hour-long backlogs at AIV should see some of the backlogs elsewhere that go back weeks or even months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

North American P-51 Mustang

Just to let you know I semi-protected North American P-51 Mustang after seeing yet another edit by an IP and reversion by others to encourage talk page discussion but I didnt see your talk page comments so apology if it seemed like I ignored your decision. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Well that does stop the disruption; though the IP was making good points and I feel when you've got an IP versus an established editor, you should avoid anything that favours one side of the debate. Hopefully people have taken heed of the warning I put on the talk page and have calmed down a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, understood MilborneOne (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Ritchie. Why don't you move User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content to WP:Content creation (leaving the shortcut WP:WRITE within the essay). It will allow more users to quickly refer to the essay and access it too. Lourdes 17:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I'd prefer to keep it in userspace, because it is a list of my personal opinions and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Obviously I don't WP:OWN the essay, but I don't want people getting the impression what I write is gospel - it's only what I think and people are allowed to disagree with it (as indeed one editor has done on the talk page and another by writing a "Why admins should not create content" counter-essay). It is permitted to have a Wikipedia namespace redirect to a userspace essay though; WP:OWB (which redirects to User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior) is a widely-linked essay, but again it is a set of Antandrus' personal views that may not be universally shared. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Lourdes 17:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Candy Ken

Why do you instantly erase the page about Candy Ken rapper...does this has to do something with prejudice? Zoran3003 (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's because Wikipedia has a threshold of inclusion, which is basically you have to have been substantially written about so that anybody in the world could (in theory) write the article. I have been playing in bands for 25 years and none of them have (or should have) a Wikipedia article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh but i am acctually " anyone"...i know him from internet he has lots of videos on youtube,phtoshoots with Terry Ricardson,Nicola Formichetti and those are famos fashion Artists. I am not his friends nor i know him personally,nieter i want to merely promote him I want to promote his idea ...that genders roles should be forgotten in this new era Zoran3003 (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

In general, you will find that the presence or absence of a Wikipedia article has very little to do with whether someone is well-known or successful. Also, sometimes a lack of an article can be a good thing - let's say (hypothetically and heaven forbid) that Candy Ken is arrested for driving under the influence and his time in the slammer is reported by the major press, well that can go in his Wikipedia article if it exists. So think very carefully before you create an article about someone who is not really that well-known in the grand scheme of things. Look how much (reliably sourced and suitable) information there is on the murder of Tupac Shakur; I don't think that's what he personally would have wanted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes i full understand twhat are you trying to say...well so there is no way that i can write this article?any suggestion?To be hounest with you i contacted him on facebook and he gave me permission for this ....he acctually gave me information on his work etec etc Zoran3003 (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The best thing to do is find some newspaper or magazine articles about him, then use the article wizard to create a draft article that can be independently reviewed. I can restore the deleted article to a draft to start this process off, but to be honest it was only a couple of sentences and it's probably not too much of a hardship to rewrite it from scratch. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanx fir the advice .i wrote the article candy ken as a draft.so who can do a review ?i think its much better now.and its not even finished.thank you Zoran3003 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I get a deleted article put back up?

Hi,

You moved/deleted an article we wanted to edit and resubmit. The article can be seen here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Nate_Paul&action=edit&redlink=1

Would you be able to undelete/move the article so that we could make edits and resubmit?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chavous2 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Who is "we", Chavous? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chavous2: The article had already been reviewed and rejected twice as a draft. Can you please read advice on biographies for living people, which explains some of the pitfalls you can encounter when writing biographies. If, heaven forbid, Nate Paul is arrested for fraud or embezzlement, and reported by the New York Times, it will go in his article and attempts to remove it will not end well (this isn't a contrived example; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (3rd nomination) for how these things can blow up in your face). Once you've read that, then tell me why you feel it is important for Nate Paul to have an article on Wikipedia? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I also?

Hey,

I was wondering if a page that I created and you deleted could get put back up as there was no reason for it to be taken down. It took me quite the amount of time to create it and I was wondering if there was anyway I could

either get the page put back up, or get the information from the page and get information as to what I could do to make my page "okay" to get uploaded to Wikipedia.

Thanks, SekaiHelper (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Draft:Denpasoft - done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Msg

Hello. thanks send message for me. Jkouhyar (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

I would just like to thank you for helping me with the Maurice Gaffney article. Sadly when I created it I had to go soon after it so I had no time to work on it. I didn't want to leave it blank like I did because it was a important topic for me as a person but thank you very much for expanding it and I am very grateful CnocBride (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@CnocBride: No problem, he seems like a well-respected person in the field of law, presiding over several landmark cases, so I don't see any reason why he shouldn't have an article here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Bad a7s

Fair call that I should have googled Maurice Gaffney (I hadn't heard of him, and as a bare-bones photo-and-age article I assumed it was someone writing about a family member), but is it really a "bad" nomination to speedy an article with no research, to the point where I shouldn't flag any a7s in future without taking the time to check for reliable sources? I thought that was just for AfDs. --McGeddon (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: WP:BEFORE is just part of a guideline, but the deletion policy says "if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". It's also mentioned explicitly in the administrator instructions on an A7 template (I think it's hidden for "normal" users) to explicitly to do a search before hitting the delete button. Ultimately, it's a question of judgement and common sense, but if the subject looks like it ought to have something in reliable sources, I won't hurt to take 15 or so seconds to just drop the name into Google and see what you get. The page creator will thank you for it too (as you can see above!) Having said all of that, cases like this are rare (I've just done a quick tot up of stats and I reckon I delete about 100 times as many A7s as I rescue) and making a one-off mistake is allowed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol

The article John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol 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 Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Lord Bristol is the DYK gift that keeps on giving. I have put in "140mph up the M11 hard shoulder" and "fun ways to open fridge doors to get champagne". Then we've got ditching the helicopter in a field, "f***ing peasants, f***ing National Trust", sending some poor woman out into a lake and then sinking the dinghy she was on by firing a shotgun at it .... I could go on.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Horsey Island

On 5 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Horsey Island, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Horsey Island in Essex was the basis for Swallow Island in Arthur Ransome's Secret Water? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Horsey Island. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Horsey Island), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, great calico and fruit, but...

• 
  Damned if you do
• 
  Damned if you don't

Per your post at User talk:80.6.235.179, they've disappeared. Personally I really appreciated the fact that this masked man/lady was cleaning up those long-ignored reqinfobox tags. Being the trademark owner of heavy-handedness around here, I read your post as bitey though trying not to be. That's a lot of blame to dump in one Wikignome IP's lap; certainly they could not have been responsible for that wall of TLDR on the Coward talkpage.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: As I said, I was responding to a complaint. If I hadn't left the message, the complainant would have probably become disgruntled, so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'm neutral on infoboxes except the discussion that follows them around really drains me :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

(Offtopic, I could not resist) Is it "Damned if you do (vote Trump), damned if you don't (vote Hillary)" in the gallery? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Creating an article

Hello, You have deleted an article I was still working on called 'Lucas Nott'. I was going to add references and more information. I was wondering would it be possible for you to restore it to a draft? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M0123456the (talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article needs to say something about why the topic is important or significant. "Member of a band that doesn't have a Wikipedia article" is not usually enough (and the deleted article on the band doesn't look very good, either). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@M0123456the: Indeed. I can restore Work being done as a draft, but a search for sources shows no reasonable hits, so it will be difficult to get a draft accepted. What sources do you have? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

One for you and Rhonda

[8]♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you fixed that typo, I was getting royally confused with a Wikipedian I know with that name (not sure if she's publicly declared her real name on-wiki, and I don't fancy being being indeffed for outing right now) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know who it is though so no need to worry on that one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

This is not only about the specific, just ended RfA, but about the style in more or less all discussions I've seen, in which the obvious hierarchy in Wikipedia, and really especially(!) in Wikimedia with their (WMF)-agents, is involved. Triggered by your and Kudpung's (on my talk page) remarks, I'm leaving this rant on your talk page. Please, let me assure you that I do not intend any offense, and that I do feel myself bound by "civility", as founded in my upbringing, but not by flooding concepts, bread by PC, cultivated by WMF, described in more and more rules, principles, guides, ... like e.g. "urbanity", falsly, but without any hesitation, called as "belonging to consensus", or even to "the pillars". Just ignore me, if you feel bothered, but I felt urged to tell you, now that your supportee has passed with flagrant success. Congrats! (I never had any reason to disagree on RickinBaltimore getting an admin.)

Even the discussion you pointed me to contained far more "repression" on !votes then on the supports. To use one of Kudpung's pet words, the evenly "silly" up-votes are far less scrutinized than the !votes. I easily can agree to the process that some bureaucrats are weighing arguments, and of course, do so to their measure, but I strongly oppose to strategies applied to voters at the level of voting, which are easily recognized as "discouragement" of opposition. I do claim that "pile on" can happen, and does so(!), on both sides, but nowadays, imho, overwhelmingly happens on the "positive" side. The "accentuate the positive"-wave did not pass by without leaving partially deasastrous traces ("too much negativity"). In a heap of good things with bad spots, it is by far more instructive, and appropriate, imho, to point (even acerbatingly, if necessary) to these spots in the process of development. Celebrating the heap should be left to the anniversaries, and should not feed "silly" (it's me this time, take it as "unwarranted") requests to the contrasting reality, hindering the denomination of the sh*t in the gold.

I want to say thanks for both your and Kudpung's reply, I take them as acknowledgement to a certain degree, but while I took yours as a friendly illustration of the problem I wanted to address, I had to answer Kudpung on quite weakly reflected ("unsourced"?!) semantics and on a link leading to some -say- gag order, some formulations in which I consider questionable, and so doubt the justification of its standing as an "essay". It's my problem that I consider this as "inherent to some admins", and one of the last successful RfAs of a fast gun is evidence to me that !votes are taken perhaps too lightly. Luckily, I simply don't care that I might reach a noticeable "level of endangerment" for any carriere within Wikipedia, I don't plan any, while still considering it venerable.

I do not disagree that the RfA-process could be improved, and a dictum to finish: First class people hire first class people, second class hires fourth class, to avoid rivals. Regards, Purgy (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I've been hearing that maxim "If you hire A people, they'll hire A people. But if you hire B people, they'll hire C people" for a long time myself. I think Bill Gates said it, and I don't think he was the first. I am pleased that User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content is being picked up and cited as a "standard" text by other people, and also that we have the optional poll to vet candidates. There are a number of people I think should be admins and run for RfA right now, but the only one who I've successfully persuaded to stand is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jo-Jo Eumerus; there are also editors like Dr. Blofeld and Sagaciousphil who I think would make great admins but to be blunt they haven't got a chance in hell of passing due to past "baggage" and reputation. I don't have much to do with the WMF except I don't think Jimbo Wales is a particularly sociable person, and has used Wikipedia as a springboard for his own reputation. (Mind you, having written about Angus Montagu, 12th Duke of Manchester and John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol recently, he's hardly the first person to use past glories as a springboard to boost their own social standing).

What I particularly dislike is the scenario in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2, where I couldn't support, but was prepared to change my mind if I saw a suitable counter-argument. I saw a lot of comments along the lines of "support - Oshwah is cool, he's my best friend, he reverts vandalism brilliantly" which doesn't really tell me anything on whether he's going to be a responsible admin or not. As someone who's spent time at WP:FAC and WP:AIV, I can assure you the former is far more work and effort than the latter, so I don't take reverting vandalism as a particularly high indicator of skill (particularly when read in conjunction with List of hoaxes on Wikipedia). I don't oppose RfA candidates to be mean or cliquey, I just don't want the tools going to people who haven't got a good amount of trust and empathy towards the people they inflict the tools on. It was reasonably predictable I had to reverse a bad block of his not too longer after the RfA passed.

I wonder what Kudpung thinks about Oshwah getting the tools? He's been vocal about how RfA has declined in the past year, but that's one example where a user was made an admin, who probably wouldn't have made the grade 12 months ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think my neutral and then oppose comments on that RfA pretty much speak for themselves. It's important to note that in what was probably unprecedented in my long history of RfA, I changed not only my vote, which is very rare, but that I clearly mentioned that the change was influenced by the comments of some other very experienced users who had not actually voted 'oppose' but who left no doubt as to what was in their minds at the time of casting their neutral votes. I did not realise that the number of opposes would double by the time of closure. I don't regret him his promotion, but I think I expressed the correct grade of caution while already being aware at the time that under the pre-December reform the RfA wouldn't have had a chance of passing, but that another RfA some time in the future may have had a larger consesus for a pass.

That said, whatever the motivation was for the Dec 2015 reforms, I don't think they have served us particularly well. RfAs are now noticeably more verbose, some of the old issues with it are now actually intensified; and they certainly have not encouraged more candidates of the right calibre to come forward (if that was ever the purpose), which was nevertheless the purpose of the project I spearheaded at WP:RFA2011. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Small email

I have sent you an email -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)