User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

SineBot

I noticed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan last year that you suggested nominating SineBot for adminship. I’d be happy to co-nominate, with a UAA question and all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguist111 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Linguist111: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SineBot. Have at it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I'm an idiot. I did not at all realize when you suggested nominating Mr. Fuzzybottom for RfA "on Sunday"...exactly...what day Sunday was. :P GMG^talk 11:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah well, save it for next year. Mr. Fuzzybottom might be enjoying Easter lunch, don't wake sleeping tigers and all that.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Trump Street

Alex Shih (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Laura Barney Harding

Hello! Your submission of Laura Barney Harding at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I promoted ALT1b. But making such an assertion on the main page, you should really add a sentence about Harding to the Katharine Hepburn page. Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrei Rauta

He played for Romania U-19. He was a youth international, is eligible for a wikipedia article. (Rhinen)

@Rhinen: The article was deleted by full consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Răuță. You'll need to file a deletion review to challenge that decision. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems however not to be notable enough, my apologies (Rhinen)

Phil Lynott

Hi, saw you reverted someone who changed Lynott's cause of death in the lead from heroin overdose to pneumonia. It does actually say in the "death" section that he died of pneumonia, which is technically accurate. His death was certainly caused by his heroin abuse, but it wasn't an overdose as such. Wanted to talk to you here rather than just edit away. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't we sort this out in the GA review? If he hadn't taken the fatal heroin overdose on Christmas Eve 1985, he would have lived. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not impossible for the IB to give both the immediate and causational; cf Farrokh Bulsara, for example. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice it until now. It's a bit simplistic to say he died of a heroin overdose, I think. I've never actually seen anything that says he took an overdose that Christmas Eve. It seems more likely to have been (and is generally sourced as such) the final onset of terminal health issues caused by an accumulation of years of heroin and other substance abuse. The straw that broke the camel's back. I have sources that say he took ill a couple of days earlier and had spent the previous couple of days in bed, having visits from a doctor. The first source book I picked up actually says it wasn't an overdose (Byrne, "Renegade of Thin Lizzy"). Putterford basically says the same thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The "death" section of the article body covers the events in sufficient detail, so it may be worth just changing the relevant section of the infobox as mentioned above. Putterford's biography says, "All of the medican jargon simply meant that prolonged drug abuse had killed him." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Joshuaselig

I don't mean to be a negative person, but I feel as though as tougher ban should be in place. This editor seems to think that he doesn't half to listen to anyone, and has a consistent history of removing warnings from his talk page. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Money emoji: He's had no blocks until now, and the standard one for blatant and obvious 3RR is a reasonable place to start. If he doesn't communicate, and carries on exactly as before, the next one can be indefinite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I normally don't like being aggressive when it comes to blocks, its just that Joshuaselig seemed so opposed to any form of communication that it seemed like the account wasn't being run by a human. I didn't meant to come off as aggressive when it comes to blocks, sorry.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 23:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 00:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whpq (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

St. Nimmerleinstag

Gerda, daughter of Deuteronomy of Gath, you have been found guilty by the elders of the town of making a pointy edit, and so, as a blasphemer, you are to be discretionary sanctioned to death! Now, look! No one is to put discretionary sanctions on anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say "Infobox"!

Ritchie, what's that in English? It's a day that will never come. We could call it "the-day-the-great-RfC-is-settled". I don't expect that to arrive during my lifetime ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(watching) "When pigs fly", perhaps? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Typical English idioms would be "until the twelfth of never", "when Hell Freezes Over", "when Satan goes to work in a snowplough", "when Jimbo Wales writes an FA".... the choice is endless. In fact, we have an entire article full of them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

...and "adynaton" is clearly word of the day  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you, Ritchie, helped me to "St. Never's Day". Now seriously: our (carefully omitting attribute) arbs put a whole context under DS, while there is debate on how few articles? Is it even 10? Is anybody interested in the great RfC? Not me. It's enough for me not to be reverted when I add a not-that-naughty-word-again to an article I expanded. Yes, admitted, I began the year with a pointy edit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Can't wait for the RfC outcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Before any outcome, there has to be income. After the 2013 case, Ched began one, turned down (it's a red link there, admins can see what it was like). I asked several people over the years, turned down. Now someone (forgot the name) began, turned down. And about what anyway? - Sing a new song, stress on new ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

CoI Tags

Hey, here is a link to all of the pages on WP that use the COI tag. Please feel free to go through and remove them all. Cheers :) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(for those playing at home, we are talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Tomato Cars)

If I had time to copyedit all them, I would. Alternatively, I'll get Andrew Davidson to help. Don't you think you're over-reacting a bit, and that this whole thing about "omg paid editing" is a moral panic? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I really respect you as an admin, and I'm not sure where this is all coming from. Yes, I wish I hadn't posted this thread as it was petty and uncalled for, but GTC was very clearly a promotional article. In reviewing new pages I don't always have time to go through and make all the changes I wish I could, but I certainly don't think I did anything wrong. You reverted the deletion which I didn't dispute, but I think tagging from clean-up is only proper. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Where this comes from is I've got to the point where I don't actually trust RHaworth's ability to judge the CSD criteria correctly any more - I think he just looks at CAT:CSD and goes "bang", "bang", "bang", "bang" like a giant game of Whac-a-mole. This might have been okay in 2005 when anything turning up there probably was total junk, but that's no longer the case as we have more NPP reviewers and they aren't 100% perfect. Hey, no-one is. (This was mentioned on an AN earlier today and on his talk page a few days back). So things have got to the point that if I see one that I think is flat out wrong (as this was, as if it really was a G11 I'd have to rewrite the entire article from the ground up), then I'll just revert it and take responsibility for it. An AfD is reasonable, and having different opinions on the article is okay. The primary reason for moving the tags was because they were no longer needed - I'd cleaned up the article (as have you), and I certainly don't have any COI with the article (as I assume you don't either). We'll wait and see what the creator thinks - if it turns out he is a paid editor, well we'll got a BOGOF and will live and learn. If he isn't, that shows that we need to stop and think and get involved more in writing the encyclopedia, and less in demolishing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the explanation. I do apologize for being confrontational with you. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That's alright, we'll see how the AfD pans out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Laura Barney Harding

On 5 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Laura Barney Harding, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Laura Barney Harding once declared she was Katharine Hepburn's husband? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laura Barney Harding. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Laura Barney Harding), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

...not quite...

I think you're mixing up your order there a little bit on Dale Pierre Layman. A press release might be enough to avoid nominating for BLPPROD, but I think you're stretching it a little bit trying to say that PR Newswire is a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. I mean...I feel your pain, but I'm not even seeing so much as an official university bio page anywhere even in open web searches. GMG^talk

He does turn up in a book search with several academic hits (though some are for his own books). At least it's enough to clear speedy and BLP PROD. The PR Newswire hit was the first one I happen to find, and it is only citing something very factual - that he exists and that he's very qualified and a serious WP:PROF contender. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, he's probably in the neighborhood of PROF. It's actually pretty strange not to have...anything other than press releases for biographical information though. At any rate, I think it may have been a good one to let sit on a watchlist for a few days as a kindof "Hey fella, you obviously know a thing or two about this person. Mind helping us find some sources?" GMG^talk 19:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

He looks like he should clear PROF but I can't be definitely sure I could write a non-stub article about him. Hmmmm, maybe I'll stick it on the back burner for somebody else to worry about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

In that vein, I had considered whether this wouldn't be a good one to just unreview, and see if someone from NPP with maybe more access or creativity in looking for sources happens upon it. GMG^talk 10:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, possibly. Or I could just ask DGG whether he thinks he meets PROF or not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's easy to document the books on WorldCat, and that's what I use to prevent WP:BLPPROD when relevant; I do not consider PRnewswire a RS for bio. There are a few more books, but the only significant one is Biology Demystified. ("Running..." is just his phd thesis,which has never been cited; he has no research publications. I added the thesis and the ref to the article.) . The information in the two press releases is absurd hyperbola. The only possible WP:PROF criterion is the subsection of criterion 4, "Tor example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." One of his book is in 1200 libraries. But it is not a college textbook, but a very elementary presentation--the publisher's blurb found in the Worldcat reference, makes it plain that it is deliberately written to be something easier than a textbook. And I don't think this single book would meet WP:AUTHOR either. I haven't looked for reviews , though. This is an attempt at a promotional bio presumably motivated by a forthcoming publication. A remarkably unsophisticated attempt, to judge by the originally submitted text. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I put this into google translate set it to Wikipedia, and it said Take the article to AfD and see if he's notable or not. GMG^talk 15:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't a clue if he's notable or not - hopefully the matter will be settled in the AfD soon enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't see that DGG had taken it to AfD just a few hours ago. GMG^talk 15:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for text of a deleted page

Hello, you were on the list of people who offered to provide copies of deleted pages and i was wondering if I could have a copy of the page “List of magicians in fantasy” , I really like to know different magicians and read about thwm, thank you. ApolloOfAffaron (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@ApolloOfAffaron: You'll need to enable email access. Go to "Preferences" and check the box marked "Allow other users to email me". Then I can send you the deleted text. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks ApolloOfAffaron (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, text emailed. Three things; 1) This is the raw wikitext with template code and everything 2) The text includes the history at the bottom, which is necessary for attribution purposes 3) Don't post it back on Wikipedia; it'll just get deleted per WP:G4 - "Material already deleted via a deletion discussion". For future reference, Deletionpedia sometimes has an archive of a deleted page, which is easier to get hold of. There also seems to be a mirror archive here of the article before it was deleted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Ritchie🙏🏻😻 ApolloOfAffaron (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Angela and Jennifer Chun page

Hi- I am an editor for Angela and Jennifer Chun's Wikipedia page. I work directly for Angela and Jennifer Chun as their branding manager. I am writing to inquire about the revisions you made on the page. You cited "copyright violation" as the reason for those revisions, but I'm not sure if I understand what part of my edit constitutes as copyright violation as I either paraphrased or directly copied and pasted from the aforementioned articles, and cited sources. So could you please tell me where in the edit was not appropriate? I have looked at the A7 guide for reference. Please respond as soon as you can. Thank you in advance and I hope you have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjeon8 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yjeon8: Have a read of User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios. This should hopefully explain the rather odd and esoteric way that copyrights work on Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yjeon8: And also please read WP:COI - as their branding manager you have a clear "conflict of interest" and should not be creating or editing their article. PamD 19:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Stefán Kristjánsson

Hello. Regarding this edit, the section was discussed at User talk:The Rambling Man#Stefán Kristjánsson. Could you revert your edit? Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: This was in response to a report on WP:ERRORS. I can revert if there is consensus, but from my view, "Notable" is a word to watch. @The Rambling Man:, any other views? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

See this discussion at WP:CHESS. TRM is arguing that there should be a clearly defined set of inclusion criteria for what makes a game "notable", while some of us feel that providing an RS that the game has been called notable is sufficient. We actually used to call them "Illustrative games" but that proved problematic as well.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No, none of the sources call the Fischer games "notable", they have quite exotic and emotive floral descriptions about the games, and are usually the opinion of a single writer. Embedded lists like this should have defined inclusion criteria, and if you're suggesting that in Fischer's case (or indeed Stefán's case) that it's because someone has said the games are "notable", then I'd like to see the evidence of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

And in fact, the original problem has been nicely and appropriately solved by @Hrodvarsson:, who added an inclusion note thus: The following games are examples of Stefán defeating players with an Elo rating of over 2600. That's perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The report at WP:ERRORS was listed before the discussion on TRM's talk page. I thought that the discussion there resolved the problem TRM mentioned at ERRORS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

George Town, Penang

Hey @Ritchie333:. Sorry but I do need some help on this article again and I am wondering if you could help me out. This article is now listed for GA reassessment due to a couple of issues, such as basic and unprofessional prose, and several lists and tables that aren't entirely appropriate for a main article (and should be moved to appropriate sub-articles). However, I am quite sure this article already meets the criteria for GA.

Could you kindly help out on this? Any form of assistance on this is highly appreciated. Thanks. Vnonymous (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If I get a chance over the next few days, I can go through and copyedit the article if that will help. In the meantime, I think others have addressed the issue that SounderBruce needs to specify exactly what the problems are, and what needs done in order to make it meet the GA criteria in his view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you so much :). It does baffle me what exactly are the problems he was referring to. Vnonymous (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Tsamma juice

On 9 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tsamma juice, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tsamma juice is named after the mother of all melons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tsamma juice. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tsamma juice), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice melons!

Discussion at Draft_talk:Global_Value_Investment_Corp.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft_talk:Global_Value_Investment_Corp.. Waddie96 (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said at my essay, copyright violations "are particularly bitey as they are one of the few ways an administrator can instantly and unilaterally delete a page created in good faith, and be within their rights to refuse to restore it." I've dropped a note on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Would you please let me know the required changes i need to make to have Global Value Investment Corp. Page up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakash.goath (talk • contribs) 07:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The best place to start is Wikipedia:Your first article, which gives you plenty of advice and pointers of what to expect. As I said in my essay, don't copy and paste from other websites, but always write everything in your own words. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Election manifestos in Malaysian general election, 2018

Please recover this page. The reason why I created this article is because the original content is too long, and it is not relevant to the general election. However, you deleted it because of duplicate content. If you look at the original page now you will find that there is no repetition at all, please recover it. angys (Talk Talk) 11:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@*angys*: There's a secondary issue that if you include full manifesto statements, they might fall foul of our copyright policies, which would make it difficult (at least in my view) to create something that didn't duplicate the general article. I've moved it to draftspace as Draft:Election manifestos in Malaysian general election, 2018 so you can carry on working on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnster Space Chat

Johnster Space Chat is just a google doc that i made, its not a company, please revive and let me edit the page Johnster Space Chat, all i wanted was to show people my google doc that i am developing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnster222 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Johnster222: I think you're in the wrong place. If you're looking to host development work, GitHub is the place to go - for example, https://github.com/Ritchie333/nagi Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

ecase

Hey Ritchie!

I saw your comment on ecase. I tagged it G11 for two reasons: It's simply a description of software and an infobox with a link to the software. Previously, it was also deleted (5 days ago: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (deleted by JamesBWatson)) as well. Looking at the users contributions, they have one other draft that's been filled with promotional material. I placed the COI notice on their talk page as I suspect they are connected. -- Dane ^talk 16:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:G11 is for articles that "would need to be fundamentally rewritten". That tends to imply they are pages and pages of waffle with more puffery than Sean "Puffy" Combs wearing a puffer jacket while eating a big bowl of Sugar Puffs and armed with a puffer machine. A single sentence can't really be "fundamentally rewritten"; maybe shuffle a few words around, but that's it. For Draft:ecase to count as G11, I would expect to see something like "ecase is a revolutionary new way of dealing with case management in a simple and easy manner. The software has been extensively developed with care and detail to give the best possible results. We have won many development awards, including the Barnstar of Inspired Brilliance for the exclusive port to the DEC PDP-11, and .... etc etc etc" - anyway, you get the idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The AWB block

Okay, so I've actually looked at the timeframe for the L293D thing. I forgot about the time change and so I thought that they had continued editing after receiving the warning from Mandruss here, however, their last edit was five minutes before that. So, my original question still stands - why would you block them for three hours when they hadn't actually yet responded to a query as to their editing habits? I think the conversation by now has spread to other directions on their talk page, which is why I'm posting here, but if you think it should be part of that larger conversation I have no issue with you moving it there. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've never used AWB. However I'm sure there are guidelines that say you are responsible for all edits with it as if you had done them manually. I didn't want to block them indef because that's just crazy and might make them retire, so I put the smallest block in (can you block for less than three hours?), because by that time the AWB script would have finished and they understood what was going on.

As for why I blocked them, they were making a large amount of disruptive edits over multiple high-traffic articles at that time. That's what blocks are for, to prevent damage and disruption. It's nothing personal, it's not designed as punishment or to humiliate him, and I did apologise while I was doing it and said I would unblock as soon as I got an explanation. I don't know what more I could have done. And L293D is back up and editing and said "it's a fair cop". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

From personal experience Ritchie333 I can tell you that the shortest block time is one second. I don't recall why I was blocked for a second on 18 May 2013, but that's neither here nor there. Eric Corbett 19:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess now you know! As I'm sure you'd guess this also works on AWB-using bots like mine (post on the talk page and the process will be stopped until it's seen). Primefac (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ACPERM discussions

And after he removes a bunch of proper speedies he will be topic banned from deletion process. [1] Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: The problem is, James has made some legitimate points but has made them in such an aggressive manner with overblown ad hominem rhetoric that nobody is listening. However, consider this. User:Ritchie333/CSD log is a redlink; indeed, I believe I have never used Twinkle to put a CSD tag on any article (or at least the last time was so long ago I've forgotten) and I don't think I've ever put more than about 30 CSD tags on all namespaces combined. Yet, I said "I want to work at CSD" on my RfA and nobody batted an eyelid. I suspect this is probably because I've got an anti-CSD log instead. Anyway, saying "there are too many bad CSD A7 tags" without any examples won't convince anybody who thinks otherwise (especially if you refer to them as "deletionist scum"), but "there are too many bad CSD A7 tags - I've declined and improved [a], [b] and [c] and nominated [x] for DYK in just the last week!" at least gives people something to back your argument up with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the big reasons I CSD Drafts and userspace is to find and promote usable content. User:Legacypac#Other_Interesting_things Got a DYK out of one recently. Legacypac (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of artists turning up at CAT:CSD at the moment. I wonder why? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Adell

Hi Kevin,

Can you advise concerning why this page was removed in reference to Kevin Adell, and whether or not there is anything that we would need to do to have it restored? Your advice is greatly appreciated!

Gantman1 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)gantman1

@Gantman1: The article was deleted in a debate : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Adell. Essentially, the strongest arguments were from those requesting deletion on the grounds that they couldn't find sufficient source material to improve the article, and also that where biographies of living people are concerned, it is better to err on the side of caution and privacy. I'm surprised nobody suggested a compromise to convert the article to a redirect to one of the organisations he's been involved with, but since nobody did, I can only close the discussion with the arguments that have been offered. That said, I have restored the deleted article to User:Gantman1/Kevin Adell so you can look at it and see if you can offer any further thoughts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi Ritchie333, I see you have moved the Kevin Adell article, that had a clear consensus for delete, should have been deleted. Now I find it had been moved from Afd into a user sandbox. Why has it been kept and why is Afd process and consensus being subverted? scope_creep (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: See above. I am happy to move any deleted article that is not vandalism (G3), libel (G10) or a copyright violation (G12) to userspace to somebody can avoid losing all their work. I call it "being nice" :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That is very reasonable, I guess. Apologies if the tone was a bit harsh. Last night I was a bit tired and slightly broken, almost like the lyrics in the James Brown song, Like it is, Like it Was (The Blues) ;8:) scope_creep (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I've been there and done that. What I find is after I've shot both barrels at someone, is to find an article and do a bit of work on it, making sure the last edits I do before going to do something else are in mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie, thank your for allowing me to review the recommended changes to the site. If we are able to make the changes according to the suggestions of the editors, is there a chance that it can be accepted again? Please advise.

Gantman1 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)gantman1

If you move it back into mainspace, it will probably be deleted again immediately (see WP:G4 for an explanation). The other alternative is to put {{subst:AFC draft}} at the top of the page, which will queue it up for an independent draft review. If that is accepted, then that's the route back into mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Rivers of Nihil

Hi Ritchie333,

It looks like you deleted a page for Rivers of Nihil, a metal band, in 2016. I just made a new page for them. It's thoroughly vetted and sourced, and the band now has enough clout to deserve a page. My apologies for not seeing that you'd deleted their page earlier until I'd already created my new page. When I searched for them initially I was redirected to the Metal Blade Records page. Upon searching again I found the deleted page, but by then I'd already created my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorQuingus (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@EmperorQuingus: There is no specific policy against recreating an article that has been deleted - in some circumstances it may qualify for immediate deletion, but not all. In this case, Rivers Of Nihil now have a chart hit, and so they meet the notability critieria for musicians, so an article for them is now appropriate. The classic example I usually give is Ed Sheeran, whose article was speedy deleted back in 2006 when he was just starting out, but that was overturned some years later when he starting having hits, and nowadays he's probably the most well-known musician in Britain. (Also consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Zuckerberg). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of ...And Then There Were Three...

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ...And Then There Were Three... 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Jzsj/sandbox

Jzsj has asked for a deletion review of User:Jzsj/sandbox. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 00:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

As an FYI, I closed this and sent him the contents as an email. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page similar to a deleted one but with resolved issues

Hey Ritchie, since list of magicians in fantasy was primarily deleted because it could not contain all magicians as there are millions of works of fantasy fiction, I was windering if it’s allowed to make a similar page, “list of magicians in mythology,folklore and legends” this page is fairly limited to a number of well known magic users from mythology/folklore/legends and won’t include works of modern famtasy fiction/tv/comics etc. so it will resolve the issue and i was wondering if I make this page will it get deleted? ApolloOfAffaron (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited City Thameslink railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snow Hill Tunnel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Serenade (poems)

Drmies Not really part of MOS:PLOT at all, that doesn't cover things like claiming stuff is lumped into a tetralogy. Plus it's particularly anomalous that it's the only unreferenced para in the Content section. That's why it was tagged. But life's too short. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Snooker

There’s a similar edit war taking place at 2019 World Snooker Championship, an article that isn’t even needed yet. I would redirect it to the main World Snooker Championship article if I didn’t think I would be reverted in two seconds. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on stopping the warring at 2018 World Snooker Championship. I have just noticed that the same war has spilled over to the 2019 tournament also. Page protection has been requested for both. As you were involved with one I thought you would like to know about the other. Andygray110 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, I've full protected that. Any more edit-warring out of the main offenders today, and there will be blocks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

G5

I'd take your edit summary hint and chase the possible G5 but the previous versions of Wolf and Shepherd at Wolf & Shepherd have just one incoming link which offers no indication of authorship. If there's any evidence it's been well hidden behind the wall of deletion. Cabayi (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Curious. I don't think it's a speedy (don't ask me about shoes though, what's wrong with Clark's "sensible shoes for sensible feet"?) but it did have a distinct whiff of paid editing around it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Ritchie333,

I have seen the messages and given my comments to it, thank you for the reminder. Gryffindor (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: Okay, I've got no dog in this fight and I've no idea who's right and who's wrong, but there seems to be consensus that you are moving things when discussion is preferred once too often. I would recommend going for the easy option and handing in your tools at WP:BN; you haven't used the admin bit in a long time so I don't think you're going to miss much without it. There seems to be a real risk at the moment of you being dragged off to Arbcom so your admin rights are forcibly removed - that sounds like cracking a sledgehammer with a nut, would create excessive rancour, and would probably make you fed up and disillusioned of the whole place. I'd seriously consider taking the easy option out of this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and I will take your advice. Not that this is the easy way out, but I would like to cease the uproar for all parties involved. I have handed in my resignation. Gryffindor (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think you've made a sensible decision. FWIW I have an unwritten recall criteria, where if two or more people on a private list (who are all experienced admins that I trust) asked me to resign the bit, I would. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a sensible tool as well. It's fine, I think obviously it was not a fit anymore for both sides and I had to extract myself from this increasingly negative energy. I think I will continue contributing on a smaller scale and focus on the things I enjoy editing and writing since I do believe in the merits of this project, but leave the administrative issues and edit disagreements to others. Good luck to you and all the best. Gryffindor (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm..

Doesn't the result of this edit (which is the first edit of the contributor), look too good?! Any deleted versions or sort of that.....?~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No, this is the first iteration of this page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Ritchie, thank you for doing admin work at DYK, it's very much appreciated. I think it's better if I say this (rather than Yoninah or BlueMoonset, since they are more likely to get irritated about this). Prep builders (usually Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah) often spend hours assembling and balancing hook sets as according to the established guidelines. It's great that you are pulling unsatisfactory hooks (and making a note at the nomination page; some admins doesn't do that and the hook can get stuck in limbo, as mentioned previously by Cwmhiraeth).

If I may suggest, when pulling hooks and promoting the rest of the set to the queue at the same time, promote the entire set first, and then pull the hook while making a note at WT:DYK, as it will allow other editor(s) to immediately find out which hook has been pulled and address the issue in a timely manner. Also, it's always better to replace the pulled hook with blank bullet points and blank {{DYKmake}} instead of removing them entirely, so that it will be easier to replace these hooks with similar hook to maintain the original format as assembled by the prep builder. Finally, don't forget to add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} at the top of the page when you are finished, otherwise the bot will not move the set to the Main Page. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: That all makes sense; I don't know how other people work, but when I've promoted prep to queue, I've opened every nomination in a separate tab, done a basic check that the hook is sourced and verifiable and that there are no tags or other issues, and close that tab if it's okay. Whatever is left should be pulled. I'm a bit alarmed about how many hooks I've pulled already after just a few promotions, but I guess at the rate the prep-builders run at, I'm not too bothered about 100% perfection from them. Plus the pulled hooks by and large haven't been promoted by the regulars anyhow, so they're more likely for problems to trip up. I saw instances of Template:DYKbotdo and wondered what it did (aside from give the queue builder credit) and just forgot to do it when moving preps to queue today.

Anyway, cheers for all the head's up. To be honest, I'd rather get Yoninah through RfA so she can do all this! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie, glad to see you taking on the prep to queue promotions. It's very nice having several queues filled for the first time in too long, rather than just one at a time. Having been pinged (and not overprone, I hope, to irritation), what I'd like to suggest is that if, when you're about to promote a prep set to queue and you find one or more problematic hooks, remove them from the prep and move in replacement hooks and their DYKmakes/noms from a subsequent prep, vet them, and once you have a set of eight hooks/noms that pass muster, promote the prep to queue. The whole idea behind a set in queue is that it is ready, at that moment, to be promoted to the main page, which an incomplete queue set is not; further, only admins can fill the blank, and they aren't always around. (It is always helpful to leave eight entries in any prep you raid for replacements: a "* ... that ..." line in the Hooks section makes it obvious that the set is incomplete, and adding a standard unfilled DYKmake template in the Credits section is also helpful, though less necessary, since anyone adding a new hook should also be adding the credits at the same time.) Feel free to ping me at any time if you have questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I just found a message on my talk page about {{Template:Did you know nominations/Parvulastra vivipara}}, reminding me to complete the nomination procedure, so I returned the hook to March 9th where it belonged. This is what you should have done when you removed the hook from a prep set or queue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) +1 to getting Yoninah a mop; but (and I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here...) we really really need to unbundle the right to edit protected pages. Everyone in this thread who doesn't have a mop needs that tool at least. Vanamonde (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Something something...I'm a broken record also...but I still think it's too easy to copy/paste the computer magic for template protection, call it main page protection, protect anything to do with the main page with it instead of full, and then grant it to the few regulars who need it. No unbundling required. All the computer magic already exists, we just need a second version of template protection. GMG^talk 12:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean yeah, we could just downgrade everything main page related to template protection. I'm not sure if the computer magic exists to apply template protection as a cascading protection though. I might be wrong. Vanamonde (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? Oh I see what you're saying. I was confusing cascading protection in template space, with template protection in project space. So we would actually need an alternate form of cascading protection that applies an alternative form of template protection, rather than automatic full protection. Boy is that confusing. GMG^talk 13:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Cascading protection can only be applied when the parent page of the group is fully protected. To get cascading prot to be allowed for template-prot pages (or even 30/500 or semi), would require a phab: feature request. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Only those who can protect - as far as I know - can edit cascade protected pages so even for a granted edit fully protected user right you'd need a phab: I think. May be better to make the queues only fully/template protected but not the main page. Galobtter (pingó mió)

We used to have (basically 11 years ago) semi-protected cascading but it was disabled because it allowed basically anyone to semi-protect (actually, the way it worked, to fully protect pages). I'm not sure if there'll be support for allowing template-editors to template-protect anything. Edit fully protected seems better than making it a template-editor thing - allowing template editors to edit the mainpage, even if it isn't actually too much more of a problem than being allowed to edit, say, Template:Infobox may increase standards for the right. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No no, I meant to have a separate level of protection all together, Main Page Protection, which would only cover the main page and related pages, and could be given out to the...I dunno...20 or 30 some odd people who are highly involved there but who are non admins. For the vast majority of the community, it would be indistinguishable from full protection, except for those few dozen people. Just like template protection is indistinguishable from full protection for all but the 166 people who have the right. It would be like template protection, but a separate protection level all together. Admins would still have to apply Main Page Protection to pages, but those with the right could edit through it. GMG^talk 17:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You'd need a phab: ticket for that too; which also means that you'd need to demonstrate a clear need for the new feature. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Simon R. Taylor

Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simon_R._Taylor - it actually should have been speedy deleted from day one - the BLP himself admits on the deletion page that he is not notable and the only source (aside from his own website) can't be verified. I see no need to prolong it - an editor just listed it with a couple of projects for some reason. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Hmmm. I have lobbed my 2c into the debate, he doesn't meet our notability criteria and so I expect a "delete" consensus at the end of that. As for an appropriate criteria, I can't use G11 (it's fairly neutrally written), A7 (there's one news source), G10 (it's not libellious, just dry and factual or G12 (doesn't look like a copyvio). I think Mr Taylor is happy to let the debate run towards consensus, there doesn't look anything particularly distressing or harmful in there, compared to, say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Goldberg (which needed to be oversighted). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 World Snooker Championship

Hope you don't mind, I removed the protection. Discussion is going well and consensus is forming and there's a live qualifying event under way. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible move - an upsurge of editors will drown out the edit-warring muppets. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for editing a deleted page: TravelTriangle

Hi Ritchie

I wanted to write an article on a topic whose page you have deleted in the past. TravelTriangle is one of the travel companies, operating in the Indian market and it would be great to have its page on wikipedia, much like its competitors such as MakeMyTrip, Thrillophilia, etc. I understand that the page must not be a source of advertisement, and I would love to seek your help in ensuring a neutral & factual description of the travel company.

This page will serve as a one-stop platform for the prospective travelers to learn more about the company, thereby helping them take an unbiased decision about traveling/not traveling with the company. It will also help the job seekers in deciding whether or not to join the company.

Do let me know if this is possible. Also, it would be great if you could guide me in taking this forward.

Thanks in advance

Taurlooks (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Taurlooks: The article has been deleted several times, most recently via a full community discussion in 2016. I can put the old article into userspace if you would like, but I'd probably recommend writing it again. The only comparable article I can recall working on myself is Direct Ferries who I used when planning a few roadtrips around Ireland some years back. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ritchie

Thanks for responding. Just wanted to know if you would be able to vet the new article that I upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurlooks (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The best option is to run the Article wizard, and select the option to create an article as a draft. You can work on this without the threat of deletion; when you think the draft would be suitable for mainspace, there is a "review" option you can click on. An independent reviewer will check the draft, and if suitable, it will be moved and become a full article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to stop by and personally thank you for the time you took to review the Theory of a Deadman discography. It was promoted to FL today and your vote helped. So, thank you. (And don't worry. I haven't forgotten about you. I'll be trying to find those refs throughout the weekend. Not having too much luck so far, though. :-( ) — Miss Sarita 06:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)