User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 96

Archive 90

←

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

→

Archive 100

Jeremy of Estonia

Actually, I missed a trick with this—should've been something from The Queen of Spain's Beard  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What - have the Inclusionists and Deletionists made sudden peace with each other at a mountain-pass rendez-vous, then forged a clandestine alliance with Jimbo, thus leaving us without friends on ANI, unless by chance we make an immediate pact with Commons?

..... Yes! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

More horse, Sanger! ——SerialNumber54129 19:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Ringways, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kingston, Great West Road and Barnet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Thurrock services

On 22 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thurrock services, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thurrock services was built on top of a rubbish dump? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thurrock services. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thurrock services), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the movie "Lantouri"

Hello Ritchie333, I'm trying to edit the Award and Nomination of the movie "Lantouri", but there is a user "Lugnuts" who created this article and he constantly reverts my edits. We talked with him/her and I understood what's his/her concern. I'm only writing important Awards and Nominations that are important to the movie, but this user (Lugnuts) reverts me over and over and by every revert he changes his decision about which one of rewards an nominations are important to the movie! We are here to improve an article not to destroy it. By every revert I should go back and copy all information I wrote previously, which were reverted by him, and put them with new edits together and send them. And this user again reverts what I sent previously. I'm just so confused I can't get it what is important about this section for this user. Could you please help? What should I do? Thank you. Best, Sc wikinevis (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sc wikinevis: I've had a look. I don't understand why Lugnuts is calling these "non-notable awards" as they appear to be sourced and verifiable. I would recommend starting a discussion on the talk page (ie: Talk:Lantouri) explaining why you think the awards are useful / important to put in the article, then if nobody else replies or disagrees, you can assume that it would make sense to put them in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades awards and/or film festivals without their own article are deemed not to be notable ("Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability"). This has been a long-standing consensus formed by the Film Project some years ago. "sourced and verifiable" as you say, above, does not equal notable. I have communicated this to the user concerned on their talkpage, which they blanked, and in response to a direct question they raised on my talkpage. I can only assume they have either not read this, or have chosen to ignore it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello again Ritchie333 and thank you so much for helping. To: Lugnuts! I just want to remind you of this fact that you didn't communicate with me at first at all. You were reverting my posts over and over and there is a history of your reverting. I, talked to you and wrote you that Talk-ing is a good thing to do before reverting!! Especially when you are an experienced user! Hope you remember it!? I've read what you posted to my Talk page and I didn't ignore you or your posts; however, you were doing this exactly by reverting my post without even talking first. And you didn't stop it even after we talked. I talked to you after your multiple reverting; however, I could easily report you depend on what you were doing! But I decided to Talk! It's just a reminder! Now, what you are doing is not logical. I understood what your concern is. I read what you posted me. It is my Talk page and if I want it to be empty, I do this. It is my way being organized this way and I don’t care if my User Page is not beautiful. What is important to me is editing and I don’t find it important to write what is important to me there as an editor or in some way do show off about every edit I did. Also, I’m not experience as you all are. I shouldn’t explain myself here, but I did it out of respect to the host of the page. Thanks to how Wikipedia is built and written, the history is there as a resource and one can go read everything and if they want to find something especial, it is easy. The problem here is not if my Talk page is empty or not right now!! And by this answer you made yourself even more unclear. Also, it seems that Ritchie333 read everything depending on what he/she wrote here! The problem here is that there is no logic behind your reverting action. You change your decision by every revert you do and by every time I write something. Even when the sources are reliable and clear, and when rewards and nominations are important, you revert again and again instead of editing that specific thing that you believe could be problematic if they stay in that article! You even don't try at least to take off what "you think" it is inappropriate information and/or if it is not reliable from "your point of view"!! And that's exactly why, at all, what you do it is no clear. So, I'm here to seek help from someone else, instead of reporting your multiple reverts and because when talking to you, well, there is no answer from you!! I'm asking you here, specifically, how you decided and depend on what logical thinking that, for example: "16th !f Istanbul Independent Film Festival, Best Film Award" or "Braunschweig International Film Festival in Germany, Black Lion Award"!! in one edit should stay there in article and in other attempt you decide to revert them and make them disappear from list totally?! You just delete what you previously decided to let it be there in article!! If your decisions are not clear to you, how they can be clear to other people?!? Do you aware of this fact? All the sources I put there are reliable sources and every Award and Nomination is important to the movie. Now, if you believe the sources are not reliable, you can easily find a good source for it. You can't just revert everything (all of them) over and over! By every attempt you destroy the article and my edit! I'm here to improve an article out of my interest and because I care about this universe. I do this out of hubby, and I have respect for what I do. I believe you also here only because of these reasons?! If yes, please, don’t just revert! Instead, do edit. I'm assuming that you know this fact that even official websites of events sometimes don't keep forever the information they submitted about an very unique important event of a movie or TV series in their website that happened long long.. time ago!? So, in these cases we as an editor, have to find other reliable sources. It’s just tiring process what you do when you revert, and I have to re-edit. And by the way, your action doesn’t help Wikipedia. Instead, you make users like me, with less experience compared to some of you, go away and don’t bother anymore about false information that are submitted in this virtual universe. I'm waiting for your answer here. Please, tell me why you are doing this? And how this problem can be solved?!? I don’t want my edits get reverted again about this article. Ritchie333: Best and again thank you for your help. Sc wikinevis (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

TL/DR. Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades. If you still disagree with the manual-of-style for films, then please raise your concern at the Film Project. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Lugnuts I asked you a simple question. I appreciate it if you please answer the question was asked. You sent me the link I've read and understood. It is clear what and why I'm editing this way. But it is not clear why you are reverting my editing. I is you, that seems, are not following manual-of-style for films. You only revert and by every revert you are changing your previous decision! Please answer this simple question I asked and please be specific about it. Thank you. Sc wikinevis (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm removing vast swathes of awards you are adding per the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades. Awards and/or film festivals without their own article are deemed not to be notable ("Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability"). As most of what you are adding is not-notable (IE the film festival and/or award is a red link), I've removed it. Per the manual of style. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Lugnuts You didn't answer the simple questions I asked. Why you change what you have decided to leave there to be previously in the article? And why in your next reverting you destroy what you have decided that are appropriate to be there previously as a resource or an award or a nomination?!? It is not understandable why you are doing this. And what you do is tiring for the other person who edit the article. I wrote above but you didn't make attention on what I wrote. I put here again what I wrote above: "you know this fact that even official websites of events sometimes don't keep forever the information they submitted about a very unique important event of a movie or TV series in their website that happened long long time ago; therefore, in these cases we as an editor, have to find other reliable sources." Why you just don't edit what you believe are not appropriate; instead, you revert them over and over??? An by the way, you are not even sure and clear about sources when you are reverting! You can't decide which one is appropriate!! It is not clear which source you believe are reliable and which one is not!!! But, I know that what I write and all the sources are reliable sources and I understood the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades you sent. Please answer these simple questions I asked so I can understand YOUR action and why YOU are not clear about what you are doing. I know you created the article, but if you don't have the answer of my simple questions, if you don't know why you are doing this, if you can't decide, then please, don't revert my edits anymore. Let's other professional users that thousands of them are online decide about my edits and if they should be reverted or not. So, I'm waiting for your answer to those questions I asked please. Sc wikinevis (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sc wikinevis:, Hi, I'm stalking this user's page, and will give an opinion with ignorance of the concern. I think it better to centralise the discussion at the talk page, as a point of reference for now or later. Regards, cygnis insignis 17:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The editor continues to add content, despite the MOS for films saying otherwise. I've started a discussion at the Film Project. Richie have you had time to look at the MOS for films and understand why these awards are indeed non-notable? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

cygnis insignis: Thank you. It seems that this user is again reverting my edits! I'm just tired. He doesn't give others to improve the article. I don't understand why he is so obsessive about this article. Only because he created it!? I read the Manual he/she sent me. I'm doing my best to improve it. It seems he himself doesn't know why he is reverting and he doesn't let it be there so that others decide if it should be reverted. He doesn't let it be even for 24 hours there so other can decide or I could have a chance come back and see what else I have to edit or improve. I don't get the logic behind this user's decision and what exactly is important to him/her. He/She only keep saying Manual of Style!

Lugnuts:I asked you specific questions here, but you didn't answer! I read the Manual of Style you are talking about. It seems that you don't know what you need exactly and you only know reverting. There is a history of your reverts, and by every revert you change your decision about whatever awards and nominations you previously decided to let it be in article. The list of released dates and places is not all of the dates and places. I only chose the important ones and important events. I asked you specifically please do not revet this article anymore and let other professionals decide if it should be reverted or not. You don't give anyone to improve the article once you have created. Only creating thousands of pages and putting in these pages one two words doesn't help the wikipedia and articles. You should improve them or let other people do this and wait for a while and see what is going on.My edits not harmful to the article that you decide to revert them in a blank! All the Events are important and if there is no page about that specific event in wikipedia we should create it or have to find a reliable source. We don't have to delete the fact that they exist or happened. Why you reverted ALL OF my edits? Why you didn't just improve it instead? Please let other professionals decided. I'm going to improve it. Please don't revert it anymore. You don't let me or others to improve it. Why it bothers you so much? It seems you are obsessive about it. It is not good. Let it be for a while so that other users and I can improve it and let other professionals decide. PLEASE!Sc wikinevis (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Lugnuts, cygnis insignis, Ritchie333: I just want to bring your attention to Krzysztof Kieślowski and his movies like Camera Buff and The Scar (1976 film) and Personnel (film). Please take your time to look at these articles and you understand why I believe Lugnuts doesn't know what exactly He/She wants and that it is not clear to the user why he/she keeps reverting and talking about MOS for films. When it is not clear to him/her, how other people can understand this editor or user? I've also tried to improve the other movie of this director Reza Dormishian. Here you can see the article I'm Not Angry! I'm still going back to improve it. After my edits this user Rodw checked whatever I did and it seems good to him and he only corrected some parts and by the way he is pretty much experienced. It is happening only with this user: Lugnuts and to Lantouri movie, only because this user created the page he doesn't let other to improve it. To Lugnuts: I saw your message on my Talk. I just decided to write your answer here so that other people can help us.Sc wikinevis (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Lugnuts, cygnis insignis, Ritchie333: By the way I followed 1) Release 2)Release dates 3) Example when I was editing the Release section of the movie. And by the way Lugnuts just deleted the example! You can see it in the history of edit of that page!Regards Sc wikinevis (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sc wikinevis: Hi again, as suggested, centralising the discussion allows those interested to give a view, there are probably aspects that others haven't considered. This works out for the best in the long run and allows for it to be referenced in the future. Regards, cygnis insignis 16:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the Film Project. Maybe you could reply with a succinct response, instead of the wall of text you keep posting. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan Hello! Please look at all we communicated and then decide if I didn't communicate. I communicated with this user and he was the person who was ignoring me and instead was reverting my edits. He is not clear to himself/herself. I wrote everything about what I did, please read it carefully and let me know of your decision. I mentioned you here so you can read and be aware of what happened. And by the way as I mentioned before, it doesn't matter if my Talk is blank or not here the problem is something else and what is important that I read the Mnual of Style this user talking about. He just doesn't give other to improve and keeps reverting. Regards Sc wikinevis (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, cygnis insignis Hello again! This user even changes the Manual of Style he is talking about over and over! The user started a a discussion in which he/she seems to change what exactly happened there, too! As the user was doing here! Please see the history of this page that mentioned as an example in some parts of manual of style he is talking about: 1) Release 2) Release dates 3) Example. The user deleted the example from the content of this page from Release section of Example. I'm confused! He was not clear about what he is reverting, and know he is changing the manual! In general, I just want to know who is responsible in cases like this in Wikipedia? Who is this person? Is this user allowed to do all what he is doing and change whatever he wants to change? I't just doesn't seem right! How then users can be sure about what is going on here!? Best regards, Sc wikinevis (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft

Hi Ritchie! I'm ready and found the draft, but I want to make sure I put my co-sponsorship in the right place. Can you email me? Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

OK. That was ridiculously easy to set up. Sorry for being such a worry wort! I just want to do everything right! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please reverse my deleted page 🙏🏻 The Artist concerned in my page is about to enter into the BiggBoss show

Please reverse the deletion sir 🙏🏻🙏🏻 Doraxxx23 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy (choreographer). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doraxxx23: as this article was soft deleted, I have restored it per request. See Sandy (choreographer). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of "Josh Jauncey" article

Hello, you deleted this page because it had been discussed 3 years ago and deleted but I explained on the talk page why it was now relevant, it didn't seem you read it.

Thank you Khonda8 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Khonda8: On the contrary, I did read it and concluded that the version of the article that was deleted (which administrators can see) and deleted as part of a debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Jauncey was similar enough to the current article that consensus from the original debate still held. Indeed, the original version said "Josh Jauncey (born February 10, 1993) is a British born lightweight kickboxer now living in Canada. He won an Amateur World Title and made the switch to professional kickboxing in 2011. He is fighting out of WKX Gym Surrey, British Columbia, Canada and Team Souwer Den Bosch, Netherlands." (plus five more paragraphs), while the the current version merely said "Josh Jauncey (born February 10, 1993) is a Canadian kickboxer who competes in the Lightweight division. He fought for the Glory title." I don't understand where the additional (and sourced) claim to notability comes from (what does "fought for the Glory title" mean?), which would probably have been enough to stop deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The talk page you linked doesn"t include the infos I added last, I sourced his Glory title fight. Glory is the biggest kickboxing organisation in the world and as said on that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Kickboxing fighting for its title is enough to be recognize as notable. Khonda8 (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to get feedback from PRehse, who (in my opinion) gave the strongest argument for deletion at the original debate. In particular he said, "The Glory rankings are not independent and of course are stilted towards their own people", which seems to contradict what you've said above. In any case, if he agrees with your views here, I'll consider that a consensus and restore the article. Alternatively, you can open a discussion at deletion review. It's important to have a solid consensus to restore an article, otherwise other editors just jump on it and make really sure it is deleted and stays so - see Sandy (choreographer) a couple of threads up for a good example of this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Assume good faith

You assumed DuncanHill liked Fram, he denied it. I will tell you too, I too, have a similar denial. I am no friend nor admirer of Fram. Before WP:FRAM, I did not know anything about Fram other than their user name. I did not know anything about WP:WPWIR either. This isn't an "us versus them" scenario. starship.paint (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

File rename request

Hi Ritchie.

I replaced a GIF with a PNG file, and used temp descriptions in the upload as I was planning on using the existing file rationale. This has worked, apart from the filename which is supposed to be "Cyberun_1.png", but instead is "File:Temporary description prior to upload - video game screenshot.png" - would you help me out and rename it please? I was given the rename link on the Help desk, but I don't have the necessary permissions. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: I think I've fixed it, should now be at File:Cyberun 1.png. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. The file is called "Cyberun 1.png", but the article is "Cyberun_1.png" - with an underscore, not a space. It seems to work for both though. Thanks for fixing it! Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Woohoo

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Ritchie333 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjs1991 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there cake? I would like some cake. And to thank the user for their contributions and civility (by sharing in the cake). cygnis insignis 20:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

• eh? —usernamekiran(talk) 20:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• 'ere, Threesie, me ol' china, I 'ad that Harold Steptoe in the back of me comic Uber cab the uvver night. Strike a light, guvnor.... got the 'ole cab full of ruddy bats, he did. --Auntie Ada 123 (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

June

cornflowers

Some wildflowers for a happy birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC) (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Ritchie333,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2020 Bangkok

Hi Ritch. I won't be going to Stockholm most unfortunately, because I really can't afford $3,000 just for 5 days in the far north of Europe. I'll leave that trip to the Europeans and the 70-strong WMF junket. But next year Wikimania is right on my doorstep. I hope you will be able to come. I will be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time. Regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've never been to Wikimania - the London one was practically on my doorstep but it clashed with a family holiday, and that takes priority. The bottom line is I don't have much spare cash, and even going to Manchester from London is a bit of a luxury for me, so I can't realistically expect a trip halfway across the world to Thailand to be at all practical. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Buffalo Creek (Texas)

Hi. Never said it was a hoax, but it was created by a very active sockmaster. Leaving these types of articles, imho, only encourages that activity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a fairly innocuous article about a river. I would have deleted if it didn't make any obvious attempt to be an encyclopedia article that somebody could improve, but at the very least it could be a redirect somewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation

	"Sunflower Award"
	Your work as an admin is not being graded, But it certainly is much appreciated, To know that you see with vision that's clear, A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear. Thank you for all do! Atsme Talk 📧 16:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Passivdom

Hey, User:Ritchie333. Can you explain please how long does usually the AfD voting process last and who has the final word? Just curious.--Graphenon (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Graphenon: AfDs usually last at least a week and an admin will decide what to do with the article based on the suggestions and comments made during the debate. If there's no agreement as to what to do, the discussion period can be extended, and if there is still no agreement, it can be kept as "no consensus". The deletion process has further information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abraxas (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh well..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy (belated!) birthday!

	The "Merlin the Happy Pig" award
	...now for the song about the goblin! ——SerialNumber54129 14:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I was totally wired.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, Ritchie333,

We don't cross paths much on Wikipedia but I just wanted to thank you so much for not only spotting good candidates for RfAs but for putting yourself out there and nominating them. Unfortunately, it not very common these days but it should be happening, every month. I hope others see your example and start encouraging more editors to venture out into the scary world of the RfA. I would want them to know that it is survivable, even if people do not think you are the ideal candidate. I should know! Thanks again, from me and for the entire project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hear hear. Thanks from me too, for bringing us two new additions to the corps this week. It actually does take a lot of courage, and I haven't dared to attempt a nomination myself yet - the potential for it to backfire, if unknown skeletons come out of the woodwork, is always real. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I do remember being swayed right at the last minute to support your RfA however many years ago it was now. I was originally planning to nominate several RfA candidates in the first week of July, but in the event only Valereee and Kosack were committed to running, which given WP:FRAMGATE has to be even more commendable than usual. I'd quite like to run another bunch next month, and put them all forward at the same time, or co-ordinate with other nominators to make sure we file ours around the same time. Basically, the more people who can be recruited as admins, the less of an "us-and-them" culture will develop. New admins tend to bring new ideas and thoughts to the proceedings and aren't just tired old admins doing the same old thing because "that's the way we've always done it round here" regardless of whether or not it improves the encyclopedia. Amakuru If I can think of an RfA where your co-nomination can make a potential huge difference, I'll give you a shout. I don't have a perfect track record, but just over 75% of candidates I've nominated were successful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please look at....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrija19961

Same person, just difference of an accent mark. Plus with the user name, that is why I suspect autobiography. Please check it out then reply here on why you think the article should not have been deleted. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@MensanDeltiologist: In this case, I declined a WP:G4 speedy delete for procedural reasons, because I couldn't find the link to the AfD debate. Now I have found the discussion, I have deleted the recreated article. In future, if you tag an article because it is a recreation of one previously deleted at AfD, remember to specify the discussion in the link eg: {{db-g4|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrija Matic}}}. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

AIV

Ah dinnae ken why the users are still at it.....

Could we please get an admin at AIV. A lot of the reports of of users who are still at it. CLCStudent (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind that, Blind Faith has been sitting in the GA queue with the intention it would have been done in time for the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Park concert ... which has been and gone. And the sourcing and layout problems at ARP Instruments won't fix themselves, ya know? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the Inglis Wikipedia. Aw contreibutions maun be in Inglis . Adam9007 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What we need here, obviously, is a voice of calm.... like "Limmy going off on one about Scottish Twitter..." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As always

... you protected the wrong version, the one that the warrior left ;) - Btw, how do you like his opera? Could you perhaps help with the stalled nom? - Again btw, I just saw another work staged by Kupfer, La Damnation de Faust. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The DDR is not generally called the GDR in English at all, it's always East Germany (or the former East Germany). Conceiving is something you do to produce babies; please keep that private. I'll have a think about an alt. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

How do you get pregnant with an opera then? - One of these days, I'll stop articles that touch what Wessies used to call "the so-called DDR". East Germany still sounds wrong to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In general, if a country puts "Democratic" in its name, it isn't. Still, I am in a good mood as a DYK that was deleted has finally found its way back to mainspace courtesy of that very nice Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what everyone was so worked up about. There was very little wrong with it. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Also in a good mood, returning from a lovely concert with artists in residence of the Rheingau Musik Festival, and the recipients of their prize, receiving it and playing, all Schumann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Back to work: the hook which is not welcome is ... that Gerhard Müller and Georg Katzer (pictured) conceived Antigone oder die Stadt, based on Sophocles, in the DDR's final stage, but the opera premiered at the Komische Oper Berlin after the Wende? How is this:

... that Gerhard Müller and composer Georg Katzer (pictured) collaborated on Antigone oder die Stadt, based on Sophocles, in East Germany, but when the opera premiered at the Komische Oper Berlin, Germany was again united? - Missing that thus the work as a commentary to the targeted system was no longer as relevant as it was meant. "We pounded at the doors of the mighty; unheard remained the heart-wrenched agony, our people's mournful fate!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Question and Thanks

Thank you for spending the necessary time on my unblock request. Sorry to bother you with such a stupid question, but do you think it is okay if I clean up my talk page? Or is that considered bad form or perceived negatively? ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@ADP85xzVcQD: The list of things you should not remove from your talk page is here. You only need to keep declined unblock requests while you are blocked. As you are not currently blocked, you can safely remove them.

While you're here, if you are interested in improving coverage of women scientists, please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red for like-minded people who can help you work on them in close collaboration. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for both links. Can you help me understand how I would use the Women in Red page to help improve coverage of women scientists? I don't actually see scientists listed and I wouldn't know how to "find" someone. I think that is one of the problems I struggle with. The guidelines suggest finding editors to collaborate with, but I don't know how to do that. Posting on my talk page or my sandbox doesn't seem to make sense--I'm a nobody and nobody will see it. I saw a link last night to something that made me think it was a roundtable for that, but I lost track of the page. I will also fully admit that I am also really scared to even try; this whole thing has been a really bad experience. So if you give me pages and then I don't actually act, I apologize. But I actually really enjoyed skimming your talk page because there were a lot of articles that hit close to home that I need to circle back to read. Do you mind if I just put a link on my own talk page so I can find it again later? It made me particularly happy you were the one who tackled my unblock request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@ADP85xzVcQD:If you put {{User WikiProject Women in Red}} on your user or talk page, you'll have a permanent link to the project site, and other people will know you're interested in them. I don't know much about how to navigate Women in Red; you're probably best off asking one of the project's co-ordinators such as Rosiestep or Megalibrarygirl. I don't often get involved in writing about women scientists myself simply as I'm not particularly good at it, but I can remember improving Abbie Hutty and Women in Computing, off the top of my head. As for your bad experience, I'm really sorry about that; the best thing I can advise is to get to know these two editors as they will look out for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

One more question. I think I ultimate got on the wrong side of an editor because I misread a banner. The banner could easily be re-worded to be more clear. I suspect there is a talk page for each banner where such a change could be proposed. 1. Is it ill-advised to make such a suggestion? 2. Is there such a talk page, and how would I find it? Using the search Wikipedia box has helped me find anything. I thought if there was a talk page and looking at it and its history would probably help answer the first question.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@ADP85xzVcQD: (for talk page stalkers, we're talking about Template:db-g12) I understand what your issue is here; unfortunately I have complained about this for years to little effect. What I would say is that the administrators who actually act on speedy deletion tagged articles are far more lenient than the new page patrollers who put them on, and often if an article is tagged for G12, I will reduce it down to a stub that does not directly paraphrase text and remove the tag. As I've just said elsewhere, what Wikipedia calls copyright is very different to how it's understood in the real world, and I've written an essay User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios that helps explain things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@ADP85xzVcQD: if you're interested in Women in Red, we have a great community and are very supportive of each other. We're here to help anyone working on women's biographies or other topics relating to women. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Do you have a guide for noobs? Or a "here's how to get started"? Or anything like that? Or a mentoring system? I don't really know where/how to start with it. I've looked at the page and can find users, and I see goals, but I'm looking more for an FAQ, or how to get started. Thanks! (I am really intrigued by Women of Atari too...; not sure I can contribute, but I liked the idea.) ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@ADP85xzVcQD: I would start here. There's some good essays to get you started and you can always ask anyone for help on the talk page. I tell most newbies to write about people who have good coverage in the media. It's easier to write about them that way. On some of the crowd-sourced Redlists there are links to information about the person in question. If you need any help with women in Atari, my library has a book on women in gaming. I might find information for you there. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Thank you! This is great. So if I were to draft something in my sandbox and then post to the talk page there, I could find someone who could give it the once over and tell me what to fix/improve?

@Megalibrarygirl: or @Ritchie333:, Two final questions. (1) What is the difference between how I called out each of you here? "yo" vs "ping"? Is one more polite/formal? 2. Do either of you know a page that describes primary v. secondary reference usage on Wikipedia? I come from a background that really favors primary references; secondary references are scorned. And a long time ago, I learned encyclopedic articles are written from primary sources. But I seem to get the impression that isn't true on Wikipedia. I wonder if there is a page that helps explain this that I could add to my bookmarks. Thanks again for letting me hijack your talk page, and for the help.

@ADP85xzVcQD:, I just wanted to stop by and say hi. Also wanted to let you know that Women in Red delivers a monthly "invitation/announcement" to editor talkpages regarding our upcoming events, and if you'd like to receive it, just add your username here. If you are curious about our July offerings, here is a link to that announcement. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)ADP85xzVcQD. In general, Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources. However, for many topics, we define that more broadly to include some news reporting. Additionally, we generally allow primary sources for uncontroversial information or when directly attributed in prose to the source. I hope that you stick around. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Good article help

Hiya I am planning to put a couple of articles forward for good article review, therefore I thought I would in turn choose a couple of articles to review myself. Since I'm new to this, it seems a good idea to use the mentor scheme. I was wondering, would you be available to answer any questions I might have? I'm planning to get into it the week after next, so the beginning of July. Thanks for any help! Mujinga (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Sure, which articles were you thinking about? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

hiya i thought i'd start with Maria Dulębianka. there's already been some funny business! Mujinga (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah right. The bot does that when it detects an article that previously was in its internal database as being reviewed no longer has a "GA reviewing" template without a corresponding "GA passed" one on the talk page. I've seen it happen before when I know something has passed but still brings up a "Your GA review has failed". Susun's got a good track record of GAs, so I don't expect too many difficulties. One thing that (unless you're a good Polish speaker!) you may need here is to get Google Translate to translate some of the non-English sources so you can confirm what's in the article and what's in the source match up factually. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks it seems like perhaps it was something to do with the diacritic, anyway seems to be OK. I agree the article seems to be in a good state already. Yes I've been wondering about how the referencing to Polish sources intersects with WP:NONENG, specifically As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. To be a good article, should possibly controversial statements already have a quotation, or it's not necessary? I'm thinking in particular of the sentence about the relationship between Dulębianka and Konopnicka, which begins The nature of their relationship has not been conclusively settled by academics... it has four references on it, two in English, two in Polish. It would seem the easiest way to demonstrate the controversy would be to give direct quotes. Mujinga (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You could suggest putting the quotes as part of the references. That would mean anyone could cut and paste the quote into Google translate and be able to have a stab at verifying the content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Hiya thanks for the reply, yes that's pretty much what ended up happening. As a broader issue I have been thinking about the same thing quite a lot recently with regards to an article I have been creating where the sources are 90% in Dutch - I would definitely agree it's good to put the quote in the references. What I've been doing is translating the quote, thinking someone can always check the linked reference and confirm it with google translate. Maybe it's better to keep the original language, I'm not sure which is better. To be honest I'd like to see something clearer in the MOS about this. Anyhoo, the nominator's answers were prompt and thorough so I've passed Maria Dulębianka yesterday.

Now I have just taken on Charm School (Roxette album) for GAN review. As before I'll be grateful if I can pass by with any questions. Mujinga (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I've run into some problems with references on Charm School (Roxette album) so I decided to put the article on hold to allow time for them to be fixed. If you have the time could you tell me if that was the best course of action? Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Hmmm. Generally if I put a review "on hold" it means "if you address all the outstanding issues here, I'll pass the review". If you're not sure if the sourcing is up to scratch, you can wait for the nominator to address your concerns before carrying on. Homeostasis07 is technically correct in as much an article can be at any assessed status and still nominated as GA, but I think he's missed the point that if an article isn't in good shape, it's going to need substantially more work to pass than something that's already reasonably well-written and sourced and just needs a few copyedits. I think you make a good point about Marie's brain tumour needing better and additional sources to meet WP:BLP. And finally, I did have to check that Tits & Ass Studio was real - it is, there is an article on the Swedish wikipedia and EEng should be thinking of a suitable DYK hook around about now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I'm flattered to be selected for this important assignment, and the potential here is vast. But I'm having trouble identifying the English-language article whose meaning I'm meant to reinterpret as something dirty. EEng 23:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you'll have difficulty because the English-language article (which would probably start "Tits & Ass is a recording studio in Halmstad, Sweden. Its best known client is Roxette's Per Gessle.") doesn't exist yet and I can't find any reliable sources to write one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I googled Tits & Ass and got plenty of results. EEng 23:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

And if this doesn't work out maybe we can get somewhere with First-level NUTS of the European Union. EEng 05:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment about me and the nominator misunderstanding each other that was helpful. Unfortunately there are still problems with verifiability so I failed it, I hope it succeeds next time. Regarding T&A, I think it's a horrible name.Mujinga (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

ZineWiki

Hello. It seems like you deleted ZineWiki as per CSD G10. In the current state, it appears to be an attack page. However, as far as I have seen, that page has some very old, likely neutral, revisions it could be reverted to instead (I think they are as old as ZineWiki itself). Are you sure these are bad as well? The page looks like it has been vandalised into its current state entirely by a single IP to me. Edible Melon (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Edible Melon: See User talk:Slashme#ZineWiki, and per discussion there, I have restored the article and opened an AfD discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZineWiki (3rd nomination). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:81.133.5.100

Hello again. I just looked into the edits of 81.133.5.100. The most interesting one I found so far is this one, where they claim to be Dove Windsor, the person who they accused of everything, including extensive sockpuppetry at ZineWiki. Does that count as a confession? Should anything be done about them? Their edits to Des Coleman involve reducing the person's age by 10 and claiming they died at 15 July 2019 without providing any sources. I haven't undone any of them yet, as I'm unsure. According to libregamewiki, their founder is not Dove Windsor, but Han Dao. Edible Melon (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like a troll to me, and the best thing to do with them is deny recognition. I have blocked the IP for 48 hours for obvious disruption and will wait and see what happens at the AfD; for now I don't think any other administrator intervention is required. If you have evidence that somebody is trolling lots of articles, that would be worth a thread on WP:ANI, but if they're just focusing on one article, that can be dealt with relatively easily. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Engagement at User talk:Jimbo Wales seems somewhat unlikely and somewhat fruitless. Feel free to remove that thread if desired. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Some might say engagement at WP:JIMBOTALK is "unlikely and somewhat fruitless", full stop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ooooh, worra bitch. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Link spammer

Holy smokes! Mass spamming. I've removed from pages I watch but there's no way I can cover all of these. But maybe it's not spam? The site is free, and it has a list of contributors. I posted on their UTP suggesting that they upload images for use in articles. Your thoughts? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: My apologies, I got distracted over the weekend by large quantities of live music, Curious IPA, Hop House 13, whatever guest ales were in Pendrel's Oak and red wine. Is this still an active issue? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind such a distraction! In fact, (less the ale), I have an 8 yo singer/musician being developed and give my 100% support to large quantities of live music! Re: the reason I came here has been resolved. All is well. Happy, happy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)