User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Hi

Check this out: Hassan Ghashghavi. My creation!--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC) I'm

• Why was Ankasoprah2 unblocked? His history of reilgious insults and claims of "propaganda" are extensive; [1] calling an editor "a Jewish POV pusher," [2] "illegitimate Israel #1 terrorist" on an editors talk page, [3] addressed to a Shia editor - "Shias are always looking for a reason to eat pork," claims an editor is part of "Jewish Propaganda" [4], and these are just a few from the past 3-4 days alone. Given this, should the block be reinstated. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor did apologize and seems contrite. Blocks are preventative and not punitive. The editor's editing seems better but I also note it at ANI with no response indicating that the same problems are continuing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Khamenei – 2015 nuclear agreement

Hi. Since you are contributing to the article and you seem to be an impartial editor, I'd like to know your opinion about this? Thanks--Shazaami (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of enforcement action

@Rick:, 08:41, 28 August 2015 you kindly asked for a few days to reconsider your recent discretionary sanction enforcement action. Your notification stated two bases for the discretionary sanction enforcement action:

1. ...you chose to represent this as "a recommendation to step back" from said article which you stated as part of another Arbitration Enforcement Request against another editor (something which I do not find remotely amusing or cute). Misleading others by pretending that you were in some way, shape or form stepping back from the dispute, so that you look better as part of this enforcement tit-for-tat game is not appropriate.

   Please assume good faith, the recent report at WP:AE was not tit for tat, it was not a game, it was a good faith effort to be part of the solution, a sincere request for a review of some behavior, aimed at addressing what in my best judgement was a real problem in the project areas of the Tea Party movement and American politics cases. The report was declined, but the facts of the reported behavior were not contested. I deeply sympathize with your completely understandable mounting frustration regarding frivolous, pointed, retaliatory noticeboard reports directed at administrators of our project, such as recently directed at you and others; this was not that.
   I did not include the ban in the initial statement of the report at WP:AE because I did not know it was relevant. I was not prompted by the request submission form to summarize my recent history. I did not explain the delay in filing the report in the initial statement because I did not know there was a delay that needed explaining. I did not know of the statute of limitations. I did not understand "stale." There was no intent to conceal. This was my second AE report.
   17:33, 23 August 2015 George asked why the delay, and within hours 23:11, 23 August 2015 the reported user jumped in with the answer, "Hugh was banned," before I could answer. 23:47, 23 August 2015 another @editor: jumped in, confirming the answer with a diff and pinging George who originally had the question. By the time I saw the question the next day, I had nothing to add to the previous answers. 09:44, 24 August 2015 I quipped "I was asked to step back" after the ban was clearly and prominently in the record, knowing no one would take me literally. No one did. No one was deceived. There was no intent to deceive. There was no deception.
   As a sidecar, as you know, it is literally true that you did ask me to step back:

   ...Take two weeks off in full from this issue. These two weeks...will give you a rest from the daily routine of that page and hopefully everything can be better evaluated with a little space...

   but deliberately understating the situation for comic effect was stupid in that I should know by now everything I do will be interpreted in the worst possible light.

2. ...the fact that you would welcome a user with the username User:Kochtruth and encourage this behavior without a second thought is enough.

   It is not enough. Yes, at User_talk:Kochtruth I used twinkle to welcomed a new user called User:Kochtruth. I welcome a lot of new users. I welcome every new user I can, every new user I encounter that has not already been welcomed. Check my edit history. I guess I sort of noticed the user name was one that would not last, but I saw no threat to our project that warranted bringing up the bad news about his unfortunate choice of moniker on the guy's first day with us.
   Yes, I interacted with a user called User:Kochtruth to thank him for his initial contribution. I thank all new users for their initial contribution, if I can, that is, if it is not outright harmful; don't you? Here the initial contribution was rough but obviously good faith, well-intention, referenced however poorly, and genuinely helpful in addressing a subtopic seriously under-represented in our article with respect to copious reliable sources.
   Yes, I interacted with a user called User:Kochtruth to recommend fleshing out the initial contribution with secondary and tertiary references; good advice, advice that I stand by, and by the way a plan that is being implemented as we speak, and I would like to help.
   No policy or guideline requires anyone to report a new user with a bad name within 24 hours. No member of our community has every been sanctioned for not reporting a bad user name. No member of our community has every been sanctioned for merely interacting with a new editor who was later asked to change their user name. Another editor interacted with a user called User:Kochtruth at article talk Talk:Koch Industries as well during his brief career as an editor, please see. No one reported the user name. Are we both subject to discretionary sanction enforcement?

In summary, please assume good faith; there was no violation of policy, guideline, or general or discretionary sanctions. Thank you for your kind reconsideration. Hugh (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd like to see evidence that you can take a step back and act more appropriate in controversial topics before re-considering it. The initial single-page topic ban was due to a very, very disruptive RFC you created. The AE discussion was related to Arthur Rubin and did not require any explanation on your conduct but you chose to engage in it with a let's say supremely rose-colored view of your actions. And before my comment, JzG had commented regarding the drama around your editing. I started with a single sentence correcting it but I saw that it was part of a pattern of behavior whereby you engage in disruptive behavior and then bludgeon everyone who disagrees with you. You are free to request an appeal of the sanctions at AE though but comments wasting people's time like these here[5][6][7] tells me that you may need a broader topic ban or an outright block if you can't learn to act civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Again I ask please reconsider your recent administrator action. You are accountable for your actions as an administrator. In particular, you are responsible for your notifications. Your notification stated two justifications for your recent discretionary sanctions enforcement action. You are accountable for the accuracy and completeness of your notifications. It is completely unfair for you to broaden your allegations when asked for reconsideration. Here on user talk, I am willing to discuss broader issues you may have with me, but please understand that if this goes further to a notice board, I will ask you to please focus on the specific justifications you gave in your notification. Also, if you want to broaden the discussion to broader issues of my behavior, please understand I may comment on aspects of your behavior as an administrator of our project.

"a very, very disruptive RFC you created" That was the first RfC I drafted and launched. Yes, I created an RfC after EdJohnston urged me to be part of the solution. The RfC discussion was vigorous and contentious and the RfC failed. If it was in your opinion "very, very disruptive" it wasn't all me.

"The AE discussion was related to Arthur Rubin" The AE request was declined, but the reported behavior was not contested, and the filing was not harassment. I understand you are very very sensitive to reports against administrators, including yourself and other fellow administrators. You feel admins are unfairly targeted and I agree. Admins are also human and vulnerable to emotion and lax judgement just like everybody else. I am here on your talk page trying to avoid filing a report against an administrator.

"did not require any explanation" Respectfully disagree. You are responsible for your notifications of your actions as an administrator. You are responsible for answering questions regarding your actions as an administrator. This is not the first time you have clearly stated this attitude in talk, shall I list them? This attitude is not serving you well or serving our project well.

"JzG had commented regarding the drama around your editing" He has the mop, why didn't you leave the ban to him, if he has such a well-informed handle on the "drama" around my editing and who is to blame and who is a threat to our project. To me your comment is telling because in my opinion you are at times suggestible, overly quick to act and have a tendency to act without due diligence, all of which tendencies are highly valued in an administrator by some when the are looking for that kind of admin when it suits their purposes. You were asked to get involved at AE and you made some friends with your ban, good for you. It's a lot of work to dig through a week's edits presented without dates, edit summaries, or context, but if you did, you might see, wait a sec, there's bans to go around here, no one person is the source of "drama."

"a pattern of behavior whereby you engage in disruptive behavior" Thank you very much for your feedback on my behavior. This pattern was not mentioned in your notification. Bludgeon was not mentioned in your notification. Hugh (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In summary, your ban was unjustified. Please reconsider. Hugh (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 is supposed to suck up bludgeoning, but onlookers might ask for another admin to take action if it continues. See one response at User talk:Dennis Brown#Request feedback. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your points have been made but my mind hasn't changed. Again, you have every right to appeal any sanctions at WP:AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you! Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:1912 establishments in French Morocco

Category:1912 establishments in French Morocco, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:1807 disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire

Category:1807 disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:1977 in Moldova

Category:1977 in Moldova, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dorra Group (September 5)

Notices moved to User:Paradigm Solutions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite doi

is already deprecated on this wiki, together with template:cite pmid and such. A bot is automatically substituting those into articles, and some automated process will likely delete all those abandoned templates. I believe there is no use nominating them and flooding User talk:Citation bot with notes - user:Citation bot created zillions of them, and its talk is watched by many editors who want to have the bot operational ASAP (the bot was blocked for updating its code, which became unusable after recent Mediawiki updates; it is being repaired by WMF programmers). Materialscientist (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it being done? Point me to the bot then. Template talk:Cite doi shows that there's an argument demanding a new RFC and ignoring the prior one. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 5 shows a keep for keeping the template (which is worthless if there are automatic substitutions going on). The number of pages at Category:Cite doi templates seems the same (and is still Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Cite_doi_templates in heavy use). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

But I will remember not to notify the template creation in the future. Sorry, that was forgetful of me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see User:Dexbot is doing the removals. Sorry, I just saw the new round of arguments and figured it was being ignored and delayed yet again. The orphaned subpages aren't being dealt with at the moment but we'll see. Is there a plan for that? Would those fall under G6? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Dexbot started its real work only recently (its was misbehaving on its first substitution runs), and the story with WMF repairing Citation bot is also very recent. I do hope those templates will be deleted en masse by a bot - there are just too many of them for manual deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. There was enough hostility at the RFC, after the RFC (including some particularly uncivil and insultingly critical remarks on those support of depreciation) and these new rounds of arguments that it seems like more rounds of "people are too dumb to realize how important this is so it doesn't really matter" to me. Is there a central discussion place for this? I'd be willing to help out and delete the orphaned subpages under G6 if that's the relevant criteria (if not, we'll just dump them at MFD in listing and then do it anyways). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Destruction of evidence". Thank you.
Seems to be about you anyway. All this is really familiar..... Three letters come to mind; a 'W', an 'O', and a 'P'.... -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Italian sentiment is alive and well, I see. EEng (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We made it to the DailyKos!

Actually I'm not at all happy about it[[8]]. I'm not sure that banning the IP would mater but I think a perma-ban of VVUSA who seems to have been involved would be good at this point. [[9]] Is this something that should be raised to a higher level? Springee (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC) I did a bit more digging. The IP address just happens to be from Chicago... HughD's town. The article not only mentions me by name but also Arthur Rubin, Capitalismojo, and AdventurousSquirrel with links to the associated user pages. Springee (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Quoted from the comment section,

We are not a formal organization, as we addressed on Wikipedia, itself. Only one user accessed the account, per Wikipedia rules.

Per "quacking", the users involved did not merely "defend" the Kochs, but often aggressively ganged together and seemingly always took the position that negative information (no matter what it was) was unsuitable to be presented.

by WeAreKochs on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:49:24 PM PDT

The above would imply that VVUSA was not being truthful when claiming he was an individual vs a group. Springee (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: The links don't work for me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Which ones? I didn't link directly to the article. You would have to click on the first link which takes you to an edit of the recent ANI by an IP address. That IP address added the DK link. Hope that helps. Springee (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This comment I believe. It may not be WP:ROLE issue but it's still problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

And it appears that HughD again is welcoming questionable "friends" [[10]]. HughD posted a "welcome" to the user page of the IP who kindly mentioned the DailyKos article that VVUSA wrote. Given that the IP's only involvement was with a Koch associated edit does this count as HughD getting involved in Koch whiled banned from doing as much? Springee (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

HughD you can take to WP:AE. It's questionable and not productive but I hate political articles with a passion for these reasons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have created a new ANI to address the VVUSA's attacks and posting on off-wiki sites. [[11]] Springee (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor. I suspect we'll see an update from the DailyKos stream soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, sorry I missed most of the hubbub, all. Have been rendered dumbstruck by the truth-blitz for the last few days. They seem to now be indicting WP as a whole in some ways (under the section "Wikipedia Editors' Response", in particular), and part of me wants to defend the process to them and any DailyKos readers who might still be seeking out more answers, though the better part of me knows that that wouldn't make any difference and I'm probably not the right person to do it anyways. For any role I've had in the series of events that lead to the off-site harassment and outing of other editors' online (or real life) identities, I'm truly sorry - luckily, as an actual squirrel, I myself am mostly unaffected by it. If anyone has any suggestions on how I/we can prevent further similar trolling and harassment in the future, I'd be happy to hear and discuss them. For starters, Ricky, I know you advised me not to throw allegations around at folks like Veritas, and I'll certainly make an effort to do that. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As I stated at User_talk:VeritasVincitUSA#Blocked, the DailyKos page was the way for VeritasVincitUSA to advocate the way they wanted so I guess they used it. The comments show that there are some people who do question the claims so that's good at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Milton Kohn has been accepted

Milton Kohn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Wxidea (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dry places in New Jersey

Following the "keep" closure for the CFD of Category:Dry places in New Jersey, I've followed the closer's recommendation and submitted a new CFD to rename it to Category:Dry municipalities in New Jersey. Please offer your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 16 if you have one. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it please take a look at Security-related bills. Any help appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Penbat/Dominic Frisby

Can u delete User talk:Penbat/Dominic Frisby please as it isnt going to happen.--Penbat (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just the talk page? It's deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops i meant User:Penbat/Dominic Frisby as well.--Penbat (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

MfD needed?

I'm on mobile but take a look at User:Deaths in 2013. EEng (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban violation?

Hi Ricky. You recently closed this AN/I discussion with a topic ban from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy against User:John sargis and User:Panlis. I have just spotted this edit by the former to Takis Fotopoulos. It is a pretty minor edit and not controversial, but I wanted to get your advice on whether this is a violation of the ban and, if so, whether action should be taken? I'm unfamiliar with the enforcement of topic bans, so please excuse my ignorance. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I now see that Randykitty has already reported this, so please ignore my questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

WP Comics

You know you've just added WP Comics to a bunch of categories that already had WikiProject Comics? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Anything other than Category talk:1933 comics debuts? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I guess not. A whole whack of them showed up on my watchlist, and I assumed the same thing was happening to all of them. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I decided to focus on those that don't exist first after I realized that one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

My user page

What's wrong with it? Does it violate policy? Deaths in 2013 (talk)23:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deaths in 2013. The point is "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content.". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC banners

Hello, Ricky81682. I notice that you are adding WikiProject Articles for Creation banners to the talk pages of drafts. You may not be aware that the AFCH script adds these automatically when the page is accepted. Is there some reason you are adding them early?—Anne Delong (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware it did that. However, I also noticed Category:Draft-Class AFC articles so it seemed like some AFC submissions were already tagged before being accepted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject draft class

Thanks for this edit summary - I was either unaware of or forgot that WikiProject templates were now Draft:-namespace compatible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'm the odd duck with those. I'm pushing at WP:ALERTS to include alerts when drafts move to G13 eligibility as I think that's an alert that those projects will find immensely helpful and where they can be a huge help as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about editing ban

Hello: I have a question about another user's editing ban, and since you're the editor who enacted the ban, I'm asking you. The editor in question is User:HughD. On August 28 [12] you imposed a one-year broad topic ban on him regarding "all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers." I noticed he violated this ban on September 30 [13] when he edited Institute for Energy Research, which features content about the Kochs. I brought this up with him on his talk page [14], and he self-reverted [15]. Today I noticed that he edited on American Legislative Exchange Council [16], another article featuring content about the Kochs. What is the next step in ensuring adherence to the editing ban? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the Koch connection at ALEC. I will revert. Hugh (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An update on this: not only did Hugh fail to self-revert as he said he would, he just now made another edit [17] to ALEC after acknowledging he understood this type of editing to be in violation of his topic ban. Color me miffed. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I see I was already reverted. Sorry again. Hugh (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Another update...the edits by Hugh to Koch-related articles have still not stopped. Latest is here [18]. Not sure what the protocol is in these situations, but he has not professed an intention to attempt to comply with the block, and seems to be going full steam ahead with continuing to edit articles from which he was clearly topic-banned. Is this an issue to take up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The proper place is WP:AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. For some reason I thought that was only for ArbCom enforcement. I'll file an enforcement request there shortly. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's for sanctions based on Arbcom cases. The case allowed for discretionary sanctions and thus AE is for violations of discretionary sanctions as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

DRV

You're up at DRV.

Thank you

Thank you, Ricky so much for the advice about the images. We clearly have different views about deleting the userpage under discussion, but thank you for honorable conduct in allowing me enough time to state my case. Hope all is well. --A.S. Brown (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I asked at Talk:Konrad_Adenauer#Unreadable_prose as well because I don't know why the edits were all removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Years of demolition of buildings

Re the categories by year, I have added navigation templates to the series for "Buildings and Structures" and "Sports venues" eg Category:Buildings and structures demolished in 2010 and Category:Sports venues demolished in 2010 Hugo999 (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Article creation declined

Hi Ricky can you help me with this creation Draft:Indiabulls_Real_Estate_Limited_(IBREL). I have taken a reference from Mahindra_Lifespace_Developers for creating this. Please help me with what is missing and how I better it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chints247 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The biggest concern is that it is promotional in tone and lacking in factual details. Basically, it needs to be stripped of the business school jargon and written more in plain English. Sources need to be WP:RS which this is not: it's just a group of listings. It needs sources that are independent of itself (this is just the company's history possibly from the company itself. It needs sources that provide more than a passing mention of the company (like here where it's just one of a group of companies mentioned). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable feedback. I would work on getting more secondary citations and even changing the language a bit. I suppose you have marked this for a merger with the group page. I think they need to be independent of the group page Chints247 (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

HughD's ban

Hi Ricky, in the DSLOG it states that the topic ban is from f"articles involving the Tea Party movement" however you left a message on their talk page clarifying that the ban includes "anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers". Could you please add that clarification to the DSLOG so that other admins can find it (as it does widen the ban). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, quoted in full now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding edit of Highest grossing malayalam films

I haven't insulted anyone..and do understand that all you people are volunteers like me..I have made a gentleman approach and have absolutely no intention to defame anyone.But you guys should understand that wiki is not the place for giving fake or poorly referenced content. Instead of looking into what I have given,what you have done is irresponsible. Drishyam is the highest grosser in malayalam, not premam.If you continue to spread fake news,I will be forced to block you from further edits with all due respect.

TOKOMOBO (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been an admin here for a decade. You can't block people so don't threaten things you can't do. I don't know what content was put there or by whom so cut the attitude about whether or not it's fake and treat everyone else with a little respect. The person looking at the talk page likely had nothing to do with adding the material. There's almost five million articles here. Also, I made Highest grossing malayalam films into a redirect to the current page as there's a singular page that should have the contents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have given the references.. Why r u not checking the authenticity of it..Stop ur bossing attitude.. I don't gv dmn whether you are an admin fr a decade or more..u need to respect our fellow wikiz first..try to admit the mistake that you had made. TOKOMOBO (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry A. Lyons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senora. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

More of your fans

[19] Both blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sadly, this comment] is basically the same as the actual keeps there to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear sir

With all due respect, to be perfectly blunt I believe it is better that if you have some issue with a page, rather than putting a mysterious MFD tag on it so that I have to guess what the problem is, you should (1) read the article to see if it has value and (2) make some specific suggestion for improvement. LaurentianShield (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There already exists an article. That's the point. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Question on scope of ban

See this AN3 closure. I suggested to User:HughD that he ask you if Watchdog.org is included in his ban from the Koch brothers. Someone needs to check if the funding of Watchdog.org or the Franklin Center by Koch is sourced well enough. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Our article Watchdog.org makes no mention of the Kochs. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The ban is more broad than just the Koch brothers. It is against all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly. That said, I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity or Sam Adams Alliance. The closest is that the Sam Adams Alliance founder Eric O'Keefe (political activist) is a board member for Citizens for Self-Governance founded by Mark Meckler who founded Tea Party Patriots but that's just paranoia at that point. There should be leeway to edit there unless there's evidence that it's becoming a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much experience in the area of topic bans, but in my view the spirit of the law, if not the letter, is being violated here. This recent edit [20] to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity adds information about funding received from Donors Trust. There are two issues I see with this: first, our article on Donors Trust clearly lists Charles Koch as a major donor. Second, one of the sources that HughD recently added to the Franklin Center [21] reads "The Franklin Center has been one of the top recipients of money from groups tied to the conservative billionaire Koch brothers," and includes a lot of other information tying the Kochs to the Franklin Center. The unstated implication of the Donors Trust-Franklin-Koch connection is that the Kochs are funding the Franklin Center. Now, since it's currently unstated, perhaps it's not a violation of the topic ban against the Kochs. But it certainly seems to be cutting it pretty close. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Our article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity makes no mention of the Kochs. I have made no edit to Donors Trust or Charles Koch. I respect the topic ban. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

First, stop saying "Our". I'm presuming you aren't actually an inappropriate WP:ROLE account. Otherwise you're expressing serious WP:OWN issues. Second, I remind you that your topic ban is related to the Tea Party politics generally not just the Kochs. Third, I'd say you're being ridiculously disingenuous about this and have responded on your talk page with a one-week block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BEANS

"Otherwise, there's nothing ot stop an actual vandal from claiming it's a breaching experiment next time".[22] First of all, you're admitting that this account is not an actual vandal by making the distinction between the two. Is it therefore still a "good" vandalism block if it's not really a vandal? Probably not. Secondly, do you really believe that any vandal is actually going to claim a "breaching experiment"? Or even more far-fetched: would a vandal use a case like this to back up such a claim as, like, precedence? Maybe a really sophisticated troll might possibly do this, but a vandal? Doc talk 08:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the dumbest unblock request I've ever seen. "I was only testing" is not a new argument. Disruptive is still disruptive, you can call it a competency issue then. Either way, my point is still the same: you only to do that kind of thing once. After that, you can refer to the same edits without having to actively and repeatedly do things like that and other people shouldn't have to go on with an assumption that this particular editor is editing to make a point (even with the edit summaries) and will self-revert. If they didn't, then what should be done? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar most editors are with reporting vandalism to AIV but there is a longstanding system of warnings that was not followed in this case. Checks and balances. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Only if after the final warning there is more disruption should a block be needed. Saying "I'll make a similar test edit next week" in no way necessitates a block... until the edit is made next week! If they don't get it after next week, then block them. A 24-hour block. It is not only AGF to do it in an escalating fashion: it's evidence that the party got a fair shake. It reflects well on the system. How many vandals have we seen in our time here? We try to give even the worst vandals a fair shake before indeffing them, and I really think this case was botched. Thanks for responding! Doc talk 08:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's aggressive but remember that indefinite is not permanent. Don't forget that the first experiments were back in May and then in October (most likely a new semester) [excluding the no edit summary one from May 2014 so it may be possible that the teacher won't even notice all this chaos even with a one-week block. One year after the first vandalism and even then a warning in May would be fine but no one would know what to expect if they come back in six month increments and edit this way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No admin could possibly walk me through the four diffs that would lead to a proper final warning, or show even one diff of additional vandalism after the final warning that would lead to a proper block to prevent damage. This is obviously a very special case that is exempt from even basic AIV evidentiary standards. My bad. Doc talk 09:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

AIV is more of a "typical" case but it's not the way more blocks are done to be realistic. An AIV series of warnings for someone who edited twice in a year will never resolve this type of issue. Either way, my view is that blocking overall was fine and thus it was a "good" block as long as there's interaction. Not blocking would never resolve anything as we wouldn't know if she was paying attention for months anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's be honest: it's not about the merits of the case, but the admin's alleged "misconduct". The ranks have closed with this backslapping and the handwriting is on the wall. The very wording of the "incident" is self-serving. It's basically, "Did I screw up here? Well, of course not, because this teacher is actually instructing her students how to vandalize Wikipedia! The nerve! Hold your applause." What most of you absolutely fail to get is that the teacher is not instructing/encouraging her students to vandalize Wikipedia - she's showing them how it works. It's not supposed to be used as a source on itself and stuff like that. I've read this[23] many times over, and I really do not see any malicious intent at all; or an imminent threat of disruption that requires a block. Seriously? Some of the "good block" comments I see are actually frightening in their misunderstanding and application of teh rulez. AGF folks! Peace out :> Doc talk 10:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's about how to resolve the situation. As someone there said, you can show off how an admin's powers work by randomly protecting or deleting pages too but there's places for that kind of stuff. There's been an attempt even if after the fact to talk about the issue. What else can be done? There has been no comment by the editor. Should we just let it go and say "anyone watching this school article, about once every six months, someone will come by and vandalize it to make a point"? "Let it go because someone on the internet says they are a teacher trying to make a point? Do you want to admonish the admin for seeing what is clearly vandalism here and do what, demand they lose their bit over it? The reason admins follow the rules strictly and seem to have little sense for humor is that there's tens of thousands of examples of the exact same thing every day and it's the rules mean nothing ("ok, a little vandalism is fine, people should just wait and see if after an hour after she vandalizes like this will she come back and fix it like she here" and if not, someone else hopefully catches it and fixes it). Those edits has no edit summary, and were over an hour before they were fixed. The newer ones, yeah, explained but that doesn't mean anyone knows when she plans on fixing it and the point is, overall it creates more work around here and every little bit of work that isn't productive, that eventually adds up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I definitely do not think the admin should be admonished for anything, and I hope that is clearly understood. I think this case was way more mishandled by the peanut gallery than any one admin. Just my opinion. Consensus is obviously going to be in favor of closing the thread as a good block applied; and hopefully that will be realized soon so the thing can be archived. Cheers again :> Doc talk 10:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think looking at the user's talk page, you need what's really happening which is that while there's a block, it's not a template red box "YOU ARE VANDALIZING AND THEREFORE NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT" crazy notice, it's a series of editors telling her that's not the way to go and some people actually being productive and linking her to the educational assignments stuff we have. And besides, I doubt that admin (or most in the peanut gallery including me) will do the same thing next time the next time they see a teacher doing the same kind of thing. You just need one person calling you out to make you regret anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Ricky,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards,  — Scott • talk 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur passive aggressive

Hasteur's bot has done something wrong to cause the issues reported all of a sudden but his pride will get in the way of addressing the issue. As you can see from his passive aggression towards us he's not going to answer two editors with 10 and 11 years WP experience in a civil manner, so I am giving up dealing with him and moving on to happy things :) JMHamo (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair. Hasteur has a right to be short if the bot is doing precisely what the bot is authorized to do and no more. The problem is there's no clear place where one can see what exactly the bot is doing (and I think Hasteur's main point is that the bot's job is to tag the articles with G13 itself not the G13 eligible category so the G13 eligible category is not the issue). As I suggest, maybe a faq or something at the top of the page will help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Mrandrewnohome at it again

You unblocked this user, editing under the signature Andrew, when he promised not to engage in promoting antisemetic propoganda. He's at it again, here at the ref desk following the usual M.O. of saying he's doing a university group project. Googling the requested edition brings you to such gems (my bolding) as this http://www.gailallen.com/his/Der-Sturmer-May-1934-Jewish-Ritual-Murder.html: The Jewish Ritual Murder Transcription of the May 1934 Der Strumer (The Striker) published by Julius Streicher

Christian Vanguard - February 1976 Introduction to Der Sturmer

Julius Streicher, German educator, writer, and politician, in whose memory this paper was printed, was a victim of the horrible Talmudic Blood Rite known as the Nuremberg trials....

Apparently his promise not to stoke controversies in the guise of a question "It won't happen again --Andrew 6:17 pm, 17 August 2015, Monday (2 months, 18 days ago)" was meant to indicate it wouldn't happen again for about two months. Let me know if you'd prefer that I take this to ANI, but I figured bringing it to you first. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have taken this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_Anti-Semitic_concern_trolling_by_User:Mrandrewnohome_at_the_Reference_Desks if you'd like to comment. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As I stated there, I don't think it's fair to call it trolling. While I find the material distasteful to put it mildly, there exists academic resources about the material. I've pointed those out and even added that repeating the propaganda here isn't going to fly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice

A discussion of uninvolved administrators has been requested at WP:AE regarding an administrative action with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User space page

Why didn't you talk to me about it before putting it at MfD? If it was unwanted I would have {{G7}}'d it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

Sorry, I was just going through Category:Userspace drafts and noticed a page that clearly was already created. I forgot to check if the editor was active or else I'd ask you first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ping

In case the ping doesn't work, I left a note for you in my comment at WP:AE about HughD's block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2011

User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2011, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2011 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2011 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC

I'd long forgotten about those, and they should have been deleted. But probably simpler to just ask me to add {{db-u1}} at the top of the page than starting a deletion discussion. Nfitz (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well you hadn't created it so I wasn't sure what was going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Hello. Can you explain how Draft:2009-2010 Mary Fisk School screamer incident was an attack page? Thanks. 50.153.133.6 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It's unsourced nonsense naming some person. Find something better to do than to make fun of your classmates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My user page

Is there any way I can see what you deleted? "User:Jozsefs/Sabac"

I honestly don't remember what I had put there, but I'm curious to see what it was so I can have a better understanding of why I'm being accused of blatant advertising/misuse of wikipedia. Jozsefs (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a very old draft that just said "John Fuentes, also known as Sabac" from 2010. The biggest issue was that it hadn't been touched in a few years (WP:WEBHOST) and you weren't active here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jozsefs: if you want it restored, I can restore it but it just leave it again for years, it'll be deleted again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User page under User_talk:Wikip rhyre

User:Wikip_rhyre/Systems_architecture_review_board - had some content, but it's now deleted, and it's not archived anywhere I can find.

How to I restore it to userspace so I can edit it again? rhyre (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The proper place would I think be WP:REFUND but you could ask any admin about it. Since I'm one, I've restored User:Wikip rhyre/Systems architecture review board. However I remind you that this is not supposed to be place to just host content indefinitely. It's been there sine 2009 with no editing for a three-year period at least. I presume you want it to go somewhere at some point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a question

How broad is HughD's topic ban and what is his specific ban? Because he is currently editing the Clarion Project. If this is not in violation I will drop it and let it go. But, this specific edit here is connecting it to Donors Capital Fund. On Donors Capital Fund he had previously made several edits connecting them with other conservative or libertarian groups like here, here, and here. And on these Hugh went through and added details about relations to the Tea Party or the Kochs. Is this too tangential? On one hand I could see it as such, but on the other it appears he is attempting to tow the line of his block. Just wanted to see what should be done. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The ban is over all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:AE about a prior incident that's moot. If you wish, start a new AE discussion and I think we need to broaden the scope if it's another violation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

note

One editor HughD has insisted on including

Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 22, 2015. "Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine...Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you."

In the BLP for Moncton. What one might not notice is that the same article specifically accuses the Kochs of being involved in that issue, and that the named "dirty dozen" has five of the dozen being expressly connected to Koch by Harkinson. There is an RfC, not yet closed, on that BLP which the editor appears to have interpreted as giving him licence to draw attention to the Kochs. Collect (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I hate this. I mean, I really hate this. Do we need to expand this to all politics or something? Anything related to climate change and campaign financing? All conservatism? There has to be a better use of time than playing this with him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree - but I was "reported" for saying a post that the Kochs are related to a Nazi mass murderer was pernicious, and the complainant pointed out that the article was "politics related" per se. I find all broad bans to be useless, but the person here is specifically pushing the envelope with his seeming refusal to note that per WP:BLP calling a person a "climate change denier" in a "Dirty Dozen" specifically citing the Kochs is an opinion and must be strictly sourced and ascribed as opinion. If something is not objective fact stated as such in reliable sources, then we must be careful not to assert it as "fact" in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[24] appears to be a WP:OWN issue - a person proposes something at RfD. votes for it, asserts it "wins" and tells others

Your interpretation of the discussions as supporting your preferred edit are unfounded. Your opinion on this RfC is noted and tallied above, thank you. I'm sorry the consensus of this RfC did not go your way. Please do not disrupt this RfC. 22:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)"

I think mayhaps one editor has gotten too far invested into the "Koch and the Dirty Dozen" meme. Collect (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Korean drinking game -- inappropriate speedy

This was not an appropriate speedy deletion. Legacypac, who is not an admin, closed several AFDs as delete this morning, then put speedy tags on the articles. After objections, they reversed the NAC closes, but left the speedy tags in place. The speedy tags were not legitimately placed. It wouldn't surprise me if the AFDs were closed as delete, but this approach is just an abuse of process by Legacypac, apparently some sort of WP:POINTy reaction to the Neelix fiasco.[25] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean drinking game? It's two deletes, the original nominator and a single comment. An NAC seems fine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barechestedness was reversed but I'll close it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I could have sworn I have seen NAC closed as deletes before so I reversed and re-closed Korean drinking game myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently a process like this has been approved for TfD discussions, since the backlog there had grown really large and there was very little admin interest in the board, but extending it to any other discussions hasn't gained consensus, so far as I know. I've raised the incident at ANI, because I'm concerned that this end-run around processwill be repeated more disruptively (not likely by this user, I hope). Thanks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 930310 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 930310 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Blanking

Why was this page blanked rather than deleted under G6? Isn't this exactly what G6 is meant for – housekeeping? Personally, I find {{inactive userpage blanked}} to be quite a pathetic template, that should be used only when there are no other options. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that blanking accomplishes nothing. I've taken those to MFD and people have argued against deletion on the basis that editors could come back. Blanking is a middle ground and I don't think G6 allows for it. I've seen admins take an aggressive view on G13 to allow for stale userspace drafts that way but that's also been opposed. Unfortunately, there are people who (legitimately to be fair) believe that editors could come back years later. Some actually do when their pages are brought up at MFD but I doubt anyone would for pages like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to a specific case here. That page, as well as the four others which I tagged for G6 deletion are completely balnk. They contain no other content apart from the default text produced by the Article Wizard. And of course, they turn out to be stale by several months or years. I don't think anyone can object to the deletion of a blank page. So, next time you come across a blank userspace draft produced by Article Wizard, please delete it as G6 is totally valid. Creation of a draft with no content apart from the title is no better than a sugesstion for an article (that should rather be made at WP:RA). And given the sorry state of the Requested Articles project, we all know how worthless such a suggestion is. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I don't have the energy but if I look at the MFD archives, I can find discussions where literally the default Article Wizard text was submitted and people objected. I have zero idea why but people are worried about offending someone who could get scared or frightened or whatever bizarre emotion they give to the draft creators. Drafts from 2004 have been fought. People have complained to ANI after it too so I don't have any interest in screwing around with these past the passive approach of blanking and moving on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't A3 the appropriate criterion for the situation you describe, rather than G6? The second sentence of the description of A3 says specifically: "This may also apply to articles consisting entirely of the framework of the Article wizard with no additional content." This therefore seems much more relevant than G6. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A3 is for articles. This is for userspace. Userspace allows for blank articles as it can be a draft or just testing. I mean, the reality is what we're arguing doesn't really cause anyone any trouble, it's just wasted space and wasted listings on tables of old drafts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The first comment at MFD here is as expected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Dylan J Gomila

The mentioned(submitted for deletion by yourself)article is a translation to Spanish of an existing article in English on Gibraltar Musuem and is intended for Spanish readers and therefore for Spanish wikipedia. Has this decision have anything to do with the admin of the Gibraltar Museum or they have made complaint of such article.As im no longer an employee there and i'm not in the best of terms with them.Bytheway who are you Ricky? Just to make sure i'm not being done for here.Thanks.Dylan J Gomila (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You hadn't touched it nor edited at all in over two years. There are concerns about keeping old drafts for years. Do you need it here or shouldn't it be started at Spanish Wikipedia? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Super Squad (November 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Nikkolas123/Super Squad and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That'll teach you to fix someone's typo! [26] EEng (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved this notice to User talk:Nikkolas123 as that editor created the page. Let them be informed about what's happened. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of 1833 AD

Recently, an article created by me about the band, 1833 AD, was deleted. The reason for deletion was mentioned in the log as the article not credibly reflecting the importance of the subject. However, the article clearly indicated that 1833 AD are the pioneers of black metal in India. They are famous amongst the underground metal scene. If 1833 AD are not important as an article, what about stubs like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-Ball_%28band%29 and many others listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Heavy_metal_stubs . I don't think all of them are "important" as an article for wikipedia. Please let me know what or how should I edit in the article, so as to reflect its importance. Regards! canaar 17:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The requirement under WP:A7 is that the article "credibly indicate" its significance not just claim it. The article claimed that it was "considered a pioneer of black metal in the Indian music scene" and then cited the band's home page. However, I will restore it and move it to Draft:1833 AD (band) to allow for further work to pass WP:MUSICBIO. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

List of stale drafts

Hi Ricky, I remember seeing a list (report) of stale drafts that was in an Admins User space.. do you know what I am talking about and could you give it to me please. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This fun and games are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts. If you aren't interested in the fun of going alphabetically, Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard is chronological. As to admins or not, I have no idea. Many of those are active users. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Admins userspace? You might be referring to User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo:, the IP is right. That's a list of pages in draftspace that are more than six months since they were last edited (and do not contain an AFC banner or else they'd be G13 eligible). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks @103.6.159.71: JMHamo (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources unplugged

Yep, it'd be Fleet Submarine. Looks like I pulled the bare ref & forgot to take (or use...) the full one... Thx for spotting it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Serialjoepsycho_removing_sourced_content_and_not_being_civil

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Serialjoepsycho_removing_sourced_content_and_not_being_civil. Hi, I was wondering if you can take a look at the AN again, since you commented on that section previously. I don't want to revert and get reported to AE again, but I feel like I'm up against a Wikilawyer and someone who thinks he owns the page, I'd appreciate a look and a look at the talk page. Thanks! Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bostonnine

I saw that you blocked this editor indefinitely for personal attacks. Although I appreciate a firm stance on antisemitic remarks, I think that might have been a bit harsh, in view of the fact that this editor has tried to make a few good contributions, is a first time offender, and is obviously completely new to Wikepedia. I think an explanation on their talkpage and shortening the block to a few days would be a good idea, and this editor can possibly become an asset to this project. Debresser (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor's remarks weren't antisemitic. It was the editor's choice to call everyone opposing them antisemitic that got them blocked. It's a matter of WP:CIVIL and being mature enough to discuss the issue. The revisions I deleted at Talk:Haredi Judaism show a complete inability to discuss things sensibly. Until the editor acknowledges that calling people Antisemitic "Jew haters" "with a plan more complex than Hitler had" due to a disagreement on whether to rename an article is wildly inappropriate, I don't care how new you are, you don't do that to anyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I saw he is also the same editor who edited Religion in Israel, based on this edit commentary. If so, then I am happy to be rid of this pain in the behind. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Didn't take long to change your mind lol. People seem perfectly sensible until the slightest resistance and Bostonnine has a competency problem here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WOP tagging for historical/biblical/whateverical figures

Do you really think this is in scope? [27] EEng (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a part of Category:Longevity traditions which is within Template:Longevity. Seems like it to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like grasping on the part of the WOPpers, but I guess if it gives them something to chew on, OK. EEng (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I've said this before but I think the project could be renamed to "Longevity" and include more about the centenarians (to pull away from the GRG cruft), and be made more in line with WP Biographies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ageing and culture. I'd rather have these arguments with them to get the point across that their mindset doesn't really work for everything else around here. Keeping it so self-contained is a part of the problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Indian Occupied States and territories of India listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Indian Occupied States and territories of India. Since you had some involvement with the Indian Occupied States and territories of India redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Don't really have anything to say. Just curious about the person who tags a lot of MfD so that I can delete them. This barnstar sort of seemed appropriate. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, I'm just the nut trying to clean out Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see there is still a bit of work to be done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's about 2000 pages a month that add to the backlog (November 2014 popping in) from what I can tell (and I think it's actually increasing) so we managed to get from 46,607 to 46,285 net in that time period. That's just alphabetical compared to the dated listing which go back to 2009 substantively with some scattered pages back from 2005. Still I think we've published a half dozen new pages that went from an old draft to draftspace to publication with a least two dozen more that I think will die as a G13 so worth it? I don't know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Rowan Blanchard

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's still there under December 2nd. I don't think preemptively extending it makes sense but it may make sense to switch to semi-protection and not to let those editors do anything in the first place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect it then if you want. --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like User:AlexiusHoratius did it instead. I'm not used to protection. I generally prefer to let the protection expire and see if it's needed but everyone has different opinions here. No worries though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Another problematic editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamasha_(film)&diff=693128919&oldid=693126385

This user's edit summary is that BOI(boxofficeindia) is better than others,please explain him. --The Avengers 01:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Baptism record

Hi. I want to know is baptism record reliable source to confirm person's real age? Example Cruz Hernández from El Salvador claimed to be 128 but her baptism record says that her real year of birth was 1893 so her real age was 113 years and 309 days [28]. Also Carmelo Flores Laura from Bolivia claimed to be nearly 124 but his baptism record says that he was born in 1906 so he was actually nearly 108 [29]. So if baptism record is reliable source then Cruz Hernández might have been oldest known woman ever from El Salvador and Carmelo Flores Laura might have been oldest known man ever from Bolivia. But does baptism record is good enough proof about person's real age? 85.134.25.113 (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This should be discussed at the reliable source noticeboard but the first concern is that this a primary source, namely that no one other than the editors here that this record belongs to Hernandez. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Kundan Srivastava

I believe that in the article should not be deleted because it has no less sources. I don't able to understand that why Wikipedia contest this article for speedy deletion. Kundan Srivastava is the voice of India and young face of the Society. He is founder of NGO Be In Humanity Foundation and Universal Humanity Awardee. He is a young activist and author of women's issues Novel. He is recently facing a controversy where feminists misunderstood his post. The article has many reliable sources and I strongly believe that he deserves. Thank you! Syd4tech (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The article does not have independent, reliable sources about him. Various blogs do not count as reliable sources. There is no evidence from reliable sources that any of those organizations themselves would pass WP:ORG let alone that he would pass WP:BIO. There have been numerous discussions about this and to be blunt, there is no evidence that no one actually cares about his facebook post controversy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Drafts

Hi, I just thought I'd drop you a quite note to say... well, thanks, I guess. I and some other EastEnders editors were a little worried that there was going to be mass MFD or moving to draftspace of our userspace drafts, but that hasn't happened, which is great. The creation of Category:Draft-Class EastEnders articles (and indeed Category:Draft-Class soap opera articles) is actually really good, as it can be used for collaborative efforts as an easy way to find draft articles. One draft I noticed is User:GSorby/Mia McKenna Bruce, which now exists in article form at Mia McKenna-Bruce, and I don't think anything can be merged. I'm sure there are others. AnemoneProjectors 17:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I may seem like a crazy person some days but my goal is to have one solid version of any article, mainspace or userspace or wherever. As long as the editor is active, my only concern is merging any other drafts (if they should be merged) so that we have all the information in one place. I'm glad the category helps, I think the project can use it to keep their article requests in order and can see that multiple people have created their own drafts which is fine (you shouldn't be required to coordinate unless it is in mainspace) and can coordinate if they want or people can split them off if they want (as long as they put in the proper attribution). I noticed that User:Eaststreetlover had drafts after being blocked in 2013 so User:Eaststreetlover/Andrew Cotton was moved to Draft:Andrew Cotton (the only one). I informed User_talk:GSorby#Draft:Andrew_Cotton since there's User:GSorby/Andrew Cotton and the draftspace one will at least be seen and may get moved earlier than the userspace draft. It seems like the project didn't set up WP:ALERTS (it's pretty easy to set up) so they should consider that and can find out if any other pages are taken to MFD or the like (looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts). I've ask for alerts to figure out a way to notify wikiproject if their drafts get taken to G13 status so the more people can work together, the better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Article alerts? There haven't been any alerts for this project since March! All the really excellent editors who used to get articles up to GA standard seem to have vanished. AnemoneProjectors 11:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

:( -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! There are articles I could definitely take to GA, but I often lack the confidence or motivation! There are some very good editors still with us though. AnemoneProjectors 15:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin attacking User:Oiyarbepsy for protecting new users. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And I hope you're pleased the IP took it to ANI, Ricky. Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion isn't the most high-profile page, and the ANI attention is surely responsible for the recent influx of fresh supports for yelling, insulting, and destroying the good work of editors. Oh, and for ripping to shreds the hard work of alll editors and rampant mass genocide of tens of thousands of articles. (When I saw that "genocide", I semi'd ANI for a few hours. What a pity the range of the IP-hopper is too big to block.) Bishonen | talk 12:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen It looks like it was one troll too far. Either way, that's only a minute request for a CSD criteria that may cover 1-2k pages out of the 46k. I'd have prefer expanding G13 to all those drafts but that's been opposed repeatedly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People

I merely wanted notice of this discussion to get to interested editors. And not be buried in some list. No worries. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, there's a ton of random discussions out there. Either way, that one was withdrawn. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you think?

Hey, I saw you were working on Draft:Daniel Bauer (make-up artist). I further edited the content per WP:MOS and NPOV. Take a look. What do you think? I hope I didn't step on your toes.Susana Hodge (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at these? It is HughD again

I believe you are an interested editor here, would you mind looking at these? It is HughD again. This went to AE and the wide terms of your TBAN were overturned. However, even after you blocked him, in addition to the TBAN, HughD flagrantly continued to edit a Franklin topic Watchdog.org between October 29 and the closure of the AE on 7 December. With the closing statement. "Consensus here that the edits aren't covered by the TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)"

1. Discussion with the AE closing editor [30]
2. A new ANI
3. The AE (collapsed, top of page)

Thank you! Disclosure, I am not connected nor have any relationship with these topics, paid or otherwise, my signature disclosure comes from an abundance of caution. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 02:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd definitely appreciate the input. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! This is in relation to Talk:David Lisak and the case can be found at WP:DRN#Talk:David Lisak. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Round one of discussions have been open for almost 24 hours. Please make sure to check back every day if possible, so we can resolve this dispute in a timely manner. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in DRN. I've had to close the dispute for failure to respond from the other parties, but I thank you for your response and contribution. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and discussion of topic ban policy

Point made. Collapsing to move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your ongoing effort to cleanse our project of irrelevant material of old drafts and old people. I know from your frequent comments you perceive yourself as extremely busy, but, as you know, as a condition of your administrative privileges on our project, you are required to be discuss and explain your administrative actions, even if doing so takes your time, and even if the other person in the discussion is not an administrator of our project such as yourself. I would like to discuss with you an important policy of our project, WP:TBAN, because your shortfalls in understanding of this policy have led to some problematic administrative actions recently. Purpose of topic ban WP:TBAN is a policy of our project. WP:TBAN states the purpose of topic bans in its opening sentence as: The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. What is your understanding of the purpose of topic bans? Regarding the last clause of the first sentence of our project's topic ban policy, "to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia," what is your understanding of that clause? Do you believe that our project is best served when collaboration on articles is restricted to editors who are sympathetic to the subject? Do you believe that an unstated purpose of our project's topic ban policy is to allow a group of editors, in collaboration with a sympathetic administrator, to select editors of common ideology to work on certain articles? Scope of topic bans Our project's topic ban policy offers guidance on determining the scope of topic bans, clear for those who will hear. As you know, the determination of the scope of topic bans is illustrated by several examples involving the weather. Here is one example, the fourth bullet: For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not; What is your understanding of this example? My understanding of our project's topic ban policy is that the word signifying the topic of a topic ban is not a "magic word" that, were it to occur in an article, brings an entire article into scope. Clearly, the stated purpose of our project's topic ban policy is to allow conscientious editors to contribute to our project, up to and including parts of articles which are not related to the topic ban. Similarly, "any and all related" are not "magic words" which a banning administrator may add to a topic ban notice, in order to override the clearly stated policy of our project. Do you believe you are above policy? Do you believe the fourth bullet of WP:TBAN is optional? Do you believe that you are empowered, should you encounter an editor whose sins are sufficiently egregious, to issue a topic ban which is exempt from parts of our project's topic ban policy? I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions on this. Let us work together to improve your understanding of this important policy. If you disagree with our project's policy, venues are available to you, may I recommend you start at the talk page of the policy. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Please stop trying to bludgeon this process. You are topic banned from editing related to Tea party politics, including the Koch brothers. Topics includes investment vehicles by them and relates to Tea party politics. Since you refuse to make following this simple, I've expanded it to something that I hope is easier for everyone to distinguish as either a violation or not a violation of the topic ban. This was in contrast to another block which I don't think was being productive but we shall see. The discussions you have started and your RFC show the same problems that occurred with the August RFC that I originally enacted the topic ban for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Your reluctance to discuss your administrative actions is a highly characteristic aspect of your approach to your administrative actions, many diffs available on request. Please stop characterizing discussing your administrative actions with a colleague as "bludgeoning." Discussing and explaining your administrative actions is part of the responsibility you assume when you take administrative actions. If you are not comfortable discussing your administrative actions may I respectfully suggest fewer administrative actions, leave it to someone else. Thank you. I would like to hear your response to the above posted questions. I will look forward to hearing in your own words your understanding of our project's topic ban policy and to collaborating with you on improving your understanding of our project's topic ban policy and helping make you the best administrator you can be. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Above in the talk page segment you collapsed, two excerpts from our topic ban policy are cited, and a colleague respectfully requested that you share your personal understanding of those two excerpts, and I look forward to your reply. Thank you. (A) Thank you for explicitly stating that you consider yourself above consensus. My topic ban doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to this issue: a pointed administrator of our project who considers themselves above consensus and taking way too much pleasure at wielding the awesome powers devovled in the recent AE regime. Regardless of your perception of your personal empowerment, might in any case a consensus of uninvolved editors give you some small pause? What do you make of the recent complaint at AE WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#HughD? The clear consensus of uninvolved administrators was that Watchdog.org was out of scope, that there was no topic ban violation. Did you read that thread? Are those uninvolved administrators confused? I think most people when they saw that many colleagues who disagree with them, it might make one stop and think. Do you think you have nothing to learn from these uninvolved administrators, or from me, about policy, or about yourself? Hugh (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC) (B) Please provide a diff of Callnnecc's expressed support of expansion. At the thread you linked to on Callnnecc's talk page, I find support your involvement as banning administrator, but I find no statement of support for an expansion of the topic ban. Quite the contrary, I find a calm, rational, concise explication, to some of your fellow editors who are likewise unclear, of the proper application of policy, until you intervened and made all progress toward broader understanding moot. In fact, the record is that you interfered only after you were alerted by an involved editor Would you mind looking at these? It is HughD again above that Callnnecc expressly dissented from your idiosyncratic interpretation of our project's policy. It's really very sad because some of us were really quite close to a positive outcome closure until you jumped in in haste and in anger. Hugh (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC) (E) "punishment" Thank you for your frank feedback on my editorial efforts. Of course as an administrator you know you are not special, so I may from time to time provide you with feedback on your behavior. In that spirit, may I respectfully remark that another highly characteristic aspect of your administrative actions is your adamant refusal to use diffs and to cite specific policy or guidelines, preferring instead a vague waving of hands, numerous diffs available upon request if you are unclear on the frequency of this tendency. I'm glad we agree you recently expanded a topic ban without process. You have yet to provide any basis in behavior or policy for an expansion and have ignored repeated requests 10 December 2015. Hugh (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

MfD suggestion

User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Levon Aronian may be MfD'd per WP:UP#COPIES as article already exists at Levon Aronian and the sandbox draft has been stale for over an year and does not contain any significant improvements. 103.6.159.85 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

David Lisak

Hey. I saw you were interested in/working on the David Lisak article. I've tried to resolve the disputed issue by adding different sources that discuss criticisms of his work. Just wanted to give you a heads up in case you wanted to weigh in on the talk page or edit. NoahB (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest you participate at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:_David_Lisak rather than revise the article directly so we have some consistency of discussion. Currently there are simultaneous discussions at the talk page, RSN and DSN. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Collapse of discussion of neutrality?

We're done here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully inquire, what is your basis in policy or guideline for collapsing a talk page discussion of article neutrality at Watchdog.org, with the justification "going nowhere"? Of course you understand neutrality is one of our key values on our project. This is a very serious action, collapsing a neutrality discussion. Why is it so important to you to make sure this discussion goes nowhere? May I ask, in your own mind do you consider yourself an uninvolved administrator or uninvolved editor when it comes to issues of American conservative politics? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) "It's not neutral"/"Yes it is" is not a fruitful discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC) What is your basis in policy or guideline for collapsing this a talk page discussion of article neutrality? Was this an administrative action or an editorial action? Did you consider contributing your point of view to the discussion? Do you consider yourself an uninvolved administrator/editor on issues of American conservative politics? Hugh (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC) I don't believe I've ever edited there. However if you think I'm too involved to make a topic ban, that discussion is best left to WP:AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC) I know it is not your way, but may I respectfully request you cite policy or guideline in support of your recent collapse of an article talk page discussion of the neutrality of the article? If not, may I respectfully request that you revert your collapse? Even if you do not wish to contribute to the discussion, other editors may. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC) See WP:TALK. As I noted, the discussion of whether or the page was neutral was not going anywhere. You had similar discussions ongoing about various sources going on above including an RFC. What was the point of that separate discussion other than as I said above for an "It's not neutral"/"No, it's neutral" argument that wasn't going to go anywhere? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Anyone is free to revert it if they wish but there was no one else in support of your views. Why do you care? Do you expect someone to wander to that talk page randomly and want to continue a general discussion about neutrality rather than have a particular point they want to discuss? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Well, I don't think it is going anywhere now that a noted belligerent administrator has collapsed it. WP:TALK is a big article, can you please be more specific about what in WP:TALK justifies your collapsing an article talk page discussion of the neutrality of the article? Or simply self-revert the collapse, no hard feelings. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Best work?

Should have known better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We are very different editors. I am a writer. I am proud of my article space percentage, I think rightfully so. I am proud of my contributions to the neutrality of articles related to American politics. I feel I am entitled to some respect for focusing on article space, and for contributing to the neutrality of difficult topics. I am particularly proud of my work on Richard M. Daley, and on Americans for Prosperity; I think anyone mindfull of anekantavada comparing the current articles with the articles before my involvement could see the improvement. Ten years ago when you self-nominated for adminship, you cited your article space contributions related to the RuneScape online game as among your proudest efforts, and until this day those articles top your article space contributions; but, as we both know, edit counts are not everything, so may I ask, has your assessment of your own proudest article space contributions changed? We seem to both have an active interest in American politics, given which, it seems we will continue to collaborate, so I hope it will help build mutual rapport going forward if I could look over some of your finest writing on our project. Some are not big on badges, but I did not find any good articles or featured articles or did you knows on your user page. Can you please direct me? May I respectfully revisit a question from ten years ago: what of your contributions are you most pleased? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Back-handed criticisms of me does not help make your point here. Your problems have come about because of your inability to see your partisanship and your refusal to treat other views with a similar level of respect. If you want to argue that your content creation should give you more free reign, you are free to do so. There are a number of individuals who feel that same way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Starting an RfC is the ultimate in treating the views of others with respect. My starting an RfC is progress. I would please like to look at some of your best writing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC) I know it is not your way, but please provide a diff of one of my edits which documents your charge of partisanship. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Are you just trying to annoy me here? Do you want me to block you? I'm seriously trying to see your goal here. Do you think picking and picking bit by bit has accomplished anything for you? If you simply refuse to see any issues with your editing, that's on you at this point. I'm not engaging this any further with you, take it to WP:AE if you think you've been wronged. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. Thank you for your engagement on your talk page. Well, you have the advantage of me, there, since as you know I am not an administrator of our project like you. I have no desire to file at AE. You have your tendencies, I have mine. One of mine is to try to settle issues one-on-one. I am not going away and you are not going away, so I sincerely think it is best if we learn to co-exist on this project together. My goal is hopefully to facilitate some self-reflection on your administrative actions. Easiest for everyone on this project is for you to simply reconsider. Do you simply refuse to see any issues with your administrative actions? You have commented that you believe administrators of our project are unfairly targeted in filings, and I agree in general, but I know in my own life sometimes I am my own worst enemy, and it may be that declining to explain and discuss your administrative actions, and threatening those who attempt to do so, may be contributing to your appearing as the subject of filings. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Hugh, Ricky does not have to answer your questions. I think it has been made clear to you that he is finding your line of questioning annoying. Repeatedly demanding evidence of "best writing" has nothing to do with administrative accountability. You are sea lioning and I am joining Ricky in asking you to stop. HighInBC 16:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC) May I respectfully rephrase: may I please respectfully review some of your contributions to articles on American politics, whether best work or not, whether article space or administrative actions? You seem to have an intense interest in American politics, and a well-honed intuition when it comes to skimming detailed talk page discussions on complex content issues related to American politics, and a genuine gift for very quickly sorting through the plurality of viewpoints espoused, and zeroing in on editors who threaten our project with their partisanship. Did you develop these skills with a decade of administrative actions, actions targeting the breadth of the spectrum in American politics? Thank you again for your engagement on your talk page and thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC) My contributions are all public. Review the 10 years or over 100,000 contributions at your leisure. There are tools that will assist you but I'm not going to because I don't care to. Again, if your point here is that your bans are inappropriate, that is best for WP:AE and frankly, pulling up evidence like that I created pages like John J. Pettus or Contaminated haemophilia blood products over 11 years ago is the closest you'll find for that point. I'm certain I've edited political pages over the years, I just don't know why that's relevant to you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your contributions to our project and for your continued engagement on your talk page, I genuinely appreciate your time. My point here is good faith, collegiality, a hope that through dialog we can come to understand each other better, I was not fishing for help finding rabid right wing edits, I guess maybe I was sort of asking after administrative actions in response to threats to the smooth running of our project from editors whom you perceive as on the breadth of the spectrum of American politics. Thank you for your reply, I understand from your reply that you do not in general consider yourself as deeply involved in American politics in our project as a personal editorial focus, please correct me if I am wrong. Yes, we both know, all of both of our contributions are public. In summary of my article space contributions, may I note that I have been much more active in editing to provide balance and neutrality by adding controversies and criticisms and unflattering points of view to liberal Democratic politicians than in conservative Republican. I believe your above expressed perception of me as partisan is unfounded, and I please ask again for a single diff that is not better understood as a good faith effort to fairly summarize reliable sources. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC) I don't care to do so. I think we're done here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Category discussions

Good morning, there are quite a few old CfD discussions not closed yet, see this list. Would you be willing to close a couple of October and early November? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Football nicknames

Dear Ricky81682,

Please see my comments in the Talk section of the 1859-1900 Football History page.

Regards, Albert Isaacs (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

draft tags

All of those had failed AFC a while ago and will not become articles. No project tags for non-articles. MPJ-US  23:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

They are drafts. They could be re-written and made into competent articles in the future. The professional wrestling projects has complained in the past when it wasn't told about these and the video games project has never cared so I don't know why you're edit warring to remove them. If they aren't relevant to the project, fine then get rid of them but at least the project will be informed if someone takes them to MFD which I'm presuming is the goal of tagging these things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

climate change cat delete

I didn't participate, and see the point. But how will we categorize these people? The Associated Press asked them how they should be called. They requested "climate doubter". -- GreenC 03:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the BLP/N issue was on whether to put them into a category. We do have separate articles about people but I'd say we don't generally categorize people by viewpoints on particular issue in general but it was a long tiring read. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Confused

I assume that this, putting categories on a user talk page, was a mistake? Or am I missing something? BMK (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Tagging draft articles? It's generally not something that's bothered people. In fact some projects have appreciated it as people then work together to consolidate similar drafts or otherwise keep their list of requested articles and identify drafts going forward (see above in #Drafts). Also helps them if the users drop off find things to work on. That seems like it was an offense to him so I'll delete it. I know the Law project has lists of various judges and bar heads they'll building so whatever, if he's offended, good for him I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Golly gee willickers, never mind. I told you I was confused. I didn't put two and two together properly to realize that it was (it's been speedily deleted now) a talk page connected to a draft article. Why I didn't realize that I couldn't tell you, but that's what happened.

Sorry to bother you, carry on as before. BMK (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I deleted it. His edit summaries were not particularly nice but if he's that offended, I'm not going to bother with it. I was the one who proposed that Biography include drafts and I think it's been immensely helpful in pretty much every project I've added it to. It's just a different way for people to gnome here and to help create articles, something that's kind of lost with all the volume we have. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Selective upmerge

For info, I spotted your close at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_18#Category:Descendants_of_Eber and re-parented things where needed. – Fayenatic London 23:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Establishments in Portuguese Macau by year

Category:Establishments in Portuguese Macau by year, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Pdfpdf/Art Directors Club

Wow! (That's a "blast from the past"!!) Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A question

I am preemptively apologizing for bringing this up to you again (I've been following everything and I know you are tired of dealing with this all) but what is the nature of HughD's topic ban? Last I saw it looked like it was being expanded to all pages related to conservatism in the U.S. after a certain date. It appears he may already be violating it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarion_Project&diff=695658551&oldid=695651453

Just to be clear he had attempted to link the Clarion Project with other pages he was active on in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarion_Project&diff=649885325&oldid=649057449

Hope this is a easier to deal with now than in the past. Either no violation and drop it, or a violation and more serious discipline. Thank you for your consideration. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It's 2009 to the present to cover basically the timeline of Tea party politics. There's no indication that Clarion Project, started in 2006, is in line with that. If you find the editing problematic, that would be for another separate WP:AE under either of the two applicable discretionary sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)