Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 102

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105

A kitten for you!

How to create right article after deletion? Is it possible? I have encyclopedic company description

JohnF3317 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, if a search term does not appear in any existing Wikipedia articles, it is unlikely that it will be a suitable standalone topic. Social Dance TV does not appear in any current live articles. YouTube channels are a dime a dozen. I'm a bit of a fan of Geoff Marshall's channel - note that the article cites multiple reports from BBC News, clearly indicating interest from the wider world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) oh, I enjoy watching Geoff's videos as well. My family can never quite understand the fascination with watching clips of transparent bin-bags blowing in the wind, and watching him ride obscure parliamentary services to High Wycombe, but at least it's cheaper than going to those locations in person...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
In the summer, I was thinking of taking the kids out to Doleham for a walk, but the limited stops there make it completely impossible. So I watched Geoff's video instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I've been on any section of the Marshlink line, but seems like I'm missing out. I will have a read through your article on the subject later on and check out Geoff's Doleham footage.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been on the line many times. (Feel free to chip into the PR I've just opened as mentioned in the above thread). On a summer's day, the view out of the window, where you can see for miles and miles in all directions, is something you just don't get anywhere else in the local area. However, if you actually want to get to Rye or Hastings for something, crawling into Winchelsea at a walking pace is bloody frustrating, and although electrification, dualling, anything to make services faster and better is a political hot potato, I wouldn't hold your breath. And if it's a sunny summer's day, good luck actually getting on the train - I've seen people waiting at Ham Street just give up trying to get on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I've just finished watching the Doleham video, it was very entertaining. Especially when they noted that a 2-car train is too long for the platform there, and that it has a meeting point, as otherwise you wouldn't be able to find someone when meeting them there. The idea of looking out at wide open spaces is a good one too... I saw Geoff's video where he went out to the Burnham on Crouch and Southminster line a while back. I'm working in the City now, and a stones throw from Liverpool Street station so sometimes tempted to head out there for an extended lunch, but it would probably be a 3 hour round trip and someone might notice my absence!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Hi, Ritch (happy you're back) - see this IP - appears to be from an ISD in Frisco, Texas - kids playing around, perhaps? Is it best to just ignore it? Atsme Talk 📧 14:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Dog articles attract a silly amount of vandals. One reverted edit is not worth blocking over; if they carry on, I'll have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted article

Ritchie333 is indisposed at the moment
Is this what they call a "pointy block"? -
@Preciousobichi:, Ritchie333 is indisposed at the moment. If you're willing to wait a day or two, I'll look things over and if there's no WP:COPYVIO issues or spam problems - I'd be willing to put it in your user space. If you're in a hurry for it, you can make a request at WP:REFUND — Ched (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ched:, i will gladly wait. Thank You.Preciousobichi (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Preciousobichi:, actually Barkeep49 restored it, then moved it to User:Preciousobichi/Fii3rd. I followed him around to put the BLP template on the talk page. :-) — Ched (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes, the article creator asked to userfy/draftify the article and a few other editors supported it, I have no idea why Ritchie333 decided to go hard way and delete the article nonetheless. — kashmīrī TALK 16:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have checked the article and the only COPYVIO issues I see are ultimately places that copied from our article so no COPYVIO issues at all. As user resotriation is listed as part of an AfD close I see no reason not to honor the request rather than making them fill out the REFUND paperwork and so I have gone ahead and done it. I had typed out 98% of this message before getting grabbed at work so I didn't finish posting here, but yes this is  Done.​Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:,Thank you. Preciousobichi (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Drifting

Hi @Ritchie333: Your starting to drift and your worrying me. scope_creepTalk 13:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"I used to be a real cool Admin... but I drifted”? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
... drifting towards the kafkaesque, every time when procedures are made moar important than content. I'd forgive you the sin of rescuing that article, Ritchie. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
"trying too hard not to lose my control"? ... as they say in Cape Town. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh for goodness' sake ... there is so much here I don't understand but just from the enduser/cluelesseditor PoV I am very dismayed that someone of Ritchie333's energy and commitment is hors de combat for a timechunk. Can I send someone bribes of chocolate, money, bonio dog biscuits etc? Write to my MP? I would really like Ritchie back. DBaK (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
He'll be back next Wednesday. Hopefully refreshed and raring to go!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's hope so. Unfortunately the question marks over the legitimacy of the block, its imposition without discussion or even communication, the unanswered questions surrounding the accusations of lying, the real meaning of "revert" etc etc etc all remain unanswered, not to mention the issues around INVOLVED. Goodness me, what a total fucking mess this place has become. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
18 October
Raymond Arritt
go on with life, have a laugh,
don't get too upset over this
This edit, 7 years ago OTD, helped me survive - I'd probably have left then without it - take what's good for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) With respect, not a total fucking mess. It still has a lot of good editors and good admins, including Ritchie, who soldier on trying to write an encyclopaedia. This bunch of Arbs, on the other hand ... dredging up old diffs that can be plausibly explained by new page patrolling (which the encyclopaedia needs); bending over backwards to interpret fixing valid concerns flagged by another editor (and saving an article, both needed by the encyclopaedia) as malicious stalking; devaluing the concept of harassment by assuming bad faith to construct a pattern in bad faith; apparently taking all complaints as automatically justified, thereby throwing out the entire concept of blocking as prevention and further casting the concept of harassment in a dubious light that doesn't at all benefit the community; and as Ritchie says, steadfastly accusing him of lying. And if I understand the dark hints correctly, we're to abase ourselves before Arbcom's judgement and accept this abuse of the community and aspersions against the whole wiki collaborative ethos because they're just doing it before "Trust & Safety" does it? Arbcom are supposed to be upholding our rights and our mission in the face of WMF tyranny, not (as it appears to me from what has been said above) jumping in first saying "Like it or they'll do the same or worse." I hope Ritchie does return, again, because we need editors and admins who work for the good of the project. I don't always agree with Ritchie (or for that matter with Fram), but they aren't the problem with this place. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course, the irony is that the host of users who suddenly emerged to accuse Ritchie of lying and posted images (incorrectly) with titles like "harassment evidence" aren't being accused of harassment, because that would be too obvious. What those users did was pure and simple harassment, bullying and revolting. It's funny that it's one rule for one, and one rule for another here these days. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

An admin who took the time to help a problem I had flagged up (I did it wrong), improve a situation without taking sides and calmly follow through after seeing how the land lies. Thanks for helping to improve wikipedia rather than box tick and move on. Just a thanks. No sides taken. Hope you are back soon. Mramoeba (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to know more about the revert of my Keith Moon biography change. When I read the article I struggled over the name of Neil Borland and the fact that he was killed. This was really too astonishing for me and made it very hard for me to continue reading. I tried to provide more context for this proper name and added a link to the deceased. To be honest, I think the edit did not actually make the page worse and could have stayed. -- Marcuse7 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marcuse7: Firstly, a revert of a good faith edit (which yours was) is never personal, it's just a difference of opinion between two (or more) editors. Anyway, the idea behind the revert is that I wouldn't expect a reader to click on that link, only to be taken to somewhere else on the same page. That's especially true of mobile and tablet browsing, where you tend not to have a preview of where the link will take you in advance. I believe chapter and verse is at MOS:OVERLINK, which says "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on". If you like "Principle of least astonishment", be sure to check out "Principle of some astonishment" for a counter-point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift response and apologies for my late reply. I would like to mention again that the proper name "Neil Borland" was in fact unfamiliar to me. When I look up the MOS:UNDERLINK section in Wikipedia's Manual of Style I find that "links should be created for [...] proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers". I think this is the case here. You mention the WP:SELFRED issue about the intrapage link. A redirect to a different section is deemed acceptable if it "facilitates navigation in particular on long articles". I read Wikipedia on a mobile device which does not allow for scanning a page quickly (see [entry] to compare platforms used for reading this article). I am always thankful if unknown things/persons/abbreviations are linked or explained, even if they will be explained further down in the same article. I think that the mention of Mr Borland's death is still astonishing enough to captivate the reader.

DYK for Nutfield Priory

On 23 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nutfield Priory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Gibson's design of Nutfield Priory was inspired by the Palace of Westminster? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nutfield Priory. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nutfield Priory), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to know more about the revert of my Keith Moon biography change. When I read the article I struggled over the name of Neil Borland and the fact that he was killed. This was really too astonishing for me and made it very hard for me to continue reading. I tried to provide more context for this proper name and added a link to the deceased. To be honest, I think the edit did not actually make the page worse and could have stayed. -- Marcuse7 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marcuse7: Firstly, a revert of a good faith edit (which yours was) is never personal, it's just a difference of opinion between two (or more) editors. Anyway, the idea behind the revert is that I wouldn't expect a reader to click on that link, only to be taken to somewhere else on the same page. That's especially true of mobile and tablet browsing, where you tend not to have a preview of where the link will take you in advance. I believe chapter and verse is at MOS:OVERLINK, which says "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on". If you like "Principle of least astonishment", be sure to check out "Principle of some astonishment" for a counter-point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift response and apologies for my late reply. I think that the article is in fact a bit underlinked. When I look up the MOS:UNDERLINK section in Wikipedia's Manual of Style I read that "links should be created for [...] proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers". I think that Neil Borland was unfamiliar to me here. You also mention the WP:SELFRED issue about the intrapage link. Please consider that an intrapage link might not be a redirect. Then, a redirect to a different section is deemed acceptable if it "facilitates navigation in particular on long articles". I read Wikipedia on a mobile device which does not allow for scanning a long article quickly. Mobile devices seem to be the majority of devices used (see [entry] to compare platforms used for reading this article).

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

False alarm

Hi Ritchie. I accidentally pinged you over at Talk:Sad Wings of Destiny (brain is full today, so got confused about stuff from 2015). Sorry for the false alarm! Thanks — sparklism hey! 09:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That's alright - at least it gave me a chance to lob my 2c into the discussion, which is hopefully useful. CT has retired? Well, I'm always the last one to hear about these things, although we banged heads a few times he was pretty instrumental in getting L.A. Woman to GA, along with TheGracefulSlick, who's been booted out. Good grief, everyone is leaving.... :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. One hopes the powers that be are taking note, but I doubt it somehow. At least you came back... Maybe CT will respond to the ping anyway - here's hoping. Cheers! — sparklism hey! 11:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_102&oldid=926395973"