Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 113

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115→Archive 120

DYK for A479 road

On 8 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A479 road, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the A479 is one of Wales's most dangerous roads? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A479 road. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, A479 road), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that you had two DYK today, - good work. I'll have two tomorrow, including the pic in the first, - please watch them, as I'll be out for most of the day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I can't remember what else I've got queued up; if I can find a microstub on some London street then I can give that a go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
You did well. Today, we had a soprano, waving. On the DYKtalk, they speak about more accessibility by requiring alt-text for images. Good idea? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Please help me watch Hannah Arendt (sadly no relative), where an IP made several small edits of doubtful quality. I told them to use the article talk, but would an IP even get to know they have a user talk? - I was moved to tears this morning, DYK? Now that music is in my head ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I like his hook next to your grinding stone in prep 5. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I was moved to tears of a different variety by watching Colin Firth and Hugh Grant attempt at cartoon violence in Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Please watch Moop Mama today, - I'll be out for the first hours. Did you listen to Meermenschen, given to me for my birthday? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Somebody changed the German "Juni" to the English "June", which isn't an issue. Last night I was trying to play The Millionaire Waltz on piano, hence comment in a thread further up and recent contributions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, and was back sooner than expected. matching colours to the Dahlias further up, JennyOz is just great finding these details we overlook, day by day. Enjoy music "brute loud and secretly quiet"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn

Roman Holiday

Hi, do you still want the Audrey books? Would be happy to send them to you now.† Encyclopædius 16:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I can do, though I can't help thinking one of the other Women in Green stalwarts might do a better job of it. Still, it'll get me something to sink my teeth into while the days get shorter. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the books are packed up ready to post tomorrow. It may be a while before anybody goes into the WMUK office, sees them and gets your address and sends them to you. Can you contact Richard Nevill in advance, he's probably emailed you in the past with contest vouchers. The draft is in User:Ritchie333/Audrey Hepburn I reached chapter 9 of the Walker book I believe.† Encyclopædius 15:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'll have to read through the books to get a good idea what to do, and see what I can do about it, unless my super-duper Women in Green cohorts can advise anything. To be honest, Roman Holiday reminds me about being stuck at school or some meeting and wanting to just bugger off and enjoy wandering around the place, while Breakfast at Tiffany's makes me think about me wanting to be an extrovert on stage - strange influences... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
On a completely unrelated note, I have long wanted to get Queen to GA, particularly readdressing the balance of detail like I did with The Who. It doesn't matter what the group has done recently, the "classic line up" is where the meat of the article goes, and where the interesting part of the story is. I've spent this evening reading Mark Blake's book, which covers the basic facts (I've used his Pink Floyd book quite a few times), and the chapter on 1991 is, well, harrowing. Just need to crib from another one to balance it out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Para Clark is slogging through Queen, improving the 1980s bits. I've got up to 1975 primarily fact checking against two book sources; at some point I'll go back and cite a few more for variety. It's a long old slog, but I think it's had about 6 failed goes at getting up to GA, so maybe the final push for attempt number 7 will be it. Well it worked for The Who and Genesis. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Matthew Goodgame AFD

Hi, I did present the sources in the discussion diff, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: D'uuuh, so you did. Still, a week's relisting will give others a chance to comment on those sources and hopefully cement a consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Grinding Stone (album)

On 16 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grinding Stone (album), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that blues-rock guitarist Gary Moore did not follow up his 1973 debut solo album Grinding Stone for another five years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grinding Stone (album). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grinding Stone (album)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

RFA time

Thanks so much; the instructions (which I thought I followed) could be better and I was struggling when you fixed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to have a look at the instructions - I'm certain there's a better way of doing this, but RfAs are so rare and isolated, it's never been important enough for anyone to do anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I started looking at them yesterday, and thought I had it, and did exactly what the inline said to do [1] ... I thought!! I have nommed many candidates, all passed, but it has been years ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I made my last candidate transclude their own nom because I was reading the directions, which were telling me it was Easy! and Not As Scary As It Sounds! and I was thinking nah, bruh... :D —valereee (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I had to explain over my shoulder to my nominator, who is in tech, what we mean by "transclude" ... while answering the questions at white heat before the RfA went live. It's not at all easy, but I think teh Cabal likes it that way. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Something has changed, because I managed multiple noms years ago without issues ... Meh, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
Just wanted to thank you for all your work encouraging, developing and soothing other editors over the years, especially as you might feel a bit like Matt Hancock this week. Know that you are much appreciated. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your close

List of Fatal Dog Attacks - there was strong consensus in the 16 iVotes vs the weak arguments in the 10 keeps, one of which has a little over 400 contributions. Eddie891 presented a very strong case, as did other delete supporters. The ID laws in that list are inaccurate in many cases and detrimental to the lives of innocent dogs who are being put to death because they are being wrongly identified as "pit-bull types", and now WP is contributing to that fatal mistake by validating inaccurate lists like this one. Please reconsider your close. Atsme Talk 📧 13:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the AfD had sat open for a fortnight, and I concluded that it was controversial enough that whoever did close it would get questioned by somebody regardless of which way it closed. I'm sure had I closed as "delete" and said that Eddie and Rhododendrites made the most convincing arguments, then I'd have Normal Op here complaining about it. You can please all the people etc etc.
To be clear though, what I specifically meant when closing was "No consensus yet". That's why I recommended that an RfC should be filed to determine whether or not the community considers list articles like these in general to be suitable or not. Then after the RfC is closed one way or the other, I don't see an issue with starting a new AfD based on that. As I said at the close, those advocating deletion made good arguments, but they just didn't convince enough people like Normal Op that they were doing the best possible action for the quality of the encyclopedia. Since several people suggested an RfC, I think that's the road we should go down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm surprised you mentioned that particular editor as one of your concerns considering this, this, and just coming off an indef t-ban from that topic area. It's your option to not change your mind, so I have no choice but to challenge it because from perspective, these types of articles can have fatal consequences to someone's beloved pet in real life as a result of WP's wrongful validation. Atsme Talk 📧 13:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
As a starting point, you could try removing the most egregious and BLP violating entries in the article, and see if people agree with that. AfDs are only ever about articles that are unfixable by normal editing; if you can fix your concerns by editing, give that a go first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd like to weigh in on this, but it'll be several hours before I have the time to. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    I will wait for Eddie891 to weigh-in here. Atsme Talk 📧 13:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    My thoughts: 1) Yes, it was a difficult call, and I do agree with Ritchie that somebody was going to be unhappy whichever way you closed it. 2) IMO this fell under WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS (and I never really considered those two points adequately addressed) 3) Where did the sufficient refutation come from? Normal Op presented advocacy sources that at RSN there's a slight consensus that they should be generally considered unreliable. 4) You say that there were no admin comments, yet after the first day it could close, I saw some seemingly uninvolved admins/very experienced users !voting, such as Guerillero, power~enwiki, Atsme, and Stifle weighing in, which suggests (to my biased eyes) that the uninvolved consensus was shifting/moving towards 'delete' 5) Several of the keep !votes relied on WP:OSE or WP:POPULARPAGE, both arguments to avoid 6) a fair number of keep !voters were involved in the page, whereas I thought a majority of delete !voters were rather more impartial. 7) this discussion got sidetracked with accusations of pit-bull advocacy and white-washing/misrepresenting breeds on both sides, but I think those discussions should probably be disregarded in favor of considering wider encyclopedic-ness/notability. 8) In the last afd, you !voted to 'keep' and that you felt it passed LISTN. Why close instead of !voting this time?
    So I don't really know. I'd have closed as "delete, without prejudice against recreating an article about an article detailing the broader concept of 'fatal dog attacks in the US'"-- I felt there was consensus to delete the list itself, but I'm literally as biased as one can be here, obviously. Additionally, I think there's also a case to be made for a NC close. Perhaps the discussion would benefit from going to DRV for wider input? I really am not sure. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Eddie891: That's a well thought-out set of views there. As I said below, realising I !voted "keep" in an earlier AfD does give the impression of a conflict of interest in closing this, and so for that reason I've re-opened the AfD. I think somebody needs to do something with it given it's been open for two weeks. To be clear, when I said "no admin comments", I meant those specifically relating to the AfD, such as relisting the debate or hatting comments that had got out of hand, rather than experienced editors who happened to be admins stating a view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, thanks for the clarification, and doubly thanks for re-opening it. Here, I am again reminded why I have so much respect for you. I agree it needs to be actioned asap, hopefully somebody will get to it. Cheers-- Eddie891 Talk Work 15:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. I noticed you just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. As you voted keep in the last AfD, which suggests to me that you might not be the correct closer for that AfD especially given that delete had, as a head count, 60%+ support. Given that the last AfD, which also closed as No Consensus, was relatively recent I had, as I considered my own close, given all participants, including you, full weight if the only participated at one but not both AfDs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 As I said above, my preferences is for somebody to start an RfC. One of the problems I saw in the debate is that the list cited lots of local news reports, multiple times for certain entries. That led to a lack of clarity whether the list could be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS or by WP:LISTN, and therefore I thought an RfC (something like "Are list articles that are cited entirely to minor local news pieces suitable for Wikipedia?") would be a good long-term solution. For the record, I forgot I voted keep in a previous AfD. All the above being said, if people are sufficiently vexed about a NC close, I am happy to re-open and relist it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333, sorry for missing the discussion here already. Forgetting where I've participated, or not, happens to me all the time so I understand how that could have happened. Thanks for undoing your close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the earlier AfD, and the time at which I commented, it clearly looked like I went to close the debate, but had a view and decided to stay and !vote instead. In those instances, my opinion is generally a marginal one to help swing a consensus in a particular direction, and it explains why I'd forgotten about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States
 – My comment belongs in the AfD. Atsme Talk 📧 15:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Might this argument be better suited for the AFD discussion itself, Atsme? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm just now catching up to everything, and will move it from here to the AfD. Atsme Talk 📧 15:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm a cat person.....
I understand that. Now, I'm a cat person, granted (if you want dog people, Megalibrarygirl is thisaway and Serial Number 54129 is thataway), but I've got a friend who's got the world's dopiest German Shepherd and I remember him telling me about how the law operates (and that's for all dogs, not specific types). The most obvious example you can see is if you go walking in the countryside through fields of sheep, where you'll find notices saying, "Warning! Keep your dog on a lead, farmers are authorised to shoot them!" (which they are) All that being said, I would just caution you to stick to core policies and guidelines during the AfD; provided an article is well-sourced and factually accurate (which, AFAIK, is the principal debate here), and does not violate other core policies (such as WP:BLP, which some of these incidents might do), there's not necessarily a policy-backed rationale to delete the entire article full stop, as oppose to just trim out a lot of the controversial chaff. I hope that all makes sense.
And I agree this is a discussion for the AfD, not here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I am certainly a dog person! I agree with Atsme about how lists like this can be used for negative purposes, especially against bully breeds. I'll go weigh in on the discussion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Query!

Can an admin block or order an editor to stop editing just because of their perception of my username to be a violation of a username policy? This was left by an admin with the username Cyphoidbomb on my talk page;

"Hi there, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and I am of the opinion that your username is in violation of our username policy as it appears to be "homage" to user AngusWOOF's handle. While this may have been done with a good spirit, you shouldn't be using a name that is thematically similar to another editor's, especially when the similarity seems calculated down to the capitalisation and signature formatting. Please change your username. Since you already appear to have done this, you should just go through those steps again, and please do not edit until it has been changed. Thank you." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I did reply to them on my talk over here [2] and even pinged several admins whom I recently interacted with, but they seem to be either busy or not active at the moment.
Could you please look into this if you have time? Thank you so much! AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 00:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
It looks like 1997kB got to this and renamed the account. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Theresa Plummer-Andrews

On 22 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Theresa Plummer-Andrews, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Theresa Plummer-Andrews sorted Bob the Builder's budget? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Theresa Plummer-Andrews. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Theresa Plummer-Andrews), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"We should be doing more to increase the strength and stability of Theresas in this encyclopedia

Virgil Thompson

To satisfy my curiosity, what claim in what old version of Virgil Thompson did you find to be a credible claim of significance? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: The most expanded version of the article is here. The canonical AfD that caused A7 to exist is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Burns which is a mere mention of a person, professional qualifications and an assertion of being a tenth grade teacher. This article, however, asserts that an author wrote a book and was commercially published. While a BLP PROD is applicable because the article isn't appropriately sourced, I cannot justify deleting it without some sort of consensus to determine what other work this person might have done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The article asserts that the author wrote a book that was "published". A minimal investigation reveals that it was self-published not commercially published. So this is not a credible assertion of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Even so, the article has been around for 14 years; another week just to thoroughly test the consensus on this won't hurt. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, but my past experience in trying BLPPROD on articles like this is that it often doesn't work, because the patrolling admin interprets the existence of a (working) Amazon sales link in an old version as a "source in any form" and deems it ineligible. As you should have seen in the edit history, that was the reason I tried a different method instead. So your alternative appears likely to drag it out to two weeks and a lot of extra effort for everyone after the BLPPROD fails and we have to take it to a full AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
It hasn't been my experience directly, but as I mentioned in a thread further up this talk page, that's led to me finding a bunch of articles on actresses (in particular) who have no citations other than an IMDB link (which is user generated, so the entire article has no guarantee of being factually accurate at all). Anyway, surely if a BLPPROD is likely to be rejected, surely A7 will be as well (as that's for removing an article instantly, not after a week's grace period). Still, I'll keep an eye on the article and if the article doesn't get cleaned up, then I'll file the AfD. I think the expression is "important, but not urgent". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saracen's Head, London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newgate Street.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Greg Herman (fashion designer)

Hello, Ritchie333. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Greg Herman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 11:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been more like two years, Yngvadottir was the last person to touch it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
No idea what it looked like, of course, but I see my deleted edit count has jumped up to 1,004. Some of those, as Iridescent once pointed out, will have been articles I tried to save at AfD, or even the articles I nominated. Others will have been hopeless drafts from the start, and a lot are the redirects from my own creations in userspace. But some will have been viable articles that got draftified (sometimes because of the topic, there's one I recently worked on that is probably going to die in draft space and it's a damned shame but it's on a business so say no more; sometimes because of the way they looked—one article I saved at AfD, but a conflict of interest editor came back and overwrote it with the same poorly referenced promotion, so we lost it at the 2nd AfD, partly my fault of course for standing aside the second time, but nobody at the AfD looked through the history for the better version) or even viable articles that I edited substantially and wasn't told had been AfDed. Articles that someone cared enough to write and that I tried to improve. I know I've tried to fix the English on some awful articles, and years ago I sometimes just quietly fixed a template display or filled out persondata; more recently I've covered references so people can see what they are, and I know I have one deleted edit this month (if there's more than one, please tell me quickly!) where I appear to have edit-conflicted with the PROD being added but didn't removed it because I hadn't found enough to defend the article at AfD. But some stuff was worth saving, or could have been saved by someone who knew the field, or got quietly "disappeared" when it should have quietly remained an article useful to some reader, if only as a member of some category. Among other things I've tried to help with this month, I worked on what may well be our first article on a female bandy player (created in a foreign language); I couldn't find a category, I wonder whether there have been others, there certainly need to be, and this player is relatively young. I wanted to build an encyclopaedia, and learn about what others knew about along the way. End sad rant. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
If you would like any of your deleted edits to be restored to user or draft space, such as Nude weather reports, I'm sure myself, Iridescent, or another number of amenable admins would be happy to do so. (FWIW I don't think much of the quality of arguments in the AfD after relisting) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Watching paint dry has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Watching paint dry. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It's been a while since I've tested out the AfC process, so this seems like a good opportunity to do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to have to nominate Clippy for deletion

How Commons:File:Assistencia.jpg survived on The Commons this long is anyone's guess. Too bad, your use of it on a user's talk page was hilarious. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems it was moved from the Italian Wikipedia at some point. Don’t apologise, it’s definitely not CC-BY-SA-3.0. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Watching paint dry has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Watching paint dry. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yash Mehta

Hello, you deleted Yash Mehta following AFD. Is today's latest re-creation significantly different from the version you deleted? Thanks, Captain Calm (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Captain Calm: It's identical. Deleted per WP:G4. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Saracen's Head, London

Hello! Your submission of Saracen's Head, London at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Watching paint dry has been accepted

Watching paint dry, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, your draft has been accepted

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Left cite errors on the Queen article

Hi Ritchie. You couldn’t clean that up? Cheers. Para Clark (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I’ve recovered the cites. Para Clark (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Para Clark: Sorry, I was out all day yesterday, or otherwise socialising and had no opportunity to log on here. Is everything now sorted? I'm going through the article adding better citations, but I've only got as far as 1977. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Meeker Jensen

Why did you request a speedy deletion for Sarah Meeker Jensen? She is one of the leading healthcare architects in LA, many of her colleagues who have the FAIA honors have Wikipedia pages with far less information and citations. I am a researcher (PhD) who volunteers to elevate women's voices on Wikipedia. This speedy deletion is very upsetting, and I'm a new Wikipedia contributor with lots of upcoming posts. I would like your help in reinstating the article --please tell me what to improve, and I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyzeytin (talk • contribs) 04:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ceyzeytin: First things first, I am a strong supporter of improving Wikipedia's coverage of women, and have been for several years. It is extremely rare for me to delete articles about women unless there is a very clear policy reason, and even then I am willing to help wherever possible. I would recommend visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, as you will find many kindred spirits and people willing to help you there.
The problem with the article is that too much of the content was either cited to Jensen and Partners directly, not cited at all, or claimed to have facts in a citation that were not there. For example, it claimed that Jensen was appointed Director of Campus Planning at UCLA in 1990, but the LA Times citation does not mention this, only that she held the post of Assistant Vice Chancellor as of 1997. We have a strict policy for biographies of living people which says we must not accidentally libel people, and make sure that everything we write is easily verifiable and accurate. The relevant part of the policy is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".
Moving forward, I have recreated the article on Sarah Meeker Jensen using newspaper citations I quickly found online. I would have done this sooner but unfortunately I've been busy toward the latter part of this weekend. I'll ping a couple of my colleagues, Megalibrarygirl and SusunW who are much better at writing women BLPs than I am, who will hopefully be able to help first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I added another source, but I don't know that there's enough for GNG. I checked Newspapers.com and EBSCOhost and didn't find anything useful to add either. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: OK Thanks. I will continue improving the article. I cited a lot from Meeker Jensen's FAIA documents --some available online, one report published in the FAIA fellows booklet that I have a hard copy of. I'll cite appropriately and can share photos of the published resource by sending images of the pages if you or others would like. As you know better than I, many online sources are incorrect. Such as that Jensen is married. She is not. So I will edit the article and thank you for creating the opportunity to collaborate. User:CeyZeytin

Also I used all of these people's pages (mostly men) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_of_the_American_Institute_of_Architects as a reference upon creating the article. What I had created was not that far off from theirs. I will cite more appropriately. But we have to be able to talk about the specifics of women's work just as many male wiki living persons' pages also include. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyzeytin (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

So she was born Sarah Meeker, her engagement to Jay Jensen was announced, she uses the name Sarah Meeker Jensen, but she isn't married? Was married? PamD 17:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess this is one of the problems you get in BLPs where a source says something started, but common sense suggests another, and we don't really have any policies for dealing with "wrong but sourced" vs "correct but unsourced" content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User interaction tools

I've never used them before and, since you've gotten some pings, I thought I'd ask for your help. I requested to merge an article that you closed at AfD a month ago as "keep but talk about a merge on the talk page". So that's what I did, start the discussion to merge on the talk page, a month later. Another user accused me of forum shopping for this. And I know I've had a nasty interaction with this user before, but I don't remember where. I appreciate the help. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: According to the interaction analyser, it was most likely to be Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 17#More Irrelevant Information Included in Ancestry Section, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but that's not the one I'm thinking of. That seems appropriate. There was a time more recent than that where I remember that user being nasty to me. I'll keep looking. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Seething Lane

On 1 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Seething Lane, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after an erotic encounter with a young wife in London's Seething Lane, diarist Samuel Pepys bought the lady eight pairs of gloves? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Seething Lane. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Seething Lane), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A good one, and fun collaboration on the nom! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

GA procedures

I have a question regarding GA, and think you are an expert. Editor A nominates an article. Editor B reviews, demands and makes substantial changes, fails. A nominates again. C reviews, B is active in the review, makes more changes. C fails. A wants to nominate again but finds that now B did it. ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It depends entirely on who A, B and C are, what skills and reputation they have, and what the article is - for example, if B was a sockpuppet of a banned editor, things would be quite different. In the general case, the reviewer has the ultimate say in whether or not an article should pass. Other editors are free to give feedback, and if the reviewer agrees they would be beneficial, there's no issue - for instance, see Talk:Elham Valley Railway/GA1 for an example where lots of people piled in to help. However, if there's strong disagreement with editors how to proceed, then the first step would be to get a second opinion (the procedure of which is documented in the GA instructions; I'd also leave a courtesy note at WT:GAN). If the two editors can't agree on how to move forward after that, the nominator should fail the review on stability grounds; a basic assumption for GAs is that interested parties are generally in agreement with how to proceed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it doesn't depend, and perhaps I wasn't clear enough, and missed a step that was perhaps essential. All editors are in good standing. My question is if B, after first failing the article (then, after C failed, approving it, which was reverted as out of process) should be the nominator for the third round, - of all people. I am A, feel still it's sort of "my" article, not B's. I planned to nominate again but not right now, busy with Louis Vierne last minute before his 150th bday in a week, and RL. Yes, I know, I don't own an article, but it still feels wrong, - that whole affair actually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

As quick as lightning!

The problem with some Wikipedians is they're far too easily distracted by squirrels

Wow I didn’t expect Piccadilly line to be a GA that quick but wow...I...I’m stuttering! While many say that you are not encouraged to celebrate early, this applies here too! I am torn whether I should nominate this for featured article status and then get a DYK or I should just nominate it straight away. I kinda prefer to go for FA so that I can align the DYK to be featured in December, but like I doubt whether it needs a lot of work for FAC. Would love to hear your thoughts, and while I get ready a little lighter Hakutake Liquor ready, I’m gonna tune into my idol’s latest album, The Rarities on Spotify! Cheers!

Courtesy ping to our comrade, Gerda! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent60030 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations - and good to see another tube line article at GA. You're best off asking Iridescent or SandyGeorgia about FAs, I tend to go for general improvement over more articles as opposed to a lot of improvement over just one. Meanwhile, I've had a serious attack of WP:SQUIRRELs and responded to the recent PROD of Ziggy Stardust Tour with some major expansion, and in the process discovered a whole bunch of things I didn't actually know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
HAHAHA many thanks, this made my day owo. Alright I'll perhaps look for them on more advice :D OOOO Squirrels! They are distracting for me too! Besides, that's my camping site ;) I have also spotted a wild SineBot appeared on the GAN page I was involved in :o VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

BLPs redux

Has anyone taken over the script for identifying BLPs with neither external links nor footnotes? I still think the grimly urgent task is to identify and retag those BLPs that are tagged "no references" but actually have either a footnote or an external link, before they get wrongly deleted and in order to clear the unreferenced BLP category so the genuinely unreferenced ones can be seen and dealt with, and to get those who are using that tag instead of a refimprove tag to stop. And I admit I've been finding the redlinks that appear in the list you posted at User:Ritchie333/Unreferenced and unlinked BLPs to be useful: I got one back via REFUND after seeing in Google cache that someone had added references after it was PRODded, they turned out to have been present in an earlier version, and the editor has since improved it from more sources; and Carlos Chandia turns out to be properly Chandía, a Chilean referee with a lot of mentions in the Spanish-language press, although except for an award they mostly seem to be quoting him, so I don't think I'll ask for that one back. But on balance, I think it's time for me to request an updated list (or a link to where the output now lives) so I and maybe others can ref up (or speedy) a few more. Otherwise I may spend the rest of the month on dead academics, after finding the prof whose inaugural lecture I attended died at 94, I clearly am old as dirt and stuck in the past. Thanks again for the coding; my technical ability stops short of harv refs. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: SD0001 asked to take over the code and run it as a bot, which he's now done, so the updated lists are at User:SDZeroBot/Unreferenced BLPs and regularly refreshed. The latest update for User:SDZeroBot/Unreferenced BLPs/Women as of this morning reports 378 unsourced women BLPs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, good to know! SD0001 are you also pulling out those that have no external links? I chose a sports guy, Thossaphol Yodchan, and there's an external link to Soccerway. So while the numbers for each of the three categories are horrifying, and the summaries of who they are potentially very useful for deciding which to dive in and work on, those three lists just sort Category:Unreferenced BLPs by known sex (and I continue to think we really need a bot to convert the tags on those that have an external link, and some sort of effort to reach those who are wrongly tagging them as unreferenced; is it perhaps possible to have a reverse equivalent for your other script, an autogenerated list of BLPs tagged "unreferenced" but containing an external link, and then at least they could be manually re-tagged (thousands of them, sigh, hence my suggestion of a bot request) ... ? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

ACE EC

ACE LP

Hi Ritchie333, thank you for volunteering at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Electoral Commission. While not required unless you are selected, I suggest you start the confidentiality agreement with WMF right away. The directions to do so are here: meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. The reason why is that should you be selected for EC, the appointment will be on hold until this gets completed and is reflected on the list here: meta:meta:ID. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 13:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I originally thought this was a notification that we edit-conflicted on ACE - d'oh. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333, BTW, what's a global remoaner? XD —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Well it's all wrapped up now... — xaosflux Talk 17:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.  JGHowes  talk 12:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333, hoping to hear if you have a favorable opinion or not and, if favorable, would you like to co-nom?  JGHowes  talk 12:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm snowed under with work at the moment; I'll try and get back to you mid-week, hopefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Parker Adventist Hospital merge

Hello. On September 7th an AfD for the article Parker Adventist Hospital was closed with an outcome merge. Although, it seems the merge never happened. So, I was wondering if you could do it since you were the closing admin. I know your not entitled to, but I thought I'd ask since it's gone so long without being merged. I'd just do it myself, but I don't know how or even if I can. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Since nobody has done the merge, I'm going to conclude nobody really cares about the remaining content in the article, and have just done a straightforward redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
That also works. Thank you. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Are an OBE and a BBC obit enough for notability?

There may of course be other obituaries in coming days.

Dilys Price redirects to Fireman Sam, which has a character by that name. But:

Yngvadottir (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw the BBC obituary and there should be enough to make an article out of this. I’m not around much at the moment, so hopefully I’ll get to it in the next day or two. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I see MerielGJones has stepped up and written the article. Let me see if I can make a DYK of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333 Yngvadottir I noticed this on the Project WomeninRed talk page. Great idea to see if you can make it a DYK. And thanks for the appreciation.--MerielGJones (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Myra Kathleen Hughes

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:London Monopoly places has been nominated for deletion

Category:London Monopoly places has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Gonnym (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Don't template the regulars. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Understand your annoyance but that's twinkle and CfD at work. I'm not really going to check every user before, as that negates the purpose of the fast tool. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for advice

Dear Ritchie333,

If possible, I would like your advice on something. I will try to formulate it in a as neutral way as possible.

There is a content dispute. Party X says there are reliable sources to state something. Party Y says there are not.

Party X is composed of two people that are actively participating in the discussion. Four people have given single paragraph statements supporting this party, but do not care to discuss ad infinitum.

Party Y is composed of one person that is actively participating in the discussion.

The discussion is up since September 20, and no consensus has been achieved yet.
The article history is filled with reverts from both parties.

Do you think there is room to impose sanctions against someone in party X (in this case, myself), under the argument of editing prior to achieving consensus?

Hope I can receive your feedback.

Kindly, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 11:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It depends entirely on the article and who X and Y are. If, say, "something" was Hunter Biden attempting to corrupt the US and Ukrainian governments and cited the New York Post as a reliable source, I'd probably go away and hide until the dispute died down of its own accord. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot for the reply; I really appreciate it. That's a nice example hahaha, but I'm sure more than one person alone would go against citing the new york times in such circumstances (count me in!). In my case, we have 6 sources of websites independent from each other, not counting posts from official social media accounts. But it is a long story, with walls of text of discussion, and I don't want to push it upon you. Thanks again for the reply. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 13:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_113&oldid=987600128"