Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 121

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123→Archive 125

Adda52

I request you to please overview the Draft:Adda52, I updated as per your sugggestions and added new sources. We had a long discussion before a month (Adda52 Discussion) and today I was free so updated the page. 1друг (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is Ritchie333 reverting the unsourced "opinions are mixed" on M11 Link Road -- whose opinion and where did they state it? There is no evidence to support this assertion. I live in the area and don't recall specific research on public opinion of the A12. Please provide a verifiable source or stop edit warring. Maybe we need another admin to adjudicate? 86.14.189.55 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello WP:BKFIP. You are community banned. Cheerio. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I look forward to formally resolving why you rejected citation request on this article 86.14.189.55 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Tags on good articles deface the article for a reader, and make a mockery of our good article nomination process. Other admins would just revert and block you for being a sockpuppet of a long-term abuse case, I'm a bit more charitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that content that is blatant opinion can not be challenged on a "Good Article" 86.14.189.55 (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Not by the sockpuppet of a community banned editor, no it can't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I am neither. You may be confusing an IP address 85.13.238.124 with 86.14.189.55 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Ritchie333 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 12:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for creating the essay "How newbies see templates". It's really a refreshing and informative view on warning new users. EpicPupper (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Warning for Edit War

I wanted to say that I am not edit waring. It seems you have decided that I am user who is editing in bad faith and reverting everything I edit. I started with questioning a statement that said "opinions are mixed". That tag was reverted. You then point me to a part of the article that supports the lead. In this part there is a statement saying people in Leytonstone complain about rat runs -- so I look up the article, which is from Hackney Council (Leytonstone is in Waltham Forest) about Well Street. So I edit it to say 'Hackney'. You reverted back to Leytonstone and said Well Street is not related to the A12. So I removed the reference. Your reaction... accuse me of waring. It appears that my edits were in good faith and all waring was you reverting edits because you are an "admin". This is why wikipedia is becoming cancer. Admins deciding they can control editors and decide which edits are allowed. This is not only against the idea of wikipedia, it puts off editors from wanting to get involved. 86.14.189.55 (talk)

The edit warring policy says "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." As far as I'm aware, all the changes you wanted to put in the article have now been done, so I don't understand what the issue is. Additionally, having administrative rights is irrelevant; it is perfectly possible for administrators to get sanctioned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hand waving about 'control by admins being cancer' is also "not a valid defense", and can be discouraging to anyone wanting to improve an article or resolve a dispute. ~ cygnis insignis 10:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Gallagh Man

Hi Ritchie. If its allowed, would you mind deleting the redirect here...was thinking of knocking up a DYK for the International Museums Days thing. Many thanks if possible, if its not the done thing, no worries. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil, I'm not sure I can - there's generally no policy for speedy deleting redirects unless they are egregiously wrong or offensive, which this isn't. If you're stuck because you've got a userspace draft that you want to replace the redirect with, give me a ping and I'll do the necessary paperwork. It will still count towards DYK as "5x expanded" includes redirects. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Understood, sound. Ceoil (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you, too!

I can't stand to drink alone, and the truth is, I thought you already knew! I tried to fly in under the radar, but it quickly became clear that wasn't happening, so my plan to let people know by making smartass comments on their talk pages got cut off at the knees. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 14 May 2021 (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. SeoR (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
SeoR, Sorry, I've only just got to this and I don't really understand what the email wanted me to do. Is this still a problem? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for coming back, I've answered in e-mail, as the matter, not one I usually deal with, is, I gather, supposed to be handled that way. Action may, or may not, be required, it's an Admin. decision. SeoR (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
SeoR, Okay, I have cleared down some of my email backlog, and to cut a long story short, I'm really not the best person to talk about sockpuppetry and off-wiki harassment. You should be able to email anyone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks in confidence and they should be able to sort it out. I'd recommend Bishonen myself - if you want I can forward the emails directly on to her to save time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! That forward would be good, and as I noted, I'm almost hoping no further action is required. And now back to Dublin streets, and Museums Day prep. SeoR (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Response to editors

Hi Ritchie

Quick question. Am I allowed to respond to all the accusations that are swirling around right now? If so, what would be the appropriate place to do that? I would like to be able to say something in my defense to all the editors, or should it be done individually? Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cheryl Fullerton, Ritchie is in the UK so may be offline. The place you can respond is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cheryl_Fullerton —valereee (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Cheryl Fullerton, as Valereee says, the Administrators' noticeboard thread linked above is where you can give your right of reply. I would strongly advise doing it as soon as possible, as there is currently an unanimous consensus of multiple administrators to impose a topic ban. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Really enjoyed reading Keith Moon. Despite its being nearly a decade old, it still holds up. Great work! ~ HAL333 04:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. One of the first articles I can remember getting really stuck into with a pile of books to source from. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

BKFIP

Hi. I noticed that you came across an IP who turned out to be related to BKFIP. I don't know if it has already used IPv6 addresses before. Some IP users who used to make a lot of edit requests on this talk page created a new account less than two weeks ago. I doubt that the person behind the account is new to editing because it is already exhibiting behavior that is too similar to Capewearer, an account that was blocked because it turned out to be related to BKFIP. Being able to edit a single page too many times in one day does not seem to be normal for a newcomer. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Several hundred edits without any snarky edit summaries? That seems unlikely for BKFIP. Plus that account was editing nearly simultaneously with Warlighter. That would mean they were switching rapidly between browser windows, updating COVID stats in one, and getting into a stupid edit war over "codes" in another. Who knows, but I didn't think BKFIP played those kind of games. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: It's likely, but it tends to use IP addresses that geolocate to different countries. Besides, I find edits like this and this eerily similar. Why would those accounts change not just the ID if the shorter URL is working properly? And why can the new account figure out so easily what time certain countries are publishing their daily figures? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@LSGH: Honestly, I have no idea if there's any sockpuppetry going on. I just don't get the BKFIP vibe. Unless there's more than one unrelated person who we've been calling "BKFIP" all along. The one I'm thinking of as BKFIP thinks he's the smartest person in the room, and you're a vandal or a troll if you can't immediately recognize that fact. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: It looks like the user in question has not yet exhibited the kind of arrogance that you are describing. I have yet to see a revert similar to what Capewearer used to do. Maybe it was too early to raise suspicion at that time. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rudy Reyes (activist)

Hi, I'd like to request an article that was deleted by you in 2020, Rudy Reyes (activist), be restored as a draft article, so I can continue working on it. I'm the original creator of the article, but it seems whoever nominated it for deletion didn't do the courtesy of notifying me, so I wasn't included in the discussion. At the time of deletion, the article was a stub. It didn't yet include the subject's acting career, or other accomplishments. (The deletion discussion surrounds a U.S. vice-presidential bid, that was aborted amid Covid. But I would've argued that the subject had already met notability, long before, as hero of the Cedar Wildfire.) -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The Hammer of Thor, As you've recreated Rudy Reyes (activist) as a redirect to Cedar Fire#Fatalities, the easiest thing to do is to re-attach the history of the earlier article to it, which I've now done, and can be seen here. As you might appreciate, the only reason I deleted the article is because nobody who participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudy Reyes (activist) asked for it to be kept, or indeed any action other than deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Your edit warring report about Euston railway station

Hello Ritchie333. Your report at WP:AN3 is puzzling. In its present form it doesn't look actionable. Opening a 3RR and a DRN at the same time raises questions. Will you consider withdrawing the 3RR complaint? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I was going to close it as "no action" but other people have commented, so I thought it best for somebody else to just close it. The principal problem was I wanted a third person to resolve the dispute, but didn't get a response on the talk page, so tried to look elsewhere - that's it. So if you want to close it as "no action, stale", go for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer if you would just add a note that you are withdrawing the report, and let another admin decide how to close it. In that case it can't be appealed as being handled incorrectly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for MacDonnell Road

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MacDonnell Road. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rusf10 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian identity card

Refer to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Indonesian "stub"-related vandalism in the event you see a similar case. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Okay, thanks, I'll keep a lookout for that. I've been using the general procedure that any challenge to removing a CSD tag gets bounced to AfD for years - it usually does the trick. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

American Idols Live! Tour 2009

Hi Ritchie333, I was wondering if you could take a look at the American Idols Live! Tour 2009 page? A user has repeatedly tried including percentages of the shows without including a source, I have tried explaining on the page and via the users talk page. But they are not understanding. Thank you! Pillowdelight (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Pillowdelight, I have dropped a note on the talk page. This subject material is probably more in Ashleyyoursmile's area of expertise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie333, thanks for the ping. I have commented on their talk page. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Sad to see what Pillowdelight has told you above here wasn't true. I didn't add those percentages. Those percentages were added on 24 July 2010. I just reverted back the removal of those percentages. Which is still silly to me because there are tons of pages from 2009 tours with unsourced attendance figures which apparently don't need to be removed.skaschep (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

recent RfA talk page ...

I don't recall ever seeing Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds before - 👍 Like — Ched (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I also like it, and your barnstar! Today: Thomas Fritsch, the German voice of Diego in Ice Age. - We still have Pentecost, and call the "Spirit of Truth". Perhaps you can add a para to the essay about people whom arbitration found guilty because arbs didn't really look, and then these people being reminded of alleged misdeeds for life (or what), and held responsible for misdeeds of others in the field? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I didn't write the essay, so I'm not sure how to go about it, and this is eight years ago. Maybe Ched is, he started WP:ARBINFOBOX, maybe he likes juggling chainsaws in his spare time? ;-) Plus, I want to be on the right side of the Arbs right now (will explain off-wiki if you're interested). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
the right side, interesting, - the arbs should look and listen, and would be right, no? - I thought you added the RfA para to the essay, but nevermind. My question for the next candidates (unless something worse comes up): would you have listened to SV's plea? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Ched was a lot younger back then. :-) — Ched (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I was so much older than, you know I'm younger than that now.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Ahhh ... I have to admit, I do love me some Dylan. A most excellent response indeed. — Ched (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Fatima Fertilizer Company

The creator undid the redirect you created after AFD. I can't undo it because there are more edits that are creating conflicts. Please check. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: Looks like Serial Number 54129 took care of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

the Buster buster

You beat me to it [1]. I spent a few minutes looking through my talk archives, and I have to admit, I'm one who confused the two. — Ched (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I almost wrote a post saying, "You've kept WP:WER going all these years, a true motivator in editor retention!" but then went through BusterD's stats and thought "why aren't there any posts to the project page?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding DYK review

Hi @Ritchie333, thanks for your comments on DYK nomination of Lyndon B. Johnson 1964 presidential campaign. I have fixed the errors on the talk pages and made necessary changes. Kindly approve if it meets DYK criteria. Thanks for your help!

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Impact

Impact
Thank you for your impact
in producing good articles
that meet highest standards,
+ looking around for candidates
to be good admins,
+ missing good people!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Thank you. How do I get the expansion and DYK of Kate Nicholl logged in Women in Red? I can't remember - I only do women bios every now and then (but it's better than none at all). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott does it normally. If you want to do it yourself, the link is on my user page, under workshop. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, well I've only just put the nom up, so it'll have to wait until it hits the main page. I thought there was a "Meetup" page you could just log creations / expansions as you did them? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
If there is, I don't know. You could log Europe and UK articles in the Challenges (Europe also on my user page.) I ususally do a bunch twice a month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I found it by following one of the "1 day, 1 woman" links. The current page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/184. It's slightly confusing nomenclature, as I associate "Meetup" with ... well, having a beer and a natter with RexxS in a pub. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • First of all, sorry for the confusion over "meetup" but it is not our choice as you can see from wp:Meetup. Here's the way it works for Women in Red. You first need to tag the article's talk page with an appropriate WiR "event". If none of the other current events are applicable, you can always use #1day1woman as you discovered yourself. (I've now tagged the talk page of Kate Nicholl with the corresponding WIR-186.) With the next update of DYK nominations, the article will then be listed on the wp:Women in Red page under "Article alerts". Once it actually appears on the main Wikipedia page, if no one else does so I will list it under "Did You Know features" on #1day1woman and also include it under DYKs on our Showcase page. It's good to see you spending some of your editing time on women's biographies. It's not long since you created Candace Brightman. If you intend to continue, you might like to become a member of Women in Red. You can join via the box at the top of the WiR page. As you say, every little helps, but it is particularly encouraging to see such an active editor as you contributing to the cause.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for explaining! Do you mean that a tag WIR 186 is preferable to WIR 2021? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2021. The editor(s) involved may be admins with 110,000 edits; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.
laughing, loud ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Gerda Arendt: If you use WIR-186, then you should if possible list your new article on the corresponding event page. If the article happens to coincide with one of the other open priorities, then it would be preferable to use one of those instead. All this helps us to see which of our priorities prove most popular and how coverage of different occupations, interests or geographical areas is progressing. But it is also useful simply to add the basic WIR tag or WIR 2021 as you always do. Drawing attention to our project encourages others to participate and helps us chip away at the gender gap. So if you find identifying suitable priorities takes too much time, just continue to add the general-purpose tags you have used up to now. Your interest in women and all your DYK postings are greatly appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you, that helps. Normally, I don't go by calls but what others supply, and by recent deaths, so placing Friederike Mayröcker anywhere but WIR 2021 would give some wrong impression. I go by Deaths in 2021, and prefer women over men, and German-language over other. The article leaves much to be desired, but first outside today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

A Bad, Bad Announcment

As one of The Visitors to your talk page I thought I would give you a quick Ring Ring to announce my Arrival. While you are a long time admin and some sort of Super Trouper you could very easily meet your Waterloo. Really Does Your Mother Know? Voulez-Vous a blocking? It's all going downhill now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this IP was spot on, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Kate Nicholl

On 9 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kate Nicholl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kate Nicholl is the first lord mayor of Belfast in recent times not to be born in the United Kingdom or Ireland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kate Nicholl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kate Nicholl), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

Since you enjoy music, I wanted to show you something. I'm not saying you'll {{like}} it, but hopefully you'll find it at least interesting. A while back I was researching and listening to some Tuvan throat singing and came across The Hu. So with that, I offer you .. this. — Ched (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Ched, It suits my vocal range more than a lot of music, actually. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually I linked to the wrong video above (although the same group/band, and I like that one too). This is the one I meant to link to, although I do like most of their work. The actual song starts at about 1 minute in. I know 0 about music, I just like the sound and beat to it. I'm guessing from your comment that you have a deep voice. cool. — Ched (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm just chiming in to say that Ive been a fan of The Hu for a while now. This song which was on the soundtrack to a Stare Wars video game, is also a damn good one. Also, I highly recommend browsing the comments on that first link above. I'm adding both of those videos to My collection. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
You kids these days can't spell: The Who (joke). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Tryptofish, No, Who's on first. As for third? I don't know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll second that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
What. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't even know what you're talking about!!! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Great right fielder, that guy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I rarely know what I'm talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Wait, we were talking? Man, I really need to start smoking pot again. At least I'll have an excuse... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't ask me, I'm just an admin. heheheheheh Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I want peace

"I did not want to have war I want peace"

I did not want to have war I want peace. My edits were helpful (it had a few errors but without that they would have never knew to fix it) because the userpage is now the version the fixed version. My edit was at least semi-helpful. Can you just unblock me from the page because I typed a whole agree to disagree paragraph. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

a) I helped their user page. b) I stated my reason above. Is it unpolite to helpfully edit someone else's user page? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@TigerScientist, yes, it is almost always impolite to edit other editors' user pages, and it's even more impolite to argue with them about it when they object. If you don't understand why, you should not do it again for any reason. —valereee (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok then can I ask why they object to it valereee TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I do not like anyone editing my userpage except for myself, with the exception of reverting obvious vandalism or removing personal attacks. I have now stated it in the edit notice for my userpage. Also, after this comment, I will completely refuse to interact with you until tomorrow. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Lets just agree to disagree (I still disagree on some parts). TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@TigerScientist, it doesn't matter why a given editor objects, but you can read Wikipedia:User pages for more information about the general policy. Please stay away from littleb's user talk, they clearly aren't enjoying interaction with you. —valereee (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Will do and why am I partially blocked. I understand now why my edits might be disruptive but I didn't know they wanted only themselves to edit it. When they reverted my first edit, they labeled it as good faith. I don't want to start any conflicts but I just wanna know why. Can I get unblocked? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie333 TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh wait I am only blocked from that user's pages ok. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@TigerScientist, if you go edit someone else's user page, I'll block you from that namespace. Which I believe would mean you won't be able to edit your own. Your choice. —valereee (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
ok? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Valereee has explained the situation well. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to mess about with other people's user pages. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tubular Bells, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Order.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stade Louis Hon

You have not (yet) closed the AFDs on the other bundled articles, as they are still showing an open nomination. GiantSnowman 10:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, Okay, that should be fixed now. They're all closed as "no consensus" because it wasn't obvious what people wanted to do with the individual articles. As Missvain said, it would be better to start individual AfDs for these. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
No issues with the close decision, don't worry! GiantSnowman 11:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
What? What? You're not going to drag me off to Deletion Review? Hang on, that's not how we do things! :-D Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I did miss this one. I do think it's strange that we're redirecting articles on stadiums for teams which spent a good deal of time in a national division (Frëjus spent a number of years in the Championnat National) and have plenty of press, see [2], [3], and mentions here about it being too rustic for a cup quarterfinal: [4]. The fact the French article's effectively unsourced doesn't help at all, but this would have been a clear keep if it were located in England. Just a vent. Not a DRV-worthy vent, but a vent. SportingFlyer T·C 12:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for considering and closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry levy house. The article, kept, is now at Henry Levy House. Shouldn't a link from Talk:Henry Levy House to the AFD be added, as part of the closure? It would take me a little time which i don't have right now, to figure out how to remedy that; hope you may do it. Thanks, --Doncram (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Doncram, The AfD closer script got confused. Should be fixed now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

New message from Serial Number 54129

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantized inertia. ——Serial 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A beautiful inevitability to that. Nice one. Dredd: "The crime is DE. The sentence is Indef" :D ——Serial 16:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Given the last rant on the AfD, I'd like to see anyone argue (even playing devil's advocate) why an indef was not appropriate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Nikhil Kamath's article

Hi, I Just created this account to ask if you could consider undeleting the Nikhil (Nithin) Kamath article. As it is in public interest because of the recent Vishy Anand chess cheating scandal. Some Wikipedia article said i should ask the person that deleted the article first. And if i've understood correctly that is you. I've never used Wikipedia like this before, so please excuse me if i've made a mistake. Kausality (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Kausality, I've looked through my deletion log and can't find any evidence I ever deleted an article by that title; also the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Kamath does not exist. Are you sure you've typed the subject's name correctly? I am not aware of any cheating scandal involving Viswanathan Anand; if this were true, it would be mentioned in multiple reliable sources and listed as such in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This editor is obvs pals with Netajilive, and also Syncronyte who both created Nikhil Kamath, and which someone recently redirected to the parent company article (summary: not remotely close to being independently notable).
For background, the Forbes article is well-worth a read; it's not Anand who cheated, but allegedly this bloke who beat him. Business guru and Kim-il-Jong mini-me, apparently. ——Serial 11:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Turns out the person i was lookin for was the Brother of the person Who got their article deleted. The New redirect to the parent Company clarified this. Sorry for my mistake. Thank you guys for looking into it anyway. Kausality (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caroline Flack

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Caroline Flack you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYIK

Why'd you no consensus this one instead of re-listing or closing as delete? Deletes had the stronger argument and the numbers. Cheers. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, AfD is not a vote. All of the arguments were relatively weak, basically "meets WP:BCAST" versus "fails WP:GNG". Your own "delete" opinion was challenged reasonably well, cancelling it out. Unless somebody has got a brilliant argument either side, I think a relist would lead to the same result. Still, if you really want me to relist, I can. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect, I'm surprised by your response there. If I thought saying that someone saying "meets WP:BCAST" (which isn't even a guideline! It's not an SNG!) could trump a "fails GNG" argument, considering most "meets SNG" arguments would fail against a "fails GNG" argument unless sources are presented, I would have taken the time to debunk that argument in the AfD, but I assumed it was obvious. I really would prefer a relist. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
If I may dispute that SF's !vote was challenged reasonably well: SF also cited policy, and most of Neutralhomer's response was that there is an ongoing RfC (so of no real value at all). ——Serial 19:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd prefer you did it at the (now relisted) AfD. I'm actually surprised nobody suggested redirecting to the parent organisation as a compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for relisting, I appreciate it. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello Ritchie333, I put up an article for peer review close to two months ago, though so far it hasn't got any responses. Someone recommended I approach you as a user who could potentially help contribute to the review - if you have any spare time, would you able to have a look at it here please? Thanks :-) Pahunkat (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, I've read through the article. I was aware of the kidnappings through the hashtag publicised by Michelle Obama, but not in depth. I think it needs somebody who has a thorough understanding of the topic to do it justice, and I don't think that's me. I realise the "Aftermath" section needs to be split, but I'm not sure "Events by [year]" is necessarily the right thing to do - I'm just not sure what else. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
One thing I will say is that at least one thing about the rise of Trump is I can read articles like this and think, yes insurgent groups like this can exist anywhere and peace and democracy is a fragile thing that can be torn apart too easily. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333, thanks for replying - there's no problem, I'll try to find some other users to comment over there. Sadly the topic area doesn't seem to be frequented by a lot of users and I didn't realize that when I first started improving the article - I'll keep looking though, with luck I'll find someone. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caroline Flack

The article Caroline Flack you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Caroline Flack for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caroline Flack

The article Caroline Flack you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Caroline Flack for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Walić Konia

Please revoke tpa Drill it (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Beaten to it by El C. I told you he is omnipresent and can appear to do admin work just by the magic power of telepathy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Heh, actually, more like RfPP magic, but I am working on the telepathy part! El_C 10:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Lets see who can get to User talk:83.26.158.253 first then! Drill it (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
What a bizarre series of edit summaries - actual changes are okay, but edit summaries are just .... odd. I note that Materialscientist didn't leave a reason for the block, but I assume it was "personal attacks", not "vandalism" - the actual content changes are good faith. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla J. Yoo

What's the reasoning behind closing it as no-consensus? The contributors were generally in agreement that the person did not meet WP:CREATIVE.-KH-1 (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

KH-1 The delete !votes were all short and didn't give much of a convincing reason to delete, while the keep !vote gave a convincing argument to meet WP:NMUSIC by contributing to a number one hit song. A good compromise would be to redirect to I Got A Boy, but nobody suggested that, so I couldn't close the AfD that way. That left "no consensus" as the only option. Ashleyyoursmile has more expertise in this topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, Ritchie333. I'm unable to verify that she's credited as one of the songwriters/composers on the album. Neither the track listing nor the personnel sections of the article seem to confirm that. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile, Maybe we should re-open and re-list the AfD then? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I cannot find any secondary sources that verify the claim. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile, I've started a second AfD, which is a bit easier to manage technically. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla J. Yoo (2nd nomination) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie333m it is absolutely not easier to start a new AfD: you simply undo your close of the AfD, using Twinkle's undo facility. In the event, you've actually now caused people a lot more work (as previous participants will need to be pinged to the new discussion). ——Serial 13:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
You also have to revert the appropriate entry in the AfD logs, which involves finding the right diff (which is now some way down the history) and add an entry in the new log (so the AfD shows up to close 7 days after relist) which is more fiddly than the front row of the Texas Folk Hoedown Orchestra. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

To be clear: the Girls Generation album reached #1 on the Billboard Charts. The full extent of Kayla's contribution was co-producing one song (Romantic St), and while it did apparently chart (see [5]), it was NOT a #1 single. This is an overly generous interpretation of WP:NMUSIC.-KH-1 (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

KH-1, thank you for the clarification. Ritchie333, I will comment on the AfD. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional At Best (album)

"Welcome to the official Ritchie333 Complaints Department. Please take a ticket and leave your details with my assistant here."

Those commenting for keep had no valid reason while the redirect and delete used valid reasons. I am redirecting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment if it was strictly an up and down vote but AfD isn't supposed to be decided that way according to policy. Based on arguments the keep vote reasoning was "This is an EXTREMELY important album", "This album is beloved by so many fans" and "You do not need to delete this page." without any direction or mention of Wikipedia policy. Redirect votes were that "this album has never been discussed on its own terms in reliable music media", " Fails WP:NALBUM per nom" and "Doesn't warrant an article, regardless of its importance or likeness." The two delete votes were based on two former AfD's of this article or similar titled articles for the same song/album (one delete and one redirect), the fact there are two additional drafts seemingly waiting in the wings to be resurrected or pushed out there for the same subject and the fact that there are already six redirects of varying titles, mostly just the placement of a capital letter, that detail the exact same album/song. Only one follows Wikipedia standard script for titles of articles. In my opinion, the results, based on policy and common sense, should have been to delete at best or redirect at worst. --ARoseWolf 20:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty disappointed by this close too. I didn't see it until I saw the notification that it was closed on my watchlist, but I was pretty surprised after reading through it. The keep !votes were extremely flimsy, and it wasn't relisted either. At the very least, it'd be nice if you could write up a better explanation for how you came to such a conclusion, because I can't see it. But really, I'd prefer if you could please reconsider and/or re-list it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the official Ritchie333 Complaints Department, please take a ticket, an assistant will be along in a minute to take your details ..... Firstly, I meant to say "Opinions split roughly equally between keeping, deleting and redirecting" and missed "deleting" out because I wasn't paying attention, so put the torches and pitchforks down, please. Secondly, Mausebru didn't just say "This is an extremely important album", they also improved the article, which was not commented on by anyone else. As AfD is not a vote, I considered relisting it, making a specific comment about this, but because I noticed Walter had been edit-warring [6] [7] [8] [9], I was sufficiently irritated to close it as I felt a relist would involve more bludgeoning and back-and-forth discussion. After all, there was definitely no clear consensus to delete, and everything else can be solved by normal editing and discussion. I would draw your attention to the closing remark at the AfD, which is to start a discussion whether or not to redirect on the talk page. If you can't bear the existence of the article and it's keeping you awake at night, I can relist the AfD, but I'd rather do that with someone who doesn't appear to have an axe to grind on the subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My main hang up are the keep sides of the argument. Ones entire argument hinged entirely on the vague assertion that the album was "beloved". Another was on the vague assertion that it was "valid". The third one, as you mentioned, made claims of importance, but I'm not seeing how exactly he relating that back to WP:NALBUMS, judging by the additions to the article, he appears to be referring more to importance in the fandom or something. It just doesn't sit with me that these rationales are the ones keeping it from being a consensus. These sort of rationales feel more like the type of stuff that was acceptable at AFD back in 2009 or something. If you could relist, I'd appreciate it. I think it has a better chance going somewhere at a central location like AFD than a talk page, personally. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Well I have no axe to grind, having never heard of the band previously, but it's surely relevant that it has twice before been determined that this album should not have an article, and the only reason it is exists now is because someone circumvented the recreation protection. Plus the keep arguments here are exceedingly weak. I think this should be relisted. I don't see why it's necessary to start a separate discussion on the talk page.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't relist because I discovered Walter dragged this issue off to DRV ten minutes after leaving a thread here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice he came back to fix a typo but didn't bother to inform you of the DRV. Very courteous.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I only found the DRV because I considered starting one myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

sources

anyone who values these kind of reference sources can't be all bad. (even if I think it's spelled "Favorite") — Ched (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I realised I had listed all of these sources at least once in a talk page discussion, and it made sense to collate them all together. On occasion, I have opened The London Encyclopedia at a random page, and started to fix up the article on whatever entry happened to be there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_121&oldid=1088054069"