Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 133

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135→Archive 138

AFD for Alim Industries Limited

Hi Richie, you've closed this as "No Consensus" with a reasoning that the Delete !votes are short and based on classic arguments to avoid. I'm very surprised, especially considering the lengthy GNG/NCORP-based explanations I've provided showing why the references fail to meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Specifically the argument made by Keep !voters of "significant coverage" fails to address the "Independent" criteria. Clearly Oblivy was unfamiliar with GNG/NCORP criteria and "gave up" once it was explained. The only other Keep !voter, Alvardi (article creator) only referred to GNG (not NCORP) and did not hang around after listing three references that are based solely on PR. Can you review please. HighKing++ 11:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Examples of poor and cliched delete arguments include "Doesn't meet WP:GNG, Broken link and companies website is used as ref." WP:DEL-CONTENT, "Per nominator" WP:PERNOM and " does not meet WP:NCORP" WP:VAGUEWAVE. I discounted all of them as weak arguments, which leaves everyone else arguing with each other and giving up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Your reply doesn't address what I've said above. Sure, you can get rid of some of the Delete !votes that way and if that is your normal method for evaluating arguments at AfD, fair enough and I think it is a good method. So we're left with what exactly? One Keep !vote based on three bad references that fail GNG/NCORP, where the article creator popped in to !vote and didn't respond when pointed out why the references failed our criteria. And another Keep !vote from an editor who has no experience at AfD and eventually "gave up" when it was all carefully explained. Can yu please review. HighKing++ 11:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
"One Keep !vote based on three bad references that fail GNG/NCORP". That's just your personal opinion. Other editors may have a different viewpoint. I would recommend saying "oh well, editors disagree with me, hey ho" and finding a different article to expand or improve. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Except another editor, scope_creep, also supported that view. Also that editor in question then thanked me for the explanation, appeared to grasp what was being said and "gave up" on arguing for those references immediately after. Sorry for bugging you like this Richie, if you stand by your decision, fair enough, I won't pursue it any further, I'm trying to understand your logic/reasoning. If you're happy, I'll accept that. HighKing++ 13:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll also note that you've provided reasoning on another AfD above that Karnataka gave a comprehensive reason why the sources were inadequate whereas here you're saying my reasoning is just your personal opinion. I find that odd too. Are you saying that after weighing the various arguments, etc, the reasoning provided by Delete was incorrect or inadequate? Or what's the difference in these two AfDs? HighKing++ 14:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As above, I've taken the discussion to deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 28 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I find it really odd as well and entirely cavalier approach. This about the 4th time in about 2 years that I've seen the same kind of behaviour with the same undeserved no-consensus result and combined with the statements on this page as well as DRV by other editors complaining about non-consensus closes, perhaps indicates a long term problem that is not being addressed. scope_creepTalk 22:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
It looks as though it will confirmed at DRV as a no-consensus close anyway. scope_creepTalk 22:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Ritchie333,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Page help

Hello Ritchie, how are you doing man? Hope you are fine. I wanted to ask you a help for save the page Davide Lo Surdo which you accepted the draft. I saw now that the page has been updated with new news from notable sites as Los Tiempos, El Mercurio (Ecuador), DBC News. Can you please help to save the page? God bless you and thanks in advance Johnmarrys (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't send direct messages like this, as it can be considered canvassing for attention. The problem I have with improving the article is the source material is in Italian and Portuguese, which makes fixing it up a bit difficult for me. I have dropped a neutral opinion into the deletion discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the answer. What has to be improved in the article? So I can try to fix it Johnmarrys (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Ritchie333 i ask your opinion:
for you the page Davide Lo Surdo has significant and indipendent coverage for keep it on wikipedia as we fixed it now? Johnmarrys (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I would improve the page as much as you can and see if other people suggest keeping the article at the discussion. That's about the best you can do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Kind request

Hello Ritchie, i need you to see the discussion about Davide Lo Surdo because Graham looks like having personal matters with Lo Surdo because he is claiming that Rolling Stone brazil is not notable enough and that their sources (RS Brazil) are dubious when as you know RS is the most notable music magazine and lo surdo appears to have significant coverage plus he has received an award by Sanremo Music Awards which is very notable.

please have a look at it because Lo surdo’s Page now is fine and can be keep on wikipedia

thanks in advance my friend Johnmarrys (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Graham87 said on the discussion a few hours ago: “I have my own ideas about what to do with this article if this AFD doesn't result in a deletion, but I'll keep them to myself until (or unless) that eventuates.”
This shows having personal matters with him because he can’t say this kind of things and that Rolling stone 🇧🇷 is not notable and their sources are dubious because this shows personal matters. Johnmarrys (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the AlisonW case

The proposed decision for the AlisonW case has been posted. Statements regarding the proposed decision are welcome at the talk page. Please note that comments must be made in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:

  • For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

Deletion review for Lewis (baseball)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lewis (baseball). 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. Willbb234 00:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You could have discussed this with me first (as people have in above threads); but now you're looking at a deletion review with an unanimous "endorse" consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I could have, but I know that you don't like me so there's no real point anyway. Willbb234 14:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got that impression, I do recall lifting a block of yours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The block that you wrongfully imposed in the first place. Willbb234 14:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I invite you to read this. Willbb234 14:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be getting from that discussion. I think the problem you're facing is that you're not explaining the issues in sufficient length. That's probably why the deletion review, as I look at is now, is tending towards an unanimous "endorse" consensus with multiple editors taking time out to explain why the close was acceptable. This time might have been better spent improving an article somewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ati Kepo AfD?

Would you mind explaining your rationale for Keep vs NC in this 4d-6k discussion? 4/6 of the keep !votes were of the usual hand-waving at "sources" without any commentary on them. The final keep !vote doesn't even contain an argument... And the one substantive keep !vote appears to ignore SPORTSCRIT #5 as it attempts to create a notability pass by combining sources that had already been clearly dismissed as passing mentions. I had been planning to rebut that !vote (on the basis that all the linked sources are the same routine non-significant material rejected in hundreds of other sportsperson AfDs and explicitly excluded as GNG-contributory at NSPORT) but thought I'd have more time than 2 days past the relist. Would you reconsider the close? JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion had been relisted twice, which suggests there was no consensus, and in the final week, nobody advocated deletion, and the arguments by Visviva were not challenged by anyone. That suggests that consensus was tending towards keeping the article. The only other possible outcome would be "no consensus", but that doesn't seem right since there were no arguments against keeping raised at all during the final relist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Since I got pinged in here I'll just say that I agree with the close (perhaps unsurprisingly), for the following reasons. Here as in the AFD, the sole question seems to be whether articles that are either substantially (quarter or half) about the article subject and contain substantial biographical information, or are even entirely about the article subject, can be dismissed as "passing mentions" that do not meet the requirements of sigcov, which as JoelleJay correctly notes is required by WP:SPORTSCRIT#5 in addition to NBIO and the GNG. On the delete side, we had only the usual hand-waving dismissals without any actual analysis of the definition of significant coverage or why the sources provided did not meet that standard. On the keep side, I reviewed the text of the guideline against the sources and explained why they met the sigcov requirement of covering the article subject sufficiently directly and in sufficient detail that no original research is required to extract the content. If there was a counterargument to be made, nobody made it. Therefore IMO the discussion was correctly closed as keep. -- Visviva (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
You reviewed only the small section in GNG stating a skeletal definition of SIGCOV, but neglected the part that says directly and in detail and neglected to review policies like NOTNEWS and the guidelines that reference it, which specifically constrain what coverage is acceptable. Countless non-notable sportspeople receive the type of routine transactional and match summary coverage, interviews, and passing mentions contained in the linked sources. It is not relevant at all what percentage of an article is dedicated to a subject or how many biographical facts can be extracted from it if it fails NOT. I had planned to rebut your comments at the AfD, but I'll paste them here instead since it is worth noting how comprehensively far from GNG the subject is:
The sources you claimed Ati Kepo makes up 1/4 to 1/2 of the article topic and that contain substantial biographical background about him in particular (emph mine) are 1) a low-quality story in the Post-Courier that is reporting on two sets of brothers. Here is where Ati is specifically mentioned:

However, the feeling is not the same for the Kepo brothers, Kolu and Ati.

Every single sentence in the article is either a quote/rephrasing of what one set of the brothers said/felt, or about the Kepo brothers as a unit (< 130 words here about them in total, out of ~540) rather than him as an individual. 2) Another article in the P-C (so not independent of ref #1) that has all of this to say about Ati specifically:

The Kepo siblings-Kolu, Ati and Freddy-have come a long way to make it to the big time competition like the Champions League. [...] And nothing beats that feeling of playing alongside each other as Kolu, Ati and Freddy Kepo look forward to their first match against Eastern Suburb AFC of New Zealand at 3pm on Sunday.

That's it, and it's not even about him alone! 3) A poorly-written piece in PNG Haus Bung that has this material mentioning Ati specifically:

25yr old Freddie Kepo, 27yr old Ati Kepo and their older brother Kolu Kepo have been playing soccer for as long as they can remember.

Every other sentence is about the brothers, about Kolu, or quotes from Kolu. None of these sources is anywhere close to being "squarely within both the letter and the spirit of SIGCOV", and it's frankly disingenuous for you to claim any of that content is "about Ati in particular"!
The sources you said Ati is 1/4 to 1/2 of the focus but do not contain much biographical information are: 4) An un-bylined piece in The National where, again, two sets of brothers are the topic. Mentions of Ati:

[...] while the Kepo's [sic], from Kalo in Rigo are siblings Ati, Kolu and Freddy. [...] Meanwhile, the Kepo brothers Ati and Kolu have been with the club for a few years and have represented the country, while Freddy joined the team last season. [...] Coaches Erickson Komeng and David Muta will be relying on the experiences of skipper Daniel as well as Ati and Kolu, who have previous experience to lead the young group in their campaign.

5) Another P-C piece:

[...] including that of Hekari United's forward Ati Kepo, who also served his one match ban on Saturday for a red card issued in last year's national playoff. [...] PNGFA said both Bika and Kepo served their one match ban on Saturday and were cleared to play in this weekend's second leg playoff in Port Moresby.

This is literally repeating a press release.
The sources in which Ati Kepo is the main topic, but with little biographical information: 6) A routine tournament recap from P-C where, if you read past the headline, it is very clear that Ati Kepo is not the main topic. Out of 22 sentences, here is the coverage of Ati:

Kolu Kepo's finish against Eastern Suburbs was one for the highlight reel and Ati Kepo's goal against Vanuatu's Galaxy FC was also a cracker.

7) A routine match recap from P-C with exactly the same issue of only containing a passing mention of Ati as in the other ref. Out of 17 sentences:

The match came alive in the 54th minute when Ati Kepo gave Hekari United the lead and belief with an emphatic finish. Excitement level in the stands reached fever pitch 10 minutes later as Kepo grabbed his second to put the hosts on the verge of qualification.

The exact same sources had been rebutted individually by JTtheOG as precisely what they are: passing mentions. It shouldn't have been necessary me, GiantSnowman, or MarchOfTheGreyhounds to explicate further on how these sources fail NSPORT because that fact should be plainly evident to anyone who reads them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think "Visviva not being rebutted in the 12 hours between their post and AfD closure" is quite fair, especially when most of those hours occurred overnight... Nevertheless, I had started writing a rebuttal (see above) after seeing Visviva's !vote, went to sleep on it, and then edit-conflicted with your close when I tried to submit. JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree that 12 hours is a short time to expect rebuttal. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
All said and done, I don't see any consensus or agreement to delete the article, and the debate had been relisted several times previously to try and get a consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying your assessment would have been the same if you had closed it before Visviva's !vote? Because if not, I think it would be reasonable to allow more than 12 hours overnight to address their argument. Also, would your assessment have changed if my rebuttal had been posted in time? I think the misrepresentation of the sources as being "1/2 to 1/4" about Kepo and containing any info on him "in particular" should be apparent from the evidence I provided. Please would you reconsider reopening or at least closing as NC? JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with changing the result to No Consensus; however, given the net effect on the article is the same, I wonder if it's worth doing as I might just get objections from editors who expressed the view to keep the article instead. Damned if you, damned if you don't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
A close as NC makes it much less of a hassle to renominate in the future (and as this subject certainly doesn't meet GNG/NSPORT with a combined ~3 routine sentences in IRS on him specifically, the article will need to be deleted at some point). JoelleJay (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Disclosure, pinged here. @JoelleJay if I were closing this, I think I'd have closed this as n/c given that there was no inclination toward a redirect (my Fijian closes I'm assuming are the related ones you referenced?) I'll be honest if I'd seen it in the log when NYCGuru did, I might have closed it as delete then if redirect wasn't viable. While I see how @Ritchie333 landed on keep, I disagree mainly on weight. Das and Ortizesp !vote the same in almost every sports discussion and it is my opinion that they don't actually consider the subject/merit when they do. I'm aware the same has been said re: Giant Snowman, but I've found them more likely to return to pings and address questions. I'm not familiar with Okoslavia and I'm not sure what Viva being an admin has to do, so I'd give that less weight. So discounting these two I don't see a steong consensus to keep. Good faith opinions that were rebutted, but not wrong headed.
That said, sports AfDs are exhausting. They're not well attended, substance wise and they each feel like a referendum on N:SPORTS with folks fundamentally disagreeing on the guidelines and !voting how they believe they should read, not necessarily how they do read. If I'd participated, I'd have been surprised at the outcome but not enough to challenge it since I trust Ritchie's judgement (speaking personally, not that you shouldn't challenge it, JoelleJay). Hope that's helpful. Star Mississippi 00:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, @Star Mississippi, that's essentially the weighting assessment I made. I guess my primary complaint is that Visviva's !vote had some seriously misleading claims that I spent quite a lot of time addressing in my rebuttal, and if I had posted it in time I strongly suspect the close outcome would have been different. JoelleJay (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Tony Stratton Smith

Hi Ritchie, just thought I'd draw your attention to the talk page for Tony Stratton-Smith. I am reading Strat!, the biography of Tony Stratton Smith by Chris Groom and found a different birth date listed there, and also a different spelling of his name. I found that you were probably the one to insert the original birth date in the article, based on The Songs of Genesis by Steve Aldous, a book which I haven't read.

Is the 29 October birth date indeed mentioned by Aldous? And if so, should we mention the fact that Groom mentions a different date? And what to do about the name? I'm reluctant to be bold in this case, as I've not read Aldous. What do you think? (I can recommend Strat! by the way, as it's a great read.) Mark in wiki (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I recall improving this article years ago, and the original sources I had only mentioned his death date, and only one mentioned his birth year, never the date. Chris Groom's book has a foreword by Peter Gabriel, and has had good reviews, which makes me think it's a more reliable source. It looks like I did add the source, but this must have been either from finding it in a library, sneaking a look in a bookshop and remembering the page number, or getting it off Google Books, just to get rid of a {{fact}} tag I'd placed ages before that. So I would go with using Groom's source as definitive. I don't think it'll be challenged, but if it is, we can start a talk page discussion then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I've started to update the article, with Groom's biography in hand, and if necessary will continue to update it (currently reading page 116 of 350). Mark in wiki (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Ashford International Studios

On 22 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ashford International Studios, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the old Ashford railway works is being redeveloped into Ashford International Studios? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ashford International Studios. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ashford International Studios), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Association football culture

Hi, some user want to delete Commemoration Section. in the Association football culture

If you have spare time, Please participate in the discussion at the WikiProject Football Footwiks (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

July music

July songs
my story today

Great music (in June, I'm behind: three great RMF concerts)! - Last Saturday, a friend played for us at her birthday party, on four instruments including baryton, with family (granddaughters!) and colleagues, from Renaissance to Haydn. - My story today is very personal: the DYK appeared on Wikipedia's 15th birthday, and describes a concert I sang. I was requested to translate the bio into German for a memorial concert ... - see background, and we talked about life and death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Fireworks on the Rhine pictured on 1 July, but the real stars were sun and moon. I love today's story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Gerda, this thread is like an oasis of calm on this talk page, where everywhere around it has turned into the AfD Complaints Department. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
If there's so many editors questioning your judgement when closing AfDs, then the issue is probably on your end. Willbb234 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Yeah, it's all Ritchie's fault for stepping up and dealing with difficult AfDs that others are reluctant to deal with, what with all the dissatisfied complaints from those who are shopping for a different outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't talking to you. Willbb234 18:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
That wasn't very polite. Play nice. Tryptofish is quite right; there might be a problem with my AfD closes if they were repeatedly taken to DRV and closed as "overturn". But since they mostly get closed as "endorse" or "no consensus", that would suggest, as they said, that they're just people with a minority view trying to challenge the overall consensus unsuccessfully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I played Vaughan Williams' Folk Song Suite on the back of a flatbed truck yesterday. First time for everything, I guess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
That sounds great, Ritchie! - I love to hear "oasis of calm", having been branded for battleground behaviour by the almighty arbcom, and treated accordingly. The infoboxes arbcase began 10 years ago (yesterday, to be precise), requested by my friend Ched because of all the opposition to {{infobox opera}}. The arbs looked elsewhere but at what has remained a mystery to me, a friend was almost banned because he uncollapsed an infobox, but Talk:Richard Wagner has still not become an oasis of calm. I will stay away, and recommend to anybody not wanting to waste their precious time to do the same. - Anyway: I brought a Bach cantata (premiered 300 years ago) and a saxophonist (created by Dr. Blofeld) to today's Main page, and am proud of both. Keep playing! - Remember: stand and sing was my response to the arbcom verdict. "Ich steh hier und singe in gar sichrer Ruh" translates more or less to "I stand here and sing in quite safe calm". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
There's an outstanding infobox RfC on Talk:Mayfair that's been open for about 45 days and discussion has completely ground to a halt. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't take part in them. I add one, and if reverted, so be it. I tried Prokofiev today, and it has stayed for several hours. - While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Today I remember Jahrhundertring, and I'm listening to Götterdämmerung from the Bayreuth Festival (pictured), - the image (of a woman who can't believe what she has to see) features also on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Shepherd kutamahufa on VK (service) (14:43, 29 July 2023)

Hello, how fo i get to socialise with pple in Russia --Shepherd kutamahufa (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus re-evaluation of AfD that was disrupted by promotional sock

Hello, some time ago, you closed this as "no-consensus" Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Regents_(punk_rock_band). I believe the reading took Lesliechin1's input into consideration. They were later blocked after suspected of being Expertwikiguy (talk · contribs)'s sock puppet by @GeneralNotability: The sockmaster was blocked prior to Lesliechin1 participation in Afd, therefore their input would have been invalid. Could you re-read the consensus retroactively disregarding their input or does this need to go to Deletion Review or another round of Afd? Graywalls (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it was "no consensus" because of a lack of input into the AfD more than anything else. I think the best thing to do is to start a new AfD and see what happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

Hello Ritchie, I'm informing you that the Arbitration Committee has declined the Sandstein request. Let me know if you have any questions. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

For those who haven't noticed, I decided to take a short sabbatical as I realised I was spending too much time doing unnecessary admin busywork, and not enough time improving the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You saw the future and warned it might be bleak

They should have taken your advice 7 years ago:

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ritchie333, it is now obvious that you actually do possess a crystal ball. Will you please meet me for a long weekend in Las Vegas? Cullen328 (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Heh. I think this is an excellent example of why you should never write autobiographies or write about subjects you have a personal connection to - now the article is stuck with negative, but BLP-compliant material. That's a far better advertisement to not doing this, that no amount of {{db-whatever}} or {{uw-yadayada}} templates could ever deliver. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Contel

Hi, could you take a look at this [1] when you have a moment. I initially thought this was an article hijack and reverted. I left them a message about unreferenced edits. They've changed it back again. I would appreciate an eye on it? Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is a mess. I've reverted it back to an earlier version and done some copyedits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Knitsey (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Rfa

as it's now ended with their opponent saying they will oppose them at this RfA is not correct. There are two red-linked editors in that talk-page discussion. —100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Bourdon House

On 3 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bourdon House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Duke of Westminster preferred Bourdon House to Grosvenor House? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bourdon House. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bourdon House), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Neil Gocher (09:16, 5 August 2023)

I want to create a page about me --Neil Gocher (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You really don't. See the above thread "You saw the future and warned it might be bleak". In 2016, somebody wanted an article about Nate Paul, and I told them they probably didn't. But now they've got one that reads "In March 2023, Paul was sentenced to 10 days in jail for contempt of court and fined $180,000 for lying in district court about money transfers in violation of a court order", which now everyone can read and it won't be deleted because it does not violate any policies. Wikipedia will write the good AND the bad about you and leave it there permanently. So if you're involved in a drunk driving accident or convicted for embezzlement, the whole world will know about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (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. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's just above delights such as "Android and iOS App for your website", "New - River Cottage hamper", "Get flexible travel insurance tailored to you", "[github] Fix some bugs with hard-coded paths" and "Quora Digest - Is John Bonham right when he said Karen Carpenter wouldn't last ten minutes drumming with Led Zeppelin" ..... seen, and replied. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Etimoss on Westernization of Oceanic societies through cinematography (21:12, 13 August 2023)

Hello --Etimoss (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What specifically are you looking for help with? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:14, 15 August 2023 (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.

0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the U5

I thought that as it was the user page for JayM1988 (talk · contribs) rather than a draft or sandbox that it came under U5. I will re-read the criteria so I don't make the same mistake. Knitsey (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There's some interesting related reading at User talk:Iridescent/Archive 38#What is U5 supposed to be used for? and User talk:Iridescent/Archive 40#U5 on userpage-sandboxes. I can't remember why U5 was created in the first place; I've looked into the history of the reasons for creating some of the earlier CSD criteria, and it's interesting to see the original use cases. For example, as far as I can tell, CSD A7 probably wouldn't have been created if we'd disallowed IPs and non-confirmed accounts from creating articles, and if BLPPROD existed back then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I will have a read of that. Advice always appreciated. Knitsey (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
That makes things a little clearer, thank you. I can see the point of not scaring away new editors which considering a conversation last night about the lack of new editors that stick around, it's not something I want to do. Spammers, I would still use CSD for.
I will try and apply some moderation in future.
Interestingly, someone else has mentioned the third person CV type of user page. Can I ask what your thoughts are on that? Knitsey (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
(Non-Ritchie333 reply but lightheartedly busting-his-balls anyway :) comment) Yo, Knitsey note you actually got a non-reply there. While it's the letter of the law that {{U5}} is only for userspace, an admin should also take other relevant policies into account, in this case, WP:NOT, which applies to all pages. HTH! Sup Ritchie? SN54129 12:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @SN54129: I think looking at the discussion has helped as I think I was applying it too rigidly and moving a user page to draft is preferable to deleting. I realise the discussions didn't result in a change or clarification in definition of U5 or how it's applied but it was useful to read. I'm a noob to CSD so I'm open to any advice. As I said, I'm always open to advice, thanks for the extra info, Knitsey (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
In this case, it looks a translation from et:Beatrice, which has a few sources. So moving it to draftspace is an appropriate course of action for now. It needs to have proper sources, and formatting applied to it. The formatting's easy enough, the sources require somebody with a bit more knowledge on this topic than me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

August music

August songs
my story today

Today's music is played by my brother's orchestra, conducted by two very young men on their way up, - the picture was taken shortly after the invasion of Ukraine began, - more detail on my talk. Images reached the day of the Tenebrae concert mentioned in July. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

My story today - a first - isn't about an article by me, but one I reviewed for DYK, see here. I like all: topic, "hook", connected article (a GA on its way towards FA), image and the music "in the background". I just returned from a weekend of weddings, so also like the spirit ;) - Pics to come, I promise one cake, the other was too large! Good music, and better even in the concert ending the second day, - Goldberg Variations theme for an encore, after Dohnányi Serenade. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've had a weekend of weddings, playing receptions. Done a whole bunch this year, and more to come. And - since I've already broadcasted this around the internet - I can confirm I'm also getting married in 2025. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
That's great news! - The second couple had planned their wedding for 2020, came the pandemic, they invited for May 2022, but postponed to now, and celebrated with their daughter riding with them in the horse carriage ;) - she can't walk yet, and seemed to enjoy the event! - Again not by me: today's story - with the triumph of music over military - is uplifting! - No cake yet, but a butterfly and open-air opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Congrats, Ritchie! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Now: picture of heart-shaped cake(s) uploaded! - Today's story is about a tenor, - why his roles are not linked on the Main page remains a mystery to me. Today is also the birthday of the Bayreuth Festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
One more day uploaded, with another wedding cake - I couldn't resist. Today's story is about the Inkpot Madonna who returned to "her place" 9 years ago, and also has aspects of early learning, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Today is the anniversary of the premiere of Götterdämmerung. Berit Lindholm sang its final scene in concert at the Royal Festival Hall in London, only four years after her stage debut in a Mozart opera in Stockholm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Today, my focus is on Renata Scotto, after days of updating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
That's looking good. I assume you're focused on improving it to GA. I haven't got any GA nominations in the queue at the moment; for a long time (probably about five years) I always had at least one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, - GA may be, but I'm still busy with the last one, Rachel Yakar, promised adding a week ago or so ... - Do you happen to know French, read Diapason there? - Today is Debussy's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Today is Gwendolyn Killebrew's birthday, - pictured: a spider and sweet food - DYK that between the last post and this I nominated and got a new GA? - after I added Killebrew to her article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

AGEY Athanasius Ngong

AGEY Athanasius Ngong is a licenced real estate broker/agent/manager in Cameroon, Africa. He is the founder and manager of Real Estate Africa, LTD (www.realestates.africa), a legalized and recognized real estate brokerage company in Buea, Cameroon.

AGEY Athanasius Ngong is well has a mastery of the real estate market in Cameroon and the CEMAC zone.

AGEY Athanasius Ngong is also the first and only real estate broker to receive a blue tick verification batch from Facebook. Ageyngong (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't write articles about yourself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

New message from Timothytyy

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilshad Kamaludheen (2nd nomination). The user has refused to drop the stick and is now nominating the article again. Although I personally agree with deleting the article, I still believe that the user might be a little bit disruptive. Notifying you because you were the one who advised him not to nominate it anymore. Timothytyy (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, the creator of the article notified the administrator already and he gave a procedural note in the Afd page.
Also user:Timothytyy, kindly read WP:RENOM. zoglophie 05:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Recreating a previously deleted article - Diamonds (Lil Peep and iLoveMakonnen album)

Hi, since the article's subject has now released and the article editor UI informed to first contact you, I would like to ask if I should recreate the page? I already have a draft ready in my sandbox that is ready to be improved upon in terms of citations by others and myself. OfficialNikkiMusic (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamonds (Lil Peep and iLoveMakonnen album), but very few people took part in that debate.
The easiest thing to do is to put the draft into review; if an independent reviewer accepts it, this will override the previous deletion debate. I have moved the draft to Draft:Diamonds (Lil Peep and iLoveMakonnen album) and submitted it for review to move this along. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Diamonds (Lil Peep and iLoveMakonnen album) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Diamonds (Lil Peep and iLoveMakonnen album). Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I just did this draft as a courtesy for another user after deleting an earlier revision (see a few threads up). However one small comment, a limited number of citations to things like Twitter can be acceptable for basic facts per WP:BLPPRIMARY, although they can't be used to demonstrate notability. So while it would be nice to replace them with third-party cites, it's not an absolute deal-breaker in my opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I went to see the Wise Woman and she said "speedy delete everything in the whole world!" at which point I left. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Pont Abraham Services

On 14 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pont Abraham Services, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pont Abraham Services, at the end of the M4, were one of the first in the UK to sell fuel for over £2 per litre? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pont Abraham Services. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pont Abraham Services), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Kusma (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Cue witty remark about petrol prices or similar, or something Welsh from Martinevans123 in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
0.5, 0.25, 0.125.... Yes, that's right "I'm still fuming because it was only £1.98 at Swansea West." (chortle, chortle). And sorry I'm late, I've been somewhat detained. --Next slide please (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon October 2023 - Around the World in 31 Days

Hello Ritchie333:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

Jennifer Cassidy deleted article

Hi there, re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Cassidy

How can I userify this? GeneralBelly (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've put it in User:GeneralBelly/Jennifer Cassidy for you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit summary

[2]. Being a "convenience link" doesn't negate the fact that it is an unreliable source. We should never trust some random website which has (incorrectly) copied over the text of a newspaper. Fram (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_133&oldid=1180675457"