User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Jana Pfeffera z Królewca polnish pl:Jan Pfeffer Johann Pfeffer german

מָגֵן דָּוִד

Joh. Pfeffer german/Jan Pfeffe polnish, see Anton Ulbrich: Johannes Pfeffer. Der Altaraufsatz in der evangelischen Kirche zu Cumehnen in Samland = Johannes Pfeffer. The altar in the protestant church to Cumehnen in Samland . in: Anton Ulbrich:Geschichte der Bildhauerkunst in Ostpreußen vom Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts bis gegen 1870 = History of sculpture in East Prussia from the 16th century to around 1870, Königsberg 1926-1929, p. 249-270 (Digitalisat).

look for Jana Pfeffera z Królewca here https://www.google.de/#q=Jana+Pfeffera+z+Kr%C3%B3lewca

• Bartoszyce. Z dziejów miasta i okolic. Wyd. drugie zmienione. Wyd. Pojezierze, Olsztyn 1987, 480 str., ISBN 83-7002-239-1
• Kościoły i kaplice Archidiecezji Warmińskiej, tom II. Kuria Metropolitalna Archidiecezji Warmińskiej, Olsztyn 1999, ISBN 83-912605-0-X
• Rodnowo: kościół z XIV wieku [3]
• Johann Pfeffer. In: Ulrich Thieme, Felix Becker u. a.: Allgemeines Lexikon der Bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Band 26. E. A. Seemann, Leipzig 1932, S. 526.
• Anton Ulbrich: Johannes Pfeffer. Der Altaraufsatz in der evangelischen Kirche zu Cumehnen in Samland = Johannes Pfeffer. The altar in the protestant church to Cumehnen in Samland . in: Anton Ulbrich:Geschichte der Bildhauerkunst in Ostpreußen vom Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts bis gegen 1870 = History of sculpture in East Prussia from the 16th century to around 1870, Königsberg 1926-1929, p. 249-270 (Digitalisat).

thank you; racism isn't good. Good bye --HelloFrie56 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.209.115.8 (talk)

I've read Ika Hügel-Marshall's autobiography and documentaries about Britain First, and can assure you that racism is a little more than "not good", it's utterly unacceptable in the modern era. Regarding Jan Pfeffer, I would recommend clicking HERE to create a draft article that can be independently reviewed. When that is done, an admin can remove the protection and move the draft there. I've managed this a few times. I don't particularly care who creates an article - we are here to write an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I studied Jewish studies --37.209.115.8 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As a famous ex-jew once said to a bit of a right-winger, "I won an egg and spoon race once". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

תּוֹדָה רַבָּה (Toda raba) that is modern hebrew and means: thank you --37.209.115.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So… to be clear, Jan Pfeffer is the Polish Grinling Gibbons? Unfortunately six years of exposure to Na Wspólnej didn't result in me learning Polish. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Why Speedy Deletion of Muhammad Bawazir For Trading Article?

Hi. Why was the article marked for speedy deletion for promotional content? It was not supposed to be promotional. Please help me know how to fix this.Aftab hussain shahnawaz (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aftab hussain shahnawa: The deleting admin, JamesBWatson may be able to give you a more specific reason, but generally most companies are not suitable for Wikipedia articles as they tend not to be remembered in 50 years' time, which in my view is a good yardstick for being suitable for an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Ritchie, there were two articles with confusingly similar titles, Mohammed Bawazir For Trading Co Ltd, which I deleted, and Muhammad Bawazir For Trading Co. Ltd., which you deleted. However, I will say a few words about the one that I deleted. You may or may not wish to add a comment on why you deleted the other one.

@Aftab hussain shahnawaz: to be fair, the article was not as blatantly promotional as some that I see, but apart from the overall tone of the article giving the impression that it was intended to impress us with what a good job the company is doing, there were also a few places where there were statements which really read like marketing copy, such as "To ensure quality products and services, Mohammed Bawazir for Trading builds regional and international business relationships that will meet the needs of their customers". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it. In the case of the article I deleted, I would recommend creating an article on Vitaene C instead, as that is more likely to be known by the everyday reader. The article as I deleted it focused too much on company information, and not really enough on what it makes or what it does, which would have meant a substantial rewrite from scratch. I can restore the Vitaene C information to draft space if that's useful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson and @Ritchie, The Muhammad Bawazir For Trading Co. Ltd. was supposed to be a rewrite of the original article. I edited it to remove any promotional phrases. It was just posted with a misspelling, which I can see can cause problems. Is the second article a better tone? I was going to write an article on Vitaene C next, but wanted the parent company, Mohammed Bawazir For Trading Co Ltd, to have a page as it is the company is it a major distribution company in Saudi Arabia. If I added more content on what it makes or does beyond giving details on its own brands, would that make it enough?Aftab hussain shahnawaz (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aftab hussain shahnawaz: I do think that the second version of the article was less blatantly promotional than the first, but it still read to me as though it was written on behalf of the company, to persuade readers that they should be impressed by the company. Do you work for Mohammed Bawazir For Trading? If you do, you should be aware that it can often be very difficult for someone from inside an organisation to stand back and see how their writing will look from the detached perspective of an outsider. I have often seen people in that situation who clearly honestly intend to write neutrally, but repeatedly produce text which reads to others as promotional, because they honestly can't see how their writing will look to an outsider. (And that is quite apart from the other people who come here with the intention of using Wikipedia as a free advertising medium for their company, having no intention of writing neutrally.) This difficulty in being objective about a subject in which one is closely involved is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest strongly discourage editors from editing articles on subjects to which they have such a connection, as you have already been told by another editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:I am not an employee of Mohammed Bawazir For Trading, but I was given information from the company (by my request), referenced their website, and researched news articles. I was unable to find anything negative, but I can ask the employee I contacted if there is anything controversial in its history that I couldn't find on the web. I didn't want to include anything that wasn't available to the reader through the references I found (the news articles and the company website).Aftab hussain shahnawaz (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aftab hussain shahnawaz: I would recommend the following : CLICK HERE and you'll be taken to the Article Wizard, which will provide a way of creating a draft article that can be reviewed and improved without the threat of deletion. As said above, I would recommend creating the Vitaene C first, simply because products are generally better known to the layman reader than companies and hence have a better chance of being retained as important in an encyclopedia. The draft process will explain to how to submit your work for review, and once it is accepted, it is very unlikely to be deleted. I hope that's of use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and suggestions.Aftab hussain shahnawaz (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors! Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [1]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [2]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal. The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both! The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup. MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition. Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Ritchie333. Thank you for your wisdom at Josh's AN/I report.

I thought you might be interested in a few more GAs I've worked on recently and an FAC.

Caitlyn Jenner
Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard – got promoted about the same time Josh's AN/I report was winding down. You may have never heard of this case but I just crunched the numbers and the page views near 1M per year. Can you look at it and give me an idea for a DYK hook? What is not obvious about a kidnap victim?
Michael Laucke – this one is from a new editor Natalie.Desautels who has been onboard since November of 2015. This is her first article. It is now at FAC but not progressing there. I hope she does not get too discouraged if it fails to progress. She has a super attitude. She is pulling the train on this one but I have kept her between the rails and I have a ton of edits on the article. Over 60 other editors have participated, some with a single edit. I believe Natalie is over 5000 edits know and has a lot of Wiki competencies. For one thing she is so gracious. Too bad ML is turning out to be a low traffic article. Natalie has hundreds of hours into it or more. She will probably learn to put less time into articles going forward, but maybe not as the article she was able to craft with all her research (she has done 99% of that) exceeds by far what the Canadian Encyclopedia was able to dig up for their half page version.
Persoonia terminalis – this was the 5 millionth article on Wikipedia and I happened to be up when it popped out as a stub just after midnight my time. With a team effort we were able to build out the article to GA then FA. Casliber graciously gave me co-credit for the GA promotion. Casliber did say later that he had a bit of an agenda to prove that an article could go quickly from stub to GA to FA.

You already know about Planned Parenthood

Three of those are controversial topics and not recommended to attempt for GA or FA but I am willing to make the effort.

I have nominated four articles for DYK and been credited with a few more.

I answer a few questions at The Teahouse.

I write and edit a lot of tips for the Tips-of-Day project.

I review pending changes. I try to do a few a day. Usually the submission needs an tweak so I accept it then fix it. Only vandalism gets rejected by me. I feel that every editor is entitled to submit a good faith edit and have it approved even if it is imperfect or wrong. My job is to make sure it is not vandalism, but if I see a way to make their submission better I do it.

I am on the TAFI mailing list but many of those article really do not have a good way to build them out so not much gets done on them. In spite of that I am considered an active and productive member of the project.

The most exciting thing lately is helping Ben Creasy, Pete Forsyth, Stephen LaPorte and many others launch the Bay Area WikiSalon series. We have our third event at the WMF HQ on June 29.

I have participated in four onsite local edit-a-thons. One was Art-and-Feminism and another was held at an all-woman run hackerspace/makerspace but key card members are allowed to invite folks of any gender. I am a cisgender white male. Two were at a private high school for kids of rich families.

I was nurturing another editor recently for two months who did a lot of good work for the project but they got run off by a small group of coordinated bullies. It was painful to watch. They fanned their own flames a bit and they did not actually need to leave but they did. In two months they left behind 10 articles, 4 DYKs, and 15 articles rescued from AfD.

As far as article creation I know how to create an article but I am not a writer per se. My first article I had vetted through AfC, they held my feet to the fire and I followed their suggestions. It passed muster in the end. After three years of no complaints, no edit warring, and no maintenance tags Drmies got wind of it and successfully nominated it for deletion. It was about a web site that had won a prestigious press club award and it had tons of reliable sources. It is even used as a story starter for all the big national and local news stations. But, this was not good enough for Toykogirl, etc. and they killed it off. My other articles are low traffic stubs that have stayed that way. I really do not have an interest in creating a masterpiece of my own. There are enough other things to do on the Wikis. The original AfC approver would not even support keeping it. I think he swallowed a pin that day or got up on the wrong side of the bed. He had no explanation for his lack of continuing to support it. It was discouraging because even a simple article takes a mind boggling amount of effort.

I have over 2000 edits on Wikidata which is all manual work and very tedious; many on Wiktionary; a few on Wikivoyage; Commons; meta; Phabricator; etc.

I have created some helpful templates.

I have created a lot of helpful redirects.

I categorize redirects. Paine Ellsworth is the category master so he is my wingman when I cannot figure out a category.

I archive a lot of dead links. That is a manual process to insert them.

I am an avid Wikipedia reader.

I try to praise acceptable behavior and not give the appearance of praising unacceptable behavior or tolerating it.

I do not have a focus and enjoy the forks in the road. I am not trying to boast or hat collect here. I just have a lot of curiosity and I let it lead me where it goes. I learn something new every day. Too bad the old mind leaks a bit too. If you have read this far you will be receiving a door prize shortly. LOL. Please forgive any misspellings or grammar issues. No way am I scrolling up to see what I have just created here.

What is your story on the Wikis? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I read through Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard this morning. I took out two lengthy quotes that I believe are copyright violations; even if the transcripts were released CC-BY-SA, I don't think the prose is of the right house style for an article here. You should always watch out for copyvios, as we have to aggressively remove them whenever we find them (and the message above the text window tells you this every time you edit). Yoninah is pretty good at spotting a copyvio from 20 paces, and tends to pop round DYK nominations checking for close paraphrasing every now and then.

Michael Laucke looks good for GA aside from two minor quibbles; the quote in the middle is a bit too much like close paraphrasing again, and the last section is a list, which I'm not sure meets the guidelines for list incorporation (one of the few bits of the MOS that is required for a GA - I don't know about you, but when people talk about the MOS I go and hide under a sofa until they go away again). I see Natalie.Desautels is getting a bit of a grilling at the FAC, which is kind of expected (remember that FAs are supposed to be the best writing on Wikipedia full stop and can hold their own against critically acclaimed books and journals). This topic is right up Dr. Blofeld's street to get through FAC (I GA reviewed Paco de Lucía for him years ago) , and after I ripped him a new one on Cary Grant (sorry!) he could do with some cheering up I think. It might be worth regrouping with Blofeld, setting up a PR and copyediting the article carefully, then go for FAC round 2. The important thing to remember is that FAC isn't personal. Just food for thought.

I assume re Drmies you're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claycord.com. I think your problem there is that just asserting the site has fed news stories to CNN and Fox isn't really enough, unless it's doing it regularly and all the time, or if the site has become caught up in some major news scandal (well, plus the golden rule that 1) Drmies is always right and 2) When Drmies is wrong refer to rule 1)

"it popped out as a stub just after midnight my time" - that's what I said when I my youngest son was born (actually it was 8am but meh, I'd been up all night) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333. Thank you for looking around and for your edits. I am honored. Where is the CC-BY-SA you mention? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The text is at the bottom of the edit window above "Save page". It's the bit that starts "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use....". The full legalese of CC-BY-SA (which stands for "Creative Commons - By Attribution - Share Alike" ... I think) is here, but if you can't face going wading through that (and who could blame you if you didn't?) it basically means all text on Wikipedia can be re-used and even sold commercially. It's why you can see crooksenterprising businessmen sell bound copies of Wikipedia articles for $50 online - it might be a waste of money to you or I, but it's not violating the licence. Since most websites and news feeds don't want this, we can't copy text wholesale from there, as it would violate their copyrights. It's one of the most confusing concepts on Wikipedia - see any complaint along the lines of "why was my picture deleted?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Please read User:Sven Manguard/Failed RfA Advice Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Ritchie333. I did not get the copies there. Statements made in open court are not copyrightable. Any works by the State of California are not copyrightable either. Furthermore, to accept your copyright vio premise would effectively give court reporters a "copyright" in a mere transcription of others' statements, contrary to black letter copyright law. See 2 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright, Ch. 4 Noncopyrightable Material, § 4.88 (Updated Sept. 2008) (court reporters are not "authors of what they transcribe and therefore cannot be copyright owners of the transcript of court proceedings"). Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC) @Checkingfax: The problem is, the article does not cite that, but instead refers to an ABC News piece, which is copyrightable. As I said earlier, even if it could be proven that the text has a compatible licence, wholesale copying of quotations is generally discouraged, as the text does not fit our house style. In particular, verbatim court transcripts should be avoided on BLPs (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). As it goes, I think we have consensus that the quotes should not be in the article, so let's draw a line under this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Hi, Ritchie333. I have not objected to your removal of the content nor have I tried to revert it. Where is this consensus you speak of and what is the basis for it? Those victim impact statements are powerful ephemera and cannot be trimmed. The citation proved that the words exist. If you had a better way to cite it then mentioning that would have been helpful. The spoken words are not copyrightable as you opined. You said that I could be brought up at arb for this and you cited this example as a major copyright violation, but I have shown that you are incorrect. That is what I am addressing. You also left a snarky edit summary when you made that charge, plus you stated that I "[passed] a GA with copyvios in it" (I did not pass it, the GA reviewer did) and made other charges: "The ANI trips, disruption at Cary Grant". The ANI happened while I was asleep; I barely replied to it before the filer withdrew it as being "over-hasty". I have been completely exonerated in every other ANI so there are no "ANI trips" (plural) to write home about. I did not have unlimited space to make a laundry list of every conflict I have been in. I looked at the RfA question carefully and it asked me to share ones that caused me stress. The recent ANI did not cause me any stress. I was prepared to answer questions about it when asked. But no questions came forth. You did not ask any questions. Nobody did any due diligence on the ANI, Cary Grant, or the copyright issue you raised. As for Cary Grant I made minor edits that are completely supported by our MoS guidelines; guidelines reached by wide consensus. You had a question on the talk page about why and I engaged you politely and matter-of-factly. I did not change any content. I did not revert anything. Your comments at my adminship nomination swayed a lot of !votes. It is not supposed to be a vote (exact words: "This discussion process is not a vote"), it is supposed to be a consensus discussion. The only thing brought up in the Oppose section were the three things you brought up, all were hollow, and none was questioned or discussed as required by the RfA guidelines. The only question I got is where I got the idea that BRD was optional. From the WP:BRD essay. D'oh! That editor voted Support. In summary, 1) There was no copyright vio. 2} Nothing I have ever done is arb or ANI actionable 3) I did not disrupt Cary Grant. You deemed me "not suitable" and "not happening" for three hollow reasons. I am sensing a systemic bias here and I need you to explain it away. If you disagree with any of this, please be specific. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's alright, I don't wallow in self pity. Even a minor amount of positivity and article support/constructive criticism is enough on such a site for me to remain positive, it's just at times multiple people seem particularly hostile and fail to encourage others. A lot of people forget that we're volunteers and not working professionals... If people genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia, why not work with people and move forward instead of assuming a hostile position and going against them?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. Blofeld. I am here to improve the encyclopedia and have fun doing it. See you around, hound. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Hannah Beachler

On 3 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hannah Beachler, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that production designer Hannah Beachler based some outdoor scenes in the Miles Davis biopic Miles Ahead on old silent footage somebody had posted on YouTube? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hannah Beachler. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hannah Beachler), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for another good one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Another one in the eye for over-hasty delentionists, pfffthfthfthf. By the way, P. S. Burton, I had to revert your edit because it didn't cite a reliable source and contained personal information that wasn't obvious (eg: see Elisabeth Sladen, where her date of birth was wrong for years), which our biographies of living persons policy say we must do. This is especially important when an article is linked from the main page, as people may have filed a report at WP:ERRORS, complaining about it. If you can let me know where you got the information from, I'll re-revert and add the source in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Stick it up your Junta. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

A7 for Purnima Hembram

How does "She has participated in 2015 Asian Athletics Championships" count as a credible assertion of importance or significance? I don't really see the point of the essay you linked. You didn't comment on my talk page comment. PamD 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the 2015 Asian Athletics Championships is a bluelink, that's enough. As for WP:HOLE, the point is something like this; if the article had said "Purnima Hembram is an Indian athlete" and nothing else, then it's harder to save the article. In any case, since I tend to defer Indian subjects to other people, I just left it with the BLPPROD on, which is enough. Aside from copyvios and libel, Wikipedia is not a contest to see how quickly we can delete other people's work. Chill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

for your support in this astonishing situation. (If I dare,) I just want to know whether this is the usual way of admins greeting people who're (yet) new to meta-chatter on en.wiki. Frankly, I had plans to write a handful of articles on Siberian topics, but, as of now, I ain't sure of my pushing through without facing further accusations. You don't like {{talkback}}? Me neither. :) Regards, Qweedsa (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Kudpung was just having a bit of a grump about the state of RfA, rather than anything specifically to do with you. I have stated my view that your question was innocuous and that's been left at that. I wouldn't worry about comments like this; I find ignoring them and getting on with content (such as my long-haul project to get every street on the British Monopoly board to GA status) is the best thing to do. The encyclopedia ain't going to write itself! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mlpearc

To continue tolerating this editor's nonsense is unreasonable. You seemed to support the idea that he is a chronic edit war-starter and merits a block (per the comment you left on my talk page). Here are some recent examples of his ridiculous disruption 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Furthermore, he characterizes this change as "controversial and defamatory" which is an outright lie. When a year of birth is already present in the article and I insert a date as well, Mlpearc reverts, completely mischaracterizes it and then uses his action to build an agenda for himself to misrepresent me. That aside, he has no cause to revert such edits. All he should be allowed to do is put a "citation needed" tag next to it. The problem with this editor is that he will revert any added content from me without a citation; I don't know if he does this to other editors, but Mlpearc's abuse is unbearable and he is impossible to communicate with on a reasonable or civil level. Also, when he pretends to be using some kind of guideline to justify his changes, he's not even doing so properly as evidenced in these edits 1, 2, 3 where he just erases the presence of one's name from an infobox if there's no WL; the correct way to do this is insert a number "including" only those who have their own Wiki page. Iistal (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Iistal: Blanking your talk page continuously does not negate the dialogs placed there, just so you know. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Iistal: Let me backtrack a second. Firstly, while I might have warned Mlpearc about skirting close to WP:3RR on some article, I have never blocked him - in general I find blocking established editors to be risky with a danger of having a net rise in disruption (after the blocked editor's friends turn up to complain vociferously), and it's best to "talk before you block".

The other problem is that while Mlpearc tends to just hit a button on Twinkle and revert, which isn't a very good way of communicating, he seems to be acting correctly in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy on every diff you listed above. Our policy is that any contentious information (and dates of birth are contentious - if you ask a woman directly how old she is you're likely to get a slap!) must be cited inline at the time it is added. If the dates of birth and family relationships are not in the article, there may be privacy-based reasons for them. Perhaps things would have been better if Mlpearc had calmly explained BLP in depth to you, and we could have avoided some silly edit wars, but as far as adherence to policy I'm afraid he's spot on in this case. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Michele Abeles

Hi ritchie333, thank you for kind and thoughtful response to my question about the page created for me. I really am flattered that someone took the time to add me to wikipedia. I understand the complexity of deleting my page within the realm of wikipedia. My wish not to be included is more a push against the internet at large. Before I continue talking more- could you let me know I am writing the correct person in the correct area of wikipedia?! thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma343678 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ma343678: It depends what you're looking for. If you have general complaints about biographies, then the BLP noticeboard is the place to report them, though I've already reported this article there so that's covered. If you have a specific complaint about your article, such as something being factually incorrect (we can only write about what we read in the press and books, and they do sometimes get it wrong), the best thing to do is start a conversation on Talk:Michele Abeles and explain what's wrong. If you just want to ask general questions about Wikipedia works, this talk page is okay for those (if I'm not around to answer, there are a bunch of regulars here who drop in to answer things every now and again).

The advice I have received from people who have an article on Wikipedia about themselves or their business is to ignore it and assume it is harmless, which it probably is. Most small biographies aren't allowed to have any strongly negative or confrontational information unless it has been excessively documented in the broadsheet press or books, and even then we err on the side of caution (Christopher Jefferies, notoriously arrested on a murder charge with no evidence and picked apart by the gutter press despite being completely innocent, has no standalone article on Wikipedia). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Meri Hasraton Mein

Please read Amika Shail.Xx236 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: I was hoping to get another London street article to GA next on my "todo" list, but in the meantime I see four news hits on this artist, so it should be relatively easy to retrospectively source and improve to stop the BLP PROD. I see other editors have told you stop biting newbies, so the next time I see you filing an obviously bad speedy (not a borderline case), I will be starting a thread on ANI requesting you be banned from New Page Patrol. (Also pinging @Kudpung: for a second opinion). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

IN cases of repeated sub-standard patrolling (I'm generalising here) it is not necessary to involve the the peanut gallery. A couple of polite requests to desist - with a link to WP:DE together with a reminder that blocks are preventative rather than punitive - should do the trick. If it doesn't, then that's what admins have the block button for, and it doesn't always need a community consensus. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why admins should create content.

Just letting you know that I have dropped a link or two to this, including on my own RfA criteria. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I wrote that essay (and indeed most of the others) to save saying the same thing again and again, so hopefully this will make it resonate with a few more people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Page removal

Can you please fully remove the page 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_Joseph_(Personality)' from Wikipedia itself. Or retitled the page and delete all information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markjeeditor (talk • contribs) 10:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I've received a similar request on my talk page and have answered.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Letterboxtv _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

All under-18s involved in Darien Joseph, please read Disappearance of Martin Allen and some of the Independent sources related to it. If that doesn't explain why putting your autobiography in full view on one of the world's biggest websites is a terminally stupid idea, nothing will. (Although as you are now asking for it to be deleted, I think that has been taken on board). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pall Mall, London

On 6 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pall Mall, London, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that London's Pall Mall owes its name to a 17th-century ball game similar to croquet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pall Mall, London. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pall Mall, London), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverted good faith edits by.....

Congrats! Hope the nomination process wasn't too much of a drag. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Come here with a bad pun like that, Mr 123, and expect to be clubbed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, "Kensitas"! (the noo). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I miss you, master of the bad pun lines, - with The Quixotic Potato gone for a long vacation, Ritchie, you and Montanabw are my sole sources of expected humor, - and now I come here and find more serius bizines ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)