Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 85

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87→Archive 90

Your submission at Articles for creation: Greg Herman (fashion designer) (October 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Ritchie333! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Gosh, never had a Teahouse invitation before. Wow, even "new" editors like 12 years service, 3 years with the bit, edit filter admin, interface admin, 120 GAs, 80,000+edits, 100+ DYKs ... I guess you have to have a few FAs under your belt to really know what you're doing! I have nominated several hosts there for RfA, though. Anyway, I don't have any more sources (see above thread) so I don't know what else to do with this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Aryn Martin

The editor of Draft:Aryn Martin came into IRC asking for help. Given your recent efforts on drafts of women, especially Canadian academics, I thought I'd point her out to you as there's a good chance from my causal research into her that she is notable and I know the editor would appreciate any assistance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: From a quick look, DGG would be able to tell you if having an associate professor position at York University is enough, or whether we would need more comprehensive coverage in sources. A quick scan through Google Scholar shows plenty of mentions, but I can't remember how much coverage is "enough". Alternatively, Megalibrarygirl and SusunW might be able to grab their extensive collection of sources and see what they can dig out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I find a lot of paywalled stuff not by her that talks about her work with chimerism and its effect on gender definitions, as well as the implications for women with the condition not only biologically but legally. The problem, is I cannot see anything more than in snippets. Someone who has access would have to evaluate it. Maybe Megalibrarygirl has inroads through her facility that I do not. SusunW (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Notability as an academic is by WP:PROF, and the way the standard is interpreted is in effect (unofficially) that notability = full professor. There are of course exceptions. The usual criterion is impact on their field, which in sociology can be either published books by academic publishers or substantially cited peer-reviewed articles in major journals. She has written 7 journal articles, all in recognized journals. The citations based on Google Scholar are 70, 68, 52, 50, 17, 13, 7. Significance is shown by the most cited, not the average. I can't judge comparatively in this field without some checking. My first impression is borderline. But the present article does not show the possible notability, and needs to be rewritten. That she gave a talk at a major conferences is not notability . The journal papers and citation figures for the 3 or 4 most cited need to be added. I'm declining, and copying this comment to the AfC. I urge it be rewritten, and then it will have enough chance of passing AfD to be accepted from draft. The AfD will have to do the judging.
I will also comment in general that people workin on WiR and similar projects would do well to select the most notable--there are hundreds or thousands of academics worth including that will not be doubtful. The easiest to show notable in the social sciences are the full professors who have published several major books. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Elrich

You said "If anyone would like the article userfied, let me know." Please do so. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Morgan Ginsberg: Done - User:Morgan Ginsberg/Marc Elrich Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Help!

Hi, could you please help me with the article for Rossendale United F.C.? Best, JV5, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you need help with? GiantSnowman and Dweller do a lot of football related article so may be able to advise better? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joe Vitale 5. Take a look at some of our Featured Articles on football clubs, like Ipswich Town F.C. and Norwich City F.C.. The best quick answer is cite your sources. The article currently is very very lightly cited and we require claims to be cited from reliable sources. Someone could come along and delete whole chunks of the current article, particularly comments that make reference to living people, about whom we are very strict indeed. Hope that helps get you moving in the right direction. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ygm

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.

— xaosflux Talk 13:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Were you able to get this message? — xaosflux Talk 13:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi I never saw an acknowledgement or a reply, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Electoral Commission. — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I was busy with kids, hob-nobbing with Wikimedians in London and improving Women in Computing (which is coming along nicely) - I'll have a look this evening, hopefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect?

Dear Ritchie333: In a few minutes of review, you've redirected the Article Steve Watkins (Kansas politician), which effectively deleted the entire content which has been discussed since the article was created. Frankly I'm baffled as to why you thought that action was appropriate. Six editors, Paul MacDonald, David McEddy, Four Violas, Sandnsea, one unsigned (I can look at the history and determine which other editor that was), voted to keep, though Sandnsea wrote "Comment" instead of "Keep," but his or her intent was clear, and myself. Two editors voted to redirect, SportingFlyer and Bearcat. Enos733, voted to merge. Two voted to delete, JohnPackLambert (who by implication chose to insult those who edited it)and Auslander. The discussion in part addressed a content issue, and changes were made to the article taking that into consideration. The article was considerably expanded in the time that the AfD discussion went on. So you seem to have disregarded the opinions of six editors, some of whom weighed in more than once to discuss the issues, and some of whom discussed the specific WP policies involved, as well as the editors' labor that went into creating, suggesting modifications, and expanding the article. In my opinion, you should undo your action. You can respond to me, undo your action, or respond to all those who have weighed in, at your discretion, but I think you've made a mistake which disregards those who have edited the article and those who took the AFD under consideration. I look forward to your response. Thank you. Activist (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

"So you seem to have disregarded .... the editors' labor that went into creating, suggesting modifications, and expanding the article". Well, I'm sorry you feel like that, but I spent time and effort expanding and improving The House of Fine Art and it was deleted regardless. Anyway, AfDs are always closed based on the weight of the arguments, not the number of people who made them. Specifically, SportingFlyer said "This isn't promotional, but it's almost written like a WP:BLP1E hit piece" while Bearcat said "Candidates aren't handed a notability freebie just because of what historic firsts they will represent if they go on to win an election they haven't won yet." Then there was a significant discussion and disagreement on Paul McDonald's vote. I concluded that the "delete" (and other not-"keep") !votes used well-thought rationales that could not be discounted, and thus, as I said in the close, a redirect seems the option that will satisfy most parties. The article hasn't been deleted; the history is here and the last pre-redirect version is here. It hasn't disappeared into a black hole. When the mid-terms are over, I think people would be more comfortable to restore it back to a full article that clearly satisfies the notability guidelines for politicians. Specifically, I just looked at the current predictions, and Watkins is on odds of just under 50:50 of winning, so I would say therefore there's about a 50:50 chance you'll have the article back within a month. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
My two cents closing an AFD is almost always a tough job and this one is no exception. Where I disagree with the closing is the reasoning provided that it was the "option most people will be comfortable with" == what concerns me there is that it seems that the decision to close was made on the basis of a perception popular vote; on top of which it wasn't. Wikipedia is not a democracy and determining consensus is much harder than that--"appeasement" really shouldn't be the notability standard. Please reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Activist and Paulmcdonald: I'm sorry the article was redirected—as you can see from the centralized discussion I linked, I think it's a mistake on several levels to discount reliable independent sources that happen to be election-related when ascertaining the notability of politicians. However, you can also see that there's a rough consensus against me on this, especially among editors who actually regularly participate in politician-related AfDs. There was a corresponding divide on this key question (whether to discount election-related coverage) in the AfD, and I do think Ritchie's reading of the consensus was very reasonable per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Consensus, given that it doesn't seem to be the case that the wider community agrees that the BASIC and NPOL guidelines should be applied literally.
At this point, I'd recommend thinking about what information from the history of the redirected article is most important—as judged by the number, scope, and depth of sources talking about it, per WP:DUE—and adding a little as needed to the barebones bio at United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Kansas,_2018#District_2, as well as doing the same for Paul Davis and the Libertarian candidate. If there's important info about the general campaign specifically, such as in the "most negative and competitive" U.S. News article, use it along with some related material to make a paragraph or two under §General election. Again, I'm sorry the article wasn't kept, but I think hosting a subset of the material at the election page is a good solution and a better place to direct your energy. Good luck! FourViolas (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Amid the heightened emotions, I believe there is merit on both sides of the argument. However, I see no benefit from continuing discussion here. If another user wants to take it to take it to deletion review I would support that move but I'm not that enthusiastic about it myself. As a side note--sending something to DRV is simply part of due process and is not meant as a personal attack. I've had closings go to DRV that I closed and they were overturned--the end result is what is best for Wikipedia. That's what we're looking for ultimately (at least, I hope!!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As I said, my advice would be to wait a month and if see Watkins wins the midterm in Kansas,. If he does, the article will be restored because he will meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. Or, if (heaven forbid) he "does a Kavanaugh" then the same will happen. That will be easier than a feud on DRV. In the meantime, consider Draft:Betsy Dirksen Londigran who is another midterm candidate who doesn't even have an article, just a one sentence draft! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean "does a Kavanaugh" ??? That seems like you are putting a political agenda on your comment, and that's not appropriate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean if he does something to get sustained national news coverage for more than a week. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Since the subject here has already done that, what does that say?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ritchie, regardless of the general issue, this particular one should be restored on the basis of the argument for sufficient present material. (for the general issue, there are better ones to use for the argument that we shouldn't include these) It needn't take a DelRev to do that. Paulmcdonald, if a Del Rev is necessary to get it restored, my style here is more appropriate if I argue in it rather than bring it. There's another way, though, if you can find addition material, write a draft including it. If there's enough, it would meet the objection and could be moved into mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, we currently have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilletta Jarvis; despite scrambling around for a couple of sources, I don't think I can save that candidate from deletion. Okay, Libertarians are not as notable as Republicans, that's just a plain old fact of life, but given the discussion there, I really don't feel comfortable about restoring Watkins' article unless we at least ping those who didn't !vote "keep" at the AfD to comment first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Ha! :p ——SerialNumber54129 18:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Greg Herman / Fashion Designer: Page deletion

Dear Ritchie333,

Apologies for sending this again in another section. I hadn't seen a reply and wanted to make sure it did not get lost in the chain/ sea of topics. Again, thank you for your time.

Thank you again for your help and I hope you has a great weekend! I was traveling and apologize for my tardy reply. I totally understand. I included below some links regarding Greg in this message. He has a number of articles on him, however, many of his published accomplishments predated 'Google' and are not avail online. Hopefully these are of some help, and at the very least could aid you in helping to establish a page for him and his name back into the Wikipedia world. If you need any additional info, please let me know. Again, you've been extremely helpful in this process and I thank you very much. Have a wonderful Monday!

Best,

Robyn

～～～～

https://books.google.com/books?id=_F0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=greg+herman+designer++los+angeles+times&source=bl&ots=5G6tYVCcAG&sig=Rzc1qMyBZ98oNCfIJpHnzrGkL1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiil9iMvd7dAhUBCDQIHQ-TAisQ6AEwA3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=greg%20herman%20designer%20%20los%20angeles%20times&f=false

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/30184

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/sep/03/news/ls-18970

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/23/business/fi-13336 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.134.91 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've put something together in Draft:Greg Herman (fashion designer) using the sources supplied, and submitted it for review; we'll see what happens next. I don't think the problem is really pre-dating the Internet era; it's actually right on the edge of it. The real issue is that there are several other people called Greg Herman who are in the news more recently, and they drown out the relevant hits. If I search for "Greg Herman Girlshop" I get something relevant. Some of the content baffles me a bit, I can get starting a business and pricing and celebrities wanting to buy stuff, but I'm looking right now at a sweater I bought in M&S over 20 years ago, and a laptop bag next to it that I've had for even longer. I'm just not "up" in the fashion world, though I'd like to think I scrub up nicely in a suit if required :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ritchie333 for all the help and drafting an article. I noticed the other 'Greg Herman's' as well. LOL--- that's when sweaters were made well. Everything was better 20 years ago ;) -- That's why it lasted so long! Same goes for the laptop bag. Plus, everything comes full cycle so that sweater is probably in again! Nothing better than a good suit!! I totally agree!!!

I did notice the article submission came back and was declined. That's unfortunate. However, it can be resubmitted. Any thoughts on what would need to be done for it to be approved?

Thanks again!!

Best,

Robyn

～～～～ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.134.91 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Saturday Zoo

Hello! Your submission of Saturday Zoo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You're probably better off asking Simon Adler or 78.26 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at 82.132.233.249's talk page.
Message added 13:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of London Bridge station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Bridge station 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 Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Luitpoldpark

On 18 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luitpoldpark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that passersby in Munich's Luitpoldpark may get soaked when a figure on the Pumuckl fountain (pictured) spits intermittently? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luitpoldpark. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Luitpoldpark), 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 thanks again for your help with this article! Mr Ernie (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem, nice to see collaborative editing having a good result. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No consensus or merge/redirect?-- OWZAT

Hi Ritchie, admire your work, but I wonder what happened in closing this AfD. I think that the outcome (merger and redirect) was much better than simply deleting it (regardless of what seemed as an lopsided !vote for delete: 15 over 10, plus one merger). But perhaps there is some arcane knowledge to which I am not privy to as to why it ended up the way it did. Thanks for entertaining my question Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 23:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I was discussing this with Edwardx at the last meetup at Pendrel's Oak. We've both known about Chitty for ages, but the AfD did have a positive result in that we got more information about this mysterious cricketer, and a merge / redirect means the information is not lost. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I agree that the outcome was an improvement. I just was not sure how it came to it when there was a !vote for a different thing. In other words, my question was also to learn about policy. So, I guess that after the !vote admins, with some consultation, can relocate the data whenever they think is better. Glad this time was in the hands of judicious admins. On a side note, the topic of Chitty is one for historical research. As we found out, there are mentions of other, older Chittys. Cheers. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 14:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

G5 is not silly

Too much is enough – SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"G5 is not silly"
C5, however....

I dispute your claim that G5 is a "silly reason to delete" and suspect JamesBWatson and many other admins would feel the same. Is there any reason for you unilaterally overturning it? IIRC this isn't the first time (apologies if I'm wrong on that). SmartSE (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

In this specific instance a G5 was inappropriate because it was, as the old saying goes, commenting on the contributor, not the content. I was looking at another article by this user after reading the Quartz piece about Donna Strickland, did a quick news search and thought "hmm, this might be notable and certainly possible to improve". I think an AfD would have been preferable in this instance, hence my suggestion of sending it there, and while I appreciate Geert Wilders isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea (including mine), creating a significant documentary about him does take the biography out of the bounds of speedying. Remember, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to destroy one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleting a spammy article created by someone who regularly sock puppets to create spammy articles seems abundantly appropriate to me, WP:NOTPROMO and all that, being an encyclopedia we aren't supposed to be used for native advertising, and keeping it that way is also part of building an encyclopedia Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't care who creates articles, and never have done, and in 10 years' time when the article has been improved, nobody else will either. Might sound a bit harsh, but you can't see who's written an article when you read it; you have to do to the history and look at diffs, which takes forever. In this case, there is a draft at Draft:Stephen Robert Morse, and I don't think that's the only one; that was another reason to think the deletion was an accident. The result of an AfD could always be to return to draft or a redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
.... and dagnammit, if I'd just recreated the article from scratch, I could have had "Did you know .... that Stephen Robert Morse describes himself as the Ryan Air of film-making?" Harrumph. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
G5 implicitly means that it is a decision based on the contributor, but commenting on the contributor, not the content is about personal attacks, not whether we should delete content added by long term abusers of the community. If you thought they were notable then why didn't you just create the article yourself? That would have been fine, but as others have said below it seems that you just did this because you just didn't like it. Sure, there are times where despite articles qualifying for G5 they maybe shouldn't be deleted, but you shouldn't act unilaterally to reinstate content added by a blocked user, especially without cleaning it up first. Now we will head to AFD because there are don't appear to be any decent sources and we'll all have wasted plenty of time for nothing. SmartSE (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Robert Morse. SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Smartse: Thank you for drawing this to my attention.
  • Ritchie333, this is perhaps the most blatant example I have yet seen of something which you have being doing for years, namely knowingly acting contrary to policy because you personally do not agree with the policy in question. That is abuse of your administrative powers. You are free to argue your case for changing the policy if you wish to, but as long as it is policy you are not free to use your personal disagreement as justification for flouting that policy. Although, as I have said, this is perhaps the most blatant example I have yet seen of your doing this, there are plenty more cases in your editing history of your openly and unashamedly putting your personal view above policy. There are various aspects of policy that I personally disagree with, but I accept that they are policy, and never intentionally act against those policies. Is there any reason why you should not be blocked for deliberate abuse of administrative powers? Indeed, is there any reason why you should be allowed to continue to be an administrator while expressly stating that you intend to continue acting against policy? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with James here. Disliking a policy is not a reason to ignore it, particularly in this case when it's directly against the TOU. It's unbecoming conduct and given your propensity to push things for discussion, this is hypocritical, at the very least you should have started one. G5s are not subject to WP:RFU like most criteria and for an administrator to unilaterally overturn a policy based deletion months after the fact with absolutely no comment or request from the community or deleting admin is absurd. There was no request from a third party to overturn this, publicly, so far as I can see, so what prompted you to go against long standing consensus and policy? If you felt he was so notable, why not create an article on your own instead of restoring the work of someone who has repeatedly shown disregard for the work of an encyclopedia? Also since you seem to think that this policy in particular is silly, do you care about the integrity of an encyclopedia or do you only want to make sure every topic under the sun is covered by Wikipedia? Praxidicae (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I also have to question your judgement, you repeatedly brought up a draft from 2016 as a reason G5 couldn't/doesn't appropriately apply. How? Praxidicae (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
All out of trout, but double the rainbow, halve the hate!
PILE ON HATE!!!! Wait, wut? Don't all these other admins have better things to do with their time? Shurely? We should be told... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, was that supposed to be constructive? Are we not allowed, as a community to ask questions of an administrator elected by said community when they unilaterally (and without discussion) overturn a long standing policy and community consensus because they don't like it? Grow up. Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
"I'm sorry ... grow up!" Wow, srsly? You need to work on that hate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow, "work on the hate"? I guess the community should bow down to our Dear Sysop Leaders, since you're all infallible and not subject to any sort of criticism. I guess we should delete WP:NOBIGDEAL too. You're a paragon of professionalism and what we should all strive to be as editors and administrators. Good to know. Praxidicae (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. You've clearly mistaken me for someone else, some I suggest you do some research before going off the deep end. Do try harder. And smile. Alway smile when you type. It brightens things up! PILE ON RAINBOWS! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you implying your account is compromised or are you just trolling because you're an administrator and know there will be no consequence? Also good to know. It's totally a good look for you. Praxidicae (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not, but you're still not getting it!! But the personal attack(s) are noted. Those are a great look for you! I suggest MOAR RAINBOWS! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Okay, my mistake, you're (thankfully) no longer an administrator. What is it that you think is a personal attack here? Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Applause! You may return to your regular hate pile-on! I got your PAs logged now, cheers, have a great day! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
You realize accusing someone of making personal attacks, unfounded, is in itself a personal attack? Please show me where I've attacked you, per WP:NPA. Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Grow up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
You telling me to grow up or implying that grow up is a personal attack? Please define how it is. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It's self-explanatory. Now back to your regular program. I have other things to do here, like improve Wikipedia for our readers. Bye now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Let me rephrase this: if you don't substantiate your accusations of a personal attack, I will take this to ANI, which ironically is where this entire discussion should have started. Praxidicae (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, let me rephrase, you definitely did not personally attack me. Definitely not. But before telling people to grow up, you should take a look in the mirror. Now, honestly, get back to your regular pile-on program here. I have better things to do than keep answering your inaccurate comments and insinuations. Those are, regardless of your threats, on record now. (P.S. Next time you accuse people of "trolling", just think if that would fall squarely into the personal attack category... just think...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Then take me to ANI, please. And while you're at it, please explain to me how your edits were not trolling when several editors expressed valid criticism of an administrative action and your response was to belittle them and tell editors, me in particular, to smile because they've expressed a concern. Though given your history here, administrative conduct isn't really your forte, is it? Praxidicae (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear, it's descended to that has it? I give up. Perhaps you're unaware of humour here, particularly around Ritchie's talkpage, but take this advice, don't stomp around telling people to grow up, don't accuse people of trolling, don't make false assumptions and assertions, none of that's a good look. Why are you linking me to that article in the Huffington Post? What does that have to do with ANYTHING? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Jeez, could you be any more condescending TRM? This is crappy behaviour, especially seeing as it looks like you came here just to stir the pot. Go back to ERRORS - TNT 💖 21:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm just intolerant of people who make a series of false statements based on erroneous information, including accusations of trolling and then attempt to take the high ground. And in actuality, you'll note that I was referring to the actual admins who piled on here, no-one else. It was this other user who suddenly stepped up and told me to grow up. So if you wish to discuss and berate people for being condescending, start there. And sure, I'm all over ERRORS, the real one, not the fake one of course, thanks for the advice! I might also add to my 110+ FLs, 200+ GAs, 10+ FAs, etc too. We'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec) WP:G5 was not applicable because other editors had worked on the text. In any case, per WP:OWN, the text is now CC and so anyone is free to reuse it as they see fit, provided they make attribution. If people want to enforce some sort of damnatio memoriae, they should use some other mechanism which does not deprive the encyclopedia of such valid content. And, of course, see WP:IAR, which is still policy, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". Andrew D. (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
G5 applied at the time of deletion. No editor worked substantially on it and if you read this thread and Ritchie's restoration, in no way does he imply that G5 didn't apply but that he doesn't like policy. Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in the scrict enforcement of G5 camp, if it is concerned with UPE or that the master was blocked for falsification of references and all that stuff. But, this particular case, (though technically qualifying for G5), does seem rather innocent to me...... So, unless I miss something, I guess at the end of the day, the encycloepadia has improved.At best Ritchie's unilateral overturning might be trout-worthy:-) ∯WBGconverse 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please define how socking is innocent in a case such as this where the original creator has a ridiculously long history of socking, combined with several new somewhat unrelated accounts creating the content, nearly word for word. I'm not sure if you're familiar with WP:UPE, but this is a textbook definition of it. Praxidicae (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Now hold on, WBG did not claim socking is innocent, he claimed Ritchie's actions are innocent because the encyclopedia is improved. There is no doubt that this article was created by a bad-faith actor who deserves to be blocked, but in this case it appears a bad-actor created an article on a notable subject. I don't agree with Ritchie's assessment of G5 as a "silly reason", not even in this particular instance. It would be a problem if he had restored it and left it as it was when deleted, but instead he has been devoting time to make it an article worthy of an encyclopedia. So the end result will probably be the same whether or not it was restored or re-created. I really do think some of our best editors have better things to do than to tear into each other. The bad guys are THAT way. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
What happens when an admin tries to improve the encyclopaedia... which is, apparently, what we are all here for...

(edit conflict)x3 (talk page stalker) From what I see, all Ritchie did is saw an article that was deleted just because the creator happened to be a sock, and restored it so that he could work on it and improve the encyclopedia. I don't see how instantly calling out "admin abuse!" is helpful or necessary. After all, WP:IAR is a policy. I feel like this whole thread with so much drama is unnecessary and extreme.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

+1 on that. Is the encyclopaedia better for Ritchie's intervention? If so, then the rest is all moot, and the dramah unnecessary. - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(As an epilogue, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Robert Morse closed unanimously as "keep") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ooops

My bad - wasn’t paying attention when I created the archives for an article TP, and accidentally named it User talk:Angelique Rockas/Archive 1. I don’t see a canned reason for editor F-ups in the CSD list. Can you delete it, please? Atsme✍🏻📧 21:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done I've bullied my way in here and deleted it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, 78.26!! Atsme✍🏻📧 21:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Atsme, I had a bit of an attack of the sniffles yesterday (if you have kids, you tend to catch things from their school via them every now and again) but I'm on the mend now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London Bridge station

The article London Bridge station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:London Bridge station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice! That featured Theydon Bois on drums and Stamford Brook on bass. Simon Adler (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Theydon Bois and Stamford Brook sound more like characters that Chuffer Dandridge might have once shared a stage with in the 1953 production of Hamlet at the Dovercourt Reparatory Theatre, along with compatriots Bradfield Heath and Hurstbourne Tarrant. [1] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Not forgetting, of course.... star of stage, screen and Music Hall variety.... Dicky "Touch" Tingles. -- Yours ever, (agent to the stars) Charles Boyes Rent'em 123 (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe he was connected to my good friend Arnos Grove. I recall we once did a revue with the Seven Sisters .... the queue for the bathroom was horrendous.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, Anus Grave, I remember him well... very big in Fouronnes, by all accounts. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, as everyone knows, the plural of ANUS is ANI.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh no.... not more WP:AN/I??! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Appointed as ACE2018 Commissioner

Hi, Ritchie! You have been appointed by the community as an Electoral Commissioner for WP:ACE2018. The coordination pages can be found at WP:COORD18 and WT:COORD18. Don't forget to sign the confidentiality agreement if you haven't already. Congrats!  Swarm  talk  02:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Should I tick the box marked "gift aid"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for People's Vote

On 21 October 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article People's Vote, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear it's very nice in Harrogate this time of year.... “What problem? What is a hard border? Do you want 100,000 troops, a million troops, a Trump-style wall?" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
In case it wasn't obvious, I was on the march and I thought "well at least I'm going to try and stick my photo on the main page"? It is a conflict of interest? Possibly, though it did have a consensus amongst other editors to get it on here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Next time, could you please take a more accurate headcount while you're there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I wish this article was a bit better as I would link to it every time someone at ERRORS complains that the size of a crowd is too high/too low/propaganda. IT's just not that easy to count a crowd.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor is back

You don't even have to take them for a walk!

Hello, just thought I would let you know that the editor that I reported for editwarring here is back and making the same kinds of of against consensus edits and OWN type comments. Totally understand if there is nothing to do, but figured I would let you know since you closed it as stale. zchrykng (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There's only one edit today, so no edit-warring sanctions are necessary just yet. In the mean, I'll give Sagaciousphil a yell (I've got the number for the Royal Inverness Home for Retired Dog-Loving Wikipedians) and see if they can advise on what the lead should look like. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333, great, thanks! I really don't know anything about the subject, just got involved from recent changes patrol. Getting someone who actually knows the subject involved would be great. zchrykng (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid my knowledge of dogs extends as far as a) they've got four legs and go "woof" b) Why not get a cat instead? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Because I'm not allergic to dogs.... Not that I have one (anymore). My only pets are rats, now. And they are awesome. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
One of my friends keeps pet snakes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I used to have a pet snake. Even though lots of teenagers had pet snakes (well, lots of cool teenagers), people would always be shocked that I did. I'd tell them about Herman and they'd be like "WHY WOULD YOU KEEP A PET RATTLESNAKE??" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, snakes do need care and affection like any other pet. Obviously you have to keep them in a confined space, occasionally letting them out to show everyone else they're harmless. Compared to them roaming free in their natural habitat, it's a bit of a raw deal. It's not like anyone says "put the snake out" is it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not like anyone says "put the snake out" is it? That means something very different where I'm from. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe it is colloquial if living in Sheffield to say "I'm going over t' Snake to Manchester". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
zchrykng Right, the word from Phil is (ZOMG OFF-WIKI CANVASSING!) get rid of Dogbreedinfo.com, Mollosserdogs and Spartan dogs - they're all unreliable / self-published. The Daily Telegraph source is useful, otherwise go with whatever good book sources you can find. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Saturday Zoo

Hello! Your submission of Saturday Zoo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_85&oldid=868730430"