User talk:Ritchie333: Difference between revisions

This is Ritchie333's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137Auto-archiving period: 21 days

If you leave a message on this talk page, I'll respond here. You may want to watch this page to catch the response. Click here for a tutorial in watching pages. Please avoid using talkback messages if you can - if I've messaged you recently I'll either be watching your page or otherwise keeping an eye on it.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

	100,000th edit award
	Hello Ritchie333. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — ~~~~

July

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

We have a featured topic to review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to read through the articles in depth before giving my judgement, but it looks like it's approaching a slam-dunk pass anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just you'd enjoy that kind of articles ;) - all thanks due to Brian, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I met Brian Boulton a couple of years back - it must have been 10 June 2017 because everyone who didn't know about the Democratic Unionist Party was busy finding out about exactly who they are and what they stood for. Nice guy, knowledgeable, placid and thoughtful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd had the pleasure of meeting him in person, but our virtual meetings here had the same qualities. + there was no reviewer like him, see Franz Kafka and the B minor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA is pleased about your GAs ;) - I have a review taking weeks, and a nom open. Nobody dared to close the above-mentioned topic. - But I shouldn't complain, with a TFA nom for 1 Sep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's been a good day today, got the first GA in months, helped somebody else get one, and got a RFX200 candidate. I think I've finally got my editing mojo back. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good date 30 July, building bridges. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got several bridges to GA. Perhaps I should have a try at Tower Bridge again; I know Eric was going to give me a hand with that before he got comprehensively banhammered. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thistles are on Eric's talk as well, - I miss him, he helped me with Andreas Scholl, DYK? - I just had the idea to nominate one of the songs for GA, only to find that it was already GA ;) - I'd like "Nun danket alle Gott" for GA also, only - would I get it moved, or just write an article on the German, that is the question. - The Müngsten Bridge has an ugly tag, - perhaps we could make it GA together? One of the birthdays last century, the party went there like a pilgrimage ;) - Began improvement today for Rhythm Is It!, nicely connected to The Rite of Spring where my decline started ;) (Talk, Archive 3) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back to where we started, Monteverdi's operas are now a featured topic! ... exactly 10 years after both Brian and I were declared awesome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Gerda Arendt: now you have new nickname: FL! :3333 Thank you for the hardwork, we’ll remember him in our hearts <3 Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 03:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I'm always amenable for ideas to get longstanding contributors unblocked and back into productive working. In Eric's case, his achilles heel is that he has never filed an unblock request, and always waited for an admin to declare "piss poor block" and unblock anyway. Now, he cannot get unblocked unless he contacts Arbcom and apologises for his incivility and sockpuppetry (or perhaps a disillusioned admin feels like falling on their proverbial sword and unblocking him as "time served" pending a L2 desysop). It doesn't matter if I write the most impeccable defence of Eric known to man (actually, "he writes great content and the disruptive elements can be managed by other means, including shorter sanctions" really ought to be enough), Arbcom blocks cannot be appealed by third parties. If he can't admit fault and be the better man, he doesn't have anyone to blame but himself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Arbcom would or should insist on an apology. More an assurance that in future he would stick to one account and comply with our standards of civility, even if he disagrees with that standard. But it would make a great question for the next Arbcom elections "When looking at an unblock request or ban appeal to what extent are you looking for contrition and to what extent are you looking for commitments about future conduct?" Another tack would be to start an RFC to change the policy at Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Appeals_by_third_party to allow for third parties to try to negotiate returns of long departed editors. I think if you put a twelve month minimum on the inactivity period before offering to negotiate, you might get an RFC to change that policy. ϢereSpielChequers 20:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August

Can we talk about something better than arbcom questions? - Template:Did you know nominations/Moop Mama perhaps? - Or compromise? Yo-Yo Ma and Emmanuel Ax were asked what to do if they disagreed on a tempo for a piece they played together. Answer: one night we play it his tempo, one night my tempo. A bad compromise would be a tempo in the middle which would not be right for anybody. - Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Eric are two users I'd love to see unceremoniously unblocked without appeal. I remember how much pride I had to overcome to appeal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment here, I think all new editors should be reported on ANI immediately. This would reduce editor retention to zero, and as older editors die or drop out we'd eventually have no editors at all. At that point there would be no more edit warring, no more conduct or content disputes, and no need for Arbcom. Paradise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite successful in avoiding WP:Great Dismal Swamp, no citation there in years. Following my own advice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On memory lane: 28 August was one of my worst days here, due to arbcom. I heard a concert that night and seem to remember every drumming (Prokofiev!) expressing my feelings of utter despair. - I didn't know yet that an arb could change his mind after voting to ban, and one did, not the one though who had cast the most unspeakable vote. Relief. Then came the million award for Kafka, - the perfect comment. How I miss Khazar! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

28 August 2013 .... I'd just got Hammond organ through GA, and finally think I had some idea of what it took to write content around here. I'd already been recommended to have a chat to this guy Malleus if I wanted to get some idea of doing outstanding work .... wonder what happened to him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I understand, writes for a different site, - must be somewhere in his talk archive. Lucky site. - The arb who saved Andy from being banned was the same who got Br'er banned, and I ask myself if - eight years later - I could forgive that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to remember the date in the future as when Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt became a GA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review for Moop Mama! Today; Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New editor User:LouiseFeb1974 has made about 65 edits now, but seems a little reluctant to use edit summaries. I've taken to reverting with a message, but to no avail. Any ideas or gentle admin intervention would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever taken administrator action against not using edit summaries, however I've dropped them a note. They haven't got email turned on, otherwise I'd use that instead (sometimes people just don't get how to use talk pages). I suspect LouiseFeb1974 and LouiseVickers74 are the same person, but anyone who checkuser blocks that is a pirahna. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, Martinevans123 sorry just (talk page stalker)ing here and came to make the same observation re the two accounts. Their editing patterns and usernames definitely indicate they're the same person but for the life of me can't see why as accounts are being used simultaneously and not in a way that would be beneficial to sock? Odd. Agree re the edit summaries and WP:ENGAGE would be nice. *shrug* Glen 18:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's somebody who is very good at writing and researching but not so experienced with the technical side of web software - it may simply be they put one account on the tablet and one on the laptop and don't quite realise they're not the same thing. I'm pretty confident that if I drop a WP:ICANTHEARYOU block, they will disappear forever, and that's not good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, totally agree. I dropped the same edit summary notice on the other account and hopefully the messages land. High level glance edits seem constructive at least. Glen 18:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, edits seems fine. So I am reluctant to make any fuss. I've now left a welcome message (which I really should have used first) to try and encourage some WP:ENGAGE. Thanks for your input Glen. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most frustrating types of cases I've dealt with, and I've seen it several times before (eg: User talk:Bob Henshaw, User talk:Ludwigpaisteman). User edits encyclopedia without communicating, responds to no messages, gets blocked, disappears. What is the issue with them not being able to find how to reply and get back to us? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communication is about as successful as Boris's latest brainwave. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish GoAheadFan95 would communicate too. He is a potentially good editor but usually does not reply even when pinged. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoAheadFan95 has used talk pages, so at least if it came to a terse "hey, can you read and reply to this please", we would stand a chance of him doing so. The editors referred to here, at ANI and elsewhere are all people who I believe cannot find the talk page or understand how to communicate on that. When even my mother can use Facebook and Whatsapp (and I've got relatives who are over 80 who are comfortable using them), I know it's not a culture thing - it's the communication mechanism. Enterprisey has done a great job of creating ReplyLink, and proven that one guy with a requirement to solve and appropriate tools to do so can do more work than any amount of corporate drones at the WMF can muster up. IMHO it should be a stock in-house tool enabled for all new users by default. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be cultural expectations. Like other websites, we have a notifications menu. Unlike those websites, ignoring it gets you sanctioned. People these days expect warnings, sanctions, and disciplinary actions to go through the "system". That is, via popups, in-page messages - basically everywhere but the notifications menu. Besides resurrecting the orange bar of death or using ugly hacks like that user script (I forgot which) that shows a JavaScript popup every time you visit a page, I feel like we need more brainstorming in this area. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have the orange bar script installed, and it makes spotting messages easier on a mobile or tablet. I briefly had IAdmin rights in order to put reply-link on new users' pages; the only one I think I installed it on was Dzingle1 and I can't even remember why I did (probably a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red). I'd be interested to hear their thoughts on how well (or not!) the communication system works, as they'd probably be more valuable than an old hand like me or you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, you removed protection to re-create the page Rishi Kumar in July 2020 [2] but the talk page, Talk:Rishi Kumar, is still restricted to creation by administrators only, if you could kindly lift that restriction. Thanks. Loksmythe (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there you go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Earl's Court tube 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 Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Portez ce vieux whisky au juge blond qui fume, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Portez ce vieux whisky au juge blond qui fume is the French version of The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Portez ce vieux whisky au juge blond qui fume. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Portez ce vieux whisky au juge blond qui fume), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sacré bleu! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I would need help with a source for the Piccadilly line in the last paragraph of "Modernisation, World War II and Victoria line" section. I unfortunately am unable to find such a source for this interesting information except on blog websites, such as in people's replies in Haringey Online. Since you edited the Victoria line article and a major contributor, I was wondering if you have it. Thank you very much <3 Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 16:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent60030: I have an excellent source, Mike Horne's The Piccadilly Line. Unfortunately I am having a long weekend spotting Welsh Mountain Sheep so I'm not near it to the moment, but I can have a look when I get home. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, I currently possess this book and failed to find any page containing this information :( But sure two heads are better than one when looking at the same source. Sheeps are interesting in the meantime. Meeeeehhhhhhhh ;) Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 16:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Islington Gazette is a reliable source (local newspaper printing local interest story), it might not pass muster at FAC though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad the only thing it stated in the source was about it would have been on the Vicky but not about how and why it was oofed. Yes, I would agree it won't make it, and I might get tagged a "citation needed". Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 19:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it may still be a work in progress; are you sure it's supposed to be running right now? — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial edit is this one which makes an RfA live - given you have to do some fiddly text formatting and follow a comment telling you to do that when you want to transclude, I have to assume that’s what Chongkian wanted to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've tried to follow the exact step-by-step guidance on this RfA nomination, and yes, from my best understanding, I think I have fully written the requirement needed for my RfA. Of course I did somehow made 2-3 small changes, but those are mostly typo (minor edits).

That's reasonable. My worry is that Chongkian seems to be offline at the moment and may not expect to come back to an RfA debate. Especially since it was being advertised on watchlists, I think it's better to wait a few hours until they can clarify their intention to avoid them being blindsided. I've reverted for the time being, but if you've got strong feelings let me know and I'll self-revert. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally I think all Wikipedia editors will have its online and offline time everyday (presumably several hours of online time per day), because they need to work/sleep/drive/eat. Chongkian (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other open was to revert back to draft state and tell him. However, I was concerned he might get a bunch of opposes for being unable to follow instructions when he did transclude. I’m not totally convinced that the nomination statement isn’t what he intended to run with - this is somebody who has never been approached about adminship and never clearly taken part in the nuts and bolts of things, but had the qualifications to (maybe) do the job and has read up on the process and (perhaps) made a bunch of rookie mistakes. I don’t have strong feelings about this; I was just trying to do what I think he wanted (or might have wanted) with the minimum amount of fuss and disruption. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie333, I did self reading on the RfA nomination, and I tried my best to follow its step one by one as written. Of course before this, I was just a normal editors (never read about adminship at all) and this is my very very first time trying to deal with adminship, so is there any wrong step I have done along the way? If there is, maybe you can point out my fault for not following the guideline's cearly-defined steps, or maybe the guideline is a bit outdated and missing some points (which needs to be corrected). Thanks. Chongkian (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chongkian: Ritchie333 is very experienced with RfAs, so hopefully he'll give you advice too. I was excited to see your nomination, and hope that you consider trying again in a few months. To answer your question, it's a bit of both. RfA has a lot of undocumented expectations that aren't written down, and even those that are written down can be out of date. The aspect that brought me here was that answers to the first 3 questions are usually more specific and written out more completely. A lot of us at the start thought you were till drafting your answers and that you would give more concrete goals and experience. If you plan on running again, I would suggest looking through some of the recent successful RfAs and seeing how they answer the standard questions to get an idea of how to improve your answers. Second, I would suggest reading through the admin's reading list. A number of the opposes pointed out that your answers to follow-up questions demonstrated you did not have as much knowledge of internal policy as many people would like. That's easy enough to fix, and the reading list covers all the major policies you should know before another request. It's essentially an open book test by design, people aren't so concerned that you have policy memorized as they are concerned that you know where to find them. You're generally a good content creator, and I think a lot of people see that as a benefit. As you said though, this was your first adventure into the back rooms of Wikipedia, and for better or worse it's a lot more bureaucratic than the reader-facing side. Besides the reading list, I would recommend hanging around some project spaces to get a feel for the administrative (rather than editorial) side of the project. If you're interested in deletion, participating at WP:AFD and deletion review are good places to start. You can also subscribe to the feedback request service to be notified about policy discussions and participate in the crafting of our policies. Participating in noticeboard discussions such as the reliable sources noticeboard are also good venues. You'll learn a lot about what administrators do there as well as the important policies to consider when making. Hopefully that helps, and I look forward to seeing you around more! — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chongkian: First things first, read User:Sven Manguard/Failed RfA Advice. There's a lot to pick through here, but I'll be concise as I can. The guide to starting an RfA is described at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate; however it includes very clear guidance not to start one frivolously until you are absolutely sure you know what to expect. Specifically, Candidacies that are far from meeting community standards always fail early. It is your job to obtain a general idea on what the community expects from candidates; review recent RfAs and gauge your contributions accordingly." While it's technically possible to create a bot task to simplify the technical instructions, nobody's done it because a) RfAs don't run often enough to motivate anyone to write it and b) Anyone who doesn't know how to do the task manually probably shouldn't be an admin.

When you filed the RfA, the general feeling was that you were a longstanding contributor who could possibly be trusted with the admin toolset, and people were asking questions and seeing how you responded before making the decision. In my case, I couldn't decide whether or not to support, and wanted to see how things played out - had you given great answers, you would probably have people on your side and you'd pass. (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing). Unfortunately, pretty much all of the answers led to you shooting yourself in the foot and getting opposition. Nothing in the "oppose" section could be reasonably described as unfair or unpleasant; it's simply a reaction to the answers you gave that show you don't really understand the policies that you need to have a full and through working knowledge to be an administrator. Some specifics:

Q4 : "what I see lacking is the standardization in writing style in Wikipedia, and I wish there are mechanism to make things as standard as possible" This is impossible, if nothing else because British and American English have different styles, and trying to merge together everyone's preferences into a single choice will just annoy everyone who chose something else. In particular, we've seen some bitter arguments over the Manual of Style and Infoboxes.

Q5 : In general, administrators should be expected to use meaningful edit summaries all the time. Often, what you think is obvious or unimportant in an edit summary won't be to other people. Specifically, the lack of edit summaries when editing the RfA caused us all to second guess what you were trying to do - we now know you did want to put yourself forward, but couldn't read your mind.

Q6 : In addition to what I just said about edit summaries, WikiProjects are (with a number of significant exceptions like WP:MILHIST) generally deprecated. Iridescent would be able to give you a full background story, but AFAIK the concept of projects arose around 2005 in order for Wikipedia to be produced as an offline CD, and hence we needed to categorise individual articles with quality and importance to assess what should be included. The trouble is, what you think as important isn't the same as what everyone else thinks, and it's not a simple matter of page views, which spike in response to some news or current event. Anyway, many people think changing importance or assessment quality in lots of articles is "busy work" which not only doesn't require the administrator tools, but gives the impression of favouring style over substance and placing a greater importance on tags and templates than writing content.

Most of the opposition has already covered the issues in Q7. A good piece of advice that nominators give to candidates is to make sure your mainspace contributions are tag free, well sourced and of sufficient quality. In particular, IMDB should not be used as a source for biographies of living people.

Q10 : I'm not sure what Levivich was trying to get at here, except I know he was throwing you a difficult situation, and seeing how you would respond to it, citing relevant policies. If you look at Talk:Taiwan, you'll see that multiple attempts have been made to rename it to "Republic of China" (which is what the government in exile view themselves as, contrary to the rest of the world) and there has never been an agreement to do so. So in this case, I would decline the request to block as frivolous and point the complaining editors to the previous discussions; also if the reporting editors had been disruptive elsewhere I would consider a WP:BOOMERANG set of sanctions if necessary. Your answer wasn't technically wrong, but it was vague and lacking in specifics - if you had directly linked to Talk:Taiwan/Archive 23#Requested move 13 August 2014, and also mentioned that Editor 2 might not have violated WP:3RR (say, by only making three reverts in 24 hours, he would did not break the policy which requires more than three), you would have got more support.

Q11 shows you don't understand the issue, which is that articles with over 5,000 revision can't be deleted by a common or garden administrator and need a steward to do so. This is mentioned on WP:ADMIN in a footnote next to the limit, so you really should have read it.

Q12 : This answer assumes that everybody who is blocked is a vandal, which is plain incorrect. There are many reasons to unblock editors, including a convincing unblock request (where agreement from the blocking administrator has been given in advance or asked for), an ANI thread with overwhelming consensus for the standard offer, or a long standing editor blocked by a compromised admin account. In particular, the mention of a hard 2-3 days is terrible advice - you should unblock when the block is not necessary to protect Wikipedia from disruption and no later.

Now, having said all of the above, I want to make it very clear that deciding you are not a good fit to be an admin does not mean we don't want you as an editor. I know several editors who are amazing content contributors who can produce work I can only dream of, but don't want the administrator tools. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm flattered that you would consider me for adminship. I will think about it. It's been a while, but I'm not quite sure that I'm admin material, due to some things I've done in my past. Give me some time, and I will see if I want to do it again. My last go-round was not enjoyable, but it was a while ago and I've grown since then. Regards ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Dang, if you join RfA too @Editorofthewiki:, then we have an Eddie mop spree :o Goodluck! Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 03:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie! I have nominated Aladdin Sane for GAN. Wanted to let you know in case you were still interested. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 18:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have looked at it today, but Ian Rose has beaten me to it, plus I've got two GA reviews of my own to address anyway. Still, well done for getting it this far! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Machine Head (album) 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 Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Earl's Court tube station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Earl's Court tube station for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Machine Head (album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Machine Head (album) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has reverted discographies (my edits) at Grant Geissman and Peter Sprague. I referred the editor to my User page for explanation. Most of my user page is a distillation of Wikipedia rules and what other editors have talked about on the jazz project. It deserves more than this person's sarcastic dismissal "Oh, so you're an expert." For one thing, I never said I was an expert. There or anywhere else. That's an interpretation, reading between the lines. I don't talk about jazz per se as a genre, and the guidelines aren't about that. They are more about format than anything else and trying to explain the complexities of jazz discography. Shouldn't these have been addressed in a more mature way than by sarcastic dismissal?
Vmavanti (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would first recommend starting a discussion on the respective talk pages. If there is no response, then raise a report at WP:AN3. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me off the top of your head whether there are any rules for discographies in jazz or any other genre? Most of them on Wikipedia are unsourced. I have had conflicting advice and I've been trying for years to get it right. I would like to have something closer to certainty before another person ridicules me, reverts my edits, threatens to block me, or refuses to answer my questions—all of them a normal day on Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a specific one, other than the general core policy that any discography must be factually accurate and verifiable. That doesn't mean you need an inline citation per se as the content can be "verified" by purchasing every album in said discography and saying "yup, it exists". If you're talking about a specific release date or chart position, that might be a different matter, but a basic list of album name and year does not generally qualify as "information challenged or likely to be challenged". For example, Genesis (band), a good article which I've made significant contributions to, doesn't have any inline citations to the studio discography, though if somebody was insisting on them, I could pull it out of one of the band's biographies or AllMusic easily enough. As Antandrus puts it here : ""No Original Research" was never meant to prohibit simple observation. If you determine that Baltimore is north of Washington, or that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is in C minor, or that David Copperfield is a novel and is written in English, [or in the example here, that Genesis released the albums Duke, Abacab, Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance] these things do not need cites. A surprising number of Wikipedians think otherwise." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the dilemma. The problem with AllMusic is that much of its jazz information is wrong, so we've been using Discogs.com, which Wikipedia considers unreliable because it's crowdsourced. And it does occasionally have errors, but not as many as AllMusic. It's more thorough and more reliable, probably because collecting jazz records is something of a hobby and the collectors tend to be more accurate than the overworked, underpaid employees at AllMusic. Is there a solution that would allow us to use Discogs.com?
Vmavanti (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "hack" you can use to get round discogs.com, which is to cite the original album using {{cite AV media notes|title=[title]|publisher=[Record Company]|id=[Serial Number]|year=[original year of release]}}. That can be used to get the title, the sleeve notes and year of release. Anyway, I personally wouldn't use AllMusic for anything other than the existence of an album or a personal opinion of one of the named reviewers - that's it. A better source by far to use is a book, such as All Music Guide to Jazz: The Definitive Guide to Jazz Music (don't be fooled by the "All Music" title, it's published by Backbeat Books, a reputable music publisher). There's nothing wrong with citing offline sources, and if you do it often enough, you can gain respect from other editors. It does of course require you to spend money to improve Wikipedia (call it "reverse paid editing") and I guess I'm lucky that I built up a significant collection of music biographies before Wikipedia took off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have that book on my shelf and many others that I bought to use for Wikipedia. In fact, I knew someone who worked at that publisher when the book was published. As for respect from others on Wikipedia, surely you jest. I can't even get people to talk to me on Talk pages or read my responses correctly. Reading is a lost art. If respect hasn't happened after five years, it never will. I'm seen as a dumb American. What could I possibly know?
Vmavanti (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult, but the best thing to do is to ignore disputes as much as possible unless you can say something that's useful, and just carry on writing content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Earl's Court tube station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Earl's Court tube station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I have reported Deacon Vorbis at the edit warring board, I only tell you that because someone just created an account with a similar user name (Deacon Vorbes) today: their first edit was to troll my talk page. I wondered if you can see if it is a LTA or SPA, or if I should just forget about it. Thanks.Lightburst (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Cullen328 dealt with the troll, for everything else there's Mastercard .... er, no I mean for everything else, I think there's enough eyes on the AN3 report now so I'd wait and see how things play out there. From my view, the reverting has stopped so I don't think any formal action is necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 I will likely revert to my preferred version if there is no action. Someone should not be able to refactor my comments five times - I would not be allowed to do it to anyone's comments. FWIW. Thanks for looking into the imposter though! Lightburst (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just letting you know I needed feedback here :D Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 18:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to read both articles in depth (I know I meant to do that when you asked me about that hard-to-source claim the other day but got distracted by the Earl's Court GA), then I'll have some idea. 41K of prose is quite big for an article, but then the Piccadilly has got a substantial history. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. Ah I see, was wondering to get some progress due to the discussion being already there for more than 2 weeks haha. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richie333 -- I think Women in Computing is in fairly good shape overall, but there are a few particular aspects that may need improvement before you nominate the article:

• Throughout most of the 'History' section, I'm seeing a heavy emphasis on American content. Additionally, while the article clearly labels most women in non-American countries ("Meanwhile, in Australia..."), American women are usually not labeled as such, which furthers the assumption that Americans are "the norm". Suggestions: see if you can incorporate a more global historical view (as much as possible), and take some time to clarify the nationalities of the different women and computing associations. If you have a paragraph full of American women, you can probably get away with labeling only the first one.
• The 'Gender Gap in Computing' section could use some reorganizing for clarity -- right now it's a slightly confusing mixture of content. I would suggest starting with hard facts about the problem (gender gap explanation/stats/history), followed by theories about the problem, and then proposed solutions to the problem.
• The two awards can be combined under one 'Awards' section. Also: I'm not sure what your criteria is for including specific awards here, but the British BCS Lovelace Medal seems to hold more weight than the Karen Spärk Jones Award (Jones actually received the Lovelace Medal in 2007).
• The article's references are a mixture of short form and long form citations, which could cause problems at a GA review. It's a pain, but you should probably choose one style and apply to all sources.

I hope this is helpful -- let me know if you'd like another read-through in future. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave: Thanks, that's very helpful. Essentially, the problem I have with the article (and putting it together) is it felt a bit too much like a bunch of unconnected facts that lack the cohesion to meet the "focused" part of the GA criteria. In answer to your specifics:

• Part of the emphasis on the US is I think simply because the history of computing is focused here, with major players including NASA, IBM, Bell Labs, etc. I note that there are places such as "In the United States, several faster Bombe machines were created" though, and the only specific mention of Australia in the whole article is the reference to Michelle Simmons.
• Agreed about the "Gender gap in computing section", I'll have a think about how to reorganise it
• No strong views on the "Awards". I think the only criteria (if you can call it that) is what's in there is what people found in sources and put in. If you know about extra stuff that deserves a mention (to both flesh the article out and meet the "Broad in coverage" part of the GA criteria), then that should certainly be considered.
• "[citation format] It's a pain" You can say that again! When people start talking about citation formats, I go and hide behind the (metaphorical) sofa in the hope they go away again. I personally prefer {{sfn}} because its less intrusive against text working in the source editor, and mistakes are highlighted in red (though I think that needs a script), but I won't begrudge anyone who likes something else.

Also it's worth pinging Megalibrarygirl who made significant contributions to the article and has some sources that I don't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. is definitely a huge part of computing history, so the focus makes sense that way -- but Wikipedia also has a tendency to be American-centric, and I figure it's always worth double-checking to see what else can be included. I'll let you know if I stumble across anything you might be able to use! Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave and Ritchie333: I did try very hard to include non-American women, but consistently, my sources led to mostly British and American leads. I agree that most of the history (as written right now) seems to indicate that much of the innovations were taking place there. I have a feeling that there is a lot of history in Eastern Europe and the USSR, but I have a language barrier accessing some of the information. As for the citations, I formatted them that way because it was the easiest for me to do at the time. I wanted to be able to point to specific pages in books and journals. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Well, from past experience, I have faith in your research superpowers. ;-) I did find this 2019 book on women in computing [3], which might contain some useful content for 'Gender gap in computing' (maybe that section has the most capacity for global perspectives?). Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave: Thanks for the research props! I appreciate the link to the book and I'll see where I can get access. I did kind of neglect the gender gap section because I was more interested in the history stuff at the time. It's so interesting that women were once the main programmers of computers. Kind of blows up a lot of the usual talking points! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a read through Cracking the Digital Ceiling to see what nuggets I can pull out of it. It does seem plausible that there would be some significant women in Russian history throughout the Space Race and Cold War, for instance, I'm just not really sure where to start. I think the topic is a good one to write about myself, and as I mentioned, I make an effort to try and get at least one women / women's history related article to GA a year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found this book which talks about the importance of getting more women in IT during the start of post-Soviet Russia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ritchie333, the Draft:L'OR was restored, on request. But it seems the creator Goodwillgames is trying to bypass WP:AFC by creating a copy-paste of the draft at L'OR which was earlier administrator restricted by Seraphimblade due to WP:PROMOTIONAL and repeated recreation. Please have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 10:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amkgp: I'm unsure how the article was created if it was salted, but anyway the live copy is a duplicate of the draft without the additional attribution (principally cleanup and extinguishing of puffery by me), so I've deleted it per WP:G12 and salted it. Now they'll have to use AFC. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, Thanks for the quick action ~ Amkgp 💬 11:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, if you restore a previously-salted page, it will remove the protection. If you want to move it to user/draft space and keep the original title salted, you have to apply a new dose of salt after the page move. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Whoosh!, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Deep Purple called their new album Whoosh! because of its onomatopoeic qualities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Whoosh!. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Whoosh!), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Ritchie! - Sad that you can't close a discussion in which you commented. If I had to close it, I'd (in a first go) discard all voices who missed the simple question: there's information in this article hidden, should it be open yes or no? The questions what is that information, and should it be there at all, or changed, are completely different questions. I often collapse navboxes, but otherwise I prefer info open. When I said so five years ago I was called a monster, and I pictured that, - I think a good portion of both humour and assuming good faith would go a long way, both directions. One user's bludgeoning is another's trying to clarify, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different topic, the iconic poster: sure, a pic says more than 1000 words, but not to the blind. Could the description at least go as ALT text to the image? As far as I know, plots and image descriptions don't need a source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the description down and used it as an ALT. Now, consider this: "Ritchie333 is sitting at a computer desk. He is wearing glasses, a green top that Mrs 333 bought him in Asda, and brown shorts he bought in an M&S outlet shop. He is barefoot and is wearing a pair of Jabra Evolve MS headphones. He is giving a weary grimace towards the web cam, which mercifully is switched off." Isn't that, just too much information? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the move to ALT, and for the description, - not too much for my taste ;) - Imagining the grimace (grinning). I did't write the thing, was only the DYK reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on the talk page. Perhaps I over-think these things, "The tight fit of the swimsuit outlines her nipples in the fabric" (complete with Neelix-ish wikilink to "nipple") is, well, whacking material isn't it? I know there's the old standing joke about "there is no porn on Commons, only educational images [of people doing unspeakable things with fruit]" but I'm not sure it's what we want to advertise on the main page, even indirectly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By "not too much for my taste" I meant YOUR description of grimace and all. - The other, well, was not my taste, but I DO RESPECT the wishes of principle editors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This season, I will mostly be wearing .... wellies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoosh! Stats!! ... twice the poster!!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50,000 views? Flippin' heck. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty old goat. Next stop: THE Athena poster! New balls, anyone?!  ;) ——Serial 06:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do keep up at the back.... On an semi-related note, I was telling youngsters about how hot the summer of '76 was, and they just didn't get it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in expectation ... - I added the poster to the stats, because it's by a newbie, but bet you can do yours yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what poster, and which stats? Me is confuzzled. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the info box on Sinatra, and while I understand the desire for one I don't understand the desire for one that is so obnoxiously cookie cutter. Why the bold title "Frank Sinatra", as if we have forgotten the title in the two seconds the page loaded? Does the picture really need to be forced into the box? Dates for his wives? Which incidentally are labelled Spouse(s), which should only be used when we don't know if it is plural or not, which we do. If we have links to Hoboken, L.A., and Cathedral city as well as links for the states, do we really need "U.S." appended to the end making it look like someone messed up the linking. I do get your point about compromise I just wish it involved the IB folks being a little less set on how the info box must look.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlmostFrancis: What you're seeing here is Parkinson's law of triviality (see also WP:BIKESHED). To give another example, I spent several years getting the articles in Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of London Monopoly locations ready, including extensive research in the London Encyclopedia and the Survey of London amongst others. Probably the most significant debate out of the whole project, wasn't whether the articles had enough scope each, or were using the full range of source material (although IMHO those two sources are two of the best to use on London streets and architecture). No, it was whether the colour group containing Pall Mall, Whitehall and Northumberland Avenue was purple or pink, which culminated in some wag creating WP:PALLMALLISPINK. Seriously, people get too hung up on trivial details - and so it is with infobox fields too. I don't take part in infobox debates very often as I find them to be a complete time sink that's about as fun as discovering you've just missed the last bus home, but when I do, I generally say something like "You've got a point over here, while you've got another point over there, neither really has the upper hand, so I'd give up if I were you". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glory days! :D ——Serial 13:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But see Ritchie, this is my favorite bike shed. Matter of fact if you look real close it is actually a bike home. I care about my home, should I not defend my bike's home? :) Seriously though, I take your point about it being pretty trivial. I just think it is a shame the IB folks don't work a little more on making them modifiable as I think they would be less objectionable if they were. My crazy idea was what if the functionality stayed the same on mobile but on desktop the lead picture was outside of the info box and the info box was in the body instead of the lead. It would be a lot of work and I doubt many would agree but we can all dream. AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Machine Head (album) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Machine Head (album) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Your principal problem here is WP:TLDR - there was far too much verbiage and having a lengthy discussion about eg: "the band contained" versus "the band was composed of" repeated a hundred times just takes far too long, and I know TonyBallioni and Yngvadottir expressed a similar view. When I do GA reviews (which admittedly only seems to be on special occasions these days), I tend to copyedit as I go with a note saying "I'm doing some copyediting, feel free to revert to taste" and only stop and mention things when I don't know how to proceed or am confused eg: Talk:Back in the High Life/GA1. Additionally, I think it's better to quote a full piece of prose (in order to understand context) and then ask a question on it, Eric Corbett used to do this quite a lot, albeit with a sense of humour eg: Talk:Trellick Tower/GA1. ""... and is a recognisable local landmark." Aren't all landmarks recognisable, and local?" Significantly, you asked very little about whether the sources given supported the claims mentioned in them, which is one of the most important things you should do during a GA review - it doesn't matter how tight the prose is if it's wrong. I've had look at some of the other GA reviews you've done, and they seem to be going the same way, with people requiring a herculean amount of effort that they might well conclude the ends don't justify the means, and dropping out. Have a go at doing things "Eric's way", you'll probably find yourself getting more respect and recognition, instead of encountering frustration.

In particular, your parting comment of "that was disruptive" to decide I didn't have enough spare time to work on the article and would rather do something else ... well I don't mean to be rude but my priorities in life are my family, my kids, my paid employment, my friends, and many other things, all of which come above editing Wikipedia. So if I choose to duck out of something that isn't going to harm anyone else, there's no need to rub anyone's face in it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have also observed that minute issues such as having alternate texts should not have been an issue to fail as a GA candidate. It should have been more as a suggestion to be honest. **sigh Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 07:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your feedback somewhat, as maybe I have been providing reviews that are too long. However, you are being quite rude by claiming things that have not happened on multiple occasions, such as that I called you disruptive because of deciding not to spare time for the article. If you read my comments, that is so obviously not what I said or meant. You behaved in a similar manner on the GA review page, and are also doing it here by claiming that I might get more respect and recognition; anyone who looks through my reviews can clearly see that I have got that. To conclude this part of my response, I believe that you need to check things properly before replying with inappropriate comments. As for your statement that I don't check sources and focus more on prose, well I do check them but only note if what is written in the body is not backed up by source(s). --K. Peake 07:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel like that. I'm genuinely not having a go at you, I'm just trying to say what works for me and how I find the best way to improve the encyclopedia. Take care. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie, if you nominate it again, I'll be happy to take a look at it. Just let me know. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need a good copyedit first before thinking about nominating it again. I'll have another look through it in the week and get back to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not putting this on ANI in case I’m missing something obviously: CLC has been doing the vandal work with Twinkle. Won’t taking away rollback have no effect on that? He’ll still be able to keep doing what he’s doing. only (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: (and @Sro23: who made the same point elsewhere) Technically that's true, but what I was hoping to do is gradually increase sanctions in a way that doesn't greatly disrupt his workflow. (There is also a reasonable argument to be made that since Twinkle provides all the corresponding functionality nowadays, and Rollback seems to be used as a stick to beat people with - including me, to be fair) I see CLC has responded to the ANI thread saying he'll do better, but his actions need to be backed up by his words, although I don't think the example Meters picked is a good one - somebody who's first edit is spamming an article with homophobic rhetoric should be immediately blocked. The only other option for CIC is a WP:ICANTHEARYOU style block, but that still feels to be a bit too much like cracking a sledgehammer with a nut. I think the real problem is not that he makes mistakes, we all do, it's how he follows up on them that's the issue. If somebody accidentally uw-im3'd an editor that could plausibly made that edit in good faith, it's not really the end of the world if they apologise when called up on it. People tend to be generally amenable when admins and established editors apologise for mistakes, probably more than people think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing at home, the entirety of this draft read "Sandra Pinel is an American academic, who is research scholar in Environmental Studies at Antioch University New England." with a citation to her post and and the Fulbright Scholar Program (cies.org). I can't find anything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For constantly, and tirelessly helping others including myself, and always being hospitable when things may be a little too tight. During these hard times, including Sir Boseman’s passing, we definitely need to treat ourselves with a little sugar rush. Here is a cheese brown sugar bubble tea. :D (PS: I’ll change up the picture later to match with what I am describing). VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 07:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant to CLCStudent's ANI thread? I was going to put this as a reply there, but I thought it might be off topic, and/or that I'm missing something obvious. Something I've seen quite a few times with CLCStudent is that he'll report a user to AIV far too quickly, but they'll still end up getting blocked anyway (though, I don't really think the one Meters brought up is an example). Consider User:Jamzy_Harding, who made a single edit, which was blatant vandalism complete with a swear word, but nothing too serious, that was filtered out by four separate filters. CLCStudent gave him a Level 3 warning, and reported him to AIV at the same time, and successfully got the user blocked. For one solitary, not particularly serious, piece of vandalism... I almost wonder if that sort of thing gives him mixed messages. Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegreatluigi: I think that's within admin discretion. The specific policy states, "While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal (although administrators usually block only when multiple warnings have been issued)." I try and assume good faith wherever possible, and if there's any chance a user really believes they are trying to improve the encyclopedia, I will not block. For example, this edit that CLCStudent reverted is a good example, because it's a legitimate viewpoint that Kevin McKidd could be considered Scottish instead of British, and mis-spelling "Scottish" could be a simple mistake. So although I would revert, I wouldn't even warn let alone anything else, unless I had evidence the same editor or IP had been repeatedly doing that sort of thing. However, I don't really subscribe to the "warn and educate" camp for clear and unambiguous vandalism. Wikipedia's been around long enough and is well-known enough for people generally to know what vandalism is, even if they don't edit WP themselves, and defacing an article with "U R A FAG!!!" repeated 500 times deserves an immediate block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...that I am interested to collab for a DYK for Earl's Court station? Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 16:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised that it's 7 days tomorrow, I'll submit on your behalf tomorrow if you can't attend to it at the moment. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry had a late night yesterday and just catching up on things. Yes, feel free to start the DYK, I don't mind. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I am glad a one-legged engineer actually went to test the escalators. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you close the deletion discussion so early. There was only one vote, which was a delete vote.TamilMirchi (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @TamilMirchi: closed so early??? They can be closed any time after seven days; this had been open nearly three weeks!! (Having said that, yes, there certainly does seem to have been a consensus, notwithstanding that it was poorly attended.) ——Serial 16:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first week saw your opening comment, a comment that there may be sources with a link to one supplied, and an argument to avoid. In the 12 days after relisting to get extra input, there were no comments at all. Hence no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very imaginative. I assume TamilMirchi will notify you of his WP:DRV filing. ——Serial

.... or you could just start another AfD, which might get more input. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone has already wiped the edit history of the article you just draftified - can you restore it, I'd like to see how the article was when it was deleted. Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: I think the history is all there - GiantSnowman did a history merge. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes ... I think I was looking at the wrong thing. Ugh, what a mess. But it seems to be there! Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, please AGF. This is the version that was draftified. I did say there was an existing draft but nobody paid attention... GiantSnowman 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grinding Stone (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBS Records.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that, DPL bot, what about a reliable source to show that the album's front cover features a woman masturbating! I mean, how the heck did that cover not get withdrawn and replaced with something else? I can only guess it because it didn't sell and sunk like a stone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: I’ve just stumbled upon an RfA of SineBot, what a legend. Don’t Forget to Sign! Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was most upset when Sinebot retired and stopped posting anything; I coded an open-source replacement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September

Dahlias in Walsdorf

I like today's Main page, with the TFA on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sounds a whole lot better than what I've been up to, which appears to have been to cause even Ealdgyth to throw her arms up in despair about the Great Infobox Feud .... the sad thing is, I'd sometimes like to have a reasoned and civil discussion about them in certain articles; for example, I took out the extra image in North Circular Road because I think the map is probably the most useful one to show the reader, and a shorter box stops images lower down getting squashed. I think my favourite infobox addition is still the one I did on Hammond organ here and here, which gives a whole load of "pazazz" to the article and makes it much more inviting to the reader .... however, as long as we have entrenched positions over the mere existence of them, I might as well be shouting in the wind :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you were one of the 50k+ who looked at the TFA article, and 3.5k ITN! I write for readers, and am content with content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have been a user on Wikipedia for a long time now. I wanted to acquire adminship to stop vandalism on particular pages that contain topics which are extremely communal in our country but are protected by extended protection. I request you to please nominate me as I gone through the rFa guidelines and I think I am capable of being an Admin.

Thank you! Superbsic (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]