Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Need your opinion

The outcomes of recent RfAs make it an opportune time to bring this up. I have considered bidding for adminship for the past week. I feel, with the new ways I am reaching out to contribute (article creations on different subjects, pending changes reviewer, Afds, DYKs, etc.) that I am gaining the knowledge required to be an admin. I intend to tackle more acts of vandalism in the coming months before I would consider taking another step foward with this idea. With all that being said, I wanted your opinion on the matter because I have always trusted you above all other experienced admins. Your complete and total honesty on my chances in the near future is appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Unfortunately, the checkuser block last September is pretty much the kiss of death that will gather lots of oppose votes straight away; perhaps if there had been an accompanying unblock against it, that could have been mitigated against. Your AfD performance is acceptable; a couple of withdrawals, but that just shows you admit you made a mistake. (Harper and the Moths seems to have got deleted in a second AfD).
What exactly do you want the admin tools for? Do you really want to get involved in the anti-vandalism side of things? Somebody's got to do it sure, but it's bit of a waste of a talented GA writer to be piddling around the vandalism. Personally, I think bots and software ought to ultimately be better vandal patrollers than humans, given suitable data sets. As an admin, I don't mind popping on to AIV when I'm procrastinating over what article to write next, but usually it's to close a report or bounce it elsewhere, which many admins do not do. I got the bit primarily because I do a lot of CSD work; don't decide to become an admin for any "status" and "prestige" value, because you will regret it, burn out and retire. And longstanding editors can spot "career" admins a mile off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Does that block's impact lessen with time? I have learned to accept it exists in my block log, but I wish it did not blur the fact I have always tried to help out the way I knew best. If I had the tools, I intend to be involved in anti-vandalism work and issues as well as helping out with backlogs where required such as AIV and UAA. Alongside this I envisioned dealing with requests for page protection when dealing with vandalism or edit warring. I think I'm very adaptive to any situation so if I'm needed elsewhere, I would read the appropriate policies and take any advice. I absolutely do not want the mop for prestige because, personally, I think there is a negative stigma that exists with admins. If you think my block is a death sentence, however, I can put the idea on hold for awhile.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Recently, Anna Frodesiak set up a vetting area where a bunch of people analyse potential RfA candidates, analogous to how you might sift through a pile of resumes for a job placement. The very first criteria is "no blocks within the last three years". I do remember the block happening but I can't remember the specifics; I'll have to go back and check. Essentially, though, I can't think of an admin candidate pass with any block being more recent than 2 years away.
Generally, I think it's best to start off with one area of the toolset you're interest in, focus on that, and convince people you won't move onto other things until you're ready. Given your participation there, closing AfDs might be the first obvious step.
If you're still mulling it over, you can start your own opinion poll here, where the rest of the community can give you feedback, but to be honest I'd be surprised if you got an average over 5/10 there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to recap the block: I was blocked a week for apparent sock puppetry by Mike V. A sharp increase of vandalism by the actual sockmaster followed almost immediately afterwards. Despite there being no point to the block other than to be punitive, Mike V upheld the block. I think nearly a dozen sockpuppets and IPs were blocked in that week alone but it never influenced his decision. I want to open an opinion poll in the coming week because I think I have a lot to offer. If it is unfavorable, I can stick to article content for another year or two; it certainly would not hurt my chances in the further future.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Admin's suck, I should know... Stick to making Wikipedia brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Another: agree. And don't request comments, or you may be told you (how many months later? August to April?) created a drama-fest. Stick to article work if you want to become cheerful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Jumping in here, since I landed here for something else. I would suggest to anyone considering RfA at this moment to not do so, probably for at least a month. The blowback from GoldenRing's RfA is making everything to do with adminship very messy at the moment, and RfA is all the way back to being a hellish gauntlet of pain and misery and nasty, big, pointy teeth. But by all means put yourself up at WP:ORCP, it's a good forum for determining your chances and getting advice for things to work on until RfA calms down again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I have to admit my confidence in putting people forward for RfA (including your good self) took a bit of a knocking with CaroleHenson, which I thought was a sure-fire winner; though (as I've written elsewhere today) I think I managed it pretty well, she took the rejection in incredibly good stead, and when she goes for RfA #2 she will be even better. All I was trying to get through on Dane's RfA is that he's not ready, and if he'd asked me instead of Coffee, I would have advised him not to run and we'd have avoided this whole mess. I'm now going to say "nuts" to canvassing and ask everyone to go full speed towards Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/List of London Monopoly locations/archive1 and see what you make of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I landed at Schmücke dich (new) and Altenberger Dom (up to DYK standard. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
That investigation a few months ago involved not only sockpuppetry but also harassment. In my willingness to try to be everybody's friend and "go along and get along" with my frequent collaborators, I did not take a strong enough stand when I should have. I've been reluctant to admit that the particular situation which got investigated caused me a lot of pain and has definitively diminished my enthusiasm for writing at Wikipedia. I don't expect what I say to matter that much to anyone (of course all the other variables take precedence). But, maybe I need to speak out more often. The bottom line when considering any new administrator should be this: an administrator's job is to protect innocent editors, not hurt them. An administrator should never be one who enjoys the sport of taking punitive action on others. While an administrator sometimes has to take negative actions, it never should be for the source of amusement or be done out of largesse. Period. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Garagepunk66 are you insinuating I would enjoy blocking editors or are you speaking broadly for all admins? If I ever have the tools, blocking would be a last resort for me and it would never be punitive. If you read my ORCP, I state I would use the tools at AfD which rarely, if ever, requires blocking actions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I was careful not to say names in my message above. One reason I did not say names is that you had said (earlier up above) that the sockpuppet was someone else. I hope that what you say is true and that time will prove your contention to be so. However, the reality is that the checkbusters had a certain way they interpreted the situation (they have a high batting average) and most of the other people here (not just me) are going to be concerned by their conclusions. At this time, people are going to view any request you make to become an administrator as being problematic (and quite frankly troubling in light of recent events). The passage of time (over the course of a few years) may possibly soften that opposition. But, right now, it is reality. Personally, in your prior remarks, I would have preferred to see you acknowledge the pain I expressed. I don't mind you defending yourself too--you have that right. But, even if are innocent, I'd have preferred to see you express concern for what I went through. I want people who are administrators to be able to empathize with the pain of those who have experienced harassment. And, I do want to be assured that I can edit here in a climate of safety--I am not assured of that at this time. I stated above what I think an administrator's duties are--just so that any future prospective candidates know what it entails. Maybe time will change things. But, the fact still remains that any editor who has ever been proven of willfully harassing other editors should not be granted adminstratorship. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) TGS, the fact that you created at least two sockpuppets to (1) impersonate a user and (2) harass another user is going to completely nuke any chances you have for adminship. The fact that you have still been apparently harassing said user is further damage. I don't see any reason that you need the tools or any evidence that you work in administrative areas. As others have said here, stick to content creation, which is what you apparently do best and what you apparently love. Softlavender (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that "obvious vandalism" in User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 links to A3 and not G3. Thought I'd let you know as I'm not sure if I should boldly fix it. Adam9007 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Zahra Schreiber

A total dog's breakfast ...maybe searching for a bit of Elk??

What is a "dog's breakfast" in this context lik you said?★Trekker (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@*Treker: A dog's breakfast (French : petit dejunner de chien, German: Hundfrühstück) is colloquial British slang for a "complete mess". Or in this case, since CSD applies to every revision of an article, I would have to go through every revision and check every version still qualified as A7. However, "this article makes my head hurt" is not a valid reason for deletion. I suggest filing an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for explaining, I think I may put it up if there isn't any improvement in the next days.★Trekker (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Pasg Hapus

Some Easter Gwyn Hughes Jones for you
"Pasg Hapus! ... Happy Easter to you" ... y geiriau. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr, Martin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete Kyoto eSports?

Why did you delete the page it is rather important and hold mass significance in the Hearthstone community. It is even cited in a couple articles here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odenk2 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Odenk2: I couldn't see an obvious way that the article could be improved by anyone independently, but if you say that it can, I have restored it to Draft:Kyoto eSports where it can be worked on further. In general, it's better for novice editors to start in draft space when creating a new article. When in draft, you can click on the "submit your draft" button, whereupon it will be independently reviewed to see if it is suitable for mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully, others and myself can make enough edits to make it a full blown article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odenk2 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

UK general election page

Hi Ritchie333

Hope you didn't mind me reverting a couple of times - it doesn't seem sensible to have an article at United Kingdom general election, 2017 and another one at Next United Kingdom general election, but maybe you disagree. The article hasn't been moved yet because there's still uncertainty with the vote in parliament coming up, but one the date is confirmed I'd imagine Next United Kingdom general election being quickly moved to the United Kingdom general election, 2017 title. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: No, that's fine (I didn't even notice the first revert) and have explained my reasons on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election. I don't disagree at all, rather I was just being a bit naive. As I explained over on talk, I've full-protected the redirect for 24 hours, which should take us up to the Commons vote. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie, you are exceeding your authority. I have no strong view on this one way or the other, but you are imposing your editorial preferences by using admin rights. That is clear from your edit summary and block log entry. I strongly suggest you unprotect this article and allow a discussion to take place, rather than imposing your view on the community. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@MidnightBlueMan: Okay, I've unprotected. I did say on the talk page I was kind of WP:INVOLVED (and contemplated also putting a post on WP:AN to the same effect), but I also thought that by locking the article on the version that the history would suggest I didn't prefer would mitigate against that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie. To be honest, on looking in more detail at the issue, I think you are probably right and you may need to protect it again if things get difficult. Apologies for snapping at you, above. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries - I'm not the only admin on the block, and others are looking at this now (not least Amakuru above), so if somebody creates a fork again, one of them will probably protect it. Indeed, a good litmus test for an admin action is to wait and see if another admin does it anyway! (Question for the peanut gallery, if I re-protected could I be desysopped for wheel-warring with myself?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Heyy

Heyy,

I want to make TravelTriangle page

pls tell me if that is possible

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambalika.gandhi9 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if GB fan has dealt with this after you asked him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Michael Stolberg

Please check my source.Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid Rugby isn't really my area of expertise - can anyone at WP:RUGBY help you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Biased_laptop

"Some need to be told that what the Admins do isn't a game, it's a serious business that has real consequences for vandals' lives!"

I think you might have meant to block this account indefinitely, it's vandalism-only and now it already has a sockpuppet. If not, never mind. Home Lander (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was doing a bunch of IPs (who normally get 24 hours unless it's a repeat offender) and did this one too. Already blocked the sock with Account Creation Blocked so that should be the end of that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
That's what I figured. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(for the peanut gallery, or in the case of Fylbecatulous, the cat herd - the quotation here is parodying Mrs May's speech for the Tory Leadership last summer, to which end I have decided it's time for another userbox.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the IP I reported at AiV

This is how this user deals with conflict. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I wish they'd used edit summaries :-/ ... blocked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Alt account

Not sure if this applies to blocks, but don't forget that Mlpearc has a legitimate alternate account: Mlpearc Phone. — Gestrid (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I trust him not to evade blocks, he's been around long enough to know that. I just want a chat, explain what the problem is with his editing, then unblock him. It's a longstanding problem where individual edits are excusable, but the long-term edit-warring and poor communication isn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, ok. And as the policy says, blocks are preventative, not punitive. No need to block the alt if there's no risk of them evading the block on their main. — Gestrid (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:999?

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yucca&type=revision&diff=777022028&oldid=777021562

Is this some sort of suicide/violence threat? What do you reckon? I'm not sure... Adam9007 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me - it's not really a credible threat in my view. I've blocked for 24 hours, but if you really think it's genuine, follow the instructions at WP:EMERGENCY. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam, it just looks like random vandalism. I don't think you need to worry about it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: @MelanieN: I've seen several suicide threats here lately, so maybe I'm starting to see them when they're not there? Adam9007 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That's why I thought I would caution you not to take this one too seriously. If you look at their other two edits, they are just playing around IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Richard Hambleton website change.

Hi Ritchie, I work for Woodward Gallery in NYC. We are the gallery that represents the artist Richard Hambleton. Thanks for your help with Richard Hambleton's birhtdate. I have another question regarding the website on his wiki page. We noticed that his website was changed back to richardhambleton.com. However that is not his official website. His official website is actually richardhambleton.art which has all of his biographical information, artist resume, exhibition history, a large selection of his works and news articles of past and present. Richardhambleton.art was the official website on his wikipage for years and has been Richard Hambleton's official website for 10 years. The other website is promotional material to a documentary film going on at the Tribeca Film Festival and was create for personal gain by a producer of the film. How do I get his official site changed back to richardhambleton.art? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kwhipple90: I've changed the website address, though it redirects to http://woodwardgallery.net/artists/richard-hambleton/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I checked the page and it still says richardhambleton.com instead of richardhambleton.art

@Kwhipple90: Pardon me for intervening, but I think Ritchie333 changed the official website in the external links of the page whereas you might've wanted the link in the infobox to be changed. I've changed the one in the infobox as per the request posted here and on my talk page. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 09:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:Thank you both so much for your help last week and for changing the link to RichardHambleton.art. However someone keeps changing the website back to richardhambleton.com. Is there anyway I can stop this from happening? Thanks! Kevin

I've pinged the reverting editor, and requested they follow up your question on the talk page. That should hopefully sort things out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Obscured by Clouds

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Obscured by Clouds 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

"Does the very nature of the structure of Wikipedia drive out creative editors – content writers and those who significantly improve aricles – in favor of non-creative "rules"-following editors unable or unwilling to make complex evaluations of specific situations in favor of simply applying generalized solutions whether they are improvements or not?" [1]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was not edit warring - I was reverting unexplained deletions of content. Denisarona (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the article's history, you were edit warring; however not all edit warring mandates a block, and in this case a semi-protection, and a restoration of the article to its pre-war state solves the problem. As you're auto-confirmed, you can still edit it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your comments. After more than 66,000 edits fighting vandalism, etc. I now give up. Denisarona (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to edit the article - I was trying to stop unexplained deletion of content, not (as you describe it) edit-warring. I strongly believe in the concept of Wikipedia, but your comments don't help. Denisarona (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You asked for administrative assistance, and you got it. I don't understand why you're upset, sorry. I think you were on my list of possible people to nominate for RfA for at one point, but I can't find the details. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"I don't understand why you're upset, sorry." I don't know what's wrong with yuor judgment lately, but this again shows that you need to rethink your approach to adminning. When one person (in this case, an IP without former edit history) is vandalizing a page (removing whole sections indiscriminately) and multiple well-established editors are reverting them, the solution is not to protect the page but to warn (already done by others) or block the IP involved, and give the vandal reverters a barnstar or a "thanks".

Looking at the IP edits, you can see that they removed all sources from the 1965 section, removed the 1977 section completelytwicethrice, and removed the 1999 section completelytwice. Their final edits to the articleagain removed most of a section and added their only actual contribution, an unsourced POV line.

This is vandalism. Please undo your protection, block the IP (or keep a close eye on it) and somehow indicate to Denisarona that you misread the situation. Perhaps that way we can prevent that a good, helpful editor is being driven off by a thoughtless admin action and reaction. Fram (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it could be an angry user trying to start a fight. It's absolutely disruptive editing and deserves administrative sanctions, and a six-month semi-protection is the right thing to do (in this specific case I chose six months as a follow-on from the three month semi-protection applied back in September 2016 for similar disruptive editing from IPs). Otherwise the disruptive IP could just swap to another one and carry on regardless. The important point is : is the article now stable and correct? In my view, it is. There is no need to block the IP as there have been no other edits since, so it would be against the blocking policy to do so at this time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"it could be an angry user trying to start a fight" Ah yes, disruption by angry IPs is not the same as vandalism somehow... Please refamiliarize yourself with the protection policy. We don't semi-protect pages where one IP address is vandalizing because they might swap to another IP, we use semi-protection after they have repeatedly swapped. Your current "solution" disables IP editing at that page for all IPs, well-meaning or not, while allowing the vandal IP to edit any other page they like. This is applying the wrong measure to get the wanted result, and has (together with your replies here) offended and discouraged a hardworking vandal fighter at the same time by treating the problem as "edit warring" instead of "vandalism". You literally stated, in reply to the first question above, "According to the article's history, you were edit warring; however not all edit warring mandates a block", making it sound as if Denisarona had a lucky escape here and could just as well have been blocked by you (well, that's true, but it would have been another block that was swiftly overturned at ANI and would have gotten you probably at ArbCom). Your refusal to see any problem with your actions (here and with the Mlpearc block) is really worrying. Fram (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be very angry today, and that is a shame. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be incapable of making the right admin decisions and dealing with criticism afterwards, and that is not something from just today. Dismissing questions as "you seem to be very angry" (why? Is "being very angry" the only possible reason one would dare to criticise your wrongheaded actions?) is a nice dodge, but not really an answer of course. Looking at your protection log, I see a barely necessary and certainly involved protection of Hyde Park last week as well. I'll now remove the protection on the India page, noting the incorrect claim of "dit warring" in the log. If edit warring restarts by the same IP, please block them. Please only protect pages if too many IPs or editors are actually edit warring. Fram (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Obscured by Clouds

The article Obscured by Clouds you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Obscured by Clouds 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Your block of Mlpearc

As it's obvious, I do not agree with your block of Mlpearc. First, they had two reverts of the Pink Floyd material, the last one ten hours before your block. Second, the IP they reported to AIV had already been blocked a few days ago for disruptive editing for the exact same behavior. There is no reason for Mlpearc to suffer for wildly inconsistent admin behavior. You also are editing in the Pink Floyd area (and indeed, have edited the same article you blocked Mlpearc for edit warring on), took them to ANI where there was little support for your position, and placed another very dubious block on another editor editing in the same area about five weeks ago. Can you please lift Mlpearc's block with an appropriate note? --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Question - if you blocked Cassianto, Sagaciousphil or Eric Corbett for incivility (and I'm going to bet a Mr Kipling apple pie you'd do it for a tad longer than 48 hours), and I asked what you wrote above, would you do it? I've been a fan of Pink Floyd for about 30 years (including seeing them live at Earl's Court in 1994), have taken quite a few of their articles to GA (including Richard Wright, Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii and Atom Heart Mother. "Echoes" is one of their best songs, and I've recorded my own cover of it (which Martinevans123 really wants to get hold of - the mp3 is too big for email). So I thought I'd tidy up the article a bit, add some sources, and if I can source everything I'll give it a bit of a shave and a haircut copyedit. Any one of the newbies that Mlpearc has basically told to fuck off might have been somebody who could have helped get the article to GA. But no, they've all been scared away, so muggins here is doing it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Your question has little relevance or meaning here. We're talking about your specific actions. Happy to ask for a review at WP:AN if you wish. --NeilN talk to me 19:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Neil, your curt responses suggest you haven't actually read anything I've written, or at least not taken in what I said. Some admins really surprise me, we're an encyclopedia so you would have thought everyone would spend lots of time reading articles and teaching themselves how to communicate more effectively. This is another reason why all admins should create content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I have read what you've written above - complete with unnecessary pings and irrelevant hypotheticals. So, WP:AN then? --NeilN talk to me 19:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't mind me, I just.... sweep the streets I used to own. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Whaaaaaat? The ping is absolutely vitally important. Get a Nord Stage, switch to "Grand Piano", turn the Leslie on and reverb full-up, hit the top "B" and .... wooooooooooaaaaaaahhhhh Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Not just any reverb, it needs to be a Binson echo machine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
well, it's an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, "Never shake a bent stick at a blind donkey". Let's face it Threesie, you're just a "mutton-headed old mugwump". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. do you think it's fair to assume that Neil has sorted out the copyright for his own material before he uploads it to his own YouTube Channel?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC) p.p.s. I've found a YT channel that has some great stuff.
  • Sigh ... yes, I'm fairly sure it's guaranteed NeilN would gleefully block any of those of us pinged above for extended periods given even the most tenuous opportunity - a sad but true reflection of what WP has become. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh really? Please point me to the relevant part of your "admin history" and an explanation about how you define my complete ignorance. If I'd referred to someone's complete ignorance no doubt I'd have been blocked but of course you're an admin so allowed to abuse ordinary editors as you please It's late here but I'll look forward to addressing your response in around eight hours. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You made the assertion, "it's guaranteed NeilN would gleefully block any of those of us pinged above for extended periods given even the most tenuous opportunity". So please point out what in my admin history would lead you to give such a remarkable guarantee. I can remember defending Cassianto and Dr. Blofield but obviously you have twigged onto something I have forgotten. I'm also not the admin who classified an edit summary saying "it doesnt matter what you think, YOU are not a reliable source. Find one or dont add this" as a personal attack and used it as one of the reasons for a block. --NeilN talk to me 21:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I just had an edit conflict as I tried to remove my comment with the edit summary "no, why bother as there's no point debating with entrenched opinions like this" ... my point stands. My interest is purely in sound, well referenced content creation; anything else is of no interest to me whatsoever. Goodnight. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_of_Mlpearc --NeilN talk to me 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"Never try and teach a pig to sing.
You just waste your time and annoy the pig."
@NeilN: I think part of the disconnect we have here is related to the natural confirmation bias you get in people, and how you view the project. I look at everything from an outsider's point of view. I don't see editors, I see articles and pages. When I look at diffs, I focus on the content and substance in them, and ignore who made the edit. This isn't even a conscious decision; I just naturally don't remember who did what. I see User:DGG/No naming editors is thinking along the same lines. You, on the other hand, seem to see the encyclopedia in terms of people; who made what edit, what the behavioural characteristics are, what rules are being adhered to. So I see you focusing towards who made an edit, and mentally scrub what it is, whereas I view things from the other way round. So we end up looking at the same thing from completely different precepts and that's now arguments happen.
I'll also say that on a number of times, you've replied to messages with something along the lines of "I completely disagree with that". Fine, it's a free country, disagree away. However, if you don't tell me why you disagree, I can't really do anything about it. I've been in various management / moderator positions on the net for 20+ years and a common theme is that an argument can only ever end well if the two parties understand each others differences. It's impossible to change somebody's mind over a web forum, and people that try end up like that old saying "never try and teach a pig to sing - you just waste your time and annoy the pig". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, how direct do you want me to be in my response? --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. Another thought for you - ultimately my goal would be to make all anti-vandalism-only editors redundant and out of a job, by making automated tools like ClueBot NG much better at catching all of it. If editors are making the same repeated changes again and again, why can't a computer do that? Unfortunately, ClueBot's data set interface is down at the moment so it can't be easily improved - are there any plans to fix it? Do we consider simple heuristics, such as any IP edit to a non-popular culture topic during school hours in that time zone is more likely to be vandalism than a registered user's edit on a home ISP in the evening? Gmail's commercially-written filters are pretty good at trapping spam with near-zero false positives, why can't we do that here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Confused

I'm not debating the merits of whether this is actually notable or appropriate for an A7 but in your decline of Indy Hall you said "decline A7, has source, consider a redirect to Old City, Philadelphia" but I'm a little confused as to how their own (currently non-working) website can be considered enough to satisfy CCS? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: The best guide to this is Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance (tip hat to SoWhy) - also, the best way to think of A7 is avoid terms like "significance" and "notability" as people have different opinions as to what they are, but consider if the article could possibly be improved / changed in any way whatsoever. In this case, a redirect is possible, and that automatically clears A7 (remember that the speedy criteria means "no chance of closing with anything other than 'delete' at AfD") Also, a quick search for sources brings up this this BizJournals source, so the article definitely clears the A7 barrier in any case. The "source" is actually a bit of a red herring in this case, but you can't retrospectively change edit summaries. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Wait a second....that King of Mars example is one *I* made up! I need to go speedy that essay for G12: copyvio. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Or am I getting confused with Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance - all these essays look the same after a while... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Ha, I knew it! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, your wording was attributed to you (See edit summary). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I wasn't debating the merits of notability in this case, as I previously said. The only source in the article was their own website at the time of decline, hence why your summary would be and is confusing for editors, particularly those finding their footing with CSD applicability. I'm not new here, I know the difference between notability and CCS and I can't reiterate enough I wasn't talking about the probable notability of the subject, I don't disagree with the decline in total but I think you should've added one, any one of the actual sources and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Declining because you find information that is relevant but don't give any insight beyond a silly es is patently unhelpful. And what logical reason would there be for redirecting that article to Old City? It makes about as much sense as redirecting Joe's crack shack to Fells Point. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I added two journal sources not long after your first message, just to cement the decline. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
And real life pulled me away before I hit save changes but you're still missing my point. That gave the impression (and often does without additional information) that a primary source is in any way a CCS - could you point me in the direction of the discussion where community consensus was reached with regard to this? I would also like to know more about your reasoning for suggesting it be redirected to Old City, Philadelphia - maybe I can learn something new. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It really depends on the article and the context. For instance, "Joe Bloggs is a cool 12-year old YouTuber who plays Minecraft" with a source to his YouTube channel - well that's a primary source but it's also a clear A7 that I'd delete. As far as discussions, I think SoWhy would have a better idea of the various decisions that have been reached at WT:CSD over the years. After a while at NPP, you get a feeling for these sorts of things.
Regarding the redirect to Old City, Indy Hall seems to be what I'd describe a "business incubator", which I'd suggest is a locally well-known landmark, and it's possibly a plausible term to add to the search box. For example, consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princes Mead Shopping Centre, which pretty much went through the same channels - A7 declined, went to AfD, consensus was to redirect. Again, these are just woolly generalities - it might be a suitable redirect, it might not. As a rule of thumb is, if you've got any doubts over A7, have the full discussion at AfD - it won't hurt, and it's perfectly acceptable for declined A7s to go on to be deleted at AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hey, if you've got some time, would you be able to copyedit or look over Fighters Uncaged? It's not a topic that you normally edit, so I understand if you decline. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, I haven't played any video games since Quake, and that was over 20 years ago. Ummm..... :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
All good :). Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Tram

You accidentally removed the wikilink for the tram, leaving the hook linkless. DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just spotted it. I blame the cut and paste fairies. :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, they are mischievous little sods! DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
While we're here, the hook says "50" but the article says "fifty"; @The Rambling Man: - you'll know this, which one is correct? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I expect the MoS has something very long-winded, confusing, and hard to find in the first place, about when to use figures and when to write out numbers, but life is short and I am insufficiently masochistic to try to find out. Good luck! DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Nah, I'd rather check out this brilliant video. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, it's fine either way per MOS, numbers that can be written as single words are cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I was always taught to write numbers numerically after "9". But like Rambler says, I see no reason why both shouldn't be ok, as long as it's consistent, I suppose. The only trouble would come would be if you opted for numerals all the way through and then a sentence required that you started with a number. Seeing a numeral start a sentence makes my eyes bleed. CassiantoTalk 07:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
5 ... is right out

TRM is great on MOS issues. Otherwise, or for helpfully pedantic and (I'll give it to him) usually correct third-party checking and general proofing, Tony1 is excellent. And helpful. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, one to nine are spelt out. Avoid solitary numerals. Rothorpe (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It's MOS:NUMERAL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you/ CSD

Hey @Ritchie333:, first of all , I would like to say huge thank you for your support to my Wiki journey. You gave me many, extremely helpful tips ( talk ) and pointed me to the right direction on many occasions and supported me on my immature mistakes (e.g. my mistake creating Scott Galloway (professor) ) :) . However, I have a question on your CSD contest for Jordan French , as I've stated in my initial nomination, most of the references on this page are written by the same author Jordan French. In other words he is a contributor to these publications (HuffPost,Inc etc. ), so I believe there is a big issue. Going further, I could make a strong assumption that previous articles about his company on the same publications "has been strongly influenced/affiliated by/with this person" . In any case, I would highly appreciate your opinion and feedback, especially, I'm curious why did you make a decision to merge/redirect rather than delete? Thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are two reasons; firstly redirects preserve the article's history, so if another editor wants to retrieve the text from an earlier revision for whatever reason, they can do so without asking an admin. The other reason is that once a redirect is parked in mainspace, it stops the article being recreated and deleted again, again and again before getting salted so it can never be created. While you need to be careful for biographies of living people and not put in a redirect that may inadvertently attract attention (eg: children of semi-famous people), in this case I don't think it's harmful. This page has more information on the benefits of redirects. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert

Hi my fellow Wikipedian. Regarding your revert here, please note lie 50 second block where a point was after a sfn template and I removed it. This is an edit that improved Wikipedia and made it better for readers and people who enjoy printed version. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with your edit is that it removed an extraneous punctuation mark after a sfn, not moved an incorrect one after the ref to before it, and also moved a bunch of tags around for no reason. So just make sure your edit summaries accurately describe what you do, particularly when it is non-obvious. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hm... I think it's technical. I moved the punctuation and then removed the duplicated punctuation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Removing the full stop after the {{sfn}} was both valid and good. Moving the {{about}} to the very top was also good, in accordance with WP:HNP; this concerns accessibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The real problem is that MediaWiki does not provide a way of having structured storage for its articles, so that all these tags get in the way of the prose, making it hard for newbies (and Visual Editor isn't perfect at abstracting away from them). I'm surprised that the order of the {{about}} and {{good article}} tags makes any difference whatsoever - surely it shouldn't? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

RfA Question Placement

Your question is above the line for optional questions, not below the line. Just thought I'd point that out for you to correct as I'm not comfortable with contributing to RfA discussions (and their pages) just yet. Thanks! -=Troop=- (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's been a new feature added recently (well, in the last few years anyway). Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For courageously stepping into the breach in defense of the project. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Richard Wright (musician)
added a link pointing to Wish You Were Here
Wind & Wuthering
added a link pointing to Tony Banks

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_57&oldid=1143716054"