User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Northumberland Avenue

I see that you have reverted both my edits. OK, I accept that you think all pages on places that appear on the Monopoly board should have the transport information. I don't agree, but I'm not going to push my view. But being specific, many buses pass the top end of Northumberland Avenue. Why mention just the 91? In the second place, regarding the reasons given for the former hotels' popularity with American tourists, NA is not near all the mainline stations. Is it near Paddington, or Liverpool Street, or King's Cross (or in fact any of them except Charing Cross and perhaps Waterloo)? Also, I don't see how mentioning that the 2012 Olympics marathon passed through here is at all important, and it is not a 'cultural reference'. Dubmill (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Basically, once you get past the basics of "is it reliably sourced", the question of what to include is a matter of opinion and editorial judgement. On the bus routes, I seem to recall that the 91 was the most common or popular, but I tend not to use buses too often. It might be worth asking Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport on their views of what to include.

Regarding the Olympic route, this was added by TBM10 about five years ago [1] so he may be able to answer that. The Olympics seems to have had such a wide-reaching effect on the history of London that I don't see it's particularly problematic to include it here, provided it's kept in balance, and while people don't always agree on whether a "cultural reference" mention should be included or not, experience has shown me that if you leave it out, it'll be put in by somebody else sometime later, except without a source and not written as well.

The part about the distance to stations comes from the source, a Ministry of Defence brochure documenting the history of buildings in the area, and it says "American visitors in particular tended to use the Northumberland Avenue hotels ....with easy access to both the City and the West End and to Parliament and the 'Clubs' as well as to the major railway termini". I can only assume the "easy access" in this context includes taking a tube trip across the capital. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I use buses all the time, including many of those that serve Trafalgar Square. I think it's fair to say that no bus is more important than another. It's a question of whether the bus is going where you want to go. I'm not saying that different bus routes should be mentioned in place of the 91, or that all of them should be. I just find it unsatisfactory that the 91 is singled out for no good reason, making it appear to the uninformed that other buses don't go there. WRT to the the railway stations, I think that 'easy access' is not the same as 'near', and the latter is a jump in meaning from what the original source says. The 'cultural reference' thing just jars with me. Unlike the other things mentioned in that section, it's not a cultural reference. It's a sporting event that took place there. Dubmill (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well TBM10's been pinged to this discussion, so we'll see what he has to say. In the meantime, I think several other London street articles contain all the bus routes put on the official TfL map, so I don't think it's a particular problem to expand it to include all of them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Something else just occurred to me. The transport information appears under the section 'Geography'. I suppose this does kind of make sense for the Tube stations as they are fixed features of the nearby environment, in the same way as the places mentioned (Trafalgar Square and Thames Embankment). The bus routes are not, though. The information about buses might be useful but I fail to see how it is relevant to 'Geography'. Dubmill (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is you'd then be left with a single section containing one sentence, which are discouraged. (See Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well one solution would be to have a section called 'Transport', as is common in articles about places. That section could then contain the information about Tube stations and buses, written as two sentences. I said that Tube stations could be thought of as relating to 'Geography' but it's still a bit of a stretch. Furthermore, the information about the Olympics and Paralympics, which as I said is not a cultural reference, could be removed from that section and appear under a section heading titled '2012 Olympics and Paralympics'. The information as it stands totals two sentences so that would not be a problem. NB I'd prefer to see the Olympics info gone as I don't think it is important to this topic, but you have already made it plain that you think it should stay. I'd be less unhappy if the information appeared under an appropriate heading. Dubmill (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

My only comment regarding the reference to the Olympics route is that perhaps it is a "recentism", as at the time it was obviously a very notable event (cultural as well as sporting) and the fact that Northumberland Avenue formed part of the route was worth mentioning. I don't see the harm in it remaining in the article, myself, but perhaps it is less relevant today than it was five years ago. --TBM10 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I did try and split "Geography / Transport" in the past, but it just seemed to leave sections too short. The basic idea I now have is that "Geography" covers the basics for people who aren't familiar with the street and just want to know where it is, while "History" and subsequent sections are for the more eager reader who knows the basic information and wants to find out more. Alternatively, Denmark Street calls the "Geography" subsection "Location", so we could go with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think 'Location' is better than 'Geography'. I note that the Denmark Street page does not mention buses. That makes sense to me because, as already stated, buses are not part of the location but are things that pass through it. Tube stations, on the other hand, are buildings, and are thus part of the location. You didn't comment on the other issue, the Olympics. To repeat what I said in my previous comment, I think this information, if it is to remain, should appear under its own heading. That's because the section 'Cultural references' as currently titled should only contain things that refer to Northumberland Avenue. While the Olympic marathon events passed through the street, they are not a reference to it. Dubmill (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it to "Location" as we have both consensus and consistency for that. Regarding the Olympics, I don't see a strong consensus to do anything with it, and I prefer to err on the side of inclusion if there's not a clear rationale one way or the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Having given the matter further thought, I no longer see the need to remove the information about the Olympics. I am happy with its continuing inclusion, but, as I said, it is not a cultural reference to Northumberland Avenue, but rather something that took place there. For that reason I think the existing information should either appear under its own heading, or, alternatively, if you object to that, a different title should be found for the section 'Cultural references', i.e. something that is applicable to all the content appearing under the heading. Dubmill (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Potential bureaucrat

I think you should request a nomination to become a bureaucrat. You would do quite well in the role. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you're not the first person to ask this, I'm going to take the advice I have given to others and started a poll on WP:ORCP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has closed the poll with far more detail than I would. And the bottom line is - I don't think there's much point in me running for 'cratship as I'm not boring enough. Now as for when FIM is going to file his RfA .... answers on a postcard Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

But if you were a 'crat I could address you as Your Cratship, and occasionally mistype it as Your Crapshit. EEng 14:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Abuse filter FYI

When you hide filter details from public view, the name of the filter is still visible, and it can be semi-easily found by anyone that triggers the filter. A filter name like the original one you used for filter 843 is not the best idea, since it may put off any editor who happens to be caught in a false positive. I altered the name a bit to be less accusatory. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me remember what filter 843 is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You remember. After that incident with... the hitchhiking Supreme Court justice. EEng 14:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection for The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

Hi. I was scanning the list of requested edits, and I noticed that you indefinitely fully-protected The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Was this intentional? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Good grief, absolutely not. In fact, you should never indefinitely fully-protect anything in mainspace beyond a few things like Main Page. Looking at the history, I think what I intended to do was to semi-protect the article for 24 hours, and just wasn't paying attention. There is no way I would have wanted to do more than that. I can't believe it's been locked since 23 March and nobody's pinged me! Anyway, unprotected. Feel free to put this in the Wikipedia:Village stocks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I see you already did – but I thought there was a policy somewhere that says admins are allowed one mistake per year. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Glory hog! That deserved a trout, maybe even a whale, but it doesn't seem to rank with the the truly spectacular sins listed there. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If you can't laugh at your own stupidity, the peanut gallery at ANI will do it for you :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible discussion of interest

Based on your statements in the recent RfA, I don't believe it is canvassing to alert you to this. I have started a discussion related to the DId you know template, specifically, moving it from "Full protection" to "Template protection". Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 2 years ago...

Wishing Ritchie333/Archive 58 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your RfA records page is missing an entry

Hi there! I just wanted to let you know that your list at User:Ritchie333/RfA is out of date slightly, it is missing CaroleHenson (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CaroleHenson). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Basically I'm keeping that one quiet until Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CaroleHenson 2 passes with flying colours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Walter van Dyk

Had to disagree with you on that tagging. I know PR creations are a scorn in Wikipedia's side but as long as G11 only applies to spammy text and not spammy intent, speedy deletion is not a solution. And quite honestly, if the community has accepted a page to exist for 9 years, deleting it without community discussion seems against the spirit of CSD anyway. Feel free to take it to AFD if you believe it's necessary but I think just removing the body text would solve the problem as well while leaving a valid stub, so you might want to consider just doing that. Regards SoWhy 19:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have checked the majority of the article's history, and most of it is an unsourced BLP violation. The best revision is this one by Drmies that has been the only obvious improvement and sourcing, and even that is making the most of a bad job. I do not believe it would harm the encyclopaedia to delete this and recreate a new stub as soon as somebody could be bothered. Also paging Iridescent who added the PROD tag. I don't think the community has been so much content as completely unaware. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Man, that is one big fat fluffy BLP. Yeah, I don't know about speedy deletion; still, I don't know if I was ruthless enough in 2010. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If push comes to shove I can gut the article and rewrite it, just .... "why me"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not somebody else's problem Regards SoWhy 20:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as one of our esteemed arbitrators appears to think that "has reference" is grounds for keeping a mess like this, you're on your own with this one as if I get involved I'll say something I'll regret. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(bangs head on desk repeatedly) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The same person also thinks the 9-word stub at Head V is "easily expandable". I'd like to see them try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.232 (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

And also removes BLPPRODs without adding a reference. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I often decline speedies like this, but usually with an edit summary of "decline A7, try PROD / AfD" and it simply means I'd rather kick the deletion procedure into the long grass for a few days, and often turn up to the subsequent AfD to !vote "delete" too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Except it wasn't a speedy DGG declined on the grounds of "has references", it was a WP:PROD complete with lengthy explanation of why the existing referencing wasn't adequate. While those of you who have my talkpage watchlisted will know that I have very limited patience for people who make up their own deletion criteria and then try to use them to get articles deleted, I have equally limited patience for people who make up their own notability criteria and then try to use them to get articles saved, especially coming from a current arb who is at least theoretically supposed to uphold Wikipedia policy rather than their personal opinion of what Wikipedia policy should be. ‑ Iridescent 16:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

the synchronicity-- it burns<<laughs hysterically and runs off stage left>>Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

At least one positive outcome of the G11 tag is we now have official confirmation here that van Dyk has been writing his own article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

there's a distinction between what I do as an admin in closing an Afd, what I do in removing a prod tag--which is not an admin decision,and what arguments I make. I have never closed an AfD or done any other admin decision on the basis of my own opinion only, but always on the basis of what I believe is the standard consensus. ( If I do not for some reason feel I can honestly close it, I leave it for someone else, and I have many times closed against my expressed opinion.) In declining to delete a prod, I decline all prods which I think for any reason need to be considered more broadly at AfD, whether or not I agree that they ought to be deleted.

Declining a prod on the basis of "has references" is shorthand, for has sufficient references to possibly be notable. Anyone, even an admin, is justified in removing an ordinary Prod for any reason at all, whether they believe it should not be deleted at all, or because they think it needs a further discussion, or because one is is unsure of what should be done. I always decline prods if I think the argument invalid. Anythimg else would be deleting on my own opinion, which I do not do. The argument at that prod was "This obvious autobiography or paid-editing PR piece has been tagged as (almost) unreferenced for seven years now, and there comes a point when one has to assume the references won't be forthcoming". Saying it is references is an obvious reply to that.

Declining a BLP prod on the basis of "refs available in another WP" is I think absolutely legitimate. They do have to be added, but they do not have to be added immediately. Even an indirect reference defeats BLP prod. And finally, that another person chose to mark oy G11 is not official proof of anything, especially since another ed declined that also. There is actually, no "official proof " of anything around here. It's at AfD, and very likelyto be deleted. Even that doesn't prove anything, let alone prove anything officially.

More important is an apparent misunderstand of my position of promotionalism. I try as hard as I possibly can to remove promotionalism from WP by all legitimate means which have conesnsens, and argue for removing it by all legitimate means that I hope will have consensus. I have advocated repeatedly for mcuh more consistent and high standards here. I would support a speedy deletion criterion for "obvious undeclared paid editing", and I would even make it retrospective. (tho there is a practical difficulty about proving the obvious). I would furthermore support a change in policy to permit deletion for promotional intent, even without promotional content (though again, there are some practical difficulties here) I would in addition support a change in policy to ban paid editing in main space, even if declared. The only reason for not having done so years ago is for fear of forcing it underground, but so much is underground that I think that no longer valid.

But as an admin, I do none of these things when confronted with an article, unless I am sure it has consensus. As an arb, I feel it necessary to be extra careful about being as conservative as possible, in order to set a safe example. (Just as when I give advice, I give safe advice, not what I would like to have done). But even as an admin or arb or whatever, I argue in favor of what I think we ought to do in order to improve the encyclopedia . Most of what I say in that manner is very far from being conservative. There have been admins, who have crossed the line a little in their admin actions. I decided early on I would never be one, and if I have any made any slips that way, I correct them. I find it wierd to be blamed for being too conservative as an admin. That's the way admins need to be. And, since being an arb has been mentioned, as an arb, I will take whatever opportunity offers to say that. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

RFA question

I noticed CubeSat4U has only been with us since April - and yet, within the space of 5 weeks is already posting ridiculous boilerplate questions. What can we do about it? Aiken D 06:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating - he/she has never even voted in an RFA. Aiken D 06:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well calling them out on it is the first step, and if I need a follow-on, I can simply point them at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Mini-quiz UAA questions... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless I get an unexpected rush of "supports", I shall be withdrawing my RfA before too long. Before then, I would appreciate some responses to my comments in the "General comments" section at the bottom of the page. I am only posting this here because I suspect this talk page has many talk page stalkers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you some more pointers. As I said at the ORCP, you did badger me a bit to get a GA review finished so you could file it for the West Country Challenge. I don't wish to be rude, but your priorities are not mine and I would rather wait and do a proper job on the review than doing a rush to get the green blob. And if getting Andy Dingley and Redrose's feedback is beneficial to an article on a historic railway bridge in the West Country (and in my view it is), I don't see an issue with holding the review for that. A higher-quality article is always better than getting the WCC points and prizes; as I know there was money involved in the contest, you're effectively doing de facto paid advocacy. This is not good.

There is validity in what you say, and the article you mention was done in the course of a contest and therefore had a time constraint. I do not believe that particular article was representative of my articles in general, and I did not compete competitively in the WikiCup in 2016. I enter these contests because I enjoy the challenge and certainly don't consider I am involved in paid editing. I only remember one other occasion when I asked an editor to specifically review an article, and I do not remember ever asking for a review to be speeded up on any other occasion. So yes, on that occasion I was impatient to complete the review, and I am sorry if it has given you an indelibly bad opinion on my editing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, two DYK hooks I've complained about in the thread above this one had your hand in it, and I've got a feeling they are Wikicup-related.

I don't think so. I promoted Élizabeth Teissier after others had wrangled over it for months, and I promoted The Sixth Lie, using the only one of two approved hooks which I felt adequate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My conclusion therefore is you have a tendency to go for the quickest result rather than the right result. If you were an admin, this might manifest itself in taking reports at ANI / AN3 at face value and not considering WP:BOOMERANG cases. Example : "Experienced Eddie reverted my edit! He is a bully! Block him now!" where the filer is a brand-new editor who added a bunch of unsourced BLP violating libel. Or, let's say you're looking at reports on WP:ERRORS and TRM says an article queued for OTD tomorrow has a large unsourced section, you might be tempted to go and trim out all the unsourced content or simply pulling it entirely. As an alternative, to get Shrove Tuesday on the main page, I organised a couple of editors to go and retrospectively add sources for everything in the article. It's much harder work than pulling it from OTD, but it is a better result for the reader. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair comments, especially the first one, though I doubt I would ever block anyone except the most blatant of vandals. I hope that in time you will come to see that I am not the sort of person you seem to think I am. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I can't say I'm particularly excited to discover the the end result of your RfA matched more or less how I called it at the ORCP. However, these things are not set in stone and hopefully by recognising the issues and putting some distance between you and the Arbcom requests in particular, it is possible to turn this around. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, I came across this by complete accident just now. CubeSat4U was indefinitely blocked after an unusual sockpuppet case I opened. Two accounts with obvious troll usernames were mimicking each other, and upon investigation, CubeSat4U was determined to be their master. Home Lander (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

N216 article

Hi I just wanted to make it clear why I !voted keep for the above article. Originally it was simply because the road seemed to fulfill the WP:GEOROAD criteria and I didn't even make the connection between the jungle and this road until I carried out a google search to see if there were any mentions about it. I get the impression from your NPOV and AGF remarks that you may think I have an agenda or ulterior motives. When one says that one is assuming good faith this usually means that it is possible that there may be a lack of good faith. I'm not really very happy with that remark because when I found multiple sources about this road I added them because they exist and not for any other reason. I have a personal view about the Calais Jungle that would normally push me to not mention it and so add fodder to a certain category of person that uses these deaths for political motives, but I have been trying to be as objective as I can when editing WP and I know this road very well and when I realised that the article was about this road I could not in all honesty avoid adding the sources. This is why the AGF and NPOV remarks are slightly irking for me...just wanted to get that off my chest. Domdeparis (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I think you've misunderstood - as you can see I have withdrawn the AfD and expanded the article. The NPOV comment was relating to this version of the article as I found it, and what I mean by that is an article about a road that just says where it goes and what its exits are is rather missing the elephant in the room if all the reliable sources talk about is the migrant situation. From my experience, WP:GEOROAD works because most major highways meet WP:GNG anyway when sources discuss funding, political motivation, protests, accidents and congestion. The AGF comment meant that while I wasn't sure I could write a detailed article on this topic (hence starting the AfD), I was happy to believe that other people could, and we would end up with an article in reasonable shape. I think you've been very helpful in digging out sources and working to improve the article from its state as a pitiful stub.

On a personal level, I have travelled on the road several times, but it doesn't raise any particularly strong memories when compared to, say, queuing for the Blackwall Tunnel or the Dartford Crossing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clearing that up. I used to work for the Eurostar when it first got up and running and even did the inauguration trip with Mitterand aboard and was always impressed by the security fences and cameras as I came up to the tunnel but to see CRS riot police in full gear lining the road, a double fence 5m high with razor wire on top reminded me more of the Berlin wall on the East side that I was able to experience 1st hand when visiting my regiment as a potential officer in 1986. Domdeparis (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Rastafari

No problem. It's Til Eulenspiegel, a persistent sock. Thanks for helping. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: We seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one - semi protection of the talk page will shut out innocent users wanting to comment, a single block will just get evaded immediately, and a suitable rangeblock will have too much collateral. I don't really know what other options we have - I have requested the WMF implement a "block from page" and then we could rangeblock for just the talk page as the collateral damage would be limited. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

An interesting idea. I'll admit I have blocked talk pages myself a couple of times when the only IPs have been trolls/vandals/socks.[2] One thing that I understand can be done is to set up a subpage IPs can edit. Not sure where I read that. Off to bed now. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about rev/del for the edit summaries, as requested on the talk page? There are times when I think it's worth leaving evidence of disruption, but then Admins can see it anyway. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it'll make much difference myself, but the edit summaries and content does seem to meet the revdel criteria, being full of personal attacks and profanity, so I've done that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Undelete Adodo Anselm, OSB

Kindly undelete the page Adodo Anselm, OSB. I want to use it as a redirect to Anselm Adodo Bujojohn (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

As you requested the page to be deleted by blanking it (or appeared to), it is uncontroversial to restore this, so I have done so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Home Lander

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@Home Lander: That is far beyond my paygrade; I think you need to email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, think something crossed between us. My only message to you here was this one, never sent you an email! Home Lander (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It's me who sent you an email (and posted the 'You've got mail' ping, sorry for that). Would you please check it out and reply via email, when possible? Thanks, Inkerifi (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

Are you online now if I send you an email? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am on lunch break right now, so better make it quick, as I've got a Linux box that just will not install Moodle correctly.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to ask you for some help, but I sorted things out myself in the end. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay - please tell me the help wasn't "should I file an RfA this afternoon?" Ummm ..... I'm going to have a long and hard think about that - the lengthy comment I wrote at the ORCP is pretty much an "oppose" but I think you would do a lot of good work as an admin, so I'm going to keep an open mind. Good luck! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually the help was to do with the transclusion process, which I thought difficult and poorly-explained, but perhaps it is purposely made hard to prevent timewasters having a go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. I messed mine up and had to have my nominator straighten it out. Nobody seemed to hold it against me. The instructions are (to put it mildly) unclear. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion is made to sound harder than it is. Most of it is exactly the same as what you do on step 3 of an AfD. The only tricky bit, which IMHO has been made to sound more complicated by the documentation is the presence of Template:RfA/time. Basically, if you substitute that template, it will produce a timestamp exactly 7 days from now - if you don't substitute it but just transclude it normally, you get the instructions. Here's the transcluded version {{RfA/time}} -> and here's the substituted version : {{subst:RfA/time}}-> 18:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Pretty straight forward stuff. This is done so that all candidates are pretty much guaranteed to run the correct minimum length of time. I think the recommended procedure is to transclude in WP:RFA and then immediately substitute RfA/time, as that ensures you are erring on the side of the RfA taking longer so everyone is ensured a say. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a test, as in: if you can't correctly follow this instruction that concerns a basic Wikipedia process, you're unlikely to have the understanding and experience that we expect of an admin. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Where's the desysop jail? I'll go quietly, officer. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

My nominator is far more conversant with technical stuff than I am, but I had to call out instructions over my shoulder about transclusion while typing my answers to the questions after I saw the RfA had been created. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Above & Beyond Nightclub

My article clearly tells you what the article is about why did you tag my article wrongfully. Its clearly about a club which you had to know because the tag u put on it even says its a club! (Theholybibleman (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

There are hundreds and thousands of clubs worldwide. Why is this one important for a global encyclopedia? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not understanding....

...why Prod? The article has no sources, it's a state contest that involves grades k-12 which doesn't meet GNG requirements for notability. Add to that, the fact we're working on a growing backlog at NPR, partly because of unsourced articles like this one. Look forward to reading your response. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Atsme: The article had a credible claim of significance (in this case, being sponsored by a notable newspaper). Not having any sources is irrelevant for A7. You may want to read Ritchie's guide to A7. Adam9007 (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam9007 - Ritchie's A7 guide cleared up my confusion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know really know what to do about the growing backlog at NPP other than just get more aggressive with the speedying, which isn't fair on those trying to put articles through. The other thought is to kick stuff into draftspace more often, which then expire after six months if not updated to an acceptable standard, and another is to go through and automatically grant autopatrolled editors who obviously know how to create an acceptable article from scratch without waiting for them to apply. If there was some way of working out why so many people are still creating WP articles, we'd be in a better place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Already closed. Apparently you issued a credible death threat, and some of us collaborated. Death to whom, I'm unclear, unless DYK is a code for someone we all mutually have agreed to assassinate. Deary me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it's okay for admins to do whatever the hell they want. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it's okay for you to either be intentionally disruptive, or fail to understand standard idiomatic English. Unless you think we're planning to assassinate Walter van Dyk? Seriously, knock it off and go play whatever idiotic game you're playing with someone else. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This user (Joseph2302) has admitted that he is proud of deliberately vandalising Wikipedia (moving Ipswich Town F.C. to "Tractor scum"). He doesn't understand plain or common idiomatic English. It's clear he needs our help. Let's try to work with him to understand his issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the kind of "belittling" that's got The Rambling Man blocked so many times before.... Joseph2302 (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm genuinely concerned for you. Why would you be so happy to admit you vandalised Wikipedia for your own glory? And why would you drag three people to ANI for something as silly as to claim a "credible death threat" against ... DYK? I'm really worried that you might do something silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine, no issues here. You can stop belittling me. Let's get back to contributing positively to the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

After you. Please stop deliberately disrupting Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You're dredging up things from 1.5+ years ago. You've been blocked 4 times since that. Which begs the question on who's the more positive Wikipedia editor? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You're disrupting Wikipedia today, what are you talking about "credible death threats"? You also claim to be proud that you vandalistically moved a page to "Tractor scum". That's freakishly odd. Please don't do that again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Joseph, drop it. You've made a fool of yourself - stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. Bencherlite^Talk 21:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Sometimes people don't agree, that doesn't make you wrong though. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You are the one casting stones with your absurd accusations about death threats. And, as demonstrated by TRM, you are not without sin. Take your own advice and get back to contributing positively to the encyclopedia. Lepricavark (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I love that J2302 linked Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, in case someone doesn't know what it means. If he opened the ANI thread as a joke, it was a beautiful piece of satire; if he actually meant it seriously, then it was an unfortunate piece of unintentional self-parody. EEng 22:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be obvious which one of those two scenarios is the real case. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll revise my original dichotomy, which wasn't well thought through. The right choice is a joke vs. trolling, and between those two I really can't decide. I want you to try a thought experiment: imagine how much better that would have gone had you, instead of opening an ANI thread, had issued a faux "warning" on the "taken out and shot" thread itself. Do you see how off your execution was (if you'll pardon the choice of words)? EEng 22:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I missed the conversation; I was in the studio trying to work out how to play the guitar line to "Wring That Neck" but I'd better not mention that here in case somebody accuses me of wanting to strangle someone.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As for me, "shoulda learned to play the guitar/shoulda learned to play them drums". But the song playing in my head right now is Skynyrd's "That Smell". Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Good thing you weren't practising "Burn The Witch"... Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Heh. Never eard that song before. Lovely.Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Just gonna leave this here and wait for the inevitable ANI thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)