This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
we would like to know what we should do to complete this process.
Hi Ritchie,
Thank you very much for your support.
We first created the Wikipedia page on 6th of Jan. 2020.
Then we received the message regarding the copyright infringement from Wikipedia.*
It seems that this wikitia site was created after we uploaded our first text on July 6th.
Everything in our current contents is written by us in our original words and we would like to know what we should do to complete this process.
I have restored the article to Draft:Wakako_Kaku .
I'm not good at English. I am asking my friends for help with some advanced issues. And a friend is writing. So friends use " We ". It is " I ", not " We ". Castor KakuWakako (talk) @ 10:29:26, 22 January 2020(UTC)
On 22 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Terry Jones, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure that PROD refund forbids CSD here for what is a clear A7. Sorry, but that was a weird decline that makes no sense to me, especially since a non-creator of the article that refunds can't know what was the content of the article before it was deleted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't remember what policy is, but if somebody has requested restoration, and an admin has granted it, it's probably too controversial to just speedy again, otherwise we'll be back to square one. You can try AfD, but I can see a heck of a lot of Korean sources which made me disinclined to file the debate myself. The restoration was requested by Ricandersen (talk·contribs) with the rationale "I suspect this is a legititmate Korean newspaper (I work in the House of Representatives press gallery), and their twitter account has 186k followers."Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Pauley Parrette came on ON TWITTER[1], the source was sited in one of the edits. Please tell me why there is a blatant disrespect for the asexual community by not including this in her Wikipedia page? We, as a community, need awareness, and I'm severely disappointed that this information was not kept on the page.
The word "ace" has many meanings and the tweet is therefore ambiguous. A completely unambiguous self-identification is needed to add that content, per WP:BLP, which is policy and non-negotiable. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
"Ace" is short for "asexual", and is a term that the asexual community uses to self identify. No one in the asexual community thinks this is too ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faeriefate (talk • contribs) 02:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
No one in the asexual community thinks this is too ambiguous But what about those outside the asexual community (who comprise the vast majority of the population)? Adam9007 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Faeriefate: "Please tell me why there is a blatant disrespect for the asexual community by not including this in her Wikipedia page?" I strongly identify with asexuality myself and have an account on the AVEN forums, though I have not posted there in some time. I protected Pauley Perrette because of the above thread where FlightTime asked me to and gave a convincing reason why - there was a dispute on the page that had real-world implications. Administrators do not take sides in disputes and simply take action to prevent further disruption. As Cullen328 says, a completely unambiguous self-identification, ideally in a neutral third-party source such as the New York Times, is needed. To give an analogous example, I believe Anne Widdecombe is asexual, but have no definitive proof beyond vague statements - so that claim has no place in her article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Nobody's being disruptive on the article (unless you count Neutralhomer adding her Twitter feed as a link as "disruptive", which I don't), so there's no reason to protect. If people are throwing personal attacks around and being blatantly incivil, we can sanction that, but as far as I can see, nobody is. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
That's nothing, it's probably six months since I cleaned the bath. Pass the Ajax.... anyway, @PamD:, can you remember what this draft was about - my opening summary just says "Reboot, PROF stub" - reboot from what? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You know something you'll never know is the number of times I just scream, I scream I do when I make changes and then some dullard with their titles (like you do, I mean what does admin mean really? IRL you;re just someone who indentures themselves to do freework so multimillionaire Jimbo can take their hols in Davos), comes along and suddenly have a real need to change it. But never before.
NEVER BEFORE! Funny that. Like it's almost they didn;t see it. But when it happens, BOOM! Like an OCD twitcher with too much caffeine they have to meddle.
6,000,000 articles. GTFOH! Something like 75% of fresh edits is added content by IPs. The rest of you are just keepers of the seal. Protecting their little truth, lie or opinion.
It didn't go over my head, it's just the manual of style for jargon says to avoid technical terms : "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do" In particular, it drives me up the wall when people write "utilised" when "used" is perfectly understandable. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
As you are aware, I've reverted your turning of a perfectly valid article into a redirect. It is most emphatically not a "duplicate of Ashford International railway station". That article is about the SER's original station, and its subsequent history. Ashford West was the LCDR's original station. Closed to passengers after the two companies agreed to work together as the SE&CR. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I've been expanding Ashford International railway station (which is now a GA) and noticed most of the prose covering Ashford West's history seemed to be in both articles. So I thought I'd try a BRD, as you said. As it is, I've expanded the article a bit more and fleshed out some history. There's no trace of the station nowadays, it's been completely obliterated and it was only through reading up old books that I even knew of its existence. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
May I suggest a cull of AW material from the AI article? There is a diagram at Ashford Steam Centre which could possibly be incorporated into both articles to show the relationship between the stations. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
There isn't much in the main Ashford Intl article; now Ashford West has been expanded a bit, this should be less of an issue. There are a few more tidbits to pull out of Mitchell - Smith, but it's difficult to find information on a station that lasted 15 years and was defunct before the 20th century. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
DLR Victoria
Hello, you reverted a section I deleted from London Victoria station - querying 'who did this'?
My edit summary makes that clear - "Much reduced section on DLR, given there are no current/potential plans for this."
As part of my edit, I searched for any recent updates regarding DLR to Victoria. The Mayor's Transport Strategy has nothing in it regarding future DLR extensions west - whether to Victoria or otherwise. The Horizon 2050 document only mentions the potential of closing Tower Gateway, nothing more.
All citations were at least 8 years old and referred to previous proposals. I can massively cut it down if you'd prefer? Seems silly to 'encourage' that idea that a DLR extension could be coming to Victoria, when there's nothing on the horizon/planned.
I'd appreciate a look at the other changes I made, too. :)
@Ritchie333: Understandable - however at present it just seems to be far too much unnecessary detail - how does In the early 2010s, the Docklands Light Railway was proposed to be linked with Victoria, one of the options of extension from the existing tunnels at Bank station. At the present time, this proposal is not part of the Mayor's Transport Strategy [with relevant citations] sound? Still providing the gist of the current information, without the unnecessary detail? Turini2 (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I've just trimmed the prose down (probably while you were writing this). If you want to just pop a sentence on the end saying, "as of year, these proposals are not being progressed" (with source), that should do. Speaking personally, I think a direct connection between Stratford International and Victoria would be great, connecting High Speed 1 to coach services while avoiding Central London. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh I see - I'll do that now. RE: DLR extensions generally, it's more likely that Canary Wharf will stump up the cash for a direct connection to Euston for HS2... Link Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) My 2p would be that it should probably be dropped altogether from the Victoria article. "Proposed extension of the DLR to Foo" is right up there with "proposed new line from Foo to Heathrow", "proposed reopening of the disused Foo Branch Line" and "proposed extension of the Oyster fare zones to Foo" as a perennial tactic of TfL to distract journalists' attention from the cancellation and overruns on existing projects. Unless there's any indication that TfL seriously considered this, rather than just Bob Kiley spitballing, it probably doesn't warrant inclusion in the Victoria article. (FWIW I find it vanishingly unlikely that TfL ever seriously considered an extension to Victoria instead of Waterloo, given that a Victoria extension would entail the construction of a brand-new deep level tube line, whereas a Waterloo extension would just mean taking over the Waterloo and City.) ‑ Iridescent17:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting tidbit; provided it is reliably sourced and given the correct weight in the article, it doesn't cause an issue being there. By analogy, the electrification of the Marshlink line is a perennial proposal (and a vote-grabbing device for Amber Rudd) that doesn't really look likely to happen and doesn't have much sourcing beyond local news speculation, but it's still worth mentioning it in context. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Details of the different Led zep songs having plagiarism scandals are here and it shows it's songs from different albums, that's why I placed these albums in the category before you cancelled my edit:
Dear Ritchie333, first of all this article has no Notability issue. there is a reference of times of India. also it is clearly proved that this person Agnel Roman is known music composer in Indian film industry. also the last version of this article was different from the deleted version so it is not WP:G4 either. so now with all the respect towards admins and the Wikipedia community i am, asking you that pleas make this article live and guide me future.
I just wanted to reach out because I noticed you ended up deleting the Rachel Rossi page I created. It was first tagged for deletion and you were able to edit and fix. Thank you so much for that! However, it was then tagged again for speedy deletion because of the amount of content. I was in the process of doing my research and getting more information with sources that could verify the information. However, the page has now been fully deleted. Is there anything I can do at this point? It was my first page I created. I am still very new here and I hope I can still salvage the article. Thanks so much! Have a wonderful day either way and thanks so much for helping me fix my initial faults the first time around!
@Braven562: As you saw, I declined the original G11 ("unambigious advertising") tag on Rachel Rossi because I believed the article was possible to improve and started cleaning it up (and asking Megalibrarygirl, who is experienced at cleaning up articles like these, for assistance). Unfortunately, Natureium (hey, welcome back!) then noticed the text was directly copied from https://www.cohen-williams.com/people/rachel-rossi so it had to be deleted for legal reasons. We cannot simply copy other websites' text onto Wikipedia articles because we use a very specific type of free documentation licence - User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios has further information.
This refers to an AfD a month ago, which is not helpful for querying your in-depth thoughts, but I was wondering about it. Your base consideration of NC seems correct. However, from there, did you consider WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which as the subject was requesting deletion, would have an NC default to delete. I'm aware that that particular bit of BLP policy has so many caveats that you certainly could reject it, but I was interested in whether you did or, if not, what your thoughts are about its applicability now?
@Nosebagbear: The problem in this case is that the "no consensus" was more because the AfD had undergone several relists and ground to a halt, rather than everybody disagreeing on whether we should have an article, which is what I interpret the "no rough consensus" part of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to mean. In particular, the first four keep !votes, particularly GiantSnowman's "made 30+ professional appearances in the USL First Division with Carolina RailHawks" take the subject out of the "low profile individual" area that BLPREQUESTDELETE covers. Actually, in retrospect, the only person other than you who really wanted the article gone and gave a good argument was Levivich; I think with one more actual "keep" vote on the final relist, I'd have closed it as that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I thought I'd help out by putting together a draft that you guys and other admin can copy-and-paste when closing AfDs: {{subst:Afd top|The result was '''no consensus''' due to User:Levivich not agreeing.}} ~~~~ – Levivich05:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
IF LEVIVICH DOES NOT AGREE CLOSE THE DEBATE WITH A "NC" Burma-shave
Though I get why you made this edit, there's a bit of an irony that you asked if the editor was an arbitration committee clerk. Technically since there was no urgency to make the revert (as you restored a typo on what was supposed to be a closing </s> tag, arguably there's a better ignore-all-rules case for that one portion of the original edit than yours), you too should have notified a clerk and let them proceed... (The other changes were indeed pointless.) I don't think anyone other than perhaps the original editor will mind; your edit summary was just a bit disconcerting given the context. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
It was more that the edit reformatted Maxim's signature, which is generally frowned upon. If there's a typo, I can't see it; the diff is like looking for a needle in the proverbial haystack. I am pretty convinced that Anomalocaris has been around long enough to know what Arbcom is, and will take the light-hearted comment (and the note on his talk) in the spirit intended. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell it changed the markup but not the appearance... There's a missing slash, so the strikeout extends to the "Comments" heading at the bottom of the page. It's not readily apparent since only that heading is affected. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
CodeLyoko is active right now, maybe he can fix it. I understand why case pages shouldn't be edited, and why they can't be full-protected as the clerks can't edit them, but I guess minor formatting tweaks should be excused. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Non-semantic markup is not preferred. Considering the analogous situation with a word processor: think about the difference between using a paragraph style versus manually highlighting and setting the text options for a bunch of text. With the first approach, you can easily change the appearance of all paragraphs using that style. Of course, here we're talking about an individual one-off style setting. But since most people don't write HTML manually (I do, but I'm old school), deprecating the <font> tag is a reasonable decision. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
IF YOU FORMAT A LIVE CASE PAGE THE ARBCOM CLERKS MAY ROAR WITH RAGE Burma-shave
Hi Ritchie. Would you mind applying your revdel magic wand to this edit, probably under RD2. Even though it's not a BLP, it's clearly overtly offensive?
Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs! ♦ Dr. Blofeld11:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Rich. Are you OK, you haven't seemed yourself last six months or so. I thought we'd lost you as a contributor for a while and you're one of our most valuable editors on London topics!♦ Dr. Blofeld08:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. I'm really hesitant to dispute an AFD close, and it's not something I'd normally do, but I wonder if you'd consider taking another look at this one.
Your close justification was that Consensus is the work done by Lightburst has shown the article can be improved and should be retained however I don't really see any such consensus in the discussion.
Lightburst !voted first, stating that he'd (re-)added some sources. I then !voted, giving what I think is a fairly thorough breakdown of why those sources are insufficient. The original nominator concurred, and said they had made the same assessment. There were two further !votes, neither of which addressed either my or Lighbursts comments: the first was essentially an explicit 'ignore policy, use common sense' argument which I hope would not factor too heavily into the closing, and the second appeared to put forward a different argument which was that given the name changes, more sources could be found, though no actual sources were provided.
As I see it, there's still no consensus either way and my delete argument remains unrefuted, so another week of discussion with some additional contributions could have made this clearer. I'd also add that all three of the keep !voters are members of the WP:ARS with a history of voting as a block so, while that of course doesn't discount their votes, it does (in my mind) add to an argument for relisting in the hope of getting some comments from a slightly broader range of AFD participants.
Following the BHG case, one has to be careful what one says. Here's how Sir Humphrey put it in a recent memorial for Derek Fowlds.
...there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
You see, Hugsyrup says above "though no actual sources were provided". I spent some time reseaching that topic and clearly specified a detailed source in the discussion:- State Library of Massachusetts. This provides good early history for the topic such as
The Patent Scaffolding Company was founded in New York City in 1909 by consolidating the construction equipment firms of Pitou, Beinecke and Davidson. That year, Patent Scaffolding introduced a new heavy-duty scaffolding system that represented a significant advancement for building construction safety. In the 1920s the company was among the pioneers in producing lightweight tubular steel scaffolding in the United States...
So, as there seems to be some misunderstanding, Ritchie should please restore his close.
I don't think it'll harm the encyclopedia too much having it listed for another week. If your research and Lightburst's improvements have merit, other editors will agree, !vote "keep" and make the closure more obvious. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie – I just noticed on my watchlist your reversion of an IP on the above, regarding the composition of "LONDON S.R." from 1970, and realised that when I wrote that bit I introduced an error which the IP has corrected. LONDON S.R. consisted of the stations listed in the sentence following it, and of course (as I've just remembered!) Charing Cross and Victoria are not south of the Thames. What I think I meant to write was something like "south of central London". I will have to check tonight what exactly was written in the Feb 2011 TTS Journal; I can check some old BR Fares Manuals from that era as well to see how they describe it. Sorry for introducing that error some time ago! I'll edit to fix it later this evening. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)15:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hassocks5489: Okay, that makes sense. Obviously, if a random unregistered editor changes something cited to a reliable source in featured content, it's logical to revert and force a discussion. This has happened a few times recently (eg: new Eurostar stock beginning regular service at Ashford International, and Curious Brewery being renamed to Curious Brewing - in both cases, somebody's personal knowledge was ahead of reliable sources, and indeed, visible advertising). And yes, Charing X and Victoria are most definitely not south of the Thames, as demonstrated by me saying "Hey, look - there's the London Eye out there, what else can you see" when approaching either station with my kids. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I've put a note on the talk page of the article detailing the changes and their reasons. As ever, ticket and fare collection topics prove to be unnecessarily complex!! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)18:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
A coati, fondly called as aardvarks by wikipedians
Hi. Long time no talk. I hope you are doing well. I am currently working on something. For that I am looking for verifiable incidents, in which incorrect information from Wikipedia (preferably enwiki) was circulated as fact, either on Internet or off the internet. A few weeks ago I read a mainspace article listing a few incidents like this. But now I cant find that article. Howerver, I came across Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Less than one year among few others. I am looking for incidents similar to one mentioned on Reliability of Wikipedia:
A South American coati. In July 2008, a 17-year-old student added an invented nickname to the Wikipedia article coati as a private joke, saying that coatis were also known as "Brazilian aardvarks". The false information lasted for six years in Wikipedia and came to be propagated by hundreds of websites, several newspapers (one of which was later cited as a source in Wikipedia), and even books published by a few university presses.[1][2]
I am not asking for a a lot of search/work, just somewhere on enwiki where I can find such information (any namespace). Also, I am not looking for "circular referencing" either.
On 6 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mollie Hughes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mollie Hughes is the youngest woman to ski solo to the South Pole? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mollie Hughes. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mollie Hughes), 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.
Probably not, but he's related to this bunch of socks plugging his self-published book. Unfortunately {{db-g11}} doesn't give scope for pointing out the self-promotional pointers left lying all around. Sitting through 6 minutes of YouTube self promotion to find the source of File:BulsaraRainforestReading.gif may have stripped any residual doubt from my view. Cabayi (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Understanding U5
Hi, you reverted my WP:U5 template on User:Batstreet Boyz/sandbox with the edit summary, "decline speedy, the polar opposite of a U5".
Please explain: what is it about a fake article on a fictional TV programme stated to be made in a fictional country 50 years in the future, as an editor's sole edit, that is the opposite of U5?
@Fayenatic london: I think Boing! said Zebedee or Iridescent would be able to give you a better idea of this, but as far as I know, WP:U5 was designed for random writing or screeds that did not resemble an encyclopedia article at all. This did, so I don't believe it was a page that the criteria was designed for. I didn't check the veracity of it, and if it is a hoax, then WP:G3 is the correct deletion rationale, not U5. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
U5 can sometimes apply to things resembling genuine articles if they undoubtedly fall under "obvious misuse of Wikipedia as a web host"; the canonical example (which happens with clockwork-like regularity at the start of each sports season) would be people copy-pasting genuine articles on sports seasons to use as templates for hosting the results of their fantasy football league. User:Batstreet Boyz/sandbox looks to me like someone experimenting in their userspace with wikimarkup and layout using intentionally obviously fake material precisely to avoid any possibility that people will mistake it for a genuine article. I'd say that it was harmless enough that I personally wouldn't have bothered about it, but if it was to be deleted then U5 was the correct category. (Ritchie, I don't get what you mean by "I didn't check the veracity of it". The very first sentence was Lukas is an Atlasian animated comedy/drama that premiered on Fox TV on September 18, 2068; was the fact that it was about a non-existent country and dated 50 years in the future not a giveaway that this was unlikely to be true?) ‑ Iridescent13:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You recently deleted the article Adewale Aladejana on the basis of been recreated, I want you to know that there is a lot of improvement on the article from the previously deleted one and the article has a lot of qualified sources which shows notability. The article was recreated with improvement and modification from the previously deleted one and as such should not be deleted on that basis. And if I did something else wrong, I would love to know how to correct it and get your advice on what to do to create the article again.Kojomo (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Kojomo: In my view, the article as present in the deletion debate and the one recently deleted had roughly the same amount of content and the same level of sourcing (the original version in fact had more sources). The best option would be to restore to a draft page where it can be reviewed independently, which should surpass the original consensus to delete. Do you want to do this? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Thank you. Just so you know I am open to learning, I will like your advice on the necessary things to do to put the article in order, better still, I would appreciate if you can assist in helping to improve the page whichever way you can. Thanks for your effort thus far.Kojomo (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. User @Krish990 is edit warring Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke television series since a long time stating Kaveri Priyam and Rithvik Arora also as main leads along with Shaheer Sheikh and Rhea Sharma while they originally play pivotal role as stated by many reliable sources while the sources he uses to prove his point are non reliable ones. Despite discussing in talk page Talk:Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke with reliable sources as a proof for it, he is just editing back again and again, being stubborn in his point itself stating the former two also as lead of the series. Despite him being blocked for some time by you earlier, it again continues. Could you help in this matter? Noobie anonymous (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Ritchie, I avoid film and tv articles on Wikipedia, and I avoid romcoms in RL too; not to mentioned I'm dreadfully busy in RL at the moment...RegentsPark, do you have time to spare? Vanamonde (Talk)17:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know - I took TFFfan at face value as a new user. I'm not sure what Women in Red is and I'm still undecided as to whether I'd have time to properly carry out admin duties, so please don't rush into any nomination. Katharineamy (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Katharineamy: To cut a long story short, I can see you have semi-regularly contributed to Wikipedia for about the last 15 years, but not really in any back-end areas, and most of your recent edits seem to be tinkering around with categories, without much participation in the project space or things like deletion debates. So I don't really think adminship is a good fit. I have to emphasise that it's not a trophy or status symbol and nobody will think anything less of you as an editor if you don't go for it. A brief synopsis of Women in Red is probably better given by one of the project regulars such as Rosiestep or Megalibrarygirl, but essentially it's a grass roots project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women and correct some of the systemic bias in the project. I do the odd article from time to time (see Mollie Hughes above) but there's plenty to do. The other nice thing about the project is everyone tends to work in harmony together towards a common goal, and there's not much evidence of the typical fisticuffs and argy-bargy you see on other project space. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Discussions and Resources
There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
Hi Ritchie I seem to have accidentally duplicated an article. Le Concert d’Astrée was a redirect to Emmanuelle Haïm until a few days ago, when I removed the redirect and wrote a new article. The trouble is it shows twice in my watchlist, once with no talk page and language links, and once with. Should I put one version up for deletion? I’m not quite sure how this happened (I’ve never ended a redirect before) so if I’ve done something troutworthy please let me know. Many thanks Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
_at_Parque_Nacional_da_Serra_dos_%C3%93rg%C3%A3os,_Teres%C3%B3polis,_Brazil.jpg)
