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.
Hey you deleted a page for a conlang called Pandunia. The page was somewhat in its infancy since the language was still somewhat new. Based on the discussion for the deletion page, it seems it was deleted because most of the sources were from the website for the conlang itself. However, it has gotten some academic discussion and, given the small size of the conlanging community (especially for auxlangs), it's kinda a major conlang. There's a lot of community support. I hope to do some work on it as well. I was wondering what the process would be to reconsider its deletion since I think it was unfairly deleted and the discussion seemed to be dominated by people who weren't very familiar with the conlanging community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr3ndyBEAR (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DGG were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Holly Butcher and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Holly Butcher, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Ritchie333!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: Having an article declined at AfC does highlight problems with the process, but with 140 GAs I think I'll cope. Anyway, what exactly is wrong with the article; every sentence is cited to a reputable source and written factually and neutrally. I didn't realise an admin with nearly 100,000 edits is "new", but there you go. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I apologize, but the real problem is the way our AfC templates work. I've asked many times for these templates to have a preview, so they can be edited before being sent--it would encourage people to actually look at them and modify them as needed. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The backward dates, I mean. I was wrong to insist they go forward and lead somewhere, despite still being right in retrospect. It may not have been difficult, with your suspiciously efficient superspeed, but the setup didn't seem easy. It was a dirty job that didn't need doing, but you did it for the community when everybody else left disappointed on a personal level. If you're ever running for Jimbo's spot, just know you deserve it more than the presumptive heir. He or she will still (presumably) take it, but knowing is half the battle, and half a battle won is impossible to lose. Keep up the medium fight! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It all boils down to a simple premise - administrators should be removing obstacles to make it easier for the encyclopedia to be improved. In the pre-bit days, I remember saying something like "I don't have a block button, all I've got is communication to make things work". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of simple, I'm a dolt. Meant to say this to Rich Farmbrough. On the bright side, you're also cool, just for different reasons! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Following the red link from Offensive Security Certified Professional to create the page, the following message was shown: "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. 15:44, February 28, 2017 Ritchie333 talk contribs deleted page Offensive Security (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"... So... here is first contact... I don't know what the article contained before, but it's preferable to start from something than nothing. Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Since a long time User:Krish990 consistently adds Rithvik Arora and Kaveri Priyam as Main leads along with the main leads Shaheer Sheikh and Rhea Sharma of Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke. Arora and Priyam actually play supporting role and not lead role which is even reflected in the category of their award won. Despite, he keeps specifying them as supporting role, he keeps them adding under main cast section stating their screentime while according to MOS:TVCAST they should come under recurring cast or supporting cast. Can you help me in stopping it as referred by User:RavensfireNoobie anonymous (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333, this is a continuation of this report. At that time, Krish990 was edit-warring against a different user, now blocked as a sock. They've made very few posts discussing this and don't really seem to be interested in anything other than their edit remaining. I blew up at Krish990 on their talk page and have back away and have zero interest in returning (sorry, just not worth the stress to deal with an editor that doesn't appear to want to collaborate). Noobie anonymous has tried discussing in a couple of places but there's no real change. Normally I'd suggest WP:DRN, but I'm just not sure if that's a viable option here. Just my thoughts... Ravensfire (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Revdel request
Hi Ritchie, could you revdel this addition please? I reverted this morning, but only just noticed that the editor included personal details in the post. Cheers. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Greg Herman (fashion designer), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
@User:Richie333. At 21:59 on 6 August 2018 you created a new section on the talk page of the former administrator User:Kudpung titled Baseless and shameful RfA votes[1]. Your edit began: I think it's off-topic for Jbh's RfA, but if somebody dragged Xxanthippe to ANI and proposed a one-way interaction ban with Megalibrarygirl, I would support it. You did not sign this edit but your edit history [2] shows that it was made by you. Can you advise me of the Wikipedia policies that led you to make this proposal for the interaction ban between myself and Megalibrarygirl? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC).
Xxanthippe, since you pinged me - knowing full well I am in semi-retirement - I would certainly be happy to chime in here on Ritchie's behalf. And while you're about it, could you please have the courtesy to finally explain why you found it necessary to mention Wikimania 2020 on the arbcom case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy invoked is Wikipedia:ADMINACCTAdministrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions…. Administrators should justify their actions when requested. Also the ArbCom ruling that led to the desysopping of Betacommand [3]Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions. I hope this answers your question. As an ArbCom clerk you have expertise in these matters. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC).
@Xxanthippe: I did not propose any interaction ban, I merely said if somebody else proposed one I would have thought it was a good idea, because you were being annoying and disruptive towards Megalibrarygirl and you needed to stop. There are no administrative actions here. I am currently taking a break from Wikipedia as I have more important things to think about in my life at the moment, such as making sure I still have a job and a place to live, and also making sure my parents don't die of either COVID 19, starvation, or something else caused by a lack of available healthcare. Frankly, if you are concerned about an opinion I stated 18 months ago over all that, you need to get some serious perspective. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I strongly deny that I was being annoying and disruptive towards Megalibrarygirl. I have had only a few interactions with her, and the ones I had were formal and courteous on both sides. Please justify your accusation with diffs or withdraw it. I am sorry that your affairs are being disrupted by COVID-19 pandemic. I am in much the same situation myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC).
Xxanthuppe the comment was in an ancient discussion that nobody was likely to look at again - I can't understand why you would choose to bring it up after 18 months, on what I imagine is one of the most-watched talk pages on Wikipedia. I don't think it's reasonable to ask Ritchie333 to dig through all the old discussions that led him to make that comment, especially at a time like this when he's got some very urgent other things going on. You're obviously unhappy about the comments, and I can't see any benefit to more attention than necessary being drawn to them, so I'd suggest you to agree to drop this and that this thread be quickly archived. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)10:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that in the present circumstances it is not reasonable to expect Richie333 to search history for evidence to support his allegation of 24 March. I think that the right thing for him to do is to withdraw the allegation until he is in a position to muster evidence to support it. If he does that then, for my part, I will consider the matter closed until he or anybody else chooses to reopen it. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC).
I think what is going on here is that the coronavirus-induced lockdowns, self-quarantines, fear for one's economic situation or one's own (or relatives') health is causing people to become tetchy and argumentative. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Ironically, I'm on the front lines of this and I've been pleasantly surprised how people have understood. We closed medical offices, consolidated care and shut down our corporate offices. Shit was nuts the first fewq days last week then it calmed down. Good points and yeah maybe it is an issue here to be mindful of. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Your 40 score for England will take some beating! Penny and Kosack are about to overtake you though in counties done! Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon/Scoreboard. I'm planning on running one for the SouthEast in May but only 10 days. I think it's best we run these contests for no more than 10 days in future and we can do more of them and remain comfortable doing it. It's difficult to commit to something every day for a month but 10 days you can really go for it and hope for the best. I'm thinking of doing two 10 day ones for the SouthEast and London in the summer.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Unfortunately, a major pandemic and financial and personal crisis is exactly the thing that would cause me to slam on the brakes and evaluate my priorities in life. Sorry. :-( Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a horrible time at the moment. Bad timing as you were doing so well. I'm doing twice the amount of exercise I normally do at the moment to stay focused and not feel depressed! The Destubathon is on target, it's been a fantastically beneficial thing. Good to hear from you.♦ Dr. Blofeld15:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I hardly think that warrants a ban, for one he didn't violate 3RR on Palme, also on the Spider-Man article, yes Flix broke the 3RR rule, however he was reverting someone who was adding unsourced content. I don't think he did that much wrong, a warning should of been more than enough, a ban seems excessive to me. Govvy (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
"Flix broke the 3RR rule, however he was reverting someone who was adding unsourced content - and since that's not one of the exemptions listed, a block is allowed per policy. See the related discussion here. Reverting content repeatedly without communication is disruptive, and blocking someone from editing that page for a duration to force them to discuss their differences is appropriate. (To clarify, he's not banned, he's simply blocked from editing The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series)). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This (especially brief) block should help facilitate article talk page discussion which, hopefully, will soon resolve this dispute amicably. El_C18:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@El C: Well, I reverted one IP twice, it never went to the talk page! Nor provided a source for me. Just looked disruptive on my watchlist. Govvy (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
In eaxh case, they were reverting material that had already been reverted by someone else, and in at least one case, was to be reverted again by someone else. And while WP:3RRNO obviously does not apply, when one editor is maintaining a s status quo that is clearly favoured by other editors, the simplest—and most popular, I'm sure—solution would have been a semi for the pages concerned and a note dropped on the over-enthusiastic ediotors talk. After all, just because something is allowed by policy doesn't make it the first resort. ——SN5412918:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
From me as well. Sorry to hear the fog has descended ... it does seem we live in especially uninspiring times of late. Go well. JG66 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm just baffled at how many times I've been templated bombed in the past week, having very rarely happened before. I know full well what that sort of treatment does to newcomers, and being repeatedly hit by it, even as an experienced editor, is disillusioning in the extreme. Combine that with my personal situation, and just amazed at how I've managed to (mostly) hold my tongue on this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go, Ritchie. I really hope this is just temporary and that you return someday. We regardless will miss you. Best regards, SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, removing dates and citations is vandalism. Edit summaries like “trim” and “undid edit” are not explanations. Moonraker (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
On 17 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oxford Circus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Oxford Circus was once London's busiest pedestrian crossing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Circus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Oxford Circus), 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.
Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius19:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peterbecker2000: The problem is that the Hammond organ article already has a lot of images and there's not too much space for any more. We could start a talk page discussion about which pictures to keep and which ones to leave out if that would help? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
You reverted an edit that I made (literally "one of the two" -> "the") on the page Old Kent Road. Your edit summary was, and I quote "disruptive". What are you smoking and can I get some?
You may think that the edit summary itself is "disruptive", but I fail to see how making a minor and sensible change to the article is. Which is clearer? Saying that this Monopoly property is "the" cheapest or "one of the two" cheapest? OK, so maybe it's the second cheapest? In which case why not say that? Ambiguity is bad mmmkay?
Now, I'm going to revert your revert. And if you don't like it, you'll take it to the talk page. I'll help you out, I'll start a section for you...
I don't think one revert is a disagreement; more a request to leave the status quo for a minute until we have a discussion about it. I'll have a read of the talk page thread and get back to you. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you find enough for a new article? Hope you're feeling well and not too stressed out for COVID right now! Blythe Road also looks like it could be worthy.† Encyclopædius19:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi Ritchie333, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Ritchie333, you previously said an article on the Who's Sell Out Tour wasn't necessary. However, there is a lot to say about the tour, including more information you didn't mention in your description on List of The Who tours and performances. If you like, I could start working on the article in a draft. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 19:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the tours were just gigs without specifically promoting an album; that concept didn't really exist. The '67 gigs (first US shows with Murray the K, Monterey, Smothers Brothers, Moon driving a car into a swimming pool[citation needed]) that predate the album were probably more significant than the gigs afterwards, which were just slogging it out through the US for much of the year building a fanbase, which ultimately succeeded. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Also, I said I'm working on the Who By Numbers tour in February. However, I lost interest shortly after, but now, I'm back to work on the article. It will be coming out within the month of June I predict. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 17:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333. I see you're back. I trust everything worked out OK for you. Did you find time to read the book? regards Docrobbie. Docrobbie (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I did. Very interesting book that sheds a bit of new light on some of my favourite keyboards. I'll certainly use it as a go-to source for any future improvements on articles in this area. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
You'll have to remind me what they are, but in a nutshell I would consider your book to be a reliable source and if anyone gives you a hard time over you being a subject expert, I'll have a word with them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. The articles I added Classic Keys to, as a bibliography entry, were the Wikipedia pages corresponding to each of the hero instruments featured in the book's chapters. Docrobbie (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Docrobbie: Okay, I've used the book to add some longstanding missing facts on Rhodes Piano just now, including production dates for the student models which I didn't previously have, and the distinction between the fibreglass and plastic tops. This looks like one of the most useful sources on this topic; hopefully I'll now get a couple of evenings to do a lot more on this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie333. I note that MrOllie has removed a Classic Keys reference from the (Hohner) Pianet page also. Rodak98 is the world authority on combo-organs, among other keyboard interests, and not one of the Classic Keys authors.Docrobbie (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello Ritchie333,
Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Discussions and Resources
A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
Regarding your edit here, I'd just like to mention that I find the whole rollback/undo process to be excessively complicated, and a clear case of feature creep. I'm sure I've misused them many times in the past. They are similar features, with names which give no indication of how they differ from each other. The idea that we would pillory somebody at RfA for incorrect use of these really just points out how bad the whole RfA process is. I know several excellent editors who work in project-management areas who would make excellent admins. I've made them offers to nominate them, but the answer is usually that they're not interested because they don't want to expose themselves to the sort of public abuse RfA is famous for. -- RoySmith(talk)13:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Reyk: Regading your comment here, I believe there was once an RfA, many years ago, where somebody hinted that maybe they preferred vanilla over chocolate ice cream, and people gave him a pass on it. It was a shocking lapse of community prudence. -- RoySmith(talk)13:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I agree with everything you said here. The problem I've had with Bbb23 is a) I don't get involved in sockpuppetry so I have no opinion on the quality of the work they do there except to trust other people that it is good, and b) On the handful of occasions I have communicated with Bbb23, I have discovered they tend to revert questions they don't want to answer. So I thought (albeit thought incorrectly, and Floquenbeam is on-point that my comment could be misconstrued as trolling) that asking a straightforward question where policy is ambiguous should get a straightforward answer; I just wasn't entirely confident of getting one. (And hence those answering for Bbb23 are kind of missing the point I was getting at). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I know you don't like rollback and don't use it Ritchie, but I think you're missing the point of the ROLLBACKUSE guideline. That's for when you use rollback with the generic, automatic edit summary that doesn't tell anyone why you are rolling back. If you replace it with your own edit summary, like Bbb23 did in the example you gave, it really doesn't matter if it's rollback, undo, or manual.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
And that's fine, and it's not normally a question I would think about asking. However, the editor who was reverted might well have cause to question it on Bbb23's talk page, and from my experience I would suspect the question to be reverted without comment. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Why was it declined?
"This criterion applies regardless of the quality of the page in question (see also Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad)."
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dwaro/Archive. Special:Log/block&page=User:Elfinshadow. Those two are CONFIRMED connected. Page was created in December 2019 and Elfinshadow was blocked in February 2019, therefore, it meets deletion criteria under "To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." Graywalls (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
A full search of Iridescent's talk page archives will reveal the full picture, and the criteria has been controversial since day one, but essentially, G5 developed from a shouting match between Jimbo Wales and Gregory Kohs of MyWikiBiz fame. Kohs kept writing articles about maybe notable businesses saying "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough", and an irritated Jimbo ban-hammered him. In the case of this article, I was interested in the topic and wanted to have a go at improving it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
What they said. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion (not some personal opinion I've just plucked out, but a verbatim quote from Wikipedia:Deletion policy). Given that the only occasions in which a page eligible for WP:G5 deletion would ever be obviously inappropriate are circumstances such as blatant spam or obvious vandalism, all of which are existing speedy deletion criteria in their own right, the circumstances in which it's necessary to use the G5 tag as anything other than an supplimentary tag as a courtesy to the reviewing admin that the page creator isn't in a position to address the issues that make the page eligible for G11 (or whatever) are vanishingly rare. If you find yourself using {{db-G5}} as a stand-alone deletion criterion more than once a year, then unless you're a checkuser or an employee of T&S you're almost certainly misusing it. ‑ Iridescent07:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion should only be reserved for unambiguous cases where the article hasn't got a chance of surviving an AfD and sending it there is a waste of everyone's time. That's not the case here. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the Meghan Trainor article (which you GA-reviewed) is currently FA nominated and I would appreciate any comments you could post there. Thank you.--NØ07:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
"A source must be permanently available"
Hey,
I noticed you removed a source in the London Paddington station article - a tv show - for "A source must be permanently available".
I was under the impression that isn't the case, as per WP:OFFLINE and other WP:RECENT details. The TV show has "made available to the public in some form", and therefore may be a valid source, that's why a previous editor added it! :)
Furthermore, you deleted information (such as Heathrow Connect) that can easily have been verified by clicking through to the relevant (reasonably well sourced) article. Again, I was under the impression that "material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged" should be attributed. Instead of deleting the information, a citation needed tag would have been more appropriate if you felt that it needed verifying? Best wishes, Turini2 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Ritchie333: I was trying to create wikipedia page of Yasser Desai where I found that the latest deletion was by you, I am Intending to recreate the page as I find sufficient wp:sigcov and wp:rs to pass wp:musicbio, can you please restore the last version of it so that I can re edit it in WP parameters. Thanks Dtt1Talk17:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
At a fairly early stage in the recent ANI discussion relating to Sirjohnperrot, I expressed support for a block. However, things moved on, and Sirjohnperrot did seem to make significant progress towards being willing to change, including accepting mentorship. I therefore think that giving him another chance is reasonable, and I considered withdrawing my support. Nevertheless, I have my doubts about the way you closed it. You started off saying that you "spent half an hour reading through this thread", and that having done so you were heading for "summing things up with a block". You then went on to say that you "went back through Sirjohnperrot's recent contributions", and that as a result of what you saw there, you decided to "close this thread with no further action at this stage". How is that not saying that what you saw in the discussion was a consensus to block, but that, on the basis of your own opinion, not on the basis of what you saw in that discussion, you decided to overrule that consensus? That is the way it looks to me, and if so then you should not have made the close, but should instead have contributed to the discussion, supporting closing without further action. JBW (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Originally I was planning to just leave a comment recommending no further action, which is why I made this correction (as I was no longer referring to something "above"). However, the thread's been open nearly a week, and I detected a distinct shift of opinion away from what the consensus earlier in the week. If you'd changed your mind, chances are other people were going to be thinking the same. And while we could gather more opinions and get a fresh consensus, I thought the simplest and easiest thing to do is just close it. If there's any problems down the line, well blocks are cheap. I think things have settled down now and we're up one productive editor, so I'm not expecting anything to happen. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
New to reviewing
Hello there! I see that you are a mentor for people who want to be helped in reviewing articles for GA status. I was looking to review one of the older nominations, Guy Ritchie. Would you mind assisting me on the review since this will be my first go at reviewing? ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️02:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mccunicano: Sure, I can help. I had a quick look at the article and aside from one dangling missing citation, everything seems to be referenced, and no source leaps out as being unsuitable, and the prose looks pretty readable and comprehensive, though I haven't read everything in depth. If you've got any further questions, let me know. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I added a review, everything on the GA List seemed to be in order aside from the missing reference. For future reviews, if there's just one issue standing out like that should I just be bold and fix it before reviewing? There's an article I found that mentions those Razzie awards the subject garnered [4]. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️23:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I tend to copyedit and fix stuff as I go along, stopping to ask questions where I'm not sure how to proceed. Other reviewers, such as The Rambling Man, prefer to leave comments for everything from dash fixes upwards. Either way is fine.
The review seems quite short at the moment. Although I enjoy picking up GA reviews where I am confident the nominator is a longtime writer and it's going to be good, there are always questions you can ask about the prose. For example, the opening sentence of the second paragraph says "film" three times in short succession; "his directorial debut in a feature film" could be rephrased as "his feature-length directorial debut". And do we need to list his marriages (particularly the second, to a non-notable person) in the lead? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion. I think I would prefer fixing any minor issues myself, while recommending some fixes to the nominator. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️00:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
