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.
Has anyone tried writing watching grass grow At the moment watching the grass grow is just a pop media redirect? We do need a DYK explaining that lawn grass stops growing at 6C- but there is a whole debate there. Also there are various mechanical ways of preventing grass growth, Catus domesticus defecating in broad daylight, and fox cubs playing chase-and-catch are two they don't warn you about on the packet..... ClemRutter (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Be careful, or we may need disambiguation pages. If you google "watching paint dry" or "watching grass grow" you'll see what I mean. Add the word "video" or "book" to either phrase and, well, there's a bunch of them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Help needed
Hello! Could you help me out with getting a ban lifted? If you see my user page and think it’s way too complicated or not something you want to deal with, I understand. I appreciate your time either way! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't find anything obvious from your contributions, so yes - we need to get rid of copyvios ASAP, no matter how long they've been in the encyclopedia for. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
heh, she looks pretty sexy in that cover photo. I had her first album on cassette, that's probably long lost now! Govvy (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't describe myself as a fan per se, but over the last 30 years I have been repeatedly surprised and impressed at how good some of Kylie's stuff is, given it's quite a departure from my typical musical tastes. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Web Mining and TenPoundHammer
Dear Ritchie333, first I did assume good faith by :TenPoundHammer, but by keeping redirecting Web Mining to Data Mining after my UNDO (these are different subjects) and then deleting 2/3 of the article within minutes, it shows that good faith or not, the article is currently suffering abuse. I am trying to save it and I expect you to help, not to block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.84.35 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
To cut a lot story short, both you and TenPoundHammer were edit warring, and consequently you are both blocked from editing the article for 24 hours. "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is never a valid excuse. Administrators never take sides in a dispute, which is why sanctions were dealt equally; however TenPoundHammer did not accuse you of vandalism (which is why he reported at the Administrators' noticeboard, not the vandalism noticeboard - it implies he assume good faith on you). You need to calm down and realise that TenPoundHammer is a very experienced editor, and while he can (by his own admission) sometimes come across as a little hot-headed, he is one of the most prolific editors on Wikipedia and truly is here to make the encyclopedia better. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this clarification. At the moment 2/3 of the article is still deleted for no good reason. I have never contributed to this specific article, but as someone who publishes many peer-reviewed research papers in the area of web mining I can say it was a decent wikipedia article. A lot of effort was put in that article by people. Even if it is not perfect, not everything should be solved with a ten pound hammer. Maybe after many years of activity, some Wikipedia editors get too much confidence. A bit more modesty by TenPoundHammer in a field that obviously is not his field (as web mining and data mining are two different things) would make him a much better contributor. As seems on his user talk history, this behaviour repeats, but he is very quick in deleting any feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.84.35 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What I would do is start a discussion on Talk:Web mining explaining why the older version of the article is more suitable, ideally with sources backing up the information presented in there. If one of you is trying to make progress on the talk page, but the other party stalls or ignores discussions, they'll just wind up being blocked from the article again until they can come to terms with differences and work out a way forward. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
A goat for you!
I got the privilege to visit your user page today and had a good time. I also learned a new word 'nincompoop'.
I used to enjoy collaborating with you, but our opinions and motivations seem to have drifted apart. No matter, after all these years I finally decided to drift away from from this circus they call Wikipedia. You are probably still aware of the disgusting behaviour at Arbcom that got me desysoped, or maybe not, so in function of 'Specifically, while I have tried to work with Cassianto, I am utterly sick and tired of the way he dishes out personal attacks to other people yet complains vociferously when somebody does the same to him, and really wish he could just ignore people. Furthermore, I once blocked Cassianto for edit-warring and personal attacks; I got abuse heaped on my head and the block reversed by another admin about three hours later', you may wish to do me the courtesy of reading over my Arbcom case again, be happy that you at least are still an admin and not pissed off to the point of leaving, and perhaps catch up with the discussion on my tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Richie333, you just left a note regarding Panicbutton studios. The page has been deleted. How do i then get a page edited and the info up if it's deleted with a day ? Do i use a different way of constructing the page ? The studio does not have the relevance of the "big" Uk studios but certainly carries it's weight regarding it's work.
thanksEngblu (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Engblu: Hi, the page hasn't actually been deleted - you can see the page history here. It was tagged for speedy deletion (specifically "no indication of importance - organisations" - see User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7), which simply means an editor doesn't believe the article could be realistically improved by a neutral and independent third party to be a typical encyclopedia article. Rather than delete the article outright, I decided to change it to a redirect to Platt's Eyot, which is a more appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. I found a source that name checks various activities the island has been used for, such as osyter farming and munitions in World War II, with a brief note to say it currently houses a couple of private recording studios. I think that's probably the best course of action now. The information in an article should be able to still be appropriate in 10, 50, 100 years time. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. I just don't really see the redirect as plausible - is anyone going to search for the recording studio and be happy with getting an article about the island instead? I'd rather either see the article meet some notability criteria or be deleted for not doing so. But I'm not going to die on that hill, if you're really sure that your RD makes sense then put it back. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"But I'm not going to die on that hill" - Couldn't have put it better myself :-) .... I think it's probably best to wait for another admin to make a judgement on it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Engblu: Hi, i'm not sure if this is the correct place to reply TBH, but considering the info on other studios in and around the area i don't see why this one is very much different and does not deserve a it's own page ? There's enough music and creativity in the building to be recognised. Thanks.Engblu (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Engblu: What every entry in Category:Recording studios in London has (or should have) is a clear indication of why it's of importance to the wider world. In the case of Abbey Road Studios, it says right up front that it's world famous for the work the Beatles did there in the 1960s. In the case of Konk (recording studio), it's owned by a notable band - The Kinks. In the case of Trident Studios, it's well-known for the recordings Queen and David Bowie did there. These are all backed up by a Google News search, which is my general go-to guide for what material I can use for an article. For example, a search for "Trident Studios" brings back the first hit as this Rolling Stone piece about the Beatles using it to record Abbey Road. A search for "De Lane Lea studios" brings back this Forbes piece about The Animals. By contrast, if I use the same search criteria for "Panicbutton studios", I get a single news piece in Czech about Steve Lyon. Hopefully that'll indicate the reason other studio articles exist and have prominence - there is more source material to be able to write about them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Engblu:Thanks Richie, fair enough and in no way can the studio compare directly to others with a 50 plus year history, however those working at the studios do have History with world wide artists, would that not be sufficient? If not then, can an edit be placed on the Platts Eyot page regarding the studio without infringing any rules and criteria ?
At the moment, I have updated Platts Eyot to say it is currently houses several recording studios (not just Panicbutton) Realistically, 12 words is pretty much all I can put in the article without violating core policies about bias and neutrality, as the sole independent source I found tying the two together says nothing except that they exist, while there's a detailed local news piece about a controversial decision to build a boat shed on the island in 2006, which isn't mentioned in the article at all. As for an article on Steve Lyon, I am aware he's engineered several notable artists, but again I'd have to go and look at source material to see what's possible to write about. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
As this was an article about a non-living Spanish author and journalist. Thank you very much! for your attention and guidance. Resolved Feeling proud to know your work. Looking forward to learning more from you. Please let me know if you find any errors in my contributions.
Roger editor (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you - You are a legend. Glad to see senior people like you are helping and guiding junior editors like me. I will do my best to make our wiki community more reliable and transparent. Mucha gracias, Senor! - Roger editor (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Ritchie333: Thought to check with you, as you have wider experience. I was randomly reading about writers and filmmakers in Spain and have found some promising artists made valuable contributions to society by highlighting social issues through films and theaters' performance. When I researched on google, I have found that below two award-winning artists are notable and I have seen their work on Spanish National Television RTVE as well.
As you have advised, "Always write things in your own words". I have Completed the draft, would you like to suggest if any changes are required.
Kindly advise in case of any corrections. Once you share your feedback, will move to mainspace. I will keep writing more articles about notable people. -Roger editor (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't see any obvious copyvios on either of those two drafts. The only editor I know off the top of my head who gets involved in Spanish sources is SusunW, so maybe she can advise on Nuria Gallardo in particular. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie, I've given it a quick look. Nice to meet you, Roger editor. I am hip-deep in an extensive review on a GA nomination, so have very limited time. But, that being said, Roger editor, I reviewed the sources and in general cannot say they are substantial enough or that they support the information you have written in the article. A source must confirm the statement you make about the subject. So, for example your first sentence says "Nuria Gallardo (born 1967) is a award winning Spanish actress." The source doesn't tell us when she was born or that she won an award. It contains only a quote by her. Second sentence, "She is known for theatrical performance" says only that she is performing in the role of Amparo in an episode of a television show, Cuéntame cómo pasó. Both of these references are what reviewers call "name checks", meaning her name appears but it doesn't tell us anything substantive about her. You need to find more sources that talk about her and her career and that confirm her basic biographical information and career achievements in depth before it goes to mainspace. SusunW (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice to meet you, SusunW. Thanks for your quick insights. Appreciated your inputs. I will fix it and will add a more relevant source to the subject verification concerned. Ritchie333 Thank you for connecting me to SusunW. - Roger editor (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Accounts
Thanks for the ping in that discussion, but in cases like that, if you think of it, I'd prefer if you pinged Ian (Wiki Ed). It's impossible not to mix things up between them a little, but as far as possible I like to keep the accounts (and what I do with them) separate. Guettarda (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, not a problem. I have occasionally interacted with editors who happen to have formal Wikimedia accounts, but usually in the context of article writing / improvement, so I've tended to err towards the regular account name. For example, Smirkybec has a Wikimedia Ireland account, but we've only ever talked about improving articles on Dublin streets and architecture, so I've used the former. I guess Wiki Ed is different; I don't know very much about it aside from I did have a query about something with one of your colleagues a while back. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I am simply blown away. It took you very little time to find the same things I found when also doing a search and it supposedly brought some new revelation to the discussion that changes votes? I am glad you posted them because it will most likely be kept now but it shouldn't be necessary if everyone does a search before posting their votes. I NEVER rely strictly on sources provided in an article to determine notability. Again, thank you for posting those links. It was awesome to see your links purple on my screen. If they weren't purple on the screens of others who voted I'm not sure why they even came to discuss it in the first place. ;-) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska: I'm actually surprised that a brief summary like that managed to swing the debate. All I did was click on the "News" link that's at the top of every AfD and just listed the first four that I read from this list. I don't recognise the names immediately but all of them looked like trustworthy sources. I remember a similar problem with The Mariposa Trust, a charity dealing with grief following a miscarriage, which is similar to this one in that it deals with family support. A search for sources also brought out many local news pieces, where the charity had appeared as a significant item for a certain family or group, which was then repeated and sustained over a number of years to clearly demonstrate notability. There's been a lot of talk of systemic bias over the years, and this is one of the less documented ways it manifests itself - the stereotypical Wikipedian (male, 23, single, doesn't get out much) probably hasn't got much call for family and child support charities. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
That's my problem I guess. I incorrectly assume that everyone who, much like you and I, takes the time to respond to an AfD has actually done a search themselves so when they dump all their "incontestable" knowledge on us it will be from a place of reasonable intelligence and common sense about the subject. The more I am here the more I see that isn't the case. I just find it so odd how I mentioned the Today article and the plethora of local and regional sources as well as pieces written up in educational essays at prestigious universities that were published online just above where you posted the links but somehow the links are what swayed the vote. I am definitely not complaining. I'm just glad you came along and cleared up the PR tone of the article and COI/PE/UPE issues, which is the original reason for bringing the AfD forward, with a simple Google search. That just goes away without another thought. The bias is so over the top. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska: This AfD is odd. I generally assume that anyone starting the AfD has done a search for sources. For example, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Arden (actress), it should be obvious that I started the AfD from a point of wanting to improve the article (it was an almost entirely unsourced BLP) but found myself completely unable to, and that I was happy to speedy close it once somebody had showed by the search criteria I used to locate sources wasn't good enough. In the Hope Loves Company AfD, I also expected the nominator or one of the other editors advocating deletion to challenge me on the sources I listed and explain why they weren't enough to be able to improve the article to a satisfactory level. That would make sense, as it's far more likely that somebody has followed WP:BEFORE and just disagrees that there are sufficient sources, as opposed to not following it at all.
Part of the problem with Hope Loves Company is there isn't really a good source to expand and improve the article beyond what's already there. That individual and independent news outlets are reporting on the organisation over several years shows the organisation should have an article, but each news piece focuses on a specific event run by the charity, rather than talking about it as a whole.
Now you know ;) - the prize from the cabal of the outcast (Susun is a member you'll know), and sometimes rejected (like today), but hope needs company! My articles - often "our" articles, I love collaboration - have many topics, - just today it's an opera based on a mystery play by a Jewish author, - more on my talk. I've never been to Alaska. The opera is on the Main page right now, where you could also expose your new articles when long enough (1,500 chars of prose - not counting lists and tables) and meticulously sourced. Let me know, I'd propose the first there, unless Ritchie beats me to it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, just curious, you say you blocked Maxim but you only blocked him from editing on article, despite the fact he had a 48-hour complete block just a couple of weeks ago. I would have thought persistent edit warring would have naturally just increased the overall block duration, not just get a much lesser block. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
In the previous case, Maxim was edit warring on both Jews and List of Jewish Nobel laureates and had responded to an Arbcom DS notice on Race and intelligence with this. So in that case an overall block was more appropriate as he was being disruptive all over the place. Whereas in this instance the disruption is limited to edit warring on Sunderland; although he's being a bit boorish on the talk page, that's not something you should block over. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I originally suggested the concept of partial blocks years ago. The canonical use case I had in mind was to stop Eric Corbett getting blocked when some random editor walked up to an article he'd improved to FA and started edit-warring on it, as every time Eric got blocked, the WMF had to buy new disk space to accommodate the lengthy debates at ANI that ensued (well, at least it felt like they did....) By blocking from just the article, it achieves the stated goal of "preventing damage and disruption" while not shutting a longstanding good-faith (if divisive) editor out from the other several million articles he's not being disruptive on.
A while back, I tried to get policy changed so that reports on WP:AN3 would more typically end up with partial blocks, which ended up with this ANI thread. I think Levivich made the most salient point : "Probably more helpful than trading anecdotes and impressions is to gather and analyze data. Since pblocks have been instituted, how many editors have been pblocked? How many of those editors were then given a full block? If 90% of the pblocked editors went on to do something that resulted in a full block, then we can conclude pblocks are not effective. If it's only 10%, then we can conclude that pblocks are effective. Data > opinion" but AFAIK the thread fizzled out without any actual decision on whether you should use partial blocks or full blocks, and so individual admins just do what they think is best. Also, the partial blocks feature has not been publicised very much, as it isn't used as extensively as full blocks for vandals, trolls and whack-jobs, so I have to AGF that some admins working the edit-warring noticeboards may not be aware it exists. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh dear. See the thread above this one? It's polite and talking about improving articles. See the thread below? It started as an argument but ended up with an article being improved and everybody happy. See the common theme? Of course, you know all this already. ;-) Ummm, not to say this thread wasn't constructive, rather if people focused more on content and less on arguing, then ... well we could mark a few noticeboards as historical. Perhaps. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
How does it not need a fundamental rewrite? 99% of it is promotional, not referenced, extremely trivial, and not encyclopedic anyway. For instance most of the Academics and culture sections. Which is like 70% or more of the article. The guideline clearly says it doesn't apply "where substantial encyclopedic content would remain", but that's clearly not the case here. The article being turned into a stub with a few short sections if even by editing out the bad parts wouldn't be "substantial encyclopedic content." --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, a G11 candidate has no salvagable text whatsoever, and the only way it could ever continue to exist in mainspace is to entirely gut the prose and start again from scratch. If, as you say, you can salvage 30% of the article, it doesn't meet the criteria. Remember that speedy deletions are the only cases where administrators can unilaterally take action without discussion, and any disagreements get amplified, so they have to be sure that they are watertight and unobjectionable. By way of contrast, the last article I deleted per G11 began "Aleksey Kravets (born in Kiev, Ukraine) is a system sound engineer, RF manager, monitor engineer, audio engineer, live sound engineer, management of all sound related tasks on large crew projects, preparation of sound installation orders, determined degree of difficulty of sound installation. Full member of Audio Engineer Society (AES) and member of Ukrainian Union of Audio Engineers. Working as a system sound engineer, live sound engineer for M1 music awards, Ukrainian pop diva Asia Ahat, Jazz band Mark Reznitsky, accordionists Jan Tabachnyk, Ivan Dorn, Quest Pistols, Sedmoe Nebo,Natalia Mogelevskaya, Potap and Nastya Komenski], Monatik, Blake Shelton, Meek Mill, Shakira, Thomas Anders, Backstreet Boys, Candy Dulfer, Eros Ramazzotti, Verka Serduchka, Ani Lora], Earth Wind and Fire, Duo Alebi, Tina Karol, Ocean Elzy, Leonid Agutin, Studio 95 Kvartal, Nino Katamadze, Philip Kirkorov, Wynton Marsalis, Lama (Ukrainian band), Andrey Kuzmenko (Kuzma), Dzi Dzo, Nogu Svelo, Scorpions, and more ..... ". See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth for related reading. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I was being extremely generous with the 30% thing. The Speedy delete banner is pretty clear that the content that's left has to substantial and in no way does the word substantial mean anything that's not nothing. It's make sense that it would be standard to. Otherwise, you could just remove the speedy delete because without the promotional material "The Diocesan College is a school" (or whatever the name of the article is with "is a" added to it) and call it good. Which would mean there would be zero point in the speedy delete. That aside, I looked through the discussion and didn't see a specific point made in relation to this. So, can you maybe cite it or something? Although, I'm pretty sure what one person says in arbitration review isn't authoritative anyway and like I've said the whole "rewrite from scratch" thing clearly isn't reflected in what the banner says or anything else I can find. Unless I'm missing something. Can you point out in WP:CSD where it says that? Or even WP:FIELD. All I could find in WP:FIELD is that a promo speedy deletion apply if "if you believe the article is salvageable" and I've already made clear that I don't think it is. I don't your argument of "it can't be speedy deleted if it could have "The Diocesan College is a school" left" counts as "salvageable" either. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The chapter and verse at WP:CSD is "Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases" and at WP:FIELD is "This is one of the most misunderstood speedy deletion criteria we have, so it's important to know how to use it properly." To dismiss the Diocesan College as simply "a school" is just not correct, given it has been established since since 1849, was founded by the Anglican Diocese of Cape Town and contains notable alumni such as Louis Spencer, Viscount Althorp who is a cousin of the British Royal Family. Like it or not, in the 19th century, the English public school system was spread around the British Empire and is what produced the leaders of the country and the members of the aristocracy cf: the Duke of Wellington - "The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton". Having said all of that, I have started trimming out some of the blatantly promotional prose in the article; however there is no way the "Notable alumni" list could meet the criteria of G11, ever. As for citations, from a quick look the most obvious one would be Bishops 150: A History of the Diocesan College, Rondebosch (John Gardener, Juta, 1997, ISBN978-0-702-14539-1). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
So, in other words, you taking a quote that says administrators should be careful in what they delete, which isn't what I'm arguing, and interpreting it as meaning an article should have no content what so ever left over? Alright. All I know is that the guidelines clearly use the word "substantial" and I'm not reading into them to interpret them that way. How about this, what do you think the word "substantial" means in this context? To me it means more then "no content" and I'm sure other admins would agree because I've had plenty of articles deleted that still had content. There was never issue with any of them either and in no way it be fair to characterize them deleting the articles as not being careful about things.
I wasn't dismissing Diocesan College as just school. The point was, that if your only standard is the article has to completely empty for after the promo is removed for a speedy delete to be valid, then they would never be valid because you just could put anything as the first sentence (or hell a random word) and it would be "content." Since you bring it up though, I'd love to know where the guidelines say "old things" are exempt from speedy deletion. Or is that another thing your soothsaying from random discussions? As far as the "Notable alumni" thing goes, I'd put that in the same category as everything else you've said. If it's a substantial (like the guidelines say) "notable alumni" section with people who are actually notable then maybe your correct (although I'd argue not), but not if it's just a few people, because that's not substantial. I feel like this discussion is a lot like the ones that happen in AfDs by keep voters who can't find sources. Some reading into things, a little adding your own personal opinions, citing an essay or random discussion, but nothing solidly grounded in policy to justify things. IMO "substantial" coverage is pretty clearly not "no content" like your saying the standard is. Nor does an article being "salvageable" mean it having a few notable alumni (or anything along those lines). I don't see you refuting those things in any meaningful way, if at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me poking my nose in, Adamant1 (and Ritchie), I'm generally retired from Wikipedia since years of work on notability criteria and deletions. I'm posting this here because I don't want to add to the many discussions on your talk page. I'm sure your G11 on Diocesan College like many of your other taggings, was in good faith but they are typical of the reasons why I created the New Page Reviewer user right in 2016 although it does not prevent any other user in good standing from manually templating any article new or old. May I suggest you have a good read of the tagging instructions, and get up to speed with WP:Deletions and AfD. This would help address the many issues that you may not be fully familiar with as pointed out by admins such as Ritchie, Liz, GB fan, and Scottywong and highly experienced Toughpigs and VQuakr who are all only there to help and advise you. You will also find a vibrant community of skilled page reviewers at their Talk Page who are ready to help and explain the guidelines and policies that are often a challenge to us all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
While I appreciate the comment and it's always helpful to review the guidelines, I'm already pretty familiar with them. Especially the AfD process. In fact, most of the articles I do AfDs, PRODs, and speedy deletions for get deleted. The only reasons that's not the case here is because I am being specifically targeted by a couple of users. Which for whatever reason Ritchie333 and a few other admins are choosing to not account for, and instead are cherry picking to paint me as incompetent. When it's not the case that I am. Also, while ToughPigs might be "experienced", he is nowhere near true to the guidelines in the things he does. Plus, he has a pretty well established history of personally attacking me. Ritchie333 hasn't exactly acted fair or balanced toward me when I've interacting with him before either. So, personally, I'm taking whatever they have to say about this or anything else for that matter with a grain of salt. Although, I take Ritchie333 more at his word then ToughPigs. Others results may very though. Ritchie333 did at least improve one of the articles though. Which was a lot more then other people, especially VQuakr, did. So, I give him for credit that at least. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipdia has literally hundreds of admins and close on 1,000 reviewers, but by pure coincidence Adamant1, I have known all those editors whom I have named above for a decade or even longer, some of them personally, and I was even instrumental in some of them becoming admins. I doubt very much if they are singling you out or cherry picking anything. We all work on Wikipedia whenever we can and wherever our interest takes us. Like me when I was active, those domains just happen to be the major focus of those users. I suggest you step back a bit because unfortunately in today's Wikipedia climate some less well meaning users (and absolutely not necessarily admins and senior WMF employees), are very quick to escalate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, you weren't involved in the back and forth over the last few days either. I'm not saying some of the people you listed or that I'm having problems with, aren't well intentioned, I think Ritchie333 is despite how he's treated me, but otherwise well intentioned people can still over react and come at things wrongly sometimes. Admins are still human and ToughPigs definitely has some behavioral issues. It's just an observation, but it seems like these problems are worse with long standing members. Likely partly because there's less accountability for more established "old timers." That aside, I don't feel the need to step away for a while just because I had a few speedy deletions removed that a couple of people with an agenda cherry picked and over reacted to. Especially since like I said I'm being specifically targeted. Which, BTW, I wouldn't say unless it was the case. As far as I'm concerned this isn't on me. Also, I'm fine if someone wants to escalate me getting a few speedy deletions removed to ANI. I just reported someone who insinuating for more then a month that me and other users were racists. Which never went anywhere. Largely thanks to Ritchie333. Who put the whole thing on me because I was sarcastic a few times. So, if I get blocked when people who do disgusting things don't even get so much as a warning, then this website isn't worth my time anyway. I appreciate the advice and the time that you've put into this though. I wish I could have been a member back in the old days. When there was more of a community aspect to it and it wasn't as much of a cesspool. I read it back then, but sadly, I never contributed. I guess you work with what you have though. Anyway, nice talking to you. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You had deleted the Savi Solutions page, can you please tell me what specifically needs to be changed in order to not have this page deleted? I followed all previous recommendations from User:discospinster to remove any subjective portions. What else needs to be changed, specifically? Why does this keep getting deleted after following the recommendations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.aul (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Jason.aul, Essentially I don't believe it's possible to write a neutral and balanced article on this. The opening sentence as I saw it said "Savi is a social impact startup in Washington, DC building innovative technology to save student loan borrowers time and money, and to avoid frustration with their existing loans", which is the complete opposite to what Discospinster recommended to you. The only sources (both in the article and via a quick search myself) are basically press releases copied from sources like TechCrunch that indiscriminately print whatever is up and coming without comment. To have a properly balanced article, one might expect to find criticism such as this news piece documenting the firing of the chief of the UK Student Loan Company after he criticised its structure.
In summary, if you are finding the article is being repeatedly deleted by administrators who have had no contact with each other, it probably means it isn't suitable for Wikipedia, full stop. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering why the request for speedy deletion was removed, this article doesn't provide any contribution to Wiki and it is moreso as an advertisement than anything. The main contributors to the page is the company itself per the usernames making the contributions. There was also a previous deletion discussion about a previous version of this article, and the "creator" got around it by editing the name a bit. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/US_Federal_Contractor_RegistrationNigel757 (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
According to the history, the article was not tagged for CSD when it was patrolled in May 2014, and consequently I took the view of "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used." (although this case it was a conscious decision for a non-creating editor not to add it). Basically, it needed cleanup, then sending off to AfD, although I see that's now been done. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Smirkybec's Dublin Sightseeing Jamboree, coming soon to a Wikipedian near you....
I have two more books on the way to me, primarily on Georgian Dublin, and I'm currently reading The Destruction of Dublin which should give me a wide array of details about the 20th century demolitions and redevelopments of a number of streets from our list. I'm struggling to find much else written about North Earl Street. It is a very short street and aside from it's reconstruction and the Clery's redevelopment, there isn't a whole lot more to be said from what I have access to at the moment. Aside from maybe a bit about the old Kylemore cafe (now SoMa) on the corner of O'Connell Street. I'm going to tackle Talbot Street next, which hopefully will have a bit more source material, which might feed back into North Earl. Thanks again for all your help, this has been really fun and interesting so far! When I first moved to Dublin I worked on Henry Street and would get a bus to Talbot Street and would walk up to North Earl and across O'Connell Street everyday, and I've moved back quite close to them again in the past year, so great to reconnect with them! Smirkybec (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Reading The Destruction of Dublin a lot of the materials we are using might be useful in the article on Georgian Dublin as well, which covers similar ground (literally some of the same streets) as we're looking at. Smirkybec (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The Destruction of Dublin might also be good for some more sources on O'Connell Street post 1922, although it is up for GA review at the moment and I think it covers all basic information enough. The Encyclopedia of Dublin only has a paragraph on North Earl Street, and I've basically cited everything from there that's in the book. However, there is quite a bit there on Pearse Street discussing the old cinemas, theatres and businesses; I think the article will ultimately need reorganising a bit into "History" and "Properties", so I think that'll be my goal next, once I've mined the book source for all the detail.
I'm glad the mini-project is giving you some motivation to spruce up all these articles. I'll have to go back to Dublin at some point and see what else there is to do; as you might expect, I'm building up an extensive list of places to go and visit as soon as it's practical. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
You're right, I think I've found a few details for O'Connell/Talbot/Abbey Streets as well as most of the streets on the southside. The book is indexed by developers, politicians and architects rather than by places, so I'd reading through and making notes as I go. As it's from 1985, I'm recognising so many names as those who were prosecuted and otherwise vilified after the fall of Charles Haughey and the planning tribunals (the Mahon and Moriarty Tribunals). I'm noticing some of those key figures are missing or poorly covered (as well as the relevant architects like Sam Stephenson) so this little project is going to keep be busy for some time!
If you work on Pearse, and I take a run at Talbot, we could then swap over and see where we are at. I've found a few bits about some of the Pearse Street theatres so far so I can work that in soon. Pearse is a very long street, so lots of ground to cover! Store Street is more like North Earl, as it is a very short street but has Busáras (main bus station) on it, so may have a little more going for it.
I think I need to get hold of a full copy of Dublin: The City Within the Grand and Royal Canals and the Circular Road with the Phoenix Park. I've used a Google Books preview a number of times when verifying things on O'Connell Street and now Pearse Street, and from what I can tell it's got a good and comprehensive view on each building on the principal streets, far in excess of what The Encyclopedia of Dublin has. Although Pearse Street does have a lot of properties, that tends not to be a problem unless said properties are all held in different sources and the information is hard to get hold of. A smaller street with extensive history and redevelopment would need to cover just as much ground, potentially.
That Dublin book is a weighty, dense volume! I managed to get it for a decent price through Abebooks, as it can go for a bit new (and I'm very tempted to buy the one that covers my home town in Leinster). Pearse Street is an interesting one, as there are plenty of historically important buildings, but then long stretches which are owned by Trinity College but up until recently didn't open out on to or have much relationship with the street - if you walked by them you'd think they weren't occupied. They are starting to remedy this a bit now. Once you get down towards Ringsend, it was previously the docklands so mostly newer buildings, and one older square of houses (which I briefly lived on!) There is the very pretty St Andrew's Community Centre there as well, lovely Victorian school house.
There are a couple of used copies of Casey's book going on Abebooks for a little under £20, so it doesn't look too bad. Being a weighty, dense volume is good, provided it has weight, dense citable content! It seems to be what I need to basically have the equivalent of the major sources I had for doing all the London ones. Incidentally, I never realised "Dublin 4" was an actual thing, it sounds like a terrorist group. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)00:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Another book I can recommend is "Secret Dublin" by Pól Ó Conghaile ISBN:978-2-36195-177-1. It is geared towards the quirky/odd/colourful sights in Dublin, really good if you're thinking of a walking tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I have a copy of that somewhere! Most of my books are still in boxes - the joys in living in a house "in need of some modernisation". Secret Dublin is a fun book, and definitely does give detail on the less obvious sights, sounds, and quirks in Dublin. For example, the statue of Jesus at that was at the taxi rank on O'Connell Street and has been relocated to Cathal Brugh Street.
D4 is very posh - I've always lived northside, which is all odd numbers. Those are the old postcodes (which everyone still uses), all of Ireland only got full alpha-numeric postcodes in the last few years and we're still getting used to it :D Smirkybec (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
There's lots of things to get used to in Ireland - the metric system, road signs that actually mean something (unless people really are confused by "Loch Garman WEXFORD N11"), and railways reopening. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
,_CitySightseeing_Dublin,_ex-Dublin_Bus_RV494,_13_June_2011.jpg)
