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.
You and I might have differing views on the value of WP:EVASION, but I was wondering if you still stand by your comment you made here, that you consider Cassianto and SchroCat de-facto banned and would support any admin who would enforce it with blocks. SchroCat, despite "retiring", has basically never left and has been continually block evading via a number of different IP's (here and here, for example) and returning to past disruption like IB warring (recent example). Cassianto's back here (and apparently people are now proxying for Cassianto creating articles he writes? see Special:diff/1002205299), back to tag-teaming with Schrocat (see [1] and [2]) and infoboxes again ([3]). It's disingenuous to claim "retirement" only to return to old disruption as an IP. I know you had a better relationship with these editors so I wanted to hear what you have to say. Honestly, their shenanigans are wearing me down. Sro23 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Sro23, the first time you blocked me it was for block evasion. I was not blocked at the time (the block from Ritchie had expired. So you lied through your teeth to block me. You’ve subsequently used that illicit block to claim block evasion and continue blocking me. Twice more you have claimed I am ‘abusing multiple accounts’. I have no other accounts, so you have lied on these occasions too. That’s not a great record for an Admin, but neither was stalking me to !vote against me on the Laurence Oliver talk page.
As to the first block made my Ritchie, there was a discussion on Iridescent’s page on which Bradv said “That's what happened to SchroCat, who resumed editing as an IP and made no attempt to hide it. This is not a blockable offense.”
So you’re basing your blocks of me on me evading an initially disputable block that had expired. You’ve lied three times in carrying out these blocks, stalked me, taken an INVOLVED stance in two content disputes and used double standards to ignore the IP on the London Beer Flood article who pinged you, who is obviously a logged out editor. You’re either rather error-prone or just plain bad at this. The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing from 2A01:4C8:480:BF30:71A9:F8AD:16EB:BDA1 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I've already explained this, but "block evasion" also encompasses abusive logged-out editing (i.e. returning to disruption that got you into trouble in the first place), which many have been blocked for in the past. And I wasn't "stalking" you at Talk:Laurence Olivier, I thought others that took part in the discussion might like to know they were arguing with a sock. And I maintain I've never violated INVOLVED. But I think I'm ready to wash my hands of all this because it's causing me too much stress. Go ahead and continue your disruption, I don't care anymore. Sro23 (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Feck me, you’re either still lying, or you’re plain inept. “"block evasion" also encompasses abusive logged-out editing”. Not according to WP:BLOCKEVASION, because you have to be blocked in the first place. You blocked me AFTER the block from Ritchie expired. I told you at the time I was not blocked and gave you the opportunity to withdraw the allegation, but you didn’t. You cling to the lie you told.
”Abusive editing”. You linked to me removing an IB on Will Hay’s article. That had no infobox from 2016, so I was reverting back to that stage. Removing a box isn’t “abusive editing”, unless you are the sort of editor who thinks the boxes are invisible property that should never be touched (and if you think me removing one is “abusive”, I guess that answers that point.
Of course you were stalking me to Olivier. If your sole rationale was to tell people I am a sock (and that’s a pretty petty step to take anyway), then why did you give an opinion on the content? That’s borderline involved, and your reversions on London Beer Flood certainly are INVOLVED.
My heart bleeds that you claim it’s causing you too much stress, but you are the one trying to get involved. You are the one going out of your way to block me - to the point your lying about it when you do it, to the point of being INVOLVED and to the point of stalking. If I were you I’d be more concerned that your admining is pretty sub-standard. SC 2A01:4C8:480:BF30:71A9:F8AD:16EB:BDA1 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Having looked at the history of London Beer Flood, Sro23 appears to have used rollback on a good faith edit here, and then protected the page. For homework, list the policies that violates. Good article, by the way, a beer tsunami is a particularly shocking way to go. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked because you lied that I was evading a block, but that had expired a long time previously. The rollback of the edit isn’t something that has to be done either, it’s something that can be done, and given I’ve given a rationale for making such a change. You’ve done a dumb-arse knee jerk reversion that misleads readers. As to classing an improvement to an article as ‘not in good faith’, I suggest you take the rule book from under your pillow once in a blue moon and try looking at the result on the article, not how it got there. Great job there sparky 2A01:4C8:480:BF30:71A9:F8AD:16EB:BDA1 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec) "Honestly, their shenanigans are wearing me down." Yup, that's pretty much how I feel - SchroCat does great work, he might be one of the best copyeditors Wikipedia has ever had, but his ability to get into fights over infoboxes just depresses me. I know I get brassed off when somebody wants to revert or delete stuff I write, but ultimately there comes a point where you have to think "this isn't worth my time arguing over" and drop the stick, regardless of who wins the debate. I dealt with SchroCat in a similar way to Brexit. In other words, "Okay, if you want to leave permanently, then leave but recognise you will forfeit all rights and privileges you had beforehand, so don't complain when the lack of them affect you." However, as I understand it, Cassianto has not evaded any block, and if consensus is that any of SchroCat's IPs should not be blocked as sockpuppets, then don't (I'll need to go and look at the discussion to determine what's what). I can't remember if Schrocat is on "infobox probation" as prescribed by WP:ARBINFOBOX2, but if not, that should be probably proposed. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you're right Ritchie, I can come and go as I please, I'm under no restrictions and I'm not editing with any malicious intent, as you'll see from John Dixon Butler. Poor old Sro23, so desperate is he to grind his rather pathetic axe, that he's now abusing his rollback privileges to get a last dig in - oh, by the way, courtesy ping KJP1, since you're so keen to talk about him behind his back. May I offer you some advice, Sro23: have some time off, spend some time with your family, invest some time in other hobbies and learn a new skill. That's exactly what I did and you'll find you won't need this dump any more than it needs you. My bad for wanting to educate those who're interested in one of England's most prolific, yet massively underrated, architects. The editor formerly known as Cassianto, editing from 92.40.171.110 (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Well put. As Bradvhas said on Iridescent’s page "Editing while logged out after a courtesy vanishing isn't abuse of multiple accounts"; he followed this with "That's what happened to SchroCat, who resumed editing as an IP and made no attempt to hide it. This is not a blockable offense." Sadly Sro23 has lied on three separate occasions to take a position against me: if he has to lie to win an argument, he really should question the validity of that position. The first block was for "block evasion": I was not blocked at the time and had not been for six weeks, so why he openly lied is anyone's guess. That block is still in place and should be reverted.
I am under just one restriction (which I forgot about when I left): that if I open an account under a new name, I have to alert a member of ArbCom. That's it. I left in good standing and have been hounded by a liar ever since. I still read WP, and if I see an error that needs correcting, I should be free to do so without a mendacious Admin making up reasons to stop me doing that.
And this is all before the double standard of ignoring who was the logged-out user who pinged Sro23 on the London Beer Flood article. Whoever that is is ignored, but Sro23 takes the opportunity to block me... this shows either a lack of consistency/ability on Sro23’s part, or that his blocking of me is some form of petty personal grudge. Either way, it’s not terribly becoming behaviour for an Admin... - The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing from 213.205.194.63 (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I literally have no idea what this discussion is about. And walls of argumentative text are rarely inviting. But, as I have been referenced and pinged, for the record. Cassianto is a friend, on and off Wiki. We share an interest in architecture. Following his retirement, he asked me to consider starting an article about John Dixon Butler. He provided a text. I looked at it and agreed that Dixon Butler was a notable architect. So, I created the initial article, using Cass’s text and crediting him as the author in the edit summary. I subsequently expanded the article, as have others, including Cass. We now have a pretty decent, 50-cite, article on an important architect where previously we had nothing. And the problem with that is....? Honestly, I don’t want an answer. I shall just go back to writing articles, often in collaboration which I have always found the most productive and enjoyable approach. I think that’s why we’re here. KJP1 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Jerome Kohl
On 28 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jerome Kohl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jerome Kohl, a music theorist of the University of Washington, was recognized internationally as an authority on the composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, publishing a book on his Zeitmaße in 2017? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jerome Kohl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jerome Kohl), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Thank you, - great collaboration, - I don't recall any other article with so many great names in the history! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to just come barging in as a rando, but I noticed this and it made me smile. I knew you were a prolific contributor to the articles for many excellent musical acts and associated, but I only knew about your work on major bands. I just noticed you were the creator and primary contributor for Church of the Cosmic Skull, and I couldn't help but think of what great taste you clearly have. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of John R. Craig. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mztourist (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Glenn Carr page deleted
Sorry to intrude. I spent a huge amound of time and effort on the Glenn Carr page which has been deleted. I am not arguing about the deletion but I would lòove to be able to retrieve that information that was on the page (it is not on the Rosslare Europort pasge). Do you know how I could do that. Thank you. MarkHarper1 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
MarkHarper1, Sure, if you look at the deletion debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Carr), there's an option "History" which allows you to see the article before it was redirected. Alternatively, a direct link to the state before the AfD closed is here. As some editors suggested some of the content should be merged, the text there would be a suitable starting point. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Really appreciate it. I have had it with Wikipedia though. The Wikipedia Editors do not understand some forms of personal achievement. Their view is very narrow and does not include bussiness innovation and regional regeneration. They would have dismissed Brendan O'Regan as a caterinhg manager at Shannon Airport. Carr's position is the south-east is very similar to O'Regan's.MarkHarper1 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@MarkHarper1: I noticed this, had a look to see what it was all about, and while I sympathise with you, Mark, there just doesn't seem to be much in that article which was about the man himself. I've been Googling around and can find lots of quotes from him, but only that one article in the Times which is actually about him. Not so much as a company press release on his appointment, from either the Europort or the Irish Railways - and he isn't mentioned on the Railways website as one of the senior corporate team. It's not a case of editors "not understanding" his achievements, it's that the encyclopedia only includes material which has appeared in "reliable independent published sources" and is about the person, not his employer. He seems to have kept a very low profile in terms of his personal history and life. Sadly, if he'd been covered by newspapers for ... I don't know, opening garden fetes, chairing charitable appeals, or even having a scandalous affair... then that coverage would have contributed to him being "notable". Or a "look at our successful alumni" piece from one of his unis. Just doing an excellent job for a key part of the local economy doesn't hit the spot. If you can find another article like that Times one, it would form the basis of an article. But you'd have to make it about him, not about Europort. Good luck and happy editing. PamD18:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
AfD for John R. Craig
Are you sure about this close? You say "split between keep and merge" - but that completely ignores the "Redirect" votes. Which if you were doing a flat headcount are a majority, they're functionally equivilant to merge which would make M+R a solid consensus, and the Keeps are one that is solidly unsupported by consensus and the other is, frankly, doing little but casting aspersions. - The BushrangerOne ping only03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
You've missed the point I was getting at. No administrative action is required, so whatever happens to the article after the debate can be done by ordinary editors. If you want to turn the article into a redirect, just be bold and do it! Normally I write "A decision to merge or redirect can be taken once this AfD finishes" but I appear to have forgotten to do that in this instance. Speaking personally, I thought the votes were all about as appropriate as each other with no obvious one having the other hand, except perhaps JohnPackLambert's "redirect" !vote which is just a vote which I discarded for the purpose of consensus. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, I'm curious how you think this is a case of WP:HEY. As I noted in the AFD, barely any of the added sources even mention the subject of the article. They do a great job of establishing WRENS as a notable group, but do not provide coverage to her. The !keep votes were remarkably lacking in policy: Highlights of the keep !voters included If you want to say the actual policy itself is against me, well, it is, so that's fair and [I would consider] the entire body of 74,000 women code breakers at Bletchley Park as a group [notable] and the sources look good, and this is an interesting biogrpahy. and t I have been hoping that independent/reliable sources would emerge during this discussion to specifically verify Whitton's notability; otherwise there seems to be a risk of WP:SYNTH with the existing sources. When I pressed the WP:IAR !voters, not one actually provided sources for Whitton's article—suggesting that while they may have cited IAR, their real argument was akin to WP:ILIKEIT. I could see a no consensus, but where's the policy based rationale for keeping? Cheers, Eddie891TalkWork00:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the article except to note that it was improved, and after the final relist following improvements, more people suggested keeping the article as the potential for improvement was there. And that's kind of deletion policy 101 - "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I'm surprised at your comments, given you appeared to file the AfD with regret at being able to unimprove it. (cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Renee Kendall) Perhaps you could argue the case for "no consensus", but that still involves the article being kept anyway. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I'm well aware of 'deletion policy 101' and I'd have loved to withdraw, but you seem to be missing the point that I made at the AFD and again here: there wasn't notability established. The only source added after I nominated the article that even mentioned Whitton was the transcript of an interview with her. The latter !votes made no specific commentary on sourcing or the article and several had... interesting logic as I've mentioned above. Where do you see the improvement or consensus that it could be improved? And then once considering that only one source providing coverage of Whitton was added (the notability situation wasn't significantly changed throughout the discussion), what's the justification for giving more weight to later !votes than earlier ones? Normally, I see no difference in no-consensus vs. keep, but here I'd like to re-add the notability tag since I see no establishment of notability and I don't think we should be in the practice of lending much weight to votes that, to me, show a poor understanding of policy (I'd refer you back to my original comment for examples). I also certainly don't think this is a case of WP:HEY and would argue it's a mistake to cite it as such. Best wishes, Eddie891TalkWork12:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross purposes here a bit. I gave more weight to the later !votes after the article was expanded because nobody else refuted them. If I had seen a bunch of later !votes like "Delete per Eddie891, who is right because of 'x'", the close would have been different. But they didn't happen. Once you get past the basic inclusion and verifiability policies, what counts as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" tends to depend on who turns up for the debate - that's just the way things go. Look at all those cricketer AfDs, for instance.
Anyway, with suggestions of moving forward, you can tag the article for improvement if you wish, or you can file another AfD in, say, 3-6 months if you don't think enough progress has been made, or I can re-open the AfD for another week's discussion. I'm amenable to any of these. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, I agree with Eddie891 here, the later additions to the page didn't actually add anything in the way of SIGCOV in RS, just a lot of no-specific commentary about the WRENS. I am surprised by your comment that "I gave more weight to the later !votes after the article was expanded because nobody else refuted them." Had I know that that would be the case I would have made stronger comments than I already did. Mztourist (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
When somebody makes an unsolicited comment on my talk page about advocating the deletion of articles on women, and uses acronyms such as "SIGCOV" and "RS" without defining them, I tend to tune out and ignore them. Eddie is a reasonable chap and I'm sure we will reach an understanding in due course. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Some good points there, Ritchie and you're absolutely right. I'm happy to revisit in in 6 months or so— or not. When an AFD like this becomes something I feel super strongly about the outcome in, it's probably time to step back for a breath of air. Anyways, cheers and just a note that I do think you should be closing AFDs. Nobody can please everybody, but on the whole I think you come closer than most. Best wishes, Eddie891TalkWork15:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Eddie891, There does seem to be something in the water at AfD at the moment, with editors getting thoroughly brassed off with each other for either a) deleting stuff wantonly without thinking about it or b) arguing to keep an article without specifying any evidence (depending on which side of the debate you're on). I looked at closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Skinner (surgeon) and saw mud pies being thrown about from several longstanding editors, and I hope somebody comes along and makes sense of it. Part of the problem in the debate is I don't really see anyone who particularly cares about what state that article is in, as very distinct from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hughes & Kettner where it's pretty obvious that that's the sort of article I am interested in and would want to improve anyway. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, something about AFD seems to bring out the worst in a lot of people (myself included, at times). I sometimes wonder whether it's more trouble than it's worth to bring an article like Skinner to AfD. Eddie891TalkWork16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, wow, very impressive work on Hughes_&_Kettner, I'm pretty much amazed by all the references you got, seriously!
Just one point: the so called "Red box" is not at all a Leslie emulation! It only a speaker emulator/simulator (see http://hughes-and-kettner.com/products/redbox-5/red-box-5/ ). The Leslie emulator is the "Rotosphere".
Barakafrit2, Hmm, do you mean it's not an "emulator" as in it doesn't have rotating horns and drums? Or simply an "emulator" as it gives you an overall sound as an effect rather than a drop-in replacement for the real thing? I've been playing Hammond organ in groups for over 30 years now, originally playing a real one with a Leslie, but nowadays I use the Nord Stage (my back thanks me for it!). I've been toying with the idea of getting one of the newer Hammonds like the SK-X, except I really need a bottom manual with at least 73 weighted keys and preferably more as I do a combination of piano, organ and synth, often at the same time. Anyway, I digress.... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the Red Box is a simple speaker emulator, not "sound effect" at all, it is useful to get directly on a mixing console/recorder the sound of the amp as if it was played through a cabinet (think, a 4x12 inch Marshall), but without any volume. I think inside, its is just a bunch of passive filters, designed to reproduce the frequency response of the speaker and cabinet combination. Barakafrit2 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow. I never knew that. I thought that it was a simple matter of no claim of significance, regardless of whether or not it was sourced. Good to know. Onel5969TT me14:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Onel5969, I prefer the explanation I have at the guide - which is "can anyone improve this". Well in this case, the article cites this piece in The Scotsman which talks extensively about Theatre Alba and various plays it has produced over the last 40 years. Is that enough to survive AfD? I don't know, but the fact I can talk about how to expand the article, with proper adherence to WP policies, means it's well out of the "blatant" ballpark of genuine A7s like "Timmy is my pet cat. He likes chasing mice and has black and grey stripes." Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Cool. To me, that's more in line with my understanding, is that you felt it made an argument for significance. I had felt that article lent more credence to the notability of the director. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. Onel5969TT me14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello
I saw you cleaned up an old peer review tag on the WikiProject Musical instruments. Good idea. I haven't been touching most of the page, pending the work I've been doing, to assess backdated/unassessed articles. Also writing a fair amount. I don't know if you are still working on the project, but I hope so.Jacqke (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, I've added a casual picture that shows the nature of the Gibson G101. I'll take on board the need to do something more formal. Keep up the good work. Docrobbie (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, The Contempo shots I have belong to other photographers - however, I'll see if I can get a friend in the US to take a suitable shot of his. Similarly, the best shot I have of an appropriate '65 UK Continental's drawbars needs to be cleared by another friend. I expect that this will all happen. I'll keep you posted. At this stage my publisher requires me not to use the actual shots we used in the book. Docrobbie (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, I've uploaded a file (Vox_Continental_Drawbars.jpg) for your use in the Vox Continental article. The Contempo photo is underway. Regards Docrobbie (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Sir Ritchie333. I sent you an e-mail a few days ago regarding a private matter. I’d like to follow-up and see what you think. I’m looking forward to your private response. Thank you very much.
Alright sir. Thank you very much. Figured I’d approach you for a few very good reasons. I’m just so lost at this point. I mean, if you respond to my private e-mail, I could elaborate my frustrations further (which I’m sure you’ll be able to relate to), but I feel like I’ve done the best I could do for all the resources available to me at this time. This is my “passion project,” so I really want it finalized — for the world to be able to see my contribution to the community. MyNewPhilosophy (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, I disagree with your opinion on my proposal to have this article deleted. Why should it matter how long ago that editor retired? An article is an article, and in this case it certainly had reasonable grounds to be deleted. Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi again Ritchie333, even if that article was about a male or someone who identifies by any other gender, I would still consider it for deletion because there's simply not enough information. Also, the layout is all wrong. Shouldn't articles about living/deceased persons have at least an infobox? Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hockeycatcat, That is not a reason for deletion, especially A7 speedy deletion (see User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7). The deletion policy says that articles should only be deleted if they cannot be improved by anybody to acceptable standards and there is no alternative. In this case, her marriage to Jefferson Mays is mentioned in several sources (two of which are now added to the article) and therefore there is an acceptable redirect target (see WP:ATD-R). Therefore, deleting this article would violate core policy. There is no consensus at all about infoboxes; indeed we have seen some horrific disputes in that area (WP:ARBINFOBOX, WP:ARBINFOBOX2) and you are better off staying well away from that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hockeycatcat, I don't think anyone is suggesting you are a bad editor. If anything, there is a LOT to learn on wikipedia. It's worth noting that a good practice to get into before nominating an article for deletion, is to follow WP:BEFORE. As you can see now, after the nomination the article has plenty of sourcing, so this did exist. We shouldn't be deleting articles on items that are notable, even if the article is in bad shape. The infobox thing is actually something that isn't important (like at all) in an article, so we wouldn't use it to denote notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
At the risk of spamming mentions, Hockeycat, it's worth mentioning we don't have any full consensus on if infoboxes are even desirable. Ritchie is one of our best editors, and the information/links provided are very good reading tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hockeycatcat, Forgive me, but I am a parent :-) Let me illustrate my thought processes. Suppose you and your friends are out playing football in a yard somewhere, you kick the ball up to a window ledge with a potted plant, which knocks the plant off the window and smashes on the ground. You didn't mean to destroy the pot plant, and feel quite upset and remorseful about it when somebody comes out and says politely, but firmly to take more care with where you're kicking a ball about. It is kind of like that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie333, Understood, but I am not very athletic.
"Before they were notable"
"Ja Donald, do ja think non-notable people can wear zes expensive shoes?"
To talk page stalkers (are there any left), have a browse over to Wikipedia:Before they were notable and see if you can think of anyone to add to the list.
Ground rules are :
The article must have been deleted, or at least had an AfD that didn't close as "keep".
The subject must be common knowledge to everybody today, to the extent any new deletion tag would be obvious vandalism.
Yeah I would imagine the vast majority of world leaders have done something notable in the preceding 20 years of Wikipedia's existence that would have met the standards for an article already (even if, like Trump, it wasn't public office).-- P-K3 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
There's Tiffany Trump, created in 2006, Prod'ded the day after, and then redirected for the next 5 years, and after a day again redirected for a year. And then again revived, but 9 months later or so brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Trump, which closed as, you guessed it, redirect. Revived September 2015, again redirected. Same thing two more times in the next months, and finally gotten her own article in June 2016 (by a sock editor, but that's besides the point).
And then there's Carrie Symonds, which I deleted in December 2017 as a G12, which then got deleted in January 2018 as a G11, and which got deleted in July 2019 and in August 2019 as an A7 speedy!
In the current RfA nominated, you frequently use the male pronouns. In all the research I made both on and off-Wiki, before making my simple vote, I never came across one single indication of the candidate's gender. However, it is entirely possible that I missed something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. I wanted to send you a note regarding Creepy Company. I see that you closed the AFD for no consensus, but the page fails WP:NCORP. It's an advertisement with no valid independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. I'd like to invite you take a look at the page and re-consider deletion. Best, Megtetg34Talk10:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Megtetg34: The debate was closed as "no consensus" because after several weeks of open discussion, including relisting twice, one person had suggested keeping the article, while one other suggested deleting, with all arguments about equal with each other. I don't have any opinion on the article or its sources. I would advise you to try and improve the article, and if you get stuck, start a new AfD (which a NC close allows you to do). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
