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.
Are you aware of this proposal which is preculating? It would further unbundle and I plan to oppose on the grounds that every time we've unbundled we've made RfA harder to pass. Thought you might be interested given your recent comments at RFA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49, No, I didn't know about that. That's slightly different from a straight "vandal blocker" role which I interpreted as having the block button on a par with admins. I'll have a read through the talk page and drop my views in. It's a trial unbundle (which implies if fails it can be turned off) and it has the important safety valve that an admin can unilaterally yank the right. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
One point to Martinevans. I am, relative to my level of education, an awful speller. I'm amazed I don't make more such silly mistakes (and/or amazed that they're not pointed out to me more often). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I think they've done a lot of things right. Enterprisey has been quite aggressive at seeking out possible critiques and has worked hard to address what is practical without harming the underlying premise. I do, however, think that any admin can pull the right unilaterally sounds a lot better in theory than in practice. As I expect you know, pulling the user right of someone established enough to pass through the maze of requirements this right requires will have friends and that always makes such actions fraught. I think to TRM's point that there are definitely users who could use that right well and who would have difficulty (or worse) at passing RfA. If I could just give it to them I would. But I worry that it would be yet one more reason for someone to think "I can do what I need with the user rights I have. Why go through the hassle of RfA?" which has, historically, been what has occurred. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Are there any admins who RfA'd in the past year or so who would have looked at this and gone, "Oh. Well, if I can just get that, I don't need to RfA, that's all I needed it for."? Or any who would draw objections from !voters because their Q1 only specified needing the tools because of this kind of vandalism? —valereee (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, The obvious candidate who would make use of this, who'd had a go at RfA in the past year, is 1997kB. I think I even said at the RfA that if we were doing "Request for SPI admin clerks" I'd have no issue, it was all the other stuff that goes on top of being an admin that gave me concern. Then there's L293D, but I think we both want him to do a RfA #2 this year anyway. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
So those are editors who didn't get through RfA their first time, rather than admins who might have skipped RfA if this responder userright were an option, if you see what I mean? I get that we also don't want folks who've not gotten through their first RfA to give up on it because they could get this instead, though. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Ritchie, we're still talking across one another. What I mean is, of say Hog Farm, John M Wolfson, Jackmcbarn, LuK3, Ajpolino, Eddie891, Red Phoenix, Creffett, Cwmhiraeth, Captain Eek, Lee Vilenski, Cabayi, etc. -- all the folks who've successfully run an RfA in the past year: how many of them would have looked at this tool, weighed it against the stress of RfA, and decided just to go for the tool? Don't want to ping them all to ask them, but of course we could. Maybe it would have been good enough for those who only wanted to help with vandalism? (This was in response to I worry that it would be yet one more reason for someone to think "I can do what I need with the user rights I have. Why go through the hassle of RfA?") —valereee (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think any of the nominations I was directly involved with would have wanted the tools for just anti-vandalism work. Cwmhiraeth and Lee Vilenski wanted the tools for DYK, Eddie891 for closing AfDs, and John M Wolfson for AfDs and ITN. I wouldn't nominate someone who only did anti-vandalism; the minute they make a mistake, they bite somebody and can't explain themselves out of the situation. For example, Jim1138 and Abelmoschus Esculentus both did automated and anti-vandalism patrolling, they both erroneously assumed a good faith edit was vandalism, repeatedly reverted it, and got blocked for edit warring ... then they retired. I wouldn't have supported either of those at RfA for this reason, and I'd be concerned if they got the proposed tool here. In the scenarios where they got caught violating 3RR, they might have blocked the other party, which is a serious violation of WP:INVOLVED and would get a regular admin raked over the coals. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, let me do a quick brain dump to ProcrastinatingReader and spell out my thoughts. Is this solution actually solving a problem? I know Enterprisey has done a data dump, but it's not in a format that can draw simple conclusions yet. I can think of a couple of use cases:
An IP hopper replacing the infobox image on a featured article with one of anal sex repeatedly every 2-3 minutes, and copying it onto the talk page of anyone who reverts them, and repeatedly reverting it back until blocked. (Yes, this is a real example and actually happened).
A group of IPs all putting nonsense words on a primary school article in rapid fire
An IP writing "this article is libellous shit" on a poor quality BLP and going over 3RR to do it
An IP writing "In 2021, John and Jane Doe divorced" without a source (assume that the divorce is true). Also the same but sourced to The Sun.
Only really the first of those could be considered suitable for the "responder" role; the others are all more nuanced and require a different mix of tools.
How is the tool going to be enforced? I don't want to name names and upset people, but I can think of a few people that log reports at AIV day in, day out, and their quality isn't very good, and I can easily see them blocking good-faith editors. In that situation, I'd yank the user right immediately and give them a stiff talking to, saying they should not consider applying for any further advanced rights until they can convince people they've improved. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much both Barkeep and Ritchie for your thoughts here! Much appreciated. Also going to ping in enterprisey, who may be able to answer parts better than I. Regarding AIV quality, enterprisey's data tool is actually pretty powerful. It can also check the AIV reporting accuracy % for a particular user. So I'm thinking a bot can report that into a permissions request (like MusikBot does with PERM request info), along with the number of reports they've filed, to inform the decision process. Second, blocks made with the tool being reported to AIV I think ensures that nothing 'slips under the radar' so-to-speak in the form of peer-review. Even admins aren't subject to that kind of review on their actions, so that could be a pretty big safeguard.
Regarding yanking right, I'm thinking perhaps a provision that any yanked right, regardless of the outcome of the discussion at AN, must still be applied for again via the normal PERM process and get an affirmative consensus to reinstate. I think this may help since the AN discussions of removed rights sometimes focus on whether the single or couple of actions were awful and warranting removal, rather than whether the person should actually be doing the job. So having a consensus discussion on promotion again may be an improvement in that regard. But still, I expect this to be a minority of cases, if ever invoked; there are plenty of competent non-admins.
Regarding making RfA harder, this is not at all an area I have experience in, especially not compared to you both, but isn't this somewhat a lost battle? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year suggests ~20 RfAs successful per year from 2014–, with 10 in 2018. Also not sure I saw any successful counter-vandalism background (alone) RfAs in 2020, so perhaps this won't impact RfA much? It's also still a pretty limited right, and in that sense serves as a reason for people with it to run I think. On a similar vein, I think enterprisey's tool has produced a list of the top accuracy AIV users in the past months - there's some good names in there to consider for nomination regardless of whether this proposal passes I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
'Scuse me for pokin' my nose in but I am well aware of this proposal as ProcrastinatingReader knows. I am reminded of the time I was the most regular admin at PERM for a couple of years and later, the creator of the NPR right. As anyone who has ever owned or managed an internet forum knows, users are constantly jostling and queuing up to be moderators. The Internet seems to be a magnet for contenders for minor rights and Wikipedia is not spared this phenomenon. But with a couple of subtle differences: While few people are in a hurry to be admins, over 700 have now acquired the NPP right. Although the quality of page patrolling has improved, 90% of the work is done by less than 10% of the 'patrollers', and (except for the recent spurt to get things under control), the backlog got worse. Despite my efforts to convince the people who now run NPP since I handed over that the list of rights holder should be drastically culled, nothing much has happened. It's rare to yank a user right once accorded (unless you're an admin and your name is Kudpung) and this is borne out by the many totally retired admins who come back just once a year to make one edit in order to avoid procedural removal of the bit for inactivity. Obtaining adminship on Wikipedia is a big deal despite any Wiki memes, as this recent discussion demonstrates, and while unbundling has proven successful in some areas, I don't think there are any tools left, particularly the block hammer, that can be safely devolved. RfAs are now so few and far between, it might not be prudent to remove even more of the admin tasks, otherwise admins will become like Bureaucrats: largely inactive veterans with the highest level of authority but with hardly anything to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure at this point that we need to try making it easier to ping an admin, via an IRC channel or whatever, before we open the RfA can of worms. I don't think the proposal has any legs without us being able to say what the outcome of that attempt was. I was going to write something on VPIL about that, but ah, real life. Going back to the proposal, Ritchie's list of examples is a good insight - I was planning to go through the list of "most-reverted" vandals (which are not necessarily those that waited on AIV the longest!) and classifying them by whether they're "actually bad" (i.e. would've been a really easy case for an admin to deal with). And finally, while running the numbers there did seem to be a group of users who aren't active/experienced enough for RfA, but have stellar (perfect, in several cases) AIV accuracy records and conflict-free user talk pages. Of course, just a few people with this permission might not make much of a dent in the problem (although time-of-day has little to do with it, see graphs). Enterprisey (talk!) 03:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I am unhappy about the close as there was no consensus for merger. Relisting would therefore be better, please. For one thing, we might get more good quips like NYB's "spring surprise". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
DanieleProcida What I like to do, is to see if I can improve the article myself, using independent third-party sources. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find much myself beyond just mentioning that Divo is a cloud hosting company. By comparison, Amazon Web Services has an extensive and reasonably well-sourced article describing the company's history and architecture basics. And I have software uploaded to GitHub, but I'm not important enough to have a Wikipedia article. All that said, I have restored the page to User:DanieleProcida/Divio so you can retrieve the text, but I think it's unlikely that a draft will be accepted. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
CLCStudent, I was about to write "I can remember some kerfuffle over people.com, but IMDB should definitely not be used for any controversial information in a BLP, so the IP may be acting in good faith per WP:BLPSOURCES". Then I checked the edits before the last one. Blocked for 24 hours. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, I noticed that you closed the discussion as no consensus, but the subject doesn't meet any of the criteria for notability for Actors. He has only played minor roles in films and thus fails WP:NACTOR. Sources in the article are promotional and not independent.
Forbes The clarity on the Forbes article is crystal as "brand connect" articles are paid for press and even has a disclaimer at the bottom stating Disclaimer: The views, suggestions and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Forbes India journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article.
Outlook India This is a PR article with disclaimer mentioning the subject in passing.
The article has zero independent reliable sources and fails WP:GNG as well. The AfD had one delete and one keep !votes. However, the keep did not address the basic criteria outlined under WP:BASIC. I think the consensus was clear to delete the article.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
As JJE says, there weren't enough people to gather sufficient consensus on the article. I have no opinion on what should happen to it (which is correct per policy), except I closed the debate with "No prejudice against renomination". In particular, AfD debates should be about what sources are available generally, as opposed to what sources are in the article at present. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I've already done a WP:BEFORE search before starting this AfD and i literally found no sources that address the subject directly and in detail. The sources are mere mentions of the person. One thing i forgot to add to my above comment is that the only keep support was from the author and they did not even explain why the sources established notability. I was wondering if you could kindly reopen the deletion discussion to allow more people to participate in the discussion and to generate a more clear consensus? Thanks.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I can, but given my experience you might be lucky if you get one more person adding their views, leading to "no consensus" again. You're better off filing a fresh AfD from scratch; that tends to attract more attention. Part of the problem is that your opening argument at the AfD was quite vague and weak; if you'd opened it with a similar level of detail as mentioned here, more people may have agreed with you. I personally don't know enough about Indian, particularly Indian entertainment biographies, to be able to judge whether or not we should have an article; indeed, I would say we need more Indian and Asian admins on en-wiki. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Dodger67, Hmm. It's generally been a dumping ground for thoughts and views that I like so I can recall them at a later date - that's why most of them have diffs back to the original discussion. If there's a particular viewpoint that you want to link to, I can always expand that out to an essay. I have been thinking of writing User:Ritchie333/Annoying user, good content (don't particularly like the title "annoying", but it directly quotes a slide from Jimbo Wales at a Wikimania presentation some time back, so people would recognise the reference) that says the community has never (and probably will never) find a good way of dealing with somebody who makes good edits but it also disruptive. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Sandy Saha Article creation Help
Hello, i wanna create an article name Sandy Saha. I saw you have deleted the page on 14 september 2017. Now I need your permission to create the page. So can I get your permission ?? If you will give me permission then I can edit the article. Jroynoplan (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, Thanks. I've had a bit of a tough week (can explain off-wiki if you want) and I've been focusing a bit too much on admin stuff over the past few days; however, I still have Classic Keys to mine through to improve a few more articles, so I'll hopefully get on with some actual article writing soon. As for the Greens, did you know I've still got a picture of Caroline Lucas in my porch window - it was a flyer for the 2019 European Elections, that I just kept along with a "Covid - can you help" notice. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I think what I remember most about Flyer22 is she could change my mind about something and make me think, "hmm yeah, perhaps we should go with that". It's never nice to hear about somebody younger than you passing away. :-( Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely! I do my daily exercise now of converting refs for Stockhausen's works - today Adieu of all titles - in memory of Jerome Kohl, - thanks to your initiative! Another one who died on the Main page today, Vera Wülfing-Leckie, - a red link in the Deaths list, imagine. I went to the garden some great day in October 1996, remembered. Do you do FAC reviews? - BWV 1 is in need. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Understand all too well ;) - Two reviewers made the odd comment and supported. One reviewer is completely new to the subject and had good questions. One reviewer is familiar with the topic and had excellent questions. Image review fine. One source reviewer wants sources uniformly, - a source was added which has "location", mine have not, and where do I get it from in online books?? Another source reviewer questioned 4 sources, and accepted 3, because the last reviewer doesn't think the forth is reliable. It's however the source on which the article was built ages ago, and was only used for recordings. L threw it out out and left "citation required tags", in an article that is linked to from Bach Digital! I - in some horror - split the recordings to a separate article. L demanded merging back. Finally L wrote a section in the review, demanding a "reception" section. Source reviewer 1 asks when the article will get stable, and the delegate wants to see an end. End of rant, just explaining what "in need" translates to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Prompted by the below, I read your "Zen". Inspiring! Do people still talk about infoboxes? I thought that was a topic declared past in 2018. You survived a GA review by Eric ;) - I had no chance. Talking GA: do you think an article about music without a section about the music should be GA? d 812? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, apologies for this random message. This is regarding two articles Billie Eilish and Harry Styles, both of which are currently GA nominees, but the nominator is not a significant contributor in either case. The instructions at the WP:GAN/I#N1 state: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination". I cannot find any public record of consultation between the nominator and the article's contributors on the article's talk page. --Ashleyyoursmile!17:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile, I recognise the nominator, Trillfendi from elsewhere, and I believe this is a topic area they're interested in. So I don't think it's an issue to nominate these articles for GA, provided they're okay with putting the work in to improvement if a review mandates it. If you want to review them, the first thing I would do is to a quick sweep through the article and check there are no obvious quickfail issues (such as lots of unsourced content, copyvios, layout), then if not, do the review straight as you normally would. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. I see you have closed the AfD discussion at Macro Recordings. Thank you. The result shown is Redirect to Stefan Goldmann. As far as I can see there was No consensus. It has been pointed out by another editor and myself that all delete / redirect recommendations by editors were given before or while oddly ignoring new reliable sources proving notability added to the article while the discussion was still on. Also the article redirected to is not quite a good match with the original topic (part-owner of the record label deleted – information on label's industry awards etc is thus lost to Wikipedia). I believe the decision should have been to implement the steps applicable to no consensus (WP:CLOSEAFD). Could you kindly undelete the article – WP:UNDELETE and change to no consesus? Thank you! Planetdust (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Planetdust, It hasn't been deleted, the page history is available via the "History" tab, and a link to the last version before the AfD was filed is here. Regarding the close, a number of people suggested "redirect" as a second choice to "delete", so I think the final result is a good compromise, and asked for specifically. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. Thanks for the quick response. For pretty much all regular users of Wikipedia the article and the information it contained is now lost. The third choice was "keep"... Isn't "no consensus" precisely what is meant to be the outcome of controversial discussions that do not come to a conclusion through consensus? I believe it is clear that the wholesale removal of (well sourced) information is of quite a different nature than keeping it against the strong feelings of a few activist editors. Would you consider "undelete"? Thanks for your time! Planetdust (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Would you know someone to ask about modifications? I had this dream of that it could work automatically when I die, pick the dates, exclude who didn't edit during the last year and those blocked and banned for good reasons, but not the many blocked and banned for bad reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know who's on the same level as RexxS when it comes to template jiggery pokery. However, the first place I'd start is Category:Wikipedia template editors. Find an editor who's Precious, and if there are none, find one you think should be, and if there are still none, close your eyes, point your finger randomly on screen, and pick whoever comes up. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I do so agree with your statement that The principal problem we have with civility is how to respond to it and deal with it[1]. How often do we see civility and no one does anything about it? With that attitude, civility is free to spread unchecked and infect the entire project. I am personally rededicating myself to confronting civility wherever I find it. EEng14:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This is going to be another attempt of 'Let's tar and feather another admin, frog-march him/her down the street and chuck them over the cliff' case (at least I can only be desysoped once). RexxS doesn't deserve this. Let's hope that this time though, the new iteration of the Committee will investigate the background very thoroughly of plaintifs and/or non involved commentators and take that into account and do some proper arbitrating rather than just read the consensus of a braying mob. Vis-à-vis the line up of active Arbs on this case, there is a chance he'll get a fair hearing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The best description of the problem with civility I have seen is described by Eric Corbett here: "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. ... Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me." It's particularly effective, as the final sentence (not quoted here) in that post is the one people usually bring up as an example of incivility, missing the remainder of the message which carries an incredibly salient point that can be seen again and again at the WP:Dramaboard. I think we'll just have to wait and see how things shake out at the Arbcom case; but my take is looking at the discussions as a whole, outside of contexts of the individual diffs, that things often don't seem so bad and I'm generally still optimistic that with established editors who are normally okay, there are ways of moving forward and finding common ground. PS: EEng, you forgot to add {{fbdb}} at the end of your post :-) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Eric was correct about many things concerning WP, for example certain abusive Admins. But he was completely wrong in that quote which was a very easy construction for someone like Eric to come up with as a defense for his own behavior towards others, i.e. don't blame me for my inflammatory behaviour, blame the system for not allowing me to do to with impunity. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: If nobody minds, please let me say this (but only if nobody minds, of course). EEng, I think that you are nice. Thank you. I hasten to add that I hope that I have not inadvertently offended EEng, any other editor here, or any other person or persons, or any other species, by having said that. If by any chance, I have done so, please accept my abject apologies. I am so very, very sorry. Thank you again. Thank you very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Tryptofish's post beautifully exemplifies the kind of blatant, unchecked civility I was talking about in my OP. Someone should do something about people like him. EEng21:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm so very very very sorry! I'm sorry! I'm sorry! Please, please forgive me. But only if you want to. I don't want to impose. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Each month, one editor is awarded the Wikipedia Pissoff Award (shown at right) for having pissed off the largest number of other editors. Please nominate qualified editors here.
Hi there. I merged two articles (Soapy Awards into Soap Opera Digest Awards) after discussion on talk page. I copied and pasted it into sandbox, reworked the text, and then pasted into article and left a redirect on other one. I think I should have moved it instead (not sure) as this might have obliterated the history on the old page? Does it matter or is it okay? Thank you! -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Chez Carmen: "it's only been regularly played for 27 years, so maybe not 'longstanding'". Not compared to Stonehenge, but even so, I think some of our younger readers might think a quarter-century + fairly longstanding. Anyway, as it's you I haven't waxed pompous about trivia, in re the motor-racing reference, but I might have done had it been a random drive-by editor. Be that as it may, how I miss BB, the main editor of the Carmen article, and more than 100 others! Best wishes, Tim riley talk20:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Tim riley, I'm a bit disappointed I couldn't find more sources readily to hand, to talk a bit more about it. However, I had assumed it had been around since the beginning of F1, as opposed to something that just started to gain favour during the '90s. Still, I am convinced there are lots of people who won't be able to recognise Carmen by name (I had the advantage of learning the prelude in the school orchestra), but ask them "hum the music played when the F1 winners throw champagne on each other" and they'll all instantly do it. Indeed, one could argue it's a bit like citing that the sky is blue since you can verify the claim by watching and listening to the winner's trophy presentations at the end of any F1 race. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Wisdomwiki 40, The principal issue is that, as far as I can see, everybody else in the debate advocated deletion, and several people in the ARS thread although felt there were not enough sources to be able to keep an article. Unfortunately, that's consensus for you. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie333, the last active discussion on the Deletion Discussion Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheman_Shaik), was held till 17:46, 2 March 2021. I want your attention regarding the article improvement done on 5 March 2021. The Afd notice clearly says that feel free to improve the article, and that I did. If such a provision has been included in the Afd, it must not be without reason. I think members must take a look at the latest version of the article before taking the extreme measure. Please guide me. ThanksWisdomwiki 40 (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I don't have a problem with the AfD (I would have closed it as "merge" myself if I hadn't participated in it), or the DYK (it was a kind gesture to a new editor, not an innate desire to see Taylor Swift on the main page). However, I am a bit concerned that the article was created by a student as part of a Wiki-Ed course, and I would have expected them to be briefed on what counts as a notable Wikipedia article from the outset. @Ian (Wiki Ed):, this is the second time in as many weeks I've seen student work get nominated for deletion - is this a common occurrence, or just a one-off mistake? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please clarify where the article claims to meet WP:POLITICIAN? It states the subject was a city councilor, and the policy specifies that “just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability”, barring “significant press coverage” (which a single source does not demonstrate). — BiruitorulTalk15:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Biruitorul, In this case, we're talking about the very low bar of WP:A7 (a canonical example of which is "Timmy is my pet cat. He has short hair, black and grey stripes and likes catching frogs.") not a full AfD debate. I don't really know anything about the General Council of Bucharest, but I took a basic yardstick that as a council of a country's capital, it's broadly equivalent to the London Assembly. In that article, all the current members appear to have articles, and I could assume the same might be equivalent if there were enough editors here interested in Romanian politics to write them. Furthermore, there is a alternative to deletion, which is to redirect the article to that of the council. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Green Bullfrog you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
File for 3RR report
A trigger happy admin, yesterday
Hello. I would like to revoke my report please. I can see you're a trigger happy admin and I don't have the time to be contacting stewards etc. Kind regards J.Turner99 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I assume you mean I'm an "admin active in this area" (a trigger happy admin is somebody who blocks first and asks questions later). Anyway, I have closed the report as stale. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the article needs an infobox, but I have never worked with infoboxes for places before, hence the issue with the coordinates. Could you help me with that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.43.21.42 (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The man to ask is RexxS but he's not around at the moment :-( Before we do that, it might be an idea just to discuss what to put in it - remember that if the box is too large and contains multiple fields all saying "London", then it can start to move images lower down the article out of alignment. It's a question of balance. I've started a discussion at Talk:Mayfair#What to put in the infobox. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The specific problem with Mayfair, unique among the list of London Monopoly locations, is that it's an area, not a single entity like a street, station or (in one instance, a pub), so the fields don't fit properly. For example, where do you put the co-ordinate for Mayfair? St George's Square? Berkeley Square? Mount Street Gardens? The Punch Bowl? Decisions, decisions... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
RexxS having a good time, part 1RexxS having a good time, part 2
Lucky you! (I had planned to use the one that I had already shown in the crat-chat, saying "look: a person!") I never met him in person, sadly. Just his ideas. Prompted by something else, I found a post which I placed on my user page under remember. Imagine, imagine, if he could have convinced the two he had a conversation with! That kind of interaction deserves the name arbitration, in my book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, Can you pop over to the talk page discussion and have a look at the map proposals Clem has set out there? It would be nice if we could do something like that, and it also resolves one of the other concerns I have in Soho, where it's basically two maps that we can probably replace with one better one. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for bullying me endlessly. I added what most people consider useful information that highlights the greatest successes ( chart success of biggest albums in different countries, top hit songs of them) and for some completely personal reasons you just like it. Due to you and others I am ending my life. I told Binksternet I had missed 410 days of work with depression and he still kept hounding me. Enjoy. Informed analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.75.43 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
If this is serious, I will say this - everything I wrote here was in good faith and out of concern for your well-being. I take accusations of bullying very seriously, as I have been a recipient of it myself, and it is something I would never do. I have been driven to the same position as you on two occasions in my life. Don't do it. There is always hope. I urge you to ring or email The Samaritans (or the equivalent in your country) - this is only a website, it is not important. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article O'Connell Street you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
,_21.10.2013,_Praha_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
