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.
Ritchie, is it okay to say that I don't know how to feel about the current (days old now) discussion about the wiki-project ARS at AN/I. I have been on the receiving end of what I felt was incivility in the past from people on both sides of the discussion. One thing that I have taken to heart from a recent discussion with Fram in which they brought out the fact that I didn't speak up when Lois Alain was being uncivil but called out those on the thread for being uncivil directly is that we do tend to overlook incivility in those that agree with us or those that we like. While the incivility of Lois Alain in that discussion was as appalling to me as the incivility, which I still contend was vicious but so was his, in the AN thread concerning them, I did not specifically call out Lois and it has stayed with me over the last few weeks. I highly admire people on both sides of this discussion and it pains me to see some of them on opposite sides from each other. Yet and still I also see those on both sides whose tone is one of incivility even if their words are not direct aspersions against others. There are those who, seemingly, have an axe to grind against members of ARS and there are members who seem to hold contempt for those who have different views which is expected after being here for a decade or longer but is that excusable? What vexes me more is that I am a newish editor, especially in regards to others who have been editing here for as much as nearly half my lifetime, that kind of dates me, and if I see this discussion and it turns me off from wanting to be a part of this organization then how are newer editors to see Wikipedia? I hope they avoid such discussions, altogether, in somewhat of an ignorant bliss but I found them in less than a year, as I also was pulled into AfD and have contributed there on both sides of discussions. I am plagued by my early AfD comments in which I was uncivil to people that did not deserve it. I apologized to most but may have missed some. There was no excuse then and there is no excuse now for an uncivil tone or comment. What I intended by my comments be damned in those discussions. I want to, no I do see the human on the other side. It caused me to move away from AfD discussions but to what? I haven't decided what to move to. I play around with edits to various articles on geological formations and some here and there on various topics but with Winter break looming I have no idea where I am going to focus when I return, if I return, only that I must refocus or else I won't be able to continue. I am spending too much time in user space, as has been pointed out, and that doesn't really benefit the encyclopedia even if the goal is to benefit the community. Hoping the break does me good. --ARoseWolf18:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@ARoseWolf: I don't think there's anything wrong with taking sabbaticals. I have done it on a regular basis, as I've got worn down with discussions, and found it difficult to get motivated to improve content. A lot of the time recently I've had spare time to edit Wikipedia and I've felt completely stuck where I should edit. Then suddenly, I'll find an article that I can do something with and spruce it up. I think if you spend too much time in project space and in deletion discussions and noticeboards, you'll start to get fed up. The most productive way to deal with AfDs is to improve the article, then near the end write "Keep - I have improved the article using new sources, please could you take a look?" As a general rule of thumb, anything over 2,000 bytes of prose with at least six completely independent and impartial sources that thoroughly discuss the subject (ideally mentioning them directly in the title) is enough to stop deletion. I know it can feel frustrating if you put a lot of work into an article, only to see it deleted, but you can always get the text back via a charitable admin and it's possible for consensus to change later.
Don't worry about how long you've been on here. Nobody has any more right to be here than anyone else, and just because I've been here since before I had kids, and got an account when my eldest was two months old, it doesn't mean I have any more right to anything on the project than you. In particular, there are a lot of people who think you are a strong and encouraging force on the encyclopedia, who encourages kindness and consideration, and drives a badly-needed community spirit.
I wouldn't worry about old AfD comments where you felt you might have lashed out a bit. I've done way to much of that myself in the past, particularly when I've had unpleasant stuff going on my life and I have to make a serious effort to suppress the angry mastodons and lashing out at people. However, I think as long you recognise that's a problem and feel remorse over it, there's not really an issue. The real problem with incivility is editors who make nasty remarks, and either don't see anything wrong with it, or disagree that there's any problem ie: a total lack of self-awareness.
Anyway, I hope that all makes sense. Have a nice and safe winter with your family, and when you're ready to return, I'll see you then. I'd rather have somebody take a sabbatical voluntarily with some knowledge that they're going to return in due course, as opposed to the two editors mentioned at the top of this talk page who have basically vanished into the ether, seemingly never to come back. :-( Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I promise not to vanish if I have anything to say about it. Its not so much a willingness as much as necessity. I need to focus on things here as I missed so much time with being sick. I'll figure this out. I always do and I always learn, even from the most difficult of sources. No one is more critical of me than me and no one is a bigger advocate for you than me. That's how I approach every discussion, even with those whom I disagree in principle with. Thank you for your encouragement and kind words. --ARoseWolf19:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I have always got time for anyone who is able to be self-critical and realise that we aren't always perfect. It's those who refuse to admit they could possibly be wrong (often when quoting bits of policy back at me that I already know anyway, and disagree with the interpretation of) that tend to incur my wrath (or have done in the past). Regarding "we do tend to overlook incivility in those that agree with us or those that we like." - indeed, and I have done exactly this in the past, but I think I'm adopting a more neutral attitude nowadays. It does mean I'm unlikely to sit down over a pint and sandwich with SchroCat or Cassianto again though, and that's a bit of shame. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@ARoseWolf, first off, I want to note that in as much as sabbaticals are needed you taking a break now would be a huge blow as your contributions at the Teahouse would be missed. My other pertinent concerns is, you are most likely to vanish even if it (isn’t/wasn’t) your intention, I leave Wikipedia for three days due to work and I sometimes find it mentally exhausting to come back to editing, but in all, your peace of mind supersedes the collaborative project. As for the ARS, I honestly agree that it started off as a well thought out and positive initiative but in the last few years it has become a canvassing arena which is honestly causing more harm than good. I find it ironic that those who badgered Johnpacklambert for !votes such as “Delete - not notable” are failing to or willingly not refusing to see how a “Keep - notable” is problematic that in itself is indicative of double standards & sheer intransigence. Celestina007 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Celestina007, my contributions are so small in nature. I really had no idea how most felt about them. You have my word that I will not vanish forever if I am still breathing. This break is necessary as the weather gets harsh here and we typically shut off anything not essential for survival. I WILL find my way back here as I did in the Spring this year. Wikipedia will continue to grow and move forward and we will come full circle again. I hope all of you are here then as well. Ritchie333, I have noticed the shift and I welcome it in any form because its growth for you. You are amazing and I am so thankful to have met you among others here. If I am remembered for kindness and wikilove then I've made the impact I wanted. A GA or FA in the process would be an added bonus but not necessary even if a goal. --ARoseWolf20:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah right. Still: "Well, I think I'm man enough to sacrifice the pleasure of arbcom to maintain the general good humour. There’s to be no arbcom today, gentlemen. But prepare to Mrs. Miggins’—I shall join you there later for a roister you will never forget..." ——Serial13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for closing the AfD discussion. I'd like to note one thing: It looks like you might possibly have not closed the deletion discussion appropriately. It should have been a no consensus, as two users opposed (including myself) and two additional users were in favor of merging the article. Please take a second look at your past edits on SpinMedia. Multi7001 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses Hacmon as "no consensus" back in October. There were only two votes with substantive arguments, both of them only weak keeps. The discussion was only relisted once. Instead of closing it without consensus after two weeks, the discussion should have been relisted at least once more in my opinion. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Throast, The impression I get is that, generally, nobody really cares if we have an article on this subject or not. I would leave it for a few months to see if anyone can improve it, and if you are still unsatisfied, start a fresh AfD then. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a reason not to relist a couple more times. Articles of obscure people, who nobody really cares about, are listed all of the time (as they should be because many of them probably don't meet GNG). They shouldn't all end up being closed as "no consensus" just because there is little engagement within the first two weeks. What's wrong with keeping discussions up a bit longer? I will certainly nominate again. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The deletion process states "That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable .... Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors." Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
As I tried to explain above, there clearly was no substantive debate (two weak keeps). As the article wasn't edited much at all, I also don't see how the presence of the banner would have been disheartening for its editors. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Really?
[1] Really? You call yourself an admin, but you can't recognise a PA when it is staring you in the face, and instead decide to deal out "final warnings" when you are heavily WP:INVOLVED? Why don't you follow your own advice, and bring it to ANI instead? Because that was what I had to do instead of giving a level 3 warning for actually problematic behaviour, according to you. Oh no, because of that warning, she decided to start her break a few hours early. So what, we should let serious personal attacks slide by because the editor who made them is "kind and caring" and may cease editing a few hours early? Her last mainspace edit was on 5 October (10 mainspace edits in the last 3 months), I think we can live with a few hours less fake civility policing, just like we can live without "admins" who are blind to the errors of their friends but all too quick to give unwanted and wrong warnings again and again. Haven't you learned yet that your warnings, final warnings, ... you give me are utterly meaningless? That the only effect they have is that, if you would actually use your admin tools, you would be desysoped for involved actions? Fram (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Mikehawk10, Looking at the arguments presented, most seem about equal in terms of adherence to policy. "This is not very professionaly written or even titled." is not a specific reason to delete something, while yours and Qwaiiplayer's were the only "delete" arguments that gave a reason to not redirect (an implausible typo). Since there was a further straight rationale to keep, and several to merge, I concluded that the arguments mostly cancelled each other out, the argument for being an implausible typo did not see a consensus, and that a merge would be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Frias
Hello, I saw your recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Frias however I don't think its entirely fair. Keskkonnakaitse, who appears to be knowledgeable on the subject, commented that they felt it did pass WP:NFOOTY, and that opinion doesn't appear to have been challenged since. Two of the subsequent keep votes also said it passes GNG. Would you be willing to change the close to a no consensus? Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
NemesisAT, I looked at all the comments and the state of the article before reaching a decision. It's true that Keskkonnakaitse did assert the subject met NFOOTY, but several other editors asserted that it didn't. Furthermore, Keskkonnakaitse's rationale was refuted by two other editors, particularly Ravenswing, who said, "I'm not one of those cementheads who think that filing an AfD somehow puts a freeze on the article. If you improve it to the point where I change my mind on deletion, that's a win all around, right? Go for it." As Ravenswing didn't change their mind, I have to take consensus that the article wasn't improved to the point of being acceptable. While Keskkonnakaitse did add to the article during the debate, it seemed to be mostly infobox and category changes, and the main body of prose was still quite short and partially unsourced. So, when looking at the overall picture, it seemed that "delete" clearly had the upper hand in the debate.
I'm not convinced I should overturn the result to No Consensus, because that's not what I see. However, as I said at the AfD, I am happy to restore the text to a user page or to draft for further improvements out of mainspace. This can then be reviewed at Articles for creation and be restored by that route. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
For my part, what I would've been looking for were citations to reliable sources providing the "significant coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires. Those were not added to the article, and the pile-on keep voters didn't themselves suggest any others. Beyond that, it's long-established policy that AfDs close on the strength of the arguments, not on sheer headcount. Changing the close to "no consensus" isn't a compromise; it's preserving an article that does not pass notability muster. While we haven't had dealings before, Keskkonnakaitse appears to be a thoughtful, sensible editor with a strong history of improving soccer articles; if substantive improvements and qualifying sources were out there to be made, I'm sure that Keskkonnakaitse would have added them. Lacking those, my mind wasn't changed. Ravenswing 10:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey to the both of you, I fully understand the closure, even if I do disagree with it. I was planning to (and might as well right now) request that the text be restored to either my user space or draft space. As you might be able to tell from my edit history, I just got forced off Wikipedia for a week by school. I certainly didn't improve the article enough to change anyone's mind, but I'd like some time to continue to rehab it out of mainspace. It's been a pleasure dealing with all of y'all during this process! Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Update, I didn't realise that A. C. Santacruz was blocked from ANI. I've left a note over there; essentially, if ACS is cool with the block, then there's nothing more to do. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Snafu with close after page moved during the discussion.
I'm seeing fairly common SNAFUs caused by automated RfD closes by (XFDcloser). See Armenian dialects in Romania and Talk:Armenian Romanian dialects. Can you take a little extra time to double-check the work of this tool when you use it? I see a long list of possible future features at the top of Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser and I suppose handing closes of pages that are moved in the middle of a discussion would be one of them, but I don't know whether the developer Evad37 is aware of this issue. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
That looks like an error in the tool. It does ask you if you want to use the target or the original, but it seems to have got messed up. I didn't have any extra time today because I was heading out and assumed the tool would get it right. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts
I wanted to personally thank you for your belief in my abilities to contribute positively. Coming from an editor who I respect, I was buoyed by the ivote. Of the two articles you mentioned, Daniella V Grass was probably one I never should have defended. I was new at the time and thought she was notable because I saw her in Entourage, I got better, but perhaps only slightly. The other article you mentioned: I took on the Ted Kendall article based on his reputation. As my college coach used to say, "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit." Anyway, a heartfelt thanks to you. Based on Wug's summary of the schoolyard bullies, I need to go away for good. I left after finger shaking in the arbcom and saw that Captain Eek also thinks I am not worthy. I imagine it will just be one more nuisance post from me. If one more goofball says Chewbacca Defense I am going to scream. I am not leaving today, but I stopped here first. My best! Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
A very long time ago, I took an album to be mastered by Denis Blackham, who despite having gold discs and awards plastered all over the studio, was a thoroughly nice guy and very enthusiastic about new music. I recall him mentioning somebody who might have been Ted Kendall, saying he was the "go to guy" for restoring old shellac discs and preserving historic recordings made by that medium, so when I saw the AfD, I hoped I could improve into a keepable state. In that case, a merge might have been more appropriate. Anyway, I'm sorry you've got the thin end of the wedge on this - I really don't think your conduct rose to the level of needing sanctions, and would re-iterate the advice to just focus on content and avoid discussions. Something I saw elsewhere on the 'net some time back was "User 'x' may irritate the hell out of you, but they might actually have a point, so wait and see if that gains traction instead of leaping for the 'reply' button".
Anyway, trying to look on the optimistic side, the ban is not infinite, and I think an appeal in some months can be considered. I seem to recall enacting a similar topic ban on TenPoundHammer a while back, and he got it appealed. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I do love music. Poor Ted, in mainspace for 16 years. I guess he never really belonged there. At least he has a proper article now, and if he gets convicted of a DUI, or beating his wife, we can refund his article. Regarding the ban, there is a systemic problem with an organization that allows a volunteer to be pulled into a forum, and then ganged up on for 12 days and then Wikipedia sanctions the mob's opinion. I do not have any friends who swim around in that cesspool. One of the Arbcom members said it was the nastiest thread: "the nastiest ANI threads of all time. I watched the development of the thread with bated breath". Well that is a problem in my opinion. Why watch? There are many ways to get to the result, and WP has developed the worst. What organization would think this is productive - and how is a volunteer to continue editing after reading hateful comments? Then there is a kid telling me I am incompetent, but he has never written a single article that wasn't deleted. He seems only interested in Chewbacca - I am on record saying Star Trek beats Star Wars. Is that why he was torturing me with Chewbacca? Calling ANI the community, is like the naming of the Patriot Act - absolutely nothing patriotic about it. Anyway, the fringe drama editors have just found their power. So they say, no, no, Arbcom, we got this - we can beat the piss out of editors for 12 days and come to a conclusion. We are the community - we got this. And Arbcom says, yes the process works - Decline. Baited breath? Really? The beatings will continue until morale improves! Bring in the Fembots! Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
As I said to ARoseWolf, the best thing to do is to concentrate on the article all the time and improve it, ignoring what's going on at the AfD debate. The canonical example I could give is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ika Hügel-Marshall; you can't see from the context that I found a bunch of sources via JSTOR and expanded the article hugely, leaving just a polite note to "take another look at the article", which did the trick. I realise that when you're a middle of a debate, you can't obviously see who's going to turn up and say what, but as long as you leave the article in the best shape you can, the better the chance that people will agree with you and !vote to save it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie. I was just venting and soapboxing. I am prone to such soliloquies. I know the way forward, and there is nothing I can do to change the culture and mores of this organization. Food for thought, nobody has a problem with my delete redirect and merge rationales so perhaps my Tban should be amended so that I may never ivote keep in perpetuity. :). I will stop barfing my nonsense all over your talk. You are a swell guy, I don't care hat SN5 says about you. And I just found out what beats Battlestar Galactica. Let's get something done! Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
You said “It is not clear that the cited sources support this characterization of the statements.”.
My sources are clear on the characterization of the statements. The Belgian State Secretary of Asylum and Immigration even made a statement directly to Anuna De Wever, saying “Can we please stop reducing the opinion of a person to age, skin color, sexual orientation or gender?”.
JustinPurple, I don't recall saying that, or indeed giving any opinion of the article. I have however, seen you reverting editors repeatedly and indiscrimiately, and that is disruptive. You need to go to Talk:Anuna De Wever and make your case there. Note, that our page on edit warring states "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, I mixed the person who blocked my edit permissions (you) with the latest admin who made an edit. I’m new to this edit warring. Maybe you can give me some guidance:
Question 1:
What happens when multiple users keep reverting your valid changes? Do you have to keep a clock and wait 24 hours before being allowed 3 more edits?
Question 2:
In case multiple people keep undoing your changed for no good reason, how do you ever reach “consensus”? You cannot reach consensus with the whole internet, cause everyone will keep having different opinions? It seems clear Anuna De Wever’s page is protected by a bunch if different biased users who just want to make sure nothing bad is being said about her, and even if she did something bad, that it is downplayed or minimized to the extreme. JustinPurple (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Also it was my presumption that I’m allowed to make up to 3 edits/reverts per day. I did not cross that limit as far as I’m aware. JustinPurple (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Question 1 - You look at another article to edit or something else to do
Question 2 - I would start by expanding on the comment in this diff, "There’s no reason to put racist, heterophobic and age-discriminatory statements on wikipedia to have them “judged by readers” if they are actually racist. Facts are facts." If there is no response, then you should assume that nobody is objecting and can revert back; however what I think is far more likely is that those editors who reverted you will explain why they disagree and a straight quotation is more neutral and concise. If the discussion ends with everyone disagreeing with you, you won't be able to revert the information again, otherwise you might be blocked again. Finally, the three revert rule is not an entitlement to revert a number of times, anyone reverting up to three times a day to avoid the letter of the three revert rule can still be sanctioned. "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie, you handled the previous case of Melissa Highton when I was unable to and I see a fresh incident at her talk page. The accusation of COI seems to be false and the accuser seems to be a novice or otherwise ill-suited to patrolling as they only started editing recently. Please investigate. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have challenged this, and left a note on Melissa's talk page. As for whether or not they are a sockpuppet, I think a checkuser is required. There's probably one reading this talk page ;-) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Sdrqaz. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Squaring the Circle (album), and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I wasn't aware Page Curation sent messages without my knowledge. I believe since you moved it to the mainspace and as an administrator you have autopatrol, it was automatically marked as such. Given the (original) creator's conflict of interest, I preferred that it formally went through the NPP process. It's now resolved, since Serial marked it as patrolled. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh right. I thought that if you moved something into mainspace (as I did when I accepted the AfC submission, which is why NPP wouldn't have seen it) then it wouldn't mark it as reviewed, as the creation was still ultimately attributed to somebody else. Learn something new every day :-) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
DYK Queue 2
Thank you for promoting Prep 2 to Queue 2. You forgot one important step. Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions - You need to remove {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}} from the top of the target Queue, and replace it with {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} You removed the appropriate line, but still need to add the DYKbotdo template for the rotation to happen. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Maile66, Ah right. I've done that now. I saw the instruction to do so on the queue itself, but under a heading "Manually posting the new update (if the bot is down)" so I assumed (obviously erroneously) that the bot would do it. (I also tweaked the last hook and removed something I couldn't find in the citation supporting it in the article). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
On ARBs taking breaks
Thanks for linking to my thoughts in your question to OR. I should be clear that I think it's great that Arbs take breaks. Several arbs have taken breaks this year including a couple who took a few months. This is one reason I think being at a full 15 member committee is ideal. This means a few arbs can be inactive at any given moment without the overall capacity of the committee being in question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I've always been under the impression that Arbs should put as much as they possibly can into the role; I certainly know in the past there have been complaints that Arbcom took too long to close cases, which were frequently late, and absent Arbs have come under criticism for not doing anything. Or at least that's how I've seen it. I know it's difficult to get a committee of 15 to agree on .... well, anything, which is why I'd see if I could have a slightly smaller committee, at least small enough to still be diverse and produce the most appropriate results for everybody. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean to @Jo-Jo's point I was in favor of the concept of dropping from 15 to 13. But FRAM convinced me that having the surplus capacity was useful and that was even before I realized how hard some of the behind the scenes stuff could be with a smaller committee. When every arb is really dialed into something the emails fly fast and furious and it's a lot. But that maybe happens once every other month and on the whole I've thought the current size is a good overall fit balance. And ironically on missing deadlines I think it can from both too many people (too hard to find consensus/agreemnt) or two few (the work doesn't get done). Committee dynamics in that regard are, I think, as important as the number of members. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The page should be undeleted as the supplied sources above provide adequate evidence to the following which was pointed out in the debate:
"Doesn't seem to pass WP:NOTABILITY or WP:ARTIST. I can only find a few reliable sources about her or about exhibitions of her work, but I don't see enough substantial sources online that show notability:
First thing: thanks for reducing my block to partial and 24 hours. That's fair.
Second thing: Woovee is making a sockpuppet accusation as an attempt to chase people away from the Bauhaus article so that Woovee can get control of it. See User talk:Woovee#Deviousness ?. (I would participate there but Woovee ordered me off the user talk page.) Woovee says Lynchenberg and Ninmacer20 are the same person, but they are not. I can see at the two relevant xtools pages[2][3] that the editors have a completely different diurnal editing patterns. Ninmacer20 has a well-defined sleep pattern while Lynchenberg tends to stay up all night on Wednesday, and has shifting sleep periods otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
First thing : I didn't have an opinion on the content (and hence so wasn't WP:INVOLVED) when I reviewed the blocks, I just thought the amount of reverting in a short space of time (and from two established editors) was ridiculous and you both should have seen a block coming. Having looked at the content and the RfC, I have a slight preference for the paraphrased version over taking the direct quotation, per the close paraphrasing guidelines, specifically "Extensive use of quotation from non-free sources is generally not acceptable. Even if content is attributed, it can still create copyright problems if the taking is too substantial. To avoid this risk, Wikipedia keeps this—like other non-free content—minimal.".
Second thing : I don't know what on earth Woovee's playing at, but I've already told him to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, and if he pulls out the stick and decides it might be worth just giving the horse just one more thrash, he's just going to wind up blocked again. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
On 19 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Broomhead Reservoir, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it has cost about the same to maintain Broomhead and More Hall Reservoirs as it did to build them in the first place? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Broomhead Reservoir. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Broomhead Reservoir), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.
Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for November 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dark Side of the Moon Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Watts.
Hi Ritchie, understand you banning me, but I'd like to try to repair my mistakes here. I don't want to make work for others. You could give me say 24 hrs, and then reinstate the ban? Best wishes JCJC777 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Alright then, here’s my talk page post about the Pier rides. How come you won’t allow them on the page yet other pages about some piers in the UK do have their rides on the page? It is really confusing me and I was wondering if I could get an answer otherwise... Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is a Good Article, which means it needs to adhere to the Good Article Criteria. One of these is "Verifiable with no original research: all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". So the basic criteria is to only add information when someone else with a good reputation has talked about it and then ensuring that the source is cited next to the new material so it can be checked. The source could be the Brighton Argus, The Guardian, BBC or, in limited cases, the pier's website for basic information.
The other thing to remember is that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and needs to cater for any readers in the world. So there needs to be appropriate balance between the original history, its relationship with Brighton, and other miscellaneous facts against a simple list of rides.
I haven't spent extensive work on other pier articles other than West Pier which is also a Good Article, so I don't know what state they are in. However, it's well-known that the general quality of Wikipedia articles is somewhat lacking and there's not enough resource to improve them. Plus the Wikimedia Foundation seem more interested in the number of articles over whether or not they are well presented.
I can understand that. I was thinking for rides that maybe there could only be just the names and a very brief description, but I’m not sure what is best for you to keep it a good article.Luigitehplumber (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Careful with That Axe, Eugene 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
On 24 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Valerie Broussard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Valerie Broussard's video for "Iris" pays homage to the Goo Goo Dolls' original? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Valerie Broussard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Valerie Broussard), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.
Well done for trying to help with the precision of GAs through your message on the talk page about the "Clique" review! K. Peake12:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Kyle. Although he's "no longer with us", Eric Corbett's GA reviews were generally excellent. Although a nominator expecting a "dashes look good, formatting seems to conform to bits of the MOS, yeah pass it" review might get an unintended surprise, at the end of the day it ends up with GA that are properly "good articles" in both name and spirit. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Careful with That Axe, Eugene you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Careful with That Axe, Eugene for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
On 25 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Meadow Walker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Meadow Walker was walked down the aisle by Vin Diesel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Meadow Walker. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Meadow Walker), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.
Ritchiee, thank you for your well wishes while I was sick. It was an inspiration to me that I will not forget. I'm just notifying you that I am going on break now. I figured a few hours early wouldn't make much of a difference and it allows me to push myself to click the button (lol). I truly wish for you to have a good rest of the year and I hope to see you in the Spring. --ARoseWolf19:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, have a nice winter break. I'll see you in the spring, when there's hopefully nicer weather around. Have a nice Christmas with your family, that's what's important. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I have a whole bunch of DYKs (well, four actually) that have been sitting around waiting for the queues to clear, so I thought I'd help out a bit and drain the backlog. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I've never liked Arbcom message spam like that; if you are interested in Arbcom stuff, you'll know where to find the voting instructions. If all you want to do is improve the encyclopedia and couldn't give a flying monkeys about governance (and if that's the case, more power to you), then it's irrelevant. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Echoes (Pink Floyd song) 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 Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
