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.
Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaheen Sayyed, including your link to User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7. Rereading what I wrote in that AfD, I realise that, writing hastily and without due thought, I did not express what I intended to. No doubt anyone reading my comment would think that I was suggesting that you were wrong to decline the speedy deletion nomination, but what I intended to convey was merely that I didn't really see the decline as "obvious", not that I thought it was wrong, and I would not myself have speedily deleted the article. In fact I rarely do A7 deletions, even of articles which I think deserve it, because I think of all the speedy deletion criteria, A7 is the least clear and the most subject to variations in interpretation, with the result that very often neither accepting nor rejecting an A7 nomination is "obvious"; therefore deletion is less likely to be uncontroversial than for any other criterion, and controversial deletions are not what the CSD are supposed to be about. Indeed, you pretty well summed up the point in your "Plain and simple guide to A7", where you wrote "The problem with terms like "importance", "significance" and "notability" ... is they are subjective. What I think is "important" may not be the same as what you think." In fact I suppose that is what lies behind the fact that in this case what you think is "obvious" is not the same as what I think. JBW (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Incidentally, I wrote above "I would not myself have speedily deleted the article", but in fact it's more accurate to say "I did not myself speedily delete the article", as I saw the nomination before you got there, and decided not to delete it. I stopped short of actually declining it, though, for some reason that I now don't remember. JBW (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
JBW, you've put in words how I've felt about A7 and some other subjective criteria for a while now. I would have deleted the article if Ritchie hadn't already declined, but now I think I will just ignore A7 tags. The speedy criteria are meant to be for bright-line cases like "this was created by a banned user", "this is an exact copy of a deleted page", and "this is a copyright violation"; cases where the criterion is met clearly and nobody could rationally argue otherwise. Some are subjective but tend to be uncontroversial and net positive anyway (attack pages and clear advertisements, for example) but I don't think that A7/A9 meet that goal. Especially now that draftification is an option, and considering that I'm sure most A7/A9 deletions are the work of new users who might otherwise make good content, I'm beginning to think that those criteria should be abolished. I don't have time to make noise about it right now but you've given me something to think about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
JBW, Ivanvector I wrote the "plain and simple guide" a year before the WP:ACPERM RfC which stopped the creation of articles until a user was auto confirmed, at which point the amount of CSD A7s in the queue plummeted from about 20 a day to very few. Nowadays, it's vanishingly rare for an A7 to turn up; most CSDs I find are G6, G11 or G12 these days. The last couple of times I've seen an A7, it doesn't meet the criteria, at least as it was originally designed. There have been references to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and it took me a while to work out where that was introduced, but it turns out it was in this RfC over eighteen years after A7 was introduced. You can't fit square pegs in round holes, if we have sufficient articles arriving at AfD that are chock full of paid content in India, we should start a new proposal for a CSD criteria at WT:CSD. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
In one detail my impression of recent CSD nominations differs from yours: I find that G11 and U5 are the two commonest, with a few others, such as G12 and G6 following them, whereas you don't mention U5. However, that is a small detail, and otherwise my impression agrees with yours, including the fact that A7 is uncommon, whereas it was common, perhaps the commonest, before the requirement for autoconfirmation for article creation. I check the CSD queue very frequently, and I go not to the list of nominations, but to the list of subcategories, and I never click on A7, because I feel so uncomfortable about them. Therefore on the infrequent occasions when I do see an A7, it's usually because I have come to the article because of some other problem, so what I see is probably not a representative sample; however, I find the proportion of unambiguous cases is very low. I said above that I didn't remember why I didn't decline the nomination which led to this discussion, but having thought about it, I think it's just that I have such a negative view of A7 nominations that I just tend just to walk away and not deal with them either way unless I see one as really obvious, and, as I have already said, this one didn't look as obvious to me as it evidently did to you. Ivanvector, your idea of abolishing criteria such as A7 is one I have thought of many times, but every time I have come back round to "... but what about the occasions when some totally non-notable person creates an account, games autoconfirmation, and creates an article about themself, or their garage band, or their mother, or their pet cat, or whatever?" It doesn't happen terribly often, but it's often enough that we need a simple way of dealing with it, in my opinion. Sometimes such articles can be speedily deleted for other reasons, but by no means always. Draftifying isn't an ideal method for several reasons, including the fact that if the draft is moved back to mainspace we are stuck with having it around while we waste time at AfD, and the fact that it risks misleading the person into thinking that such an article is worthwhile if it's improved, rather than conveying the message that it just isn't suitable at all. JBW (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
In my mind, the "topic is not suitable for Wikipedia" messaging of an AFC decline is much more newbie-friendly than visiting your page to find a deletion log entry. You're right, though, that a user could just move their page back. I think that's a separate problem worth addressing: I've thought about proposing that moving pages into article space should require extendedconfirmed or pagemover permission, specifically because of new users and UPE sockpuppets promoting unsuitable drafts without review, or promoting them after they've been rejected. Maybe their ought to be a criterion like G4 for rejected drafts promoted without improvement, but then that also seems subjective. I guess it needs more thought than I've given it, there's a lot of small but important aspects to consider. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
On occasion, I've spotted an article tagged for speedy that was in draft, unilaterally moved into mainspace, and subsequently tagged by NPP, whereupon I've moved it back to draft and removed the tags, particularly speedy and PROD. I think this has been a long-standing issue in that while the AfC reviewing script is only given out to completely trustworthy editors, it can always be bypassed by moving things into mainspace.
The focus and pages in the draft namespace has changed quite a bit since WP:ACPERM. In the past, it tended to be articles that could be notable, but the user wasn't sure and needed help to get them correctly written. Nowadays, it seems that a lot of stuff that would previously be quickly speedy deleted is now in draft, and the quality of potentially salvageable drafts has declined to the point where I don't review much there at all, and avoid it. The help desk appears to be chock full of Indian editors wondering why their WP:BLPSOURCES violating semi-paid editing page isn't notable, and getting the same answers again and again. I noticed Cullen328 declined a bunch of these a few days back, quoting some of their text back at them which would certainly prove the worthiness to speedy delete them per WP:G11 (I'm not sure if this happened or they were just declined). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Each administrator has their own approach and style of working. Looking at my adminstats, I see that I am about seven times more likely to block a user as to delete a page. That is mostly because I patrol WP:UAA and WP:ANI frequently, I suppose. I try to encourage and assist in the creation of new articles through my work at the Teahouse and the Help Desk. WP:AFCHD is a place where I can frankly assess junk as indicated above, and there is a certain satisfaction in that. As for A7, I have not thought about it as deeply as others but I have no problem applying it to a high school student, a newly formed garage band, or a local pizzeria, if there is no assertion of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you want to write about yourself, please don't. If you want to put some basic biographical information on your user page, I'd advise you not to do anything at all. The less you put about yourself, the less likely it is that people will grab it and use it for the wrong purposes. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Question about topic appeal
Hi. It seems like the topic appeal isn't going to go anywhere due to axe grinding. Do you have any advice about how I can get around that next time or should I just not bother appealing the topic ban again in the future since it will probably just be opposed again by the same couple of people who I've had past issues with? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The basic problem is one that S Marshall has already said to you on your talk page. Stop replying to people. At the ANI thread that caused your topic ban, I said "How many more ANI threads do we need dealing with Adamant1 relentlessly writing page after page of fastidious explanations of why he disagrees with others at AfD?". That single comment pretty much sums up my views I've had since I noticed you contributing to AfDs I was closing.
You can't change anyone's mind by continuing a discussion - the best you can hope for is other editors read your comments and agree with you. But after replying, say, twice, those other editors tend to think too long, didn't read and ignore what you're saying.
It's not a question of whether you are right or wrong as much as you have a tendency to reply to everything and occasionally get personal and insist the other party is wrong, when they are just disagreeing with you. Or, you insist you are right when multiple editors have said you were wrong, culminating in Drmies saying things like "If you're not familiar with the notability guidelines for schools, or with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and if you can't fathom that a school that's almost 400 f***ing years old is likely to be notable, then you simply shouldn't be participating in deletion debates involving schools." (this is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School).
My advice to you is that you're unlikely to get the topic ban appealed until you realise that sometimes, it's best to walk away from a debate and not reply. You haven't done that in the appeals thread, and the links to Commons, which shows you doing the same thing, has turned people against you and decided lifting the ban is not appropriate.
I can't really put it more straightforwardly than that. If you still don't get what the issue is, I think you'll have to accept being topic-banned from AfDs indefinitely. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
That's fair. It's kind of a lose lose though where if someone says they want me to admit I was in the wrong I either have to reply and say I'm in the wrong, which then leads to people treating me like I respond to everyone who disagree with me, or I don't and then they can just claim I'm not taking responsibility for my behavior. So how about you tell me what the answer to that is because from my perspective it seems like I'm screwed either way.And you can point to my behavior on Commons like it's some kind of evidence that I don't understand what the issue is, but they don't care if people get in back and fourths as much as people on Wikipedia do. Just because I go barefoot at my friends house doesn't mean I do the same thing at the grocery store. The fact is that I've gone out of my way to abide by the topic ban on and haven't gotten into any conversation that could lead to the same issues as were brought up in the ANI complaint. You think that's just random chance or maybe I'm trying to be respectful of people's complaints on here about how I communicate and not cause any more problems? My bad for doing something on another website that they don't even have a problem with though. Really. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I said that, Ritchie? Harsh, maybe--but after looking over that ANI thread again I think it was pretty measured. I find it interesting that in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School I see my uncle again, making sense as usual, and this time invoking the cricket notability cabal. I remember that discussion now, and that AfD--someone should turn that article into a GA, or at least a Better A. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Not to belabor the discussion, but can I file an appeal with the Arbitration Committee or take it up with trust and safety or something or is there another way to appeal it that wouldn't involve the axe grinding? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
That you consider other people "axe grinding" means you don't get it. Sorry, you need to stay away from all discussions on Wikipedia project space. Focus only on writing and improving articles. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The user from Commons commented purely because we got in a disagreement. They didn't just randomly come on the request and decide to comment for no reason. I know it's easy to judge me when you don't have all the information though. You know, honestly, I get it. I was a pretty big asshole back in the day and there's no reason anyone would just give me the benefit of the doubt that I've improved my behavior. Things happen though. I had a stroke, some friends died of COVID, and I don't have the same bad attitude towards this that I use to.
But I don't expect anyone to give me a second chance. I was just bored and thought I'd appeal it because enough time had past. Plus I've always felt bad about how things went down. That's it. I'm sorry if I didn't use the right words or left one more message then I should have. There's real problems out there and this wasn't super high on my priority list to begin with. So I'll just to stick to mostly editing Commons for the seeable future. I appreciate the advice though. BTW, Drmies, I'm sorry to hear about your uncle dying. My condolences. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I am continually reminded that people have better access to books than I have.
In another subject beginning with "B", which Drmies is currently enjoying a lot of from User:Drmies/Beauvoir Club and Bowling and Balls to Bleats of That Still-Redlinked Goat, with the occasional User:Drmies/Gwerz an Aotrou Nann and Sandro of Chegem interjected for comic relief; the Billings Field (AfD discussion) is the subject of a thing that I cannot access.
It used to be Speare field, and from what I can tell, the society article connects up the Billings family members from Lemuel (later Henry Lemuel) Billings onwards, the Billings sheepskin factory, and the Field.
Hodge, James Michael (1913). The coals of the upper Carr Fork and Big Branch and Bull Creek region of North Fork of Kentucky River. Reports of the Kentucky Geological Survey 4th series 1912–1918. Vol. 1. Kentucky Geological Survey.
91 books! And more than 300 from Rennick.
I don't have a favourite.
I don't remember half of them.
Durban Strategy (AfD discussion) perhaps is my least favourite, but that because of how much of a struggle it was to make sense of something that people just stopped writing about on 2001-09-11, as well as dealing with daft people who wanted to freeze article writing so that they could hold a vote the second time around.
There's been everything from Paper bag (AfD discussion) to the When? (AfD discussion) that got us the Five Ws.
I've just spent 10 minutes trying to locate the one where my contribution to the AFD discussion was a small horizontal rule where I did a rewrite, and everything above the rule is "delete" and everything below "keep".
I do remember when forehead needed some attention. ☺
I tried to make Hindi Belt a lot better, too, recently, but apparently doing things like replacing "How many Indians can you talk to?" as a source for an introduction of an article with actual books is a terrible thing that requires discussion.
...anyway, going back to the essay linked at the top of this thread. There have been more than a few times where I've been looking for sources, found what I call a "money source" (eg: something that allows one to improve Oxford Circus from this to this) in Google Books, and started pulling information from it. Then I think, "hmm, this sounds too good to be true, what's the publisher?" followed by "Oh *(*%^&% it's iUniverse" and throw 1k of prose in the bin. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
— Rudlin, David; Payne, Vicky; Montague, Lucy (2023). "Home and Garden". High Street: How our town centres can bounce back from the retail crisis. Routledge. ISBN9781000907995.
This is all quite confusing, but I'm sure that you will sort it out.
That edit warrior was very lazy, though. It's a common theme for articles that I've spent significant time improving and maintaining. Inevitably, updates occur, but when they occur, they often come from new and inexperienced editors who don't understand key Wikipedia policies (and aren't expected to); sometimes I'll be in the right frame of mind to think "okay, I'm going to look for sources myself", but in this case I obviously wasn't and thought "this sounds like you just heard it somewhere, come back when we've got an actual source". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This is something I've seen on my own articles as well. The main problem seems to be the citation format, usually, although people using newspapers for non-news things is another common thread. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Looking at what that article links to, that journalist at that newspaper had been covering the story for months, and before that edit was made. There wasn't really a reason not to lift a finger and just point you to it or some other newspaper. I am sure that you would have taken even a bare URL and run with it.
I'm just catching up on things that have happened here in the bast few months, so please forgive me if this have been discussed before. As one of the people who nominated Lourdes for her second RfA, do you have any thoughts on how such situations -- i.e. the nomination of a previously banned admin for administrator -- can be avoided in the future? In retrospect were there any warning signs that were overlooked? Do you have any thoughts about institutional measures which can be put in place to reduce the possibility of such a thing happening again, or do you feel that the case was entirely sui generis and that there is not need for any additional protocols? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the link.I'm not faulting Ritchie333 or SoWhy for nominating Lourdes, since hindsight is 20-20 and I'm certain they did so from the very best of motives, but I do think that the idea that Wikipedia is in dire need of more admins might create an atmosphere where nominations are made that might not have otherwise been. Lourdes had already filed an RfA about a year before and withdrew it because of the opposition to it. I don't think there's any doubt that being nominated by two well-known upright admins might have made the differences in Lourdes2. Perhaps it would have been better to leave Lourdes to her own devices in seeking to be an admin -- but, then, I'm not a big supporter of self-nominations, being of the opinion that anyone who wants so desperately to be an admin that they file an RfA a little over a year after they start editing is probably not a good candidate, or, at least, worth deeper investigation. That might not have revealed anything pertinent or prevented Lourdes from getting the bit, but we'll never know now.Maybe it would be a good idea to restrict RfAs to editors with a minimum of 5 years editing and X number of edits, perhaps 10,000. We set restrictions such as that for ECP, and being an administrator is a much more powerful position than being extended confirmed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
(Non-R333 comment) Well, yeah, but no. Admins can only work with the material they're given. Yes, they can look into past editing, but pretty much all of them can only see the obvious stuff, and anything that suggested a bad hand actor would (hopefully) not find the candidate a decent nominator in the first place, regardless of whether socking was indicating. Frankly, there was nothing anyone could have done about Lourdes (Wifione or whatever); their plans were made long before Ritchie's. (To paraphrase yer man, "Ritchie don't like it living here in this town, He says the traps have been sprung long before he was born". Etc.) Put it bluntly, anything that could've given Lourdes away as a sock would have stopped them ever being nominated; but anything that wasn't known couldn't have done. If you get my drift. ——Serial04:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I note that Lourdes was extremely good at avoiding editing articles which their previous account, Wifione, had edited. Their overlaps were every small and would not have been sufficient evidence to fulfill an SPI case, if one had been started. Most sockpuppets have a much greater tendency to edit the same articles, or at least within the same subject area. I deduce from this that Lourdes' reason for socking was to become an admin, not to RGW in some subject area. Perhaps the lesson here is that it's very difficult to stop someone who wants to be an admin from doing so, if that is their primary purpose in editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the only possible "smoking gun" (and it's not really a smoking gun, more a slightly damp "smoking" water pistol for 5 year olds) is that Lourdes emailed me off-wiki asking for an RfA nomination. I can't think of an instance where somebody else emailed me about an RfA, and I took them up on it - a few others have done so, but I've always said no. So they were keen, and said the right things, but then so would any decent RfA candidate. I think the conclusion is that hard cases make bad law and there probably isn't anything we can change. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Although the new comments in the final week's listing were for keeping the article, many were extensively refuted by Randykitty, and consequently I didn't see a consensus to keep. As it is, "no consensus" means the article will be kept; or is your concern (as is suggested in the AfD) that this will come back in a few years time for AfD round 3? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the fuller explanation, agreed it was a good defense but this particular journal has importance within its field of study. Renoms always are a concern, and it would seem that after two unsuccessful delete nominations that would end the refilings. But many deletion attempts keep coming back for more until they succeed or run out of keyboards. Thanks again, and the best of holidays to you. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The only other comment I'd make is the article is quite small, less than 1500 bytes of prose (the general rule of thumb at DYK for minimum size). I think the best way to avoid a third deletion debate would be to beef the article up a bit. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
You don't necessarily need a user page in order to help improve the encyclopedia. You could simply put, "Hi, this is my user page" and a list of topics you're interested in editing, as a start. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
IAR co nom
I appreciate it but part of the reason I self nominated is because I didn't want to have to pick between the 7 or 8 people who reached out to me offering to nominate. I didn't want anyone to feel left out. If people want to oppose my self nom because they have some inherent bias against those who do, they are free to do so. Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
You're right that people are allowed to oppose self-nominations if they wish. But this tends to be counteracted with a large amount of rebuking and badgering, none of which is particularly useful towards ultimately building an encyclopedia. Since I had something close to a self-nomination within easy access (I didn't have one for 0xDeadbeef so that wasn't an option there) I thought putting a "bandwagon jumping" co-nom would stop that sort of badgering and focus squarely on the candidates' contributions.
In general though, if the community is turning more towards allowing self-nominations and encouraging more people just to put themselves forward and give it a go, then great. I wonder if the stigma is more because in the past, unreviewed self-noms have crashed and burned quickly. The more successful ones we get, the more people will agree that it's not a problem. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
You've already removed it after I moved it but I do not think it improves the encyclopedia to add co-nominations after an RfA launches and am unaware of any recent precedent for that happening. I also think adding unasked for co-nominations, and in this case an unwanted one, is also unhelpful as a community measure. Nominators reflect on their candidates and candidates should get to decide who that is. Clovermoss knows full well that she could have had lots of editors - including me - as nominators and chose to self-nominate. We should be respecting those decisions, especially from those we think would make good admins and thus need to be capable of making such judgement calls about themselves. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe the main difference between a nomination statement and a support statement is that the nomination has to be accepted by the nominee. There is nothing wrong with using a statement like that as a support instead of a nomination, and in fact, it would be awesome if more people put that kind of effort into their support !votes. – bradv15:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Barkeep49 that adding a co-nom to an active RfA, whether it's a self-nom or not, is probably not a good idea. A co-nomination in this case implies things (that the co-nominator helped create the RfA, etc.) which are incorrect. Most people who view it won't notice the co-nom statement was added after the RfA had been active for a while. It would be better as a support (which is basically what a co-nom is, anyway). If you support Clovermoss in the RfA (which your statement indicates you do), please add it to the Support section. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the conversation has moved on to what to do about these 100 or so articles that are now sitting with tags that are extremely unlikely to ever been resolved (as tags have a tendency to do). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to be the first to wish you the very best during the holidays. Here is hoping that you and I find ourselves working together in the new year. I respect you very much even though I scrapped with you a few times in 2023. I wish you good tidings in the new year. Go 2024! Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe time to reduce protection
Hi. I cannot find where on WP:AE was a consensus to extend-confirmed protect Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war. This has had the result of forking reasonable discussion into two places: the talk page where extended-confirmed users can participate, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit where non-EC users can discuss edit requests. This is impractical.
Requests for the regulars to check the RFPP page have gone unheeded. The last four edit requests (including two that have been archived already) have been reasonable and thoughtful.
The consensus is buried in a badly-titled thread; it's here. The protection was challenged here, where the consensus was endorsed by Barkeep49 as "There is a rough consensus among Arbitrators that the extended confirmed protection was appropriate and that non-extended confirmed editors may use an edit request if they need to for the article in question.", but the archiving by L235here seems to have removed the thread by accident. In summary, I'm not surprised you couldn't find it, but I think this is an Arb-endorsed decision that a single administrator can't reverse unilaterally, so if you want it lifted, you would need to make a fresh request at WP:ARCA. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to bring to your attention that the article you recently deleted "Young Entrepreneur Success" has been rewritten, addressing any concerns or issues that led to its removal. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to save the revised version in time before the speedy deletion took place.
I kindly request your assistance in restoring the article to give the revised content a fair evaluation. I believe the changes made addresses any issues raised, and I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
If you require any additional information or have specific concerns about the content, please let me know. I am open to making further adjustments to ensure the article complies with Wikipedia guidelines.
Prose such as "The storytelling encourages readers to embrace curiosity, navigate through doubts, and commit to their aspirations with unwavering resolve. The book doesn't just recount Felipe's personal challenges and triumphs; rather, it aims to impart valuable insights into adapting to change, leading with vision, and building a globally resonant brand. The narrative promotes a mindset that interprets setbacks as integral components of the journey toward success, demonstrating that age is not a hindrance to achieving remarkable feats." is completely unacceptable for a neutral encyclopedia. The Words to watch guideline contains further information.
Thank you for your prompt response and valuable feedback. I acknowledge your concerns regarding the language in the quoted segment and want to assure you that the entire section has been completely rewritten to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.
As mentioned earlier, due to the swift deletion, I was unable to save the revised version. Considering this, I kindly request the restoration of the article to my userspace to allow for further refinement and compliance with Wikipedia's standards. I am committed to addressing any issues and ensuring that the content meets the necessary neutrality and encyclopedic tone.
I understand your concern about the potential for another administrator to delete the article. I am confident that the revisions will align with Wikipedia's guidelines, and I am prepared to make any additional adjustments deemed necessary to maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone.
If you have any specific recommendations or concerns, please let me know, and I will promptly address them.
Before I restore the article to user space, could you briefly summarise why you think the prose I quoted above is not suitable for a neutral encyclopedia, and what you would now do instead? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The original prose was deemed unsuitable for a neutral encyclopedia because it exhibited a promotional and subjective tone, emphasizing positive qualities without maintaining a balanced, factual perspective. The revised version improves upon this by toning down the promotional language, removing subjective assertions, and presenting the information in a more neutral and encyclopedic manner. The revised version focuses on factual representation and avoids language that may be interpreted as promotional, aligning more closely with Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality. Bizarre90 (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The original prose was deemed unsuitable for a neutral encyclopedia because it exhibited a promotional and subjective tone, emphasizing positive qualities without maintaining a balanced, factual perspective. The revised version improves upon this by toning down the promotional language, removing subjective assertions, and presenting the information in a more neutral and encyclopedic manner. The revised version focuses on factual representation and avoids language that may be interpreted as promotional, aligning more closely with Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality. Bizarre90 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Looking forward to seeing you around the wiki in the coming year! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk
Solstice Celebration for Ritchie333, 2023, DALL·E 3.
Merry Christmas, Ritchie333! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969TT me15:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for everything you do for the project, Ritchie! I hope that you're able to spend time with family and loved ones during this holiday season and get some time to recharge. --TheSandDoctorTalk07:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I've just seen your "This user misses RexxS" further up this page. I totally agree. He was one of the most productive contributors Wikipedia has ever had, and the way he was driven off the project was ridiculous. He was not entirely free from fault in the incident which led to it, but the response was absurdly disproportionate. JBW (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The picture is, as you've probably guessed, of me and RexxS chatting together at a meet up. I've only met RexxS in person a few times, but on those occasions I seem to recall spending hours chatting to him about everything and anything. He's one of the most knowledgeable, thoughtful and passionate editors Wikipedia has ever seen and his enforced departure is the biggest proof of evidence towards the claim that "The loss of long-established contributors due to avoidable conflict is one of the greatest threats the project faces. People who have been here a year or more, and made thousands of contributions to the project, are its greatest asset, and this cannot be overstated.". I believe he is still actively editing as an IP, however, and have noticed on a few occasions seen such an IP that I suspect is actually him. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I miss him much, look on my talk under "have just given up". - Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD, and Jerome Kohl (mentioned in November) said something wise on Copland's talk, - yes, regarding a soft(er) stance towards infoboxes. I saw that only today, and I wonder if RexxS saw it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Rexx was and is a good friend in real life and I agree with you all that his absence is a detriment to Wikipedia. I've never seen an ArbCom case accepted on such flimsy grounds and the "case" consisted largely of people with an axe to grind flinging as much mud as they could at Rexx in the hopes that some of it would stick. In my opinion, anyway. I'm obviously not a neutral observer. But the whole thing makes me sad and angry in equal measure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?18:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it was at a meet-up that somebody said RexxS might be editing as an IP; I certainly don't think anyone's mentioned it on-wiki anywhere. I can't remember what specific IPs I noticed and thought "that looks a bit RexxSish"; in any case, I'm not going to violate the WP:OUTING policy simply on a random hunch. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I work Sundays. And I thought it might be interesting to try something different; there might be other people who prefer a Saturday to a Sunday. Shame you can't make this one but hopefully it will become a regular thing and we'll land on a date that does work for you. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?11:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
