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.
We regret to inform you that the conversation on this talk page has had to be cancelled. Transport for London sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused, and wish you a pleasant onward journey...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a little surprised by your message. It was I who was accused of something, I don't think it unreasonable for me to ask about it. Considering I was the one being talked about I fail to see how I "inserted" myself. I suppose I could have opened another thread, but it was rather relevant don't you think?
If another admin had responded to the comment I likely would not have. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}15:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I have moved my request to another thread. As for the watchlist, it is not why I went there. I went there to ask for the accusation to be substantiated, only to find another persona asking the very same thing. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}15:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@HighInBC: As I hope you aware, it is not in my nature to be blunt. However, I drop in on Cassianto's talk page from time to time because he is helpful at copyediting articles (in particular our joint work on getting Cary Grant past GA and well on the way to FAC was great) and I think I've seen one too many messages from you there that are, in my honest opinion, patronising.
Please don't get me wrong, I do not think it's acceptable for editors to throw around mild insults (and most of the conversations I see are pretty mild, there aren't any threats of violence or harm, or racist / sexist / antisemitic behaviour and reminds me more of "grown men with handbags"). I'm also sure you have had the best of intentions when trying to calm Cassianto down both now and in the past. However, I notice you have posted to his talk page 66 times, including this, this, this, this and this, not to mention the times I have seen the pair of you banging heads on ANI. I honestly think things have deteriorated to the point where pretty much any conversation you have with Cassianto is going to increase disruption. I'm not saying that to be nasty, or to stick up to Cassianto, that's just some straight facts I see from simple observation. I do have "quiet words" with editors from time to time, but I tend to do it off-wiki via email and only then when I am reasonably sure I have gained their respect to start off with (generally by doing lots of mainspace edits).
I'm writing this with the upmost respect and concern for your well being - Rhonda was very happy about the vandalism you removed from her page the other day and thinks you're one of the good guys. I'd hate to see the pair of you (Cassianto, not Rhonda!) slug it out at ANI and something stupid happen to one or both of you. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The first link I am commenting on a block and recommending Cassianto be unblocked. The second one was me enforcing our no personal attacks policy. The 3rd link is regarding a block I made for edit warring. The 4th link is the exact same issue just a bit earlier. The 5th link is a about a block for yet another person attack.
It seems you have demonstrated that I have acted as an admin. Frankly I am not the first admin they have reacted badly to. They accused @Mike V: of the same thing. Frankly any admin that dares ask them to follow the rules is accused of all manner of things. I have great respect for your opinion but frankly I think you need to consider that each of those diffs you linked too was an incident where Cassianto was the one causing the trouble and I was responding per community expectations.
I don't know if you have encountered the phenomenon where you do what an admin is supposed to do and you get baseless accusations in response, but hang around long enough and you will. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
And as far as the "patronising" comment goes, if I am anything but incredibly polite with them they accuse me of incivility. So I am as polite as I can be, even if I am telling them not to do something. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}16:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I've got to nip out now, but I'll try and explain two things quickly. Firstly, communicating by text-only is perilous as so much subtleties in language are lost. Secondly, having relatives on both sides of the Atlantic, and a partner who has spent her adult life in the US and the UK, I can say that the cultural backgrounds of both are wildly different and there is a great danger of respect being lost and offence being accidentally taken from both sides. The worst mix on the internet I have seen is Midwest American middle-aged female versus young British male, which is as potent as matches and gasoline; the American will feel offended, the Brit will feel patronised. (Okay, BC is a little more relaxed than the midwest US, but the principle holds). You have to recognise both cultures exist, and accommodate for them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x3 And as an example of potential cultural differences in interpretation, "hang around long enough and you will" comes across as very patronising (it normally does when someone tries to say someting extra "sincerely"). - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I will confess, while I respect Ritchie333 a lot, that was a not so subtle jab. I was not meant in a mean spirit. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}17:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I am Canadian. We use a polite tone even when we are asking someone not to do something, and we use that tone sincerely. Just because people are at odds is no reason to throw civility out the window. If that is alien to someone that is unfortunate. I am not going to start being rude to people from the UK because bluntness is the fashion there, I know this is not exactly what you are suggesting but the implication is there. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}16:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x2 "I am not going to start being rude to people from the UK because bluntness is the fashion there" I have no idea how you got that from Ritchie's comment... If I can interpret and paraphrase slightly: what you consider to be 'extra-rude' isn't. What you consider to be actionable, possibly isn't (and possibly is). Two countries divided by the same language etc... - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
HighinBC, that is not true. Ritchie, not so long ago, told me to knock it off with regards to a dispute I was involved in; as has Bishonen, and Floquenbeam, and Casliber. Each time, I did, and respected their wishes. There were a couple of times that I sought advice from Bishonen who advised against doing something, which I had already done. I was quick to self-revert though when she's bollocked me. All four of these people I have an excellent relationship with. I also hold the utmost respect for them as administrators, chiefly because of their approach to me. Has it ever occurred to you that If you conducted yourself a bit better (see the outing of my private emails to you as an example), then I might actually listen to you too? Has it also ever occurred to you that a quiet, friendly word might have more of an impact than a block? Unfortunatley, it appears that it doesn't; you ride in on your civility horse, throw your weight around, block on sight, and then bugger off back to the admin's mess where you receive high-fives from the rest of the civility brigade, including MikeV, MSG and others. CassiantoTalk18:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I have given you a word instead of a block more times than I can count, I generally get abuse as a response. As for your e-mail, if you think I violated the expectations of an editor or an administrator I welcome you to gather evidence and present it against me at the relevant forum. Frankly if any of your accusations against me had any merit I think you would have done that already.
You already know from past discussions I disagree with your interpretation of that incident so I will not reiterate that here. If you really do wish to discuss the e-mail issue yet again you are welcome on my talk page. I am having a very reasonable discussion with Ritchie333 and I prefer to keep it separate from discussions in which we have already determined we do not agree on. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}19:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Your a liar as well as a bad administrator. At no point have you sent me a friendly nudge to tell me to knock it off. If you had've done, I would've done, and respected you more than I do now. CassiantoTalk20:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
All are welcome on my talk page, as long as they do not vandalise or otherwise alter other people's edits. "I have given you a word instead of a block more times than I can count, I generally get abuse as a response." - that reminds me of that old joke, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!" "Well don't do it then!"
The above discussion put to one side for a mo, HighInBC, the simple and obvious fact remains that your communication style to Cassianto does not work. I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that all I can do is tell you that in plain speaking and hope it will resonate; calling for an interaction ban on ANI would lead to massively long thread that would drain my enthusiasm, and a block would probably motivate another admin to respond in kind and I don't fancy being blocked myself. I realise this usually comes across as an exercise in futility, but why don't the pair of you try working on an article together? When I've seen people collaborate on content, you get a great sense of teamwork and accomplishment that just does not happen doing grunt admin work. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
With respect I disagree. I also think that an interaction ban will fail the laugh test, look at my talk page archives and you will see that Cassianto has no objection to talking at length with me when it suits him. I have been polite and patient with this user. You have provided me with a pile of diffs where I am explaining Wikipedia policy in a polite fashion. I have at worst exposed a bit of cheek on occasion to a user who does not hesitate to show naked hostility.
I have gone out of my way for weeks now to not be the admin that deals with Cassianto. Look here: User_talk:HighInBC/Archive 78#SMcCandlish where I outright refuse to be the one to deal with their one of their more recent tiffs with another user. I have been taking a very intentional break for a long time now mostly due to the level of abuse I get when I do respond.
I am one of 6 administrators who has felt the need to block Cassianto. I have done 2 out of 10 of their blocks, 20%. I am also responsible for 1 out of 5 of their unblocking, also 20%(me directly unblocking, I also supported unblocking for at least one of their unblocks). You say my way of communicating does not work, but none of the many admins who have dealt with Cassianto have gotten them to change their behaviour.
If you pay close attention you will see that Cassianto is not exactly avoiding me. They have quoted me out of context to support positions they know I do not support, they have accused me of abusing my admin tools. That is just in the last couple of days.
You stepped in here when I asked about that abuse of admins tools. WP:ADMINACCT says I need to take that sort of accusation seriously, but you rebuked me for that. If anyone ever makes such an accusation against you I hope that you follow up on it.
I don't think your view will enjoy consensus if put to the test. That being said I am really sick of the whole situation. Perhaps admin #7 or admin #8 will be more suitable for the task. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}20:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
HighInBC, As I pointed out to you before, you couldn't take action against Cassianto in the Mcandlish matter, given how of a tendentious troll he has been recently. Any action you took against Cassianto would have been flipped fairly quickly once the diffs were lain out at ANI. (There are a stack of edits where Mcandlish has been trying to bait people recently and this pointless and pointy nonsense from this evening is just the latest. If anyone needs a word in their ear to find a different toy to play with, it is the baiter... – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Chillum has a clear grudge against Cassianto which is getting disruptive. It seems have extended to me now. I noticed Chillum of all people deleted Jazz in der Kirche which I started and didn't even have a chance to be expanded. Has an article on de:Jazz in der Kirche. Again seems a very strange cooincidence that Chillum was the one who deleted it. I would guess as revenge for me opposing his Canadian "friend" at RFA ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld21:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The entire content of the page was "Jazz in der Kirche is a jazz festival in Germany."
You know our CSD criteria, I welcomed you to recreate it within our standards. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}21:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Well it had existed for a few years, I'm sure you could have waited another couple of hours until it was expanded. ♦ Dr. Blofeld21:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm knackered and off to bed - but here are some sources you can use : [1], [2], [3]. At the very least, you could have parked the sources on the talk page and declined the deletion, which is what I do when I think something shouldn't be deleted but can't make head nor tail of the subject matter. So yes, HighInBC, that was a poorly called A7 - let me tell you that an abusive out-of-process speedy back in 2008 cost about 25 would-be Wikipedia editors and was indirectly responsible for me getting more involved in Wikipedia to fight back against this. I do this stuff all the time, y'all know. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I really did not expect you to accuse me of bad faith Ritchie. Whatever disagreements we have about how things should be managed I did not expect you to accuse me of abusively using my tools. That article had no substantive edits since 2011 and its entire contents could be written on a fortune cookie slip. It was the textbook definition of A7 and I immediately welcomed the author to recreate it and I offered the text to them.
If you want to see dastardly deeds hard enough you will see them. It really hurts to think that you would believe I am some guy getting his jollies deleting articles. How many people do you think I am in a feud with?
I am taking a wiki-break, I am sick of making an honest effort and getting kicked in the teeth for it. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}21:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@HighInBC: I went to the German Wikipedia article that had not been deleted. I noticed the festival was in Mönchengladbach and that gave me a good search term. I then typed "jazz in der kirche" "Mönchengladbach" into Google, clocked a local news piece (not a brilliant source, but good enough to clear WP:RS), cited it, and confirmed from the source that a notable musician - Markus Stockhausen - had performed there. At this point, we're only working with names, so I didn't even need to translate German in my head. I then undeleted the article, removed the PROD tag, added the source and the link to Stockhausen. The article now does absolutely not meet CSD A7 and it took two minutes to do the above. This is standard triage that all administrators should do as well-documented on Template:db-a7 vis : "Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion ... Consider checking Google: web, news.". Frankly, anyone who cannot be bothered to spend two minutes fixing up articles that only meet the letter of CSD A7 but not the spirit should not be working in an administrative capacity at NPP, and I ask questions at RfA to test for this. Enjoy your wikibreak. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
At this point I have lost respect for your judgement. Take me to WP:DRV of you think your interpretation has a farts chance in a wind storm of being accepted by the community. If your goal is to bring that article up to our inclusion standards you have a ways to go, like demonstrating why it is notable. I am done listening to your take on things, you can drag me to AN or arbcom if you think I am out of line. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}14:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
HighInBC, I'm not sure anyone is saying that you are not making an honest effort, but that, from time to time, your radar is a little out of kilter. It happens—errare humanum est and all that—but when the pattern is clearly and constantly against one editor it may be time for you to move on to other challenges (feel free to stop this ridiculous harassment, for example) and let others pick up the reigns. Is the stress of it really worth it? - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung, in betweentimes Cassianto has done loads of content work and collaborated with other editors happily. Hence I'd say even at very lowest ratio, that means constructive >90% of the time. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no opinion of him. He doesn't like me because of my block log and that's about it really. We've never fallen out anywhere, unless I'm mistaken. But yes, I agree; thanks must be paid for seeing great potential in you. CassiantoTalk07:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Gerda, if you pick through the nuclear warfare below this message, you will find an unloved stub - I don't know how you are on jazz or if Mönchengladbach is a nice place to visit, but if you could expand Jazz in der Kirche even a little, I think both myself and Dr. Blofeld would be eternally grateful and share a DYK barnstar with you. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
There's now more jazz in churches. I translated most of the German, - now it's lacking sources, of course, which needs to change before any DYK. It seems to be biennial and in several churches, - correct me when I'm wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
That's great Gerda, thankyou. The problem I had with analysing sources was using creative search queries, and "Jazz in der Kirche" appears to be a general term outside of the original festival, which meant many false positives when I looked at it. Hopefully, by taking the German keywords now in the article, we may be able to edge a bit closer to DYK. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie, Did you get the document I sent over to you yesterday - 22 news reports on Jazz in der Kirche. All in German, so I have only a little idea of the content, but they look useful enough for Gerda to have a look through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I did, but I struggled to parse it into citations for the article and my head hurt. I've just forwarded to Gerda to see if that will be useful. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It is general, for whatever jazz performed at church. I think just adding the town's name will edge closer. wonder if you can find specific churches (which should have articles). - Unfortunately I don't see interior images of those churches, which might show some atmosphere. - The name should be translated, but I don't know what's best: Jazz at Church, Jazz in the Church (that's literal), Jazz in Churches? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, as precedent (eg: see Kattenstoet,(Opabinia regalis, we have just worked out your 2018 vacation for you)Oktoberfest), if something is what Germans call a "Eigenname" and what the English call a "proper noun", then I would say per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the German (ie: Jazz in der Kirche, Mönchengladbach), unless there is a better-known translation in English, which in this case there isn't. We need to give the article a title that people expect to find, and without an official or de-facto English translation, we don't have it. Still, if the smoking hot and talented beyond belief Barbara Dennerlein has played there, this has got to be worth saving. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure we should use the German, but I would still try a translation in brackets. I didn't translate Rheingau Musik Festival, but readers may not know Kirchen. - Thanks for the documents, - I see in 2011 news that it had to be interrupted (when? will read more), due to a lack of sponsoring, but think we don't need to report all ups and downs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those were the latest news, and the current website of the town doesn't know the festival any more. We probably have to rely on other sources for 2016 - which may be the first after 2008 - and drop the link which causes 404 anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The closer I look the more I see that the festival took place exactly three times and is not expected to be revived. What should we do? This link still has it, but may show how up-to-date the DB is ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd put the festival in the past tense, and just document what we have. I think we have enough to keep an article, or possibly redirect somewhere. But thanks for all you have done so far on this up until this point. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds perfect! Unless... I don't know, you get the sense that if cats were that size, they'd give up begging for breakfast and just eat you? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ponyo:Charles Turing broke something like 10RR on that article, and should consider himself lucky he did not get blocked. Given the traffic on the article, and the lack of a clear consensus in talk (I can't see an obvious agreement from Cyphoidbomb, the other participant there), I think I would need assurance from Charles that he will not edit war again (and will receive a block if he does) before I'd be comfortable unprotecting. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I am e-mailing regarding creating a Wikipedia page. Our organisation, a multi-award winning charity, works on sensitive issues such as Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG)and Counter-terrorism and therefore requires pre-emptive page protection rather than create a page and then request page protection.
I have been informed that the official position of Wikipedia is that you never do preemptive protection. However, I was also told that there have been some rare circumstances where it has been done. I was told by the Wikipedia information team that we don't quite fit those circumstances but rather than simply turn us down they pointed us to the place where protection is requested.
I was also told by the Wikipedia information team that as a technical matter they don't think there is a way to create protection ab initio. However, if one of your editors with expertise in protection policy is sympathetic to our request, we can coordinate with them and ensure that the protection is added within minutes of the initial creation.
I'm afraid I have no idea which article you're talking about, as and the only edit from this IP is to this talk page, there's not much I can go on. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The simple answer is no. We do not protect a page pre-emptively because the creators feel it involves "sensitive issues". We do not protect any page upon creation, nor "within minutes of creation". We do not protect a page simply because its creators request it. Protection is used only if it turns out to be needed because of inappropriate edits, and then only for long enough to stop the inappropriate edits. If your charity "requires" such protection, then you should not be contemplating a Wikipedia page. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Melanie. I will let the Director of our organization know.
Ritchie - We have not yet created our page on Wikipedia. I was asking whether or not you could enact page protection pre-emptively (either before we create our page or immediately after). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.30.202 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The best thing to do is to create the article as a draft first - CLICK HERE to go to the Article Wizard and follow the instructions carefully towards creating a new article. Be sure you have the appropriate reliable sources for the organisation, such as news reports in local (or even better, national) sources. A dedicated piece in BBC News would be ideal. When you have created the draft and are happy with it, you can submit it for an experienced reviewer to look at. If you get any stability problems with the article, you can file a request at Requests for Page Protection, but it won't be accepted unless there is clear evidence of excessive disruption. On a similar note, I had to protect Violence at UEFA Euro 2016 because some Russian Nationalist IPs took exception to the content, but I couldn't do it until after the article had been created. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Additional comment: In order to create an article, you will have to register a username. Don't use "JAN Trust" as your username; see Wikipedia:Username policy. You can't use the name of an organization as your username, for several reasons. If you want you could use something like "John at JAN Trust", which makes it clear that you are one individual and not the whole organisation. Or use anything that makes sense to you. It's probably best not to use your real first and last names. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Ritchie for your help. Another question - If we were to create a page, does Wikipedia alert you every time your page is edited and if so how (for example, by e-mail?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.30.202 (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whitehall 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pentonville Road 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii
I am very pleased vie are taking over ze whole EU and will be stamping unser categorien on everyzing!
With regard to your reversion of my edit, the article infobox lists the film as a French / Belgian / West German co-production. This is supported by the given BFI reference and by IMDb, so I believe the categorisation is appropriate. Jellyman (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand your point, but films are normally classified under the country that financed the production, rather than filming locations, nationalities of personnel etc. The article itself lists one of the countries as West Germany in the infobox, with the BFI source. The article is categorised under French and Belgian films on this basis, why not the third country? I think I'll put something on the article talk page to see if anyone else has a view. Jellyman (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Good call, it does seem to be a bit odd and worth a talk page discussion to see if anyone can come up with a source backing it up and explaining. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I want a cushy Whitehall job, that scruffy oik in there at the moment shouldn't have it! Oy, Tezza, meet me behind the Haig Memorial at lunchbreak and we'll sort this lot out!
@Dr. Blofeld: I don't suppose you're old enough to remember "The Worm That Turned" by the Two Ronnies? Well after the news that pretty much every major political party is going to be run by a woman, along with a major EU country that's been run by one for ages, and the US thinking about putting one in too (for gawd's sake I don't care what Clinton has done - SHE'S STILL NOT TRUMP), it looks like that comedy series was strangely prophetic. So when we're relegated to getting blue rinse at the local hairdressers dressed up in our frocks and pinnies, don't say I didn't warn you! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what's got into everybody today, but there is far too much anger and bitterness bouncing around on this usually merry talk page. Whatever it is, please let's just get it out of our system now, and focus on articles. I've got a bit more of the Survey of London to mine through on Pentonville Road, and perhaps it's time to GA review another one of Gerda Arendt's Bach cantatas, if she has any on the pile. What about everyone else? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
No Bach cantata open for GA, Sainsf cleared them all! But I always need help, see red links on my user page, + blue DYK noms. Any articles for GA and FA can go to here, if the addition of an infobox is not regarded as an attack but a way to make information accessible to different kinds of readers. I successfully wrote an article and got it reviewed for DYK the same day, - that's what we are here for. I also enjoy praising people precious, today a user who served as admin for more than ten years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Now a Bach cantata is open as GAN, - only it's not ready yet: Was willst du dich betrüben, BWV 107 ("Why do you want to distress yourself", useful). I was improving last year but didn't quite manage then. I'll say here when I'm done. Going to sing today parts of Elijah for a farewell service, about the angels and several more, - another article for improvement ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest on this neutral ground a peace deal to end the socalled infobox wars: no revert of a stable infobox, - could be so simple and easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that you temporarily banned the editing for Tehran Imam Khomeini Airport a couple of days ago in order to stop the "edit war". The war has yet not ended and it still results in a number of confusing reverts and edits. I kindly wonder if you have any chance to watch that page again and take any necessarily actions to stop the behaviour. Thanks in advance. Best Regards, AminC99 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The page should be protected a little longer than 3 days. The edit wars are just going to continue when the protection expires. TravelLover37 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have never seen an article full-protected longer than three days, except perhaps the Main page. I've put a note on the talk page explaining the situation, and I think from now on we're going to have to upgrade to blocks. We can't keep pages locked forever because of fighting. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
A7
A non-notable business, yesterday
Why did you say that "A7 doesn ot apply to hospitals at [4] >? I see no such provision in WP:CSD, and not reason not to treat them as any other organization. Have i overlook some discussion of the issue? DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
In the past, I have treated hospitals as public buildings, whereas A7 tends to be reserved more for private organisations which are far easier to set up, and too numerous for any to be automatically of encyclopedic importance. I have expanded at least two hospital articles, William Harvey Hospital and Farnham Hospital as did you know nominations that have hit the main page (1, 2), so I would say it's definitely worth considering. I seem to recall somebody being concerned that Epsom Hospital would be sent to AfD, but RHaworth (who is more "on the ball" with speedies than any admin I know) asserted that it would probably stand a good chance of surviving a deletion debate. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
You're comparing chalk and cheese. Even the smallest NHS hospitals in Britain are major public institutions; small-town hospitals in the US are private businesses with no more inherent notability than the local hardware store. ‑ Iridescent09:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The big urban ones with attached medical schools might get public grants, as might unprofitable institutions which are the only source of healthcare in their area and thus an essential public good, and all hospitals indirectly get some government funding via Medicare/Medicaid subsidizing of medical bills and assorted subsidies for military and ex-military patients, but there's no American equivalent to the NHS; a hospital is a business just like any other (or a charity subsisting on donations), only the 'customers' are generally paying via insurance. There's a brief summary of the situation at Public hospital#United States. ‑ Iridescent09:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Even so, I would have expected there would be some sort of regulatory body that means the bar to setting up a hospital in the first place is substantial enough that just having the facilities in place is enough to be at least locally significant. Something like the The Shipman Inquiry, I would guess. FWIW there are a couple of other classes of things I find myself pausing on before hitting the delete button - FM radio stations (where there is a reliable source confirming an active licence) and British shopping malls (I just did a quick spot check and even things like Fremlin Walk and County Square are on here.) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hospitals are regulated and inspected by the state authorities, but if "regulated and regularly inspected by state authorities" were a notability criterion Charlie's Kebab Van, Droitwich would have its own Wikipedia page. I would argue that hospitals fall into the same exception by which we don't delete rail stations, in that it can always be presumed that there will be significant press coverage of even the most obscure, but that's certainly not written into policy anywhere. ‑ Iridescent10:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hospitals in the U.S. are certainly not all notable, and there is no presumption of notability. I would probably have declined A7 in this case since some of the information in the article could be taken as a claim of significance. However, it does not meet notability criteria and I could not find any additional sources in a search - no news articles, nothing about its history or local significance. I am going to PROD it. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Over the past several years, you've made it clear that you're not a fan of my edits. However your complaints ([5] and [6]) on ANI about me correctly leaving a templated message upon nomination of an article for CSD have reached a new low and in my opinion are defacto proof that you are holding a grudge against me. Given this bias, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from interacting with me including commenting on my actions going forward unless they directly involve you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever noticed any of your edits before - what articles have you worked on that I might have done as well? In any instance, my principles of leaving a personal message instead of a template are strongly rooted in real-world experience, generally involving people who don't use Wikipedia much and don't have a strong opinion about it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Re
Xin chào, làm sao có thể gỡ quyền Hành chính viên và Kiểm định viên vậy bạn?
Tôi không nói được tiếng Anh, ý của tôi hỏi bạn là ai có quyền gỡ công cụ Hành chính viên và Kiểm định viên? có phải là Tiếp viên ở Meta hay không? Cảm ơn ㅡ ManlyBoys11:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@ManlyBoys: Tôi không nói được tiếng Việt nên tôi dịch - tiếc là thông điệp của bạn đã không dịch rất tốt. Bạn có thể yêu cầu một Meta Steward như họ có xu hướng nói nhiều thứ tiếng, và có thể giúp truy vấn của bạn
I do not speak Vietnamese so I am translating - unfortunately your message did not translate very well. You can ask a Meta Steward as they tend to speak more languages, and can help with your query
Hi Ritchie. Hope you are doing well. I saw you declined the CSD for this page, but the reason why I nominated it for A7 is because A. The creator of the page was the person himself (I had a look on google to see if this person was really notable and it came up with a Twitter account with the same name as the account who created the article and B. Most, if not all the sources listed have no mention of this person. There is no indication that this person is notable. Should i take this to AfD or retag it? Thanks! Class455fan1 (talk)12:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Class455fan1: Yup, send it to AfD. I think I suggested as much in the edit summary, but then got sidetracked with a bit of copyediting. With these sorts of articles, sometimes the subject can still be notable, which is difficult for African BLPs anyway, and if its an autobiography, it can get more than they bargained for. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I've changed my mind and speedied it per A7, as I didn't clock that the subject was 19 years old, I somehow misread he was in his 40s, which makes the claim of importance orders of magnitude less credible. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, thought you might like to know, there is a still active afd on the above article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoolz. ps. luv your kitty pics:)
Hello Ritchie. The block you recently gave me has expired. May I remove the section? According to WP:BLANKING, it says that "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:
Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block," etc.
@DatGuy: I think technically you can now remove it; however I would personally recommend ignoring it and just moving on, as it shows you are mature and have learned from mistakes. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding that - I noticed that the tagger (who really should not be doing NPP) had A7'ed it only four minutes after it was created. I commented on that on his talk page, and I wanted to link to an essay about not tagging new pages within minutes of their creation. I thought there was such an essay but I couldn't find it. Are you aware of any such essay? If not, should we write one? --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There's Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion as a basic guide, then a section on treating newbies at NPP which says "Please do not be too hasty with certain speedy deletions ... Research has shown that writers unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines should be accorded at least 10 to 15 minutes to fix the article before it is nominated for speedy deletion". If you have a G3, G10, or G12, then yes speedy immediately, but for everything else, just chill out and find a cat to cuddle. We have a template, {{Uw-hasty}} that you can put on over-eager taggers. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you undelete my RFA please? If it's incorrectly formatted, please let me know how to correct that. Nevertheless, I am qualified for the position, being one of the pioneer Wikipedia editors. JoeM (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You need to read the instructions at WP:RFA carefully, that will show you how to create a properly formatted one. However, since you edit-warred with Floquenbeam to transclude it, and you have copyvio warnings on your talk page, I would strongly advise against it - you are almost certain to get a WP:NOTNOW close within 12 hours. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Your IP experiment makes me more conscious and careful of what should I do when reverting edits! Please accept my apology for giving you these tasty fresh strawberries. Thank you! NgYShunghuh?08:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This should be closed and made a merge. 3-1 favors it. Logic also favors it. If someone took a tremendous effort and expanded it, such as including traffic data and how Jet Blue was losing premium passengers and how the Jet Blue seat is revolutionary (if it actually is), then maybe I might be swayed. But the current article is just two things, that Jet Blue offers flat bed seats on a few flights and there's a lot of promotional material in the article, such that it is like an ad. Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Dammit Jim, I'm an admin not a scientist ... no wait, that's something else. I think the discussion at WT:DYK also concluded a merge was appropriate, so I've closed this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
_079.jpg)
.jpg)
_by_Ron.jpg)
