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.
I see you aren't buying the assertion at Talk:Bond Street that the IP editor there is not the IP editor you think he is. I haven't been keeping up with developments since "best known for" was banned, and I note the LTA page is out of date, but on the surface of things, the responses at the Bond Street talk page don't look like the same person, and the last time I checked, "best known for" was editing from IPs explicitly labeled as London University. How sure are we that this is the same person? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Given this one has not dumped a bunch of personal attacks on this talk page, or filed seven declined unblock requests, I'm inclined to believe it is somebody else. However, the point stands - if you don't use any edit summaries, and jump from one IP to the other for every edit, you effectively leave no means of communication or discussion short of locking the page and forcing it with the grace and subtlety of a lump hammer. This then upsets people and derails the conversation off the content in question, none of which helps the article improve. In this particular instance (not this article but Regent Street) I specifically responded to an off-wiki complaint via email, and the editing pattern looked very BKFIPish. I referred to Category:All articles needing copy edit simply because if tinkering around with prose is your bag, that is a good place to focus your priorities. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm kind of reluctant to look at Regent Street—I believe that was the one derided at the unnameable site when it had just been scheduled at TFA, and predictable fast and furious editing ensued, with me bowing out fast. Also, neither is my kind of street :-D However, I've extended an apology to the IP editor, while trying to avoid going into several years of wiki-politics including my status as former cowgirl admin. Maybe they'll register an account. Or turn out to be Eric slumming. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
No way is that Eric. For starters, we get on, and he's astutely aware there are probably still about 20 admins who would jump at the chance to indef block him for sockpuppetry if he tried it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Declined? Could you check the edit filter log and note the edit from earlier today to Cinnamon Toast Crunch, moments after a nearby IP was reported for vandalizing the same page? I'm sorry if I've made a mistake, but... Joel.Miles925 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie333. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I've had a read through all of the discussions, but the problem I have at the moment is frankly I have zero expectations that the WMF will ever implement ACTRIAL or its equivalent and complete the landing page unless there is a loud assertion from the very top that things are going to change. I realise I have been in less of these discussions than you, but frankly I feel quite cynical about change. Of course, if it does happen and I'm proved wrong, that would be great. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to vent here, where I've given some of my thoughts on the current war on IPs. At some point the penny drop with the WMF that there just might possibly be a link between "we have problems recruiting new editors" and "we treat new editors like shit". ‑ Iridescent15:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it's 99% certain that, like I did originally, most folks try will to make a few edits anonymously before committing to an account. (Surely it's not beyond the wit of wiki-man to actually research this with new users?) Even though it's so easy to create an account (many would say too easy, of course, especially for socks) there is something about creating an account that remains slightly arcane and daunting for new users? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed—what all the WMFs high-paid consultants don't understand is that it's not the ease of creating accounts, it's that people don't like creating accounts unless they have to. It doesn't matter how easy they make the account-creation process; anyone with even the vaguest experience of the internet will assume that "account creation" is a time-consuming process involving entering your email account in duplicate, providing your address and phone number, creating security questions etc—why should someone who just wants to correct the "and and" in the second paragraph of the lead at Malvern Water (bottled water) think "yes, this is worth wasting fifteen minutes of my time creating an account to fix"? ‑ Iridescent16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a long time ago, but I edited as an IP casually and the only reason I created an account originally was to take part in a talk page discussion. I think it's worth putting my cards on the table that I opposed this blocking admin's RfA because I was not confident he had sufficient content creation and conflict resolutions skills - I have questioned about 3 blocks of his so far as being over the top and not helpful, and frankly if he pulls this stunt again I'll have to bite my tongue to stop an ANI thread about them. I am not going to create a public sock for adding a few book sources about twice a month max. Sure, some IPs are vandals and some need a SHORT block, but I happen to know from reading the library's policy that any block on that IP for over an hour is effectively blocking a different person. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to add my experience, I too IP-edited for a few months at first, just now and then, before creating an account. No matter how much we tell people how easy it is to create an account, that will always be a slight barrier for someone just getting their feet wet. I wish it weren't so but that's the reality. If there were some way, after 20 edits, for the system to say, "Hey, it's time we set up an account fir you! What do you want to be called?" That would be great, but since some IPs are shared I don't quite see how to do that. Not impossible, though, I think. EEng18:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)÷
Five years?!?!?! I thought we had a policy, or at least tradition, that blocks on IPs are supposed to be very brief - for this very reason, that longer blocks can easily block innocent parties. And I certainly agree with you about not wanting to use your admin account on a public computer; that's the only reason I have an alt account, for the security of the tools. I suppose you could do both - have an alt account AND edit anonymously - but if your purpose in anonymous editing was to find out how IPs are treated, you certainly found out! Is there some more public forum where this deserves to be discussed? --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm reminded that Bernard Sumner once said that MDMA is like Russian Roulette except there are 9,999 empty chambers and 1 loaded - which is the one Leah Betts sadly received. Okay, with 12,000 blocks (or however much that is), you might make 4-5 mistakes, but those mistakes can be enough to get a severe reprimand at ANI. And that's not counting the block lengths. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I apologize in advance if it seems like I am bombarding into the discussion here. As a long-standing anon./IP editor, I have done a lot of vandalism patrolling/reporting and have seen many different types of blocks that are set onto the IP addresses that I have placed at AIV. Typically, it seems like a lot of admins solely look at the block log and then only perform a block based off of that information. With that said though, Widr is not the only admin that I have seen perform such blocks, though you may have ran into a block placed by Widr because he seems to patrol AIV a lot more than most admins do and is there on a very regular basis. To be fair though, I too have fallen guilty of reporting IP editors based on the blocklog, sometimes even if they only have a recent level 1 ClueBot warning on their talkpage. This is definitely worthy having a discussion over, but I'm not so sure that pointing the finger at Widr alone is a good idea, because I do notice that this is a very common practice among admins. In my opinion, it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement a certain standard by what types of blocks can be performed by admins, because it doesnt seem very logistic to allow one admin to place a 2 year block on an IP address and for another admin to place a 12 or 24 hour block on the same IP address at the same time. The fact that one admin can block for a significantly different duration than the other doesn't really seem right to me, since admins are generally known as the "janitors" of Wikipedia who have the necessary tools to perform certain actions when needed (My point here is: Choices of administrative action should be very consistent with one another, and there should be a guideline stating what types of blocks, protections, deletions, etc. can be performed by any particular admin.) In Widr and other admins' defense though, shared IP addresses, particularly at schools and libraries, perform some of the most vandalism on Wikipedia. Blocking these IP addressea for a long period of time definitely prevents more vandalism from occurring than creating more collateral damage towards constructive editors. Also, I still don't understand why creating an alternate account for you to use in public areas is such an entirely bad idea... 2607:FB90:A452:9E80:0:3F:C908:DA01 (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, I find AIV exciting as watching grass grow and only started on there because I noticed that some admins were being over-punitive in their blocks. In general, you should always err on the side of not blocking wherever you can. Regarding an alt account, I simply can't be bothered. I'm sure you've got a reason not to create an account. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I should have said talk page. While one of the inmates performs unchecked at AN/I, the guards make the wrong choice. Too bad if this is blockable because I don't give a XXXX (this done because it's Ritchie's talk page). We hope (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I've protected Cassianto's user page, but before any protection of We hope's user talk page I am going to plead you both @We hope and Cassianto: to stay. You've been contributing a lot of good things to this project and a number of users have appreciation for your work here. Even the worst dramas tend to blow over after a short while, so I hope that you'll reconsider. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
So, I have been working off and on contributing to the article Mandolin. I am very happy with the completeness, but I think I need advice as to improving it. It needs to become a good article. The problem for me is I need a quick and harsh overview. Is it too detailed? What should I spin off into other articles? I have been building it, but I am convinced it may need pruning. For several years, the community has let me do as I will to the article. Any advice as to how I should start this process?Jacqke (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jacqke: As an occasional mandolin strummer myself, a few basic comments off the top of my head.
I'll first say that as this is an important article (a quick stats check show it's viewed by about 350,000 people every year), getting it to GA will be a tough nut to crack. The article as it stands is 63K of prose, and while might be worth a bit of a trim in places, I wouldn't do too much. If you haven't tackled a GA before, it might be simpler to try a less-viewed subject which simply takes less work to meet the "broad in coverage" part of the criteria. Perhaps one of the notable mandolin players may be a simpler topic?
You could probably lose some of the subsections. In general, the lowest level subsection should contain several paragraphs. The pictures can be used in the right places to still ease the flow.
The article probably has too many pictures. In general, you want to leave a sizeable gap between each picture in between prose, alternating between left and right accordingly. See Hammond organ for one way of tackling this.
A few paragraphs are unsourced (particularly in the "Construction" section), these will need to be fact checked and sources as appropriate. Also there are some {{citation needed}} tags. This all needs resolving for GA.
The choice of book sources is good. I would make sure you have access to all of those listed here and ensure you source as many facts as possible from them. Graham McDonald has a new book out, which has seen positive reviews and looks to be an excellent source. (FWIW, I bought Scott Faragher's book specifically to take Hammond organ through GA. Take care with online sources, unless you are certain the information there is well-known to have a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy, avoid them.
For a structure, I tend to list things in the order that a layman reader would want to look at them. Start off with the basics (ie: what a mandolin looks like, how you play it), then the family of instruments, then the history, then the list of works. Opinions differ on this, but the basic idea is you assume a casual reader is going to give up half-way through reading the article, so give them the stuff that makes most sense to them up front.
Anyway, there's some basic thoughts. You're progressing in the right direction, but I think there's quite a bit of work left before I'd go for a GA review. As a first action point, I'd get everything sourced to the books; if nothing else, that will mean anyone reading the article will be reading something that's true and accurate, which is probably more important than having brilliantly elegant prose! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your insights. As you say, an important article and a challenging one. I think what has been bothering me as I read the article is that the things a layman reader aren't up front, as you said. That may be where I start, along with double checking for un-referenced statements. Thank you again!Jacqke (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Rushed it? It was open five weeks. More to the point, I suggest that not only was there a more or less equal !vote count, no-one actually made any policy-based recommendations, either there or in the (what seems to have passed for) discussion. Without a policy basis, !votes become opinions; and as you know, opinions do not a consensus make. IMHO. MuffledPocketed12:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm afraid that doesn't help me much. You say "there doesn't seem to be much discussion". This is another conclusion that's puzzling to me. It's also worrying that you specifically were requested to close the debate by the author of this edit.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't want to add fuel to the fire, but I must mention I backed down and compromised on the previous dispute raised by the same user. I never understood the need to dominate in every discussion by collecting support/oppose votes and declaring consensus based on personal wishes.--Retrohead (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie, absolutely nothing in your previous post needed saying. According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure: "All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure...". In case it was somehow unclear before, I am seeking reassurance that you didn't just have "a quick look", count the votes and close it, as opposed to actually reading the discussion (of which there was in fact plenty, by the way) and weighing the quality of the arguments presented. If you're too disinterested to do any of this, I'm not sure you should be the one closing.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You are confusing disinterest with uninterest. The former is a prerequisite for closing. I saw the 'discussion' on the article talk page. Although, for 'discussion' I read 'everyone disagreeing with Gibson FV.' MuffledPocketed08:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not plenty of discussion, that's a bunch of people not agreeing with each other and lobbing in a few mild personal attacks for good measure. THIS is a real conversation! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
And the silence continues. Mind-boggling. After repeatedly asking for it I am still seeing no evidence whatsoever that you read the discussion and weighed the arguments. So again, please tell me why the arguments of the three voters for inclusion (more informative, clearer context and in line with apparent wider Wikipedia consensus) are less compelling than the arguments of the two voters for exclusion (non-sequiturs, personal attacks and possible sock-puppetry), or admit that the close was rushed and was based solely on the closeness of the numbers 3 and 2.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I rushed the RfC just to piss you off and be an abusive asshole. Now run along to WP:ANI and create a thread that starts something like "Admin Ritchie333 closed an RfC I didn't like and he didn't read any of it, and he's just admitted he did it to annoy me. Please desysop and indef block him, make him stand in the corner and send him to bed without any supper yada yada yada" Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Dude, your only argument for adding a year was "it's not necessary, but it's worthwhile". What is worthwhile loosely varies from one editor to another in our case, and you haven't cited any policy that backs your suggestion. You only pointed movies inspired by books which have the year listed. Moreover, you haven't tried to understand other opinions, and continued pushing your preferred option. Now I see you're complaining around how life on Wikipedia is unfair. Get over it.--Retrohead (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Wwoooahh, easy there. I don't think you're being an abusive asshole or intentionally trying to annoy me, and I don't think I ever even implied it. People are busy. I get it. You clearly have a lot of other important work to do here. So rushing a small close like this as requested by an editor you've presumably worked with fruitfully in the past is perfectly understandable. When I read
a) at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure that "[b]ecause requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility... [a]ll closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure", and
I thought querying it here would be perfectly acceptable. And when I looked at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive and saw that closures were reviewed and overturned all the time, often by the closers themselves, I figured this might be just another case. No big deal. But instead I get this? I'm trying to figure out if you've got me confused with some other editor. I don't remember any past interactions with you. I didn't even know you were an admin till you said so, and I have no idea what "desysop" means. Your responses here seem to be more for the other editors who watch the page than for me. 100% of what you've said here so far ("there doesn't seem to be much discussion", "Somebody wasn't going to get their way with this RfC (that's consensus for you)", "That's not plenty of discussion, that's a bunch of people not agreeing with each other and lobbing in a few mild personal attacks for good measure") could have been said by someone who never actually read and weighed the arguments presented. I'm hoping your curiosity has been piqued enough to have read them by now, but I've still yet to see any sign of this. As I'm sure you already know, Wikipedia:Consensus tells us: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." --Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
FYI
Hi, Ritchie. A brother of the CrazyAces IP you blocked showed up, namely 2607:FB90:76F:6093:8D2B:316D:CC35:7ECB, acting in a characteristic way, so I've blocked the 2607:FB90:76F:6093::/64 range for a week. It's mobile, but still. Blocking these ranges (I keep a list of the ones he has used so far) has done some good in the past. Bishonen | talk15:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
Hi. Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnabella Mortel, I am curious how you reached the conclusion of "no consensus". Not only did 3 participants (the nominator and 2 other editors) share a consensus for deletion, but the only "keep" wasn't based on any policy or guideline, and not defended when challenged. Considering the fact that Ms. Mortel has even less notability than her associate Kevin L. Walker (created by the same COI author) whose article was deleted twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin L. Walker (2nd nomination)), I wonder if you would reconsider your decision, or at least describe your reasoning. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Amatulic: I closed as NC because there had been very few participants even after two relists and all arguments (both keep and delete) were very weak - variations of "just not notable" without saying why. The only thing I might add to the close is "no prejudice against speedy renomination". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)06:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how it would be possible to make a stronger argument than being unable to find any sources that indicated meeting any criteria in WP:NACTOR, and that argument was made in the discussion. But thanks for the explanation and for your modification of the close. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, wanted to ask for some advice from a non-involved admin. I wish to start a ban proposal for RoverTheBendInSussex. This is the first time I am making one, and I want to know if there is anything to read specifically other than WP:BAN, and things I should take note regarding the process of starting one. I have read the entire discussion, including the article talkpage in question. Optakeover(U)(T)(C)12:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
wrote a truly awful "article" called North American Drought. Since the table that was in the article had references I felt a CSD was inappropriate and so I put it up for PROD. The user has since de-PROD'ed the article and put it up for AFD... It's garbage and should be deleted, but I am not sure about how to proceed. Would appreciate you looking into the situation. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the morning sun .... unless they're stuck at Milton Keynes Central station wondering why the British Rail Class 377 to Brighton has suddenly been cancelled, in which case they give up and go back in again...
Thank you for the courage to summarize the Coward discussion. In case I a made an edit there with rhetoric diminishing hope, please let me know, to improve. Perhaps you could even - without naming editors - make a list of unwanted rhetoric? I suggested something a while ago, DYK? Let's stop group names, for a start. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't easily forget that I may be part of a rhetorical problem, and would like to improve. I created an article, on request, but have no extra time for two weeks to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Gerda, now for the serious message. I have no doubt you really are a calm, peaceful and careful person - you would obviously need to be in order to be a successful group choral singer. The problem is not with your opinions, or your words, it's just that sometimes you are a little too obsessed with discussions that everyone else is tired of. As you saw at the close of the Noel Coward feud (and "feud" is the right word to use), I saw there were valid arguments both for and against the infobox, but more importantly the debate has become so entrenched and caused so many people to be fed up with it, that you're encountering incivility such as what you saw in this thread. Superficially, you're not really vandalising articles or deliberately being tendentious, I think everyone understands that, but turning up to a conversation involving other people where you weren't invited in the first place was ill advised.
This is what I meant when I said to ignore things and work on the content. Write about Bach cantatas, nobody has any problems with those and we're all grateful. But please, for your own sake, just completely and utterly refrain from talking about infoboxes anywhere on Wikipedia. Full stop. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with me or anyone else, if somebody else doesn't want an infobox on an article, ignore it - it's not life or death. We understand what your views are, you do not need to say them anymore, and doing so is just an extension of Parkinson's Bicycle Shed Effect.
Things need to change, I'm happy to defend you to a point (seriously, blocking you is like kicking a kitten that's just peed on the carpet, a severe and cruel over-reaction), but we need to resolve this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Things need to change. When I wrote 3 FAs in 2016, + around 100 other articles (mostly GA and DYK) so far, and started exactly one infobox discussion (on WT:COMPOSERSin February, hoping for acceptance to follow the model on Beethoven), I don't want to hear that I should stick to content. I asked what to avoid next year, - promised often enough to not mention the topic on an article talk this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
You wouldn't be the first person to not understand why they were disruptive and you won't be the last. But understanding will help you to realise why you sometimes get yelled at. It's not for no reason at all. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
When I grew up, "disruptive technologies" were praised. I leave you alone now, but have not understood how asking to accept the Beethoven model (a community consensus) for other composers was disruptive. It must have been disruptive, because the next thing happening was that my request, intentionally not using the hated word, was changed. - No supper, I go in my corner. Memorial concert tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey there, sounds like you are pretty experienced in album GA reviews. I have been doing artists and albums. Talk:Bleed American and Talk:California (Blink-182 album) are my current reviews. Feel free to take a look and let me know if I missed anything, or am otherwise doing a poor job on GA reviews. I am done reviewing Bleed American, just waiting for comments to be addressed, and the California review I just started. If you don't have time, no worries. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Kees08: I haven't had a chance to look at this yet, but as the two nominators behind California are seasoned article writers, I find it unlikely there's going to be much to complain about. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries, it is not them I am worried about, it would be me! Their articles are pretty great, a bit of the reason I have been choosing them. I was wondering more on my review ability, and if you had any tips for reviewing music articles (known sources that are bad, ways to do certain things faster, must-haves for GA articles, etc). If you don't ever end up having time, no worries! Kees08 (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for being a stand up person and treating me with respect. Calling a Wikipedia administrator a 'fuckwit' sure sounds tempting as well but... i guess one shouldnt call people out who dont deserve it and just for the fun of it. But it is tempting!
Anyway, i just thought i would pop by and say thank you because behaviour like that is sadly far from the norm on Wikipedia from what i have seen, as perfectly demonstrated on TRM's talkpage. Obviously not everyone is 'bad' but i think you get what i am trying to say.
In general i will probably just go back to reading some articles now and lurking like i did before. Those arbcom 'civility cases' just upset me and made me speak up to a tiny degree because other than the generic mantras they use, it seems like too many people(regular editor, admin and arbcom) lost perspective about what Wikipedia is. So again, thank you and i wish more people here were like you. 91.49.66.153 (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the support - a lot of people don't realise that causal IPs are far more knowledgeable about Wikipedia than might be apparent on first glance - they just don't feel like editing much. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Replying here rather than adding yet more fuel to the fire elsewhere, but regarding this there are precedents for football chants based on religious songs—"Bread of Heaven"/"We'll support you evermore"/"You're not singing any more" is an obvious one that springs to mind, and I've heard plenty of chants based on "Lord of the Dance" and "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands". Per my comments over there, I think it's vanishingly unlikely that "You're shit and you know you are"/"Posh Spice takes it up the arse"/"One nil to the Arsenal" was based on anything other than "Go West", given that it appeared right when the PSB's version was in the charts. (I'm sure Britannica doesn't have discussions like this.) ‑ Iridescent10:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Surely you mean Cwm Rhondda (Leanne Wood's stomping ground)? Here is one of many reliable sources attributing "You're shit, and you know you are" to Go West. Personally, I am amused by the sheer irony of taking an optimistic gay anthem and recycling it for a stereotypical knuckle-dragging chant, and doubly amused by Wikipedians taking it seriously. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I was hoping to meet you at the London Wikimeet yesterday but you'd left before I arrived. I hope to catch you on another occasion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, likewise, I did briefly mention you did lots of good work around here to WereSpielChequers. I was chatting to somebody else about the best way to run an editathon (my two key points were - make sure people come with an idea of what they want to write, and aim to improve existing content, not create new stuff). Coming back, I made the faux pas of thinking all High Speed 1 trains from St Pancras leave at ten past or twenty to; they don't. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to take up WSC's suggestion of taking the kids to see HMS Belfast this weekend, as long as it's not too expensive. Horsey Island piqued my interest in "hard to get to" places yesterday, I thought trying to beat the tide on the Strood to or from Mersea was bad enough. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this although the decline reason seems rather odd. Especially when the official title for the contest is still unknown and only fanbased websites are speculating the title as "Eurovision Asia Song Contest" along with Asiavision and Asia-Eurovision Song Contest. That was why I nominated for speedy, because the creator has shown evident eagerness in creating articles too soon without paying attention to sources and facts that show titles are still at the planning stage. A similar case was done for Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits, when it was reported that an anniversary show was "in the piepline". Sources where published in that circumstance, but nothing to verify the shows title, which is why the article for that show was kept in draft mode within a sandbox until a reliable publish source was released to verify a show title so that the article could "go live" so to speak. Anyway, I've put taken it to AfD, as it is very clear the article is WP:TOOSOON, especially with multiple sources stating various different titles for the contest. Wes MouseT@lk14:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
A7 candidates have to have a complete absence of any chance of ever being made into a proper article, which this did. AfD is probably the best way to go, there is a chance the result could be "redirect" or "userfy". @GB fan: also makes the very good point that television shows are not covered by A7, only books, real animals, people, bands and events. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy for it to be userfied into any of my spare sandboxes, as that was what we did with the greatest hits contest. As no title was known for that at the time, it was place in my sandbox and I granted permission for Project Eurovision members to work on in there. That way the team work was still shown in the edit history. Wes MouseT@lk15:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
If something is being broadcast on national terrestrial television, it has already beaten numerous would-be television shows and scripts to get that far, and is thus nowhere in the ballpark of "Susie is my pet cat. She has orange fur and purrs a lot". Anyway, the bottom line is I will not delete something that does not appear to meet the relevant CSD criteria, which says nothing about whether I think it should be deleted or redirected anyway. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
