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 don't think this conversation is appropriate for BN, but I did want to respond to this. I get SoWhy is a great, thoughtful guy, but he's also perceived as an extremist on one of the most controversial issues on Wikipedia, and many have the impression he had been using RfA as a way to advocate for his pet issue. That's going to bring enemies out of the woodwork whether or not the perceptions are true. There are several respected admins who don't have the issues either of the last two RfB candidates had that I think would likely sail through. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I need to finish off that RfA !voters script, and get some league tables printed out - that might give me an idea of who could be a likely 'crat Kudpung would probably end up just the same as SoWhy, despite the fact he wrote the rule book on RfA. Boing! said Zebedee is on break, Anna Frodesiak doesn't do much RfA participation, Opabinia regalis would have to get out of Arbcom first .... I suppose we could ask Yunshui and MelanieN. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
You could also poke MusikAnimal and Anthony Appleyard. MA would bring knowledge of bot things, and Anthony's work at RM/TR and procedural move requests show an understanding of community consensus on that matter that I think suggests he would be good at the job. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Melanie and Opabinia regalis are good candidates. Not sure why the latter would have to get out of ArbCom first. There is no requirement that ArbCom members can't run, is there? After all, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Worm That Turned was successful despite WTT being a sitting ArbCom member at the time. Regards SoWhy13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, but no thanks. I would certainly support the others you have mentioned here, particularly Yunshui. --MelanieN (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Kind words MelanieN (I would say the same of you!) but like you, I've accumulated enough hats on Wikipedia to be getting on with for the time being. I'm not aware of there being a significant shortage of bureaucrats; if there were I would give it some thought, but I don't see a pressing need for more crats right at this moment. Yunshui雲水14:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure the idea of having a WMF employee among our senior volunteer staff would go down too well. I like voting on RfX, but there I would have to recuse myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no COI crossover from my engineering job and my volunteer efforts, and that should go without saying. No need for me to vehemently defend myself here, though, because truthfully I'm also a "thanks, but no thanks". I'm not really interested in closing RfAs (or any lengthy discussion), unless it's a landslide support and the other 'crats are slow to close it. The bot-related matters is the one thing it'd come in handy for, but it's not like we're short on 'crats in granting bot flags. Overall it just seems like another hat that I don't really need, or want. I do appreciate the ping and consideration, though! :) — MusikAnimaltalk21:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
RfB
Hello! I agree that SoWhy was indeed an ideal candidate. However the fact that this RfB failed for some reasons should not be discouraging for a new attempt with other candidate. Would you like to share with me the list (on or off wiki), so that we see whether we can make this work out??--Kostas20142 (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I meant to finish off my Python code, but I got distracted by improving a few London station articles instead. I'll see if I can get it working this evening. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of Jeff King, the consultant and major political operative to Ted Cruz and Steve King
Does this "Fails WP:BASIC by a wide margin. " mean 2 editors? I really think there is an agenda in this deletion that should be weighed in on by more editors. --Wikipietime (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
It does include the nominator, which makes it up to three. I think the problem is that because of the (consultant) disambiguation, nobody went for a redirect, which is what we might normally do in these cases. Anyway, drafted to Draft:Jeff King (consultant). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
[2] An editor complains that they have been followed by RexxS to an article RexxS hadn't edited before. The advice " go and find an article far, far away from him to edit instead. " is not particularly helpful in that case, and is blaming the one being followed by RexxS to an article for being followed. Closing this as non-actionable was probably the right call, but the additional comment seems to be counter-productive and unlikely to be well-received by the OP. Fram (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I was mulling this over myself (obviously the reverse to what I said implies, indeed everyone should back away from that thread and do something else) and have changed it to something more neutral that takes no sides. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I have moved the discussion here because I do not like conducting generalised discussions on third party talk pages. At User talk:SamuelBeGood you said "This is the second unblock request I've seen this week that you have "accepted" without actually lifting it. If you're not going to physically press the "unblock" button, don't accept it but just leave a note on the talk page.". In fact I fully explained my actions in the unblock request as I said "Procedural accept to change your name from 'Encouncil' to 'SamuelBeGood' which I have done. The main unblock appeal, above, will be reviewed by another admin." This makes it clear that I had /not/ accepted the principle unblock request. What happened was that the user submitted two requests, a substantive request and a second request to change the username. I assessed the proposed new name and, finding it acceptable I accepted that request and changed the name. I did not review the other unblock appeal as is clear from the comment I made and the fact that I did not action the substantive appeal. To leave the name change request unactioned would be illogical and more confusing. Consequently, in future instances of double unblock requests I will continue to handle them in this manner. Finally, you will have seen that when a single, combined request is made then I simply leave a talkpage note. HTH. Just Chilling (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
AN discussion for SO
Hey Ritchie, by any chance could you start the AN discussion regarding BlackAmerican's SO or at the very least get the ball rolling faster? In no scenario at this point am I supportive of an unblock, especially after his latest request/rant and denial, but I just want this addressed properly, if anything, for my own peace of mind. I tried earnestly to help CA and I hope he takes that into account for I do not see an outcome that ends in him editing again -- at least legitimately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It certainly does appear that editors who advocate IBs apparently have immunity from following policies and are given carte blanche by admins and ArbCom members to disrupt, canvass, bully and attack others to their hearts desire while deliberately driving respected editors like Tim riley away. SagaciousPhil - Chat21:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
New User Expressing Thanks and Requesting Assistance
Hi Ritchie333!! I am a relatively new Wiki writer, and just learning the rules. Last week you voted to KEEP an article I worked really hard on regarding TV personality Dustin Cumming. I thanked you publicly and want to take this opportunity to say "thank you" again! Your vote really inspired me. I would like to close the deletion discussion and keep the page, as you voted to do. I don't know how to proceed. There has been no further activity. What is the proper way to remove the notice that says that its being considered for deletion? Can you kindly advise? How do I/we close the deletion discussion for this page. The article is sourced by four Los Angeles times articles and the page is about a person has been cast on many notable (national) TV shows. Can we remove the notice indicating the page is being considered for deletion? Would GREATLY APPRECIATE your advice on the proper next steps 18:41, 3 August 2017 Mbarywiki (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mbarywiki: Hi. I do try and rescue articles wherever I can. You can't close a deletion discussion, you have to wait for an administrator to do that. Discussions normally last about 7 days, and if it looks like there's agreement that the article should be kept, then it will be. It would help if somebody else puts in a "keep" vote, but even as it stands, with evidence of sustained news coverage in the LA Times and multiple appearances on national TV shows, I think a "keep" result is likely. Have patience, and it should (touch wood) be done relatively soon. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Raising a glass in your honor. Thank you. I am a newbie, I readily admit it, but I am honored to learn from people with more experience. Mbarywiki (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Page deletion
Hi, was just checking back to find a date that I knew was present on an old page "Green Hat (software company)" and found that it has been deleted, searching the archives I found that this was performed by yourself. I was hoping that you could explain the rational behind the deletion (it states advertising) as there are various others that have the same style of content and as the company no longer exists (having been acquired) it doesn't have products for sale which I would have thought was the basis for advertising. As comparison, "Itko" "SoapUI" "Parasoft" and many more could be considered in the same manner.
(talk page watcher) Hello, 94.5.36.127! I took a look at the article Green Hat (software company). It did not meet Wikipedia requirements for an article here for multiple reasons. The requirements are spelled out at WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The main problem in my opinion was that the article did not indicate any reason to think the company was significant or important enough to include in an encyclopedia (speedy deletion criterion WP:A7). It did not have the required coverage from independent reliable sources. All it had was one mention from a tech news service, and one press release. User:Ritchie333 chose to use the rationale of unambiguous advertising or promotion, which also applies. If there is a particular piece of information you were looking for from that article, I could get it for you. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Signpost
Great job, you humourous chum. I've got an idea for the next issue - how about Yodapedia?
Well, now I don't think I've actually seen any of the Star Wars films. I think I saw the first one once, but it was a long time ago and I can't remember any of it. I'm more into factual stuff, which is why I'm here. As for humour, you'll have to ask Martinevans123Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You've made a good job of slimming down the cultural references; well done! One more improvement would be to delete the snippet about Waterloo Sunset. I can give several good reasons. It's unreferenced (unless you count the link). It does not, like many of the surviving works mentioned, contribute to knowledge of the building, and is therefore simply anecdotal. Any mention of a song acts as a magnet for further trivia. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I haven't finished with it yet, there is far much more to write about "Waterloo Sunset", such as why it was deliberately changed to that from "Liverpool Sunset" and how many other works related to the station have used the song. I don't know what JG66 or TheGracefulSlick have got in the way of Kinks sources, but they might be able to get to it first. (For reference, this is to do with filling out the music section of "Cultural references" in London Waterloo station.)Ritchie333(talk)(cont)07:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably the change of title was to try (unsuccessfully) to hide the fact that it's such a deliberate rip-off of Beatles style! But what you say of the other things you mean to follow up only underlines that there may be other interesting facts about the song itself but that it has nothing to add to the Waterloo article's subject, which is so often the case with this kind of item. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
??? It's one of the most-loved and critically acclaimed British songs of all time! [3][4][5] Anyway, I've added a citation from a general railway source about it, and another source that describes its relevance to the station in the public consciousness. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, can't help with Kinks sources, I'm afraid. You might want to try any google links at the band article or look for something relevant at Amazon.co.uk. Shawn Levy's Ready, Steady, Go!: Swinging London and the Invention of Cool or any of those pop-culture studies by Jon Savage also, maybe. Personally, I think what you recently added from Nick Hasted is just perfect. JG66 (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
R3s, before I forget, wanted to say a big thanks for the first GA review you did for Revolver, back in 2015 or thereabouts. I confess I didn't actually check with it when working up the article for GA2 (simply because I knew, even two years ago, where the article needed to be). But it was good just recently to read through your comments again and think (again), Yes … yes … agree … Absolutely – YES! Back when you did the review, I flagged it in my mind as a rare, dedicated job where – and I think this is an unfortunate downside of the GA Cup – a reviewer actually offers something for the benefit of all editors and the encyclopaedia as a whole, rather than simply going through the motions. The alternative, from what I've seen, is that some articles make GA and really shouldn't do, in which case the nominating editor, who might achieve a series of "fluke" passes, learns nothing about what constitutes a Good Article. Either that or a nomination fails, with the reviewer having given nothing of themselves as far as helping improve the article, or at least willing it to pass. (I had a rare example of that – astounding result, imo, but at least I can put it down to an unusually unimaginative editor doing their usual. Sour grapes? Non, non, non …) Anyway, thanks again. I didn't want you to think that the hard work had gone unnoticed. JG66 (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Another editor took out the little flags next to our names in the signpost. Read the edit history. I wanted explain and let him know that I didn't want to be mistaken for a humourous Brit. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉16:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You closed the AFD on WP:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Soldier as no consensus. I'd like to ask you to reconsider it. Another editor supported deletion, nobody opposed it. It's not uncommon at all for an article that few people care about (because it's not notable) to get deleted with a nom and a single vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just hoping you'd reconsider instead of going through another process when there was no support at all for keeping it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
If the single !vote (other than yourself) had written something more substantial (such as a link to search results that showed nothing suitable), I could have closed as "delete", but a single "There is nothing to establish notability" is a argument to avoid. Sometimes I have closed AfDs like this as a de facto soft delete, but in this case, the article has been around for a while so there was a risk of somebody in 6-9 months' time messaging me out of the blue complaining about the deletion because hardly anybody turned up for the event. You can certainly pick up the toys on eBay and I'm surprised the whole angle about the toys being Nazi replicas not coming up in sources, that would have lit up the tabloid press if they'd got hold of it. :-/ Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
THANK YOU
Ritchie333 I am inspired to continue to work hard and improve. Wikipedia is so different than writing an article. The vetting process was an invaluable experience because I learned a lot. I will absolutely contribute much more, and I hope to inspire and encourage my students do the same with classroom assignments. Wikipedia is a valuable resource of information. I am honored to contribute to such an important community. Its important to learn something new every day. With much gratitude and thanks! Mbarywiki (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarywiki (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Mbarywiki (talk • contribs)
@Mbarywiki: Don't forget to keep an eye on the Teahouse and drop in there if you have any questions or are stuck with anything. If you're wondering what articles to write about, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions has suggestions on what you can edit. When you're ready (and I don't suggest immediately, maybe after about 6-9 months of experienced editing when you are thoroughly familiar with referencing and writing neutrally), try your hand at taking an article on a subject you like and improving it to Good Article status, which is a good exercise in taking other people's work, improving it, and working with constructive criticism. You also make lots of friends; I would probably never have got chatting to MelanieN, Dr. Blofeld or Gerda Arendt (amongst others) if it wasn't for doing GA work with them. Anyway, all sorts of options there. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
If you can find my Facebook page (you'll know it's me, lots of posts having a go at the Daily Mail / Trump / May) there is a nice video where a workmate bought every copy of the Mail from the local newsagent the day before the last election, took them to his allotment, and videoed him setting fire to the whole lot. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you are making a big mistake in allowing that. See this and this; consensus has been established over and over again to exclude links to that site, and I don't see the benefit to our wiki in having another discussion when the user that added the link was pointed to those polices before, especially when he is on the board of directors for the RationalMedia Foundation and therefore has financial interest in directing people to his site (visitors = potential donations). Linking to competing non-Wikimedia Foundation wikis does not help our articles at all. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day.11:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to state your opinion here, but I don't think two talk page discussions (one of which is only a few lines) is really much of a broad consensus on this. Have you got anything more substantial like an RfC or a Village Pump discussion? I do like the RationalWiki page What is going on at Citizendium myself. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
99.53.112.186
Did you look at the actual filters listed? Most, if not all, of them were basically "new user reverting a lot of people", which happened because he's an IP reverting vandalism (sorry if the IP is female, I'm not sure) or "repeated attempts to vandalize" which clearly isn't true, if you look at the diffs it's pretty obvious the IP did nothing wrong and was only trying to revert vandalism, I think the filter might have gone on the fritz. (apologies for run on sentence) Please unblock the IP. -A ladinsane(Channel 2)16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
{ec} Hi Ritchie. Do you want to take another look at the block on User:99.53.112.186? This user tends to trip the filter and end up at TB2 quite a lot, but that is more a fault with the filters and not in itself blockable. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk)16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is because (as the old saying goes) blocks are preventative and not punishment (and why the block notice was simply "tripping the edit filter too many times" and nothing else). I've had a proper look and concluded the filter has gone arse-backwards, and unblocked. As a possible solution, we could generate a whitelist of IPs that would not bring up the filter messages, as this particular IP seems to be trustworthy. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The other thing I would add (AFAIK) is that the IP has never used a personalised message or edit summary, but just Twinkle boilerplate. This did them no favours as I've seen vandals put {{uw-block}} on my talk page as a hilariously funny jape, and certainly on the talk pages of others in order to stir up trouble. Even a short message like "will you quit screwing around, if you write "poop" on that page again you'll probably get blocked" would do. Having had a quick look, there seems to be about 4-5 different filters that the IP is jamming on. I've left a note at their talk page and hopefully I'll get a response from them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Just for the benefit of anyone else, those filters being "new user conducting large scale reverts" (it's pretty obvious why he's tripping this one), "AIV disruption" (is AIV stealth-semiprotected?), "userspace and talk page spamming" (broken template, it seems, and possible filter malfunction, I'm not sure), and several others that either seem to have completely fritzed, like "repeated attempts to vandalize" and "vandalizing sports infobox", or have descriptions that sound like something that a vandalism-fighting IP would trip, like "large plot addition" or "changing the name in a BLP infobox". -A ladinsane(Channel 2)17:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously the filters have problems and are catching false positives. What you really need is better Bayesian filtering, which means filtering data back into ClueBot NG - both false positives and true negatives. The limit for Cluebot (that it can never realistically reach but should tend towards) is to revert absolutely all vandalism with no false positives. This, incidentally, is why I don't think very much of the stereotypical "vandal fighter" or the Counter-vandalism unit (unless I've completely misunderstood what goes on there!) - computers can do a lot of the tedious and repetitive work better than humans, so let's get them to do it. Work smarter, not harder! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
AIV report
Hallo Ritchie333, When you made this edit saying that the editor hadn't edited within 24 hours, had you checked the recent history of his creation Revolution Media? It was CSD'd again at 05:15, 8 August 2017 (this morning), after he had repeatedly deleted the CSD template from it, within last 24 hrs I'm virtually certain though can't check as a non-admin. PamD18:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It was created, deleted and salted about 12 hours before that report, so yeah I must have missed that. However, he seems to be editing in good-faith, so if we had to block, it would be for WP:COMPETENCE and that tends to be better handled at ANI. I only do the odd "special guest star appearance" at AIV, which I consider to be a "911" noticeboard ie: somebody needs a block right now. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Because I know disagreements over policies can create WikiStress
Hello Ritchie333, PCHS-NJROTC has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
edit-warring anon IP, previously marked as 'Stale'
Hi there, I appreciate your weighing in on the edit-warring by the anon IP at this report. After engaging in some talk page discussion, the user has again begun edit-warring, with these four reverts in less than 24 hours, all while I was attempting to continue to engage him on the article talk page:
[6] Undid my revision that conformed article info to what was in the source I added
[7] Undid revision 794611328 by XLinkBot (Tag: reverting anti-vandal bot)
[8] re-reverted as I was explaining why Youtube vids aren't a reliable secondary source
I have not reverted his latest change. I think that these actions, combined with his disruptive edits on the Jared Taylor page, and his abusive language on the Talk:Jared Taylor page, shows that this editor is not here to improve Wikipedia. Should I file another 3RR report at this time? Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rockypedia: I said I would block, but in this case I've full-protected the article for 12 hours and carried on the conversation you've been having on the talk page. A block might not actually explain what the problem is, plus you've been edit-warring on the article too, so a full-protection takes no sides in the dispute and should be seen as fair. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I don't know where to draw the line between reporting an anon-IP for edit-warring (should I have done it after his first revert?) or engaging in the edit-warring myself by reverting and explaining to him on the talk page why I reverted him. Thank you for your assistance. Rockypedia (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Essentially it does not matter if the person edit-warring is an IP or an administrator - disruption is disruption, whichever way you slice it. If you're getting nowhere on the talk page, you can request a third opinion as the next step. Just don't carry on reverting, otherwise you'll just get blocked as well. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to Wikipedia:Third opinion, that is the first time I've seen that page. I'll be sure to use that if a similar situation arises in the future. I didn't mean to imply that an anon IP is somehow less important to editing than me; I'm actually in favor of allowing IPs to edit as much as they want, provided it's constructive. I was just referencing this current case, where I didn't know if I should've come to you after he made his first revert post-warning, or wait till he made 4. Rockypedia (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Somebody needs to clean my clock...
Literally...the WP clock that's used with my sig. It appears to be a 24 hr. clock but I have no clue as to what time it's on. For example, it's 2:40pm where I am right now. I will sign and see if the clock agrees. Atsme📞📧19:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah hah!! WTH? The sig shows 19:40 when on a 24 hr. clock it should be 14:40 - where did 19:40 come from? Can you help me fix this issue? Atsme📞📧19:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
When you save a signature, it's expanded out to UTC in plain text, so it's impossible to convert back to your native time. I would recommend moving to a country that has a timezone matching UTC. Have you ever visited Kinsale in Ireland? For a more serious answer, install the Comments in Local Time gadget, which grabs the text before it reaches your browser window and converts it to local time (for example, on this comment I see 8:45pm UTC+1 (British Summer Time), but when I edit the comment, it reverts back to 19:45 (GMT), which is correct. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm still fricken LMAO, Ritchie!! Atsme📞📧 22:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC) I added it, IT WORKED!!! I have to find an appropriate Wiki❤️ banner for you! Wait for it....Atsme📞📧22:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
"It's About Time"
If you lose track of time, and don't know the hour,
That you posted a comment, it may make you sour,
At the UTC expanded in plain text,
Leaving you confused over what to do next.
Just ask Ritchie333, he's the one with the key,
To fix your clock the way it should be.
So if your clock doesn't work, and you don't know why,
You just need a hand from the clock-fixing guy. Atsme📞📧17:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not rocket science
@Atsme: That's nothing, I just fixed the office coffee machine. It's bloody complicated, it boots up an operating system when you switch it on, and if you forget to attach the nozzle in the right place (oo-er) it goes bezerk. Jeez, what was wrong with the good old fashioned kettle? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Serious question...
...needing serious advice. When any GF editor comes across an article that is clearly an attack page that's full of SYNTH and derogatory claims against a BLP that are sourced to questionable and/or unreliable sources, what are the appropriate steps to take? Atsme📞📧19:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Euston railway station 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 Sportsguy17 -- Sportsguy17 (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Bravilor Bonamat, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Seconded, although you forgot: "The Sea of Japan article should be renamed", "Dear President Trump..." and "Hi! Nice to meet your acquaintance. We am produce many high quality LED, please see catalogue..." Yunshui雲水14:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Knowing who owns what is a vital part of a free and open society. For you to instead view such disclosures as compromising neutrality, is absurd; and made all the more ridiculous by the fact it has been orchestrated on Wikipedia of all mediums - the supposed bastion of knowledge for knowledge sake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Austrums (talk • contribs) 14:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I hate to bother you again about this, but the anon IP has resorted to edit warring again on the Terrell Owens page. I pointed out to him on talk that he did not have consensus to make his changes, and it has fallen on deaf ears. Rockypedia (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I made changes based on Richie333's recommendation that I find a source like ESPN. I literally found an ESPN source to replace the videos. Rockypedia blindly reverted it. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Not arguing the close - given the comments of participants no other way you could close it, but looks to me like there are sufficient sources in Hindi and Tamil, and this is a significant move with notable actors. Do you have an archived copy of the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I was here to ask for your help. Would you help me with this draft article please? I am having sort of writers block since past few days. If you can't help, would you please refer someone who could help? Thanks a lot in advance. Kindly ping me when replying. Best, —usernamekiran(talk)20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Rfreeman779 If you would like the article put into your userspace for potential future improvements, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Please! Since it apparently has already been deleted. I received notification of your dispute/delete process as I was just leaving the country and have been very busy over the last several days since my return. There has been no time to deal with this. I would prefer to think that the effort, whether wiki-worthy or not, will not have to be recreated for those who may be interested. This was simply an article informative to those either in the broadcasting/entertainment field as a business or hobby by a station that has developed a successful template for operation. As I have nothing to gain, it matters nothing to me as to whether it is included here or not. I simply need the content returned to a space where I can access it and post elsewhere. Thank you. Rfreeman779 (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just shifted the Mail out of about 10 articles. Will bear your comments in mind and nibble away at others. HTH. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
It does - I've had those BLP watch links on my user page for ages. I do think there are select occasions it would be useful to cite the Mail, but they are very much the exception to the rule, and anything that is vaguely celebrity gossip related should go. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh my gosh!. And this is a big part of the problem: a lot of reality TV/starlet/boy-girl band-type stuff is flooded with tittle-tattle sourced to the Mail. Much of it can probably be sourced elsewhere but not in its entirety. Eg: the first cite in that article relates to roles in three programmes. I can find sources supporting all three, but not as "bit parts"; or for two of them where they are called "minor roles" etc. There is a point where it isn't worth pursuing, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
At one point, I thought I'd removed every single citation to The Sun from all BLPs, but I got my algorithm wrong and there are still a couple of hundred left - mostly sports stats.
With getting rid of Mail citations, I think it's just a question of picking battles - anything that looks like tittle-tattle gossip or looks like borderline paedophilia should be just got rid. I noticed that somebody who just put up an immediate WP:SNOW RfA got dinged recently for trying to cite the Mail, and getting caught by the recently enabled filter, so at least the problem isn't likely to go up. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this edit filter, which I commented on and enabled, I think it's only fair to let you know that I am not going to implement a warning for these edits. Firstly, I don't have the words for it. Secondly, the sports pages are an unresolved issue. Thirdly there's a bunch of worse sources used on BLPs. So as far as I am concerned, I'm leaving it on log-only. You may however do as you wish. -- zzuuzz(talk)09:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Request for advice
Hello Ritchie,
I need your advice. After participating in Picaboo's AfD I decided to improve the article, as after a search for sources, I felt that it met our notability guidelines. It closed as no-consensus and an editor used that as a reason to add a notability tag (see here). According to the "when to use" section of the template "Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject". Since the no-consensus does not seem to be a valid reason by itself, I contacted the editor in three occasions (See here: [10], [11] and [12]) but I only got a very short answer to my first request (See here) and no answer to the other two. Since I was involved in improving the article and the editor that placed the tag did not agree to remove it, its probably not a good idea for me to do so myself... I would really appreciate your advice on what to do in this cases. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hyde Park, London 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) 12:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
