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.
Just curious... with reference to reporting IP vandalism, would/could/should descriptors like nut case, retard, idiot, whack-o, etc. be considered offensive if used in very general terms when filing a vandal report? AtsmeTalk📧13:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Using such terms are considered personal attacks. If used by edit summaries from the reported user, whether or not it's vandalism depends on what the content is. If it's editing some politician to describe them as a "retard", it probably is. If it's to take out or tone down some section on controversy for said politician, it's probably POV pushing and blockable but not technically vandalism. If it's in the report, then they need to tone it down. If you're talking about the specific AIV report I think you're talking about, then this is appropriate action. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear, that is not good. Fun fact: I have started to revdelete words like "retard". I can live with "nut case" etc., since they aren't blatantly insulting to actual human beings, but that word REALLY!!! should not be used ever. Now in this case it's in a comment removed by the bot, and it's not in the edit summary, so there's not that much of a point to scrubbing it, but in other places it needs to be scrubbed, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for validating what I believed to be true. Oh, and Ritch, yes it was about that diff. I just want to add that I appreciate the part of that user page TW template that states: "While you probably didn't intend any offense," because while the message is clear, it's not abrasive or a turn-off. That particular user has a slightly different style of communication but as his user page will demonstrate, he means well and produces quality work in his chosen topic areas, particularly Arthurian legends. Every minute I've spent mentoring him has been a rewarding experience. AtsmeTalk📧20:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Ansariya Educational Complex CSD
Hi Ritchie, as per the page this complex is a collection of a school, a college and other individual educational institutions, doesn't that make it an organization. Daiyusha (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
In general, you need to err on the side of caution with CSDs, as they allow administrators to delete a page without any consensus or challenging, and WP:A7 does say "with the exception of educational institutions". I don't have any opinion on the article itself and won't complain about sending it to PROD or AfD if you think that's appropriate. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
dealt with Jim and Mary McCartney's article once and for all.
Since the foaming-at-the-mouth Beatle lap dogs really want that abhorrent, garbage, abomination of an article so damn badly, I have to do the only reasonable thing which is merge it. I can't imagine why anyone even cares about these people over one song. Idol worship. So that's done with (unless someone decides to crawl out of the sewers to undo it). We have been avenged. Trillfendi (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like it's been reverted already. This AfD was a difficult sell; you have to read the article, understand the topic and get an understanding of what's appropriate for an encyclopedia without applying the letter of whatever policies are normally referred to in this debates. I'm not sure about re-reverting since I started the AfD and would probably be accused of trying to get my own way on things; hopefully somebody else will revert back. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
(If I may ...) I'm disappointed to have missed the AfD on this article. I'm quite capable of writing long, long articles on the Beatles – songs, albums, tours, biographies – but that in no way extends to Beatles-related trivia pieces, which is what that abomination of an article was. Just came across George Toogood Smith, btw ...
Anyway, thanks to both of you for your expunging of Wikipedia's The Daily Mail Presents Jim 'n Maz Mac. JG66 (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@JG66: Yup, I knew you would have a good delete argument, but I couldn't tell you about the AfD because it would have been canvassing. Now obviously I am a huge Beatles fan from Revolver up to Abbey Road, the latter of which is one of my favourite albums of all time, but I like the music, not the infighting trivia or the excessive personal details of the family. I had an argument with Ruth McCartney's PA on this talk page (I think) once, and I did chuckle that Ruth has met people who say "Oooh, you're Paul's stepsister. What's he like?" Jeez, she doesn't live with him! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:MERGEPROP says "Articles that have been separate for a long time should usually be discussed first, especially those on controversial topics." A topic that was just subject to a no consensus AfD counts as controversial in my view. We should have a merger discussion. I see Serial Number 54129 has restored your merge and I hate edit warring so I'm going to hold off but Trillfendi you need to tone down your rhetoric. I am not a "foaming-at-the-mouth Beatle lap dog", I simply have an opinion different to you.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I've added the link, though I do want to avoid the impression that I have placed Enigmaman in the stocks and am handing Oshwah a large crate of sun-ripe tomatoes to pelt at him. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333. I'd just like to ask, regarding Articles for Deletion pages, how many votes are required for a consensus? It seems the majority had voted to keep these pages, only one voted to delete. Thank you. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Consensus at AfDs is never taken by a count of the votes, but rather by the strength of the arguments. In this case, after the first relist, there were a range of disagreeing views, and not much a majority settlement on keeping, merging or deleting. So "no consensus" seems suitable, given the amount of times the debate had been relisted but failed to converge on a definitive outcome. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reevaluation
Thanks for reevaluating that report. It's appreciated, and I hope my response did not come across as rude in any way, as that was not my intention. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Advise needed
Hello sir,
I would be great if you could assist me for just 1 minute. I know your time is valuable. I respect your work and every editor on Wikipedia. Sir I need your help regarding this two articles which I created Bhoot Police & Rooh Afza (film). Does they doesn't follow the Wikipedia guidelines or are they not WP:N. AR.Dmg (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
On 13 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ian Cognito, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Where do you suggest I try a redirect? (Please ping me. I might very well forget I asked this, as I haven't gotten much sleep tonight. It's 06:26 here.) — Arthur Rubin(talk)13:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but as you may have seen I have been keeping an eye on a brand new article that I think all of us are sad that had to have cause to exist in the first place. I think Ad Orientem mentioned relatives liberating Notre Dame from the Nazis at the end of World War II or something like that - shocking, really. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Msgr Leonard Fries... a saintly priest who I knew in my childhood. He was an army chaplain during the war and was on the beach on D Day. And he was the first priest to offer Mass in Notre Dame after Paris was liberated. He was mentioned in Is Paris Burning? (book). -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Please explain why you are blatantly threatening me with an unconscionable block. I did not edit war and I was not uncivil towards anyone at all. I highly suggest you stop needlessly fanning the flames of a dispute where I’ve done nothing wrong. Once he brought the issue to AN, I stopped editing the pages all together. Any block made by you towards me in this situation would be way over the line and a clear continuation of your previous WP:INVOLVED spats with me. Nihlus16:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Somebody complained about you off-wiki (and did not want to reveal who they are); I checked your mainspace contributions, saw a near WP:3RR violation at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9), quite a bit more edit warring on related articles, and a regular failure to drop the stick in discussions, generally insisting on having the last word. This sounds like behaviour that is worth at least a warning. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I made two reverts and moved on once I saw he wasn’t planning on stopping. The editor in question was editing against consensus. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and switched my goal to clarifying the consensus that was reached, even though he was really the only one who was interpreting incorrectly. I dropped whatever stick I had when I told him I was no longer interacting with him outside of official boards. Any further comments were responding to his disruption and his own failure to drop the stick where he continued to cast aspersions and accused me of censorship. If anyone needs a warning, it would be Tenebrae, and I don’t even think he needs a warning or block. He just needs to be told to move on. Nihlus16:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The second edit isn’t a revert. The first one was for a different day and addressed readability issues with multiple articles. I had actually intended to self-revert the last revert to remove any thought of edit warring but the IP reinstated their edit just minutes later, so I apologize I was not quick enough to self-revert that one (I forgot that it was on an article that I reverted Tenebrae). It won’t happen again as we are beginning to work on a more long term solution to the articles as they are an unending target of fan-service type edits. Nihlus16:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
For the record, Nihlus, I am not "editing against consensus." An RfC review is ongoing because of what may be an inappropriate closure that conflated an apples-and-oranges issue well outside the scope of the RfC. Consensus for the actual RfC topic was reached. But consensus for the second, entirely different topic seems like it may need a dedicated RfC. That is precisely what the RfC review process is about: Until a decision is made, there is no proper consensus on that second, different topic.
And despite your protestations, you indeed have been uncivil and falsely accusatory toward me, including a false accusation of canvassing for which admin Bearcat chastised you on his talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Everyone involved in the discussion has told you that you are editing against consensus. As to the canvassing remarks, you brought an RfC review to the attention of an involved administrator and none of the other participants; that is inappropriate. One editor has been unilaterally deleting all contestants' civilian names for every season of this show, despite an RfC reaching consensus on only removing birth names of transgender contestants is a biased message and notifying only Bearcat is considered partisan. Bearcat misinterpreting the position on which I stood does not absolve you of any of that. I'm not going to rehash this on a fifth different page with you, so please do not follow me around the wiki. Thanks. Nihlus21:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Folks, for what it's worth, I've examined all of that discussion in the course of reviewing the RfC closure, and while I did see some unfortunate snippiness from a few people, I saw nothing remotely close to being blockworthy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for deleting the draft. :) I had wanted to see how a template worked as visual editor just showed the Wikidata numbers and codes, so it was confusing. And yeah. :) Thanks again. :) --LauraHale (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@LauraHale: You know something, I've now got an instinctive reaction - whenever I see a women's biography at CAT:CSD, I jump on it as it seems to be (still!) the most incorrectly-tagged class of articles on the entire project. So I looked at this, and thought "aww jeez, which idiot has tagged this as a test page ten seconds after the author pressed 'publish changes'"; then I checked the history to see what was actually going on. Anyway, my advice is that if you're just going to play with templates, do it as a page in your own userspace and label it "test" or similar; then it'll be obvious what's going on. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It was using the Template:Mbabel-WIR referenced on Women in Red. And the template when created from a red link puts it on the draft user space. (Creating an article about Lidia Falcon is definitely on my list of things to do. I'll do it on my user space. I just have a series of articles I am working on at User:LauraHale/Template:Women in Francoist Spain first before I start tackling those. :) Anyway, thanks again. :) --LauraHale (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
On 16 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Les Reed (songwriter), which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
May I advise you work on your tone and the way you address other contributors. “Fix, don’t tag!” as one example. First off no one is in charge here. The authoritarian and snide tone is neither effective or wp:civil. For example: Consider working on fixes for the article as opposed
to tagging. However the tag is intended to temper overly active contributions in light of recent highly publicized death. Not necessarily fix anything, your comment is also oft. Good Day0pen$0urce (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Dismissive response and edit war accusations. If the shoe fits as they say in regards to edit war. civility, really recommend reading it. I am thick skinned, but don’t like unneeded rude or bossy behavior and civility happens to be one of the wiki pillars. Not picking on anyone, just an opinion that your approach is a bit abrasive and could use a little adjustment, good Day! 0pen$0urce (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The trouble is people do not even no that they are doing it. I must include myself in that. You, for example the other day were determined to ridicule an edit that I had made by a partial, incomplete quote associated with some wild, comparative references. You self-reverted. Trying to traduce other editors is a form of incivility by attempted humiliation. And it becomes a habit. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That edit in question was supposed to be funny (does anyone still believes a no deal Brexit is good for preserving banana shapes?) but I thought not everyone would see the humour so self reverted. I did take time out to do a bit of work on Ronnie Campbell as a more appropriate response. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Beaver Field
That was actually pretty much verbatim for 3 paragraphs, plus a "footnote" consisting of another copy-paste. I've rewritten it and footnoted it properly. If you consider it adequately de-copyvio'd, could I request a rev-delete? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, consider it it rev-deleted. I'm a bit surprised it only got reported as 2% on Earwig, it certainly superficially looked like it had been copied and pasted from somewhere. Curious. In any case, WP:G12 did not apply as the first revision of the article (a redirect) didn't meet the criteria. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Ain't Wikipedia brilliant! It's fantastic, what it is like, is this big online encyclopedia that everyone can edit, it's fantastic, you used to have to get these old encyclopedias of me mam's shelf, now you just search for stuff. Brilliant! Ain't searching brilliant, you can find whatever you want, fantastic. Vandalism - brilliant, what is like is people come along to articles and write crap in them, then someone else comes along and reverts it - BRILLIANT! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Your input sought
I am considering another RfA in 2019. Next year is an Olympic year, so by this time next year I need to make a firm decision whether to participate as a media representative, as I did in 2012 and 2016. This will affect my personal and work commitments in 2019 and 2020. Given past experience of what is involved, I do not think I should accept without the admin bit. Before I even go to ORCP, I am seeking the input of a small number of people who gave well-reasoned opposes at my last RfA. I am seeking constructive feedback on my editing, and whether you feel I have addressed the concerns that you raised. I take criticism very seriously, and assure you that I will act upon it, regardless of whether I ultimately decide to initiate another RfA. Hawkeye7(discuss)03:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I'll start with the positives - your content work is excellent and your track record of FAs can be held up as a shining example of what we should be aiming towards. Now, for the tricky stuff. I remember the previous RfA well, as I had to strike my support !vote. This edit was out of line, this post seems to exhibit a hidden agenda and this comment shows that you are continually demonstrating sour grapes. A key difference between you and RexxS is he's only ever been pulled up for being blunt and forthright while still being right on merits, whereas the comments above have the same effect as trolling. I think your desysop was unfortunate and simply a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but it's your attitude since that is problematic. I think if you had responded to questions about your desysop at the last RfA with something like "I over-reacted and used my tools in a situation that was not necessary, and I sincerely apologise for my lack of judgement", you would have probably passed. Although the most recent diff I've presented here is two years old, the general air of mild disruption and contempt towards the RfA process is impossible to ignore, and will cast a long shadow over any future attempt to ask for the tools. I predict if you filed an RfA today, you would probably get 10-20 "hell no" opposes pretty much as soon as the relevant people logged in, and that would cause a huge drama-fest that we really don't need. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The only thing I can find is "Clearly ArbCom has an unusual definition of "emergency"." which is pretty innocuous and not worth any criticism. However, my point was not really explaining how I would !vote at a subsequent RfA (I don't have an opinion right now) but what sort of audience he can expect if he ran. I don't believe (though I'm happy to stand corrected) that Hawkeye has ever demonstrated remorse for some of the comments above. That would go some way towards convincing more people that this was water under the bridge. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I say this as someone with the utmost respect for your writing, Hawkeye; it's virtually certain that you will face some opposition over the "Jimbo's canned shit" question you asked at multiple RFAs, and for the generally bitter attitude you have expressed about RFA/adminship/ARBCOM in the past couple of years. This isn't to say you shouldn't run; but I think you'll need to revisit (and possibly apologize for) a couple of things, rather than just wait for enough time to pass. Vanamonde (Talk)22:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It was only at one RfA, and I did apologise for it. It was undecorous and a misjudgement; I thought the famous artwork being referenced was far more well-known. I do feel I owe Liz an apology for my belief that she was only interested in running for ArbCom. I don't think you'll find any bitterness in the last couple of years, but I'm always willing to apologise for missteps and mend fences when I can. Hawkeye7(discuss)04:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring PassportCard. It was a little shocking, after 12 years or so of editing and creating articles, to have a perfectly acceptable one speedily deleted for no apparent reason...Best--Geewhiz (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Knowing my own present restrictions on editing, you should be aware of this situation. I've avoided edit warring as best I can, but I feel other editors are taking advantage. When change an edit, I now will explain it fully on the talkpages. After this, I don't know how to deal with this, when facing behavour in this way[8], all in the just hoping to find something to trip me up. Thanks.Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Copyvio tagging without Earwig assistance
Hi Ritchie, apologies if this is a bad question, but I'm returning to new page reviewing after not being active for a while and would just like some advice.
I came across Beaver Field as a recreated redirect at the "oldest" end of the Feed. I was very suspicious of it from a copyvio standpoint because it was so detailed but completely unsourced. Earwig gave me nothing but I googled a few particularly significant phrases and – bingo, it was a copyvio of a book. So I used Page Curation to tag it with {{speedy deletion-copyright violation}} including the url= parameter to link the GBook in question.
You declined the speedy deletion on the basis that Earwig gave you only 2% – fair enough in most cases, but here there was a clear violation that I was trying to draw attention to.
Now in the end, I presume someone drew your attention to what was going on because you revdeled the relevant revisions.
That leaves me with two questions: first, if a recreated redirect has a copyvio in its only post-redirect revision, should I CSD tag or is it preferred to get a revdel? If so, what the preferred was of requesting that? Second, assuming that the only revision of a brand new page is a copyvio, but nothing on Earwig, is there a way to draw the reviewing admin's attention to this fact? Triptothecottage (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
As said a couple of threads above this one, the tool didn't report it as a copyvio, but something still didn't seem right. If I had a dog, it would probably bark at the article. Yngvadottir has rewritten the stub, so all is well.
Anyway, to answer your questions. Firstly, CSDs generally are only applicable if they can apply to every revision of the article. In this case, because the first revision (a redirect) could not possibly be a copyvio, G12 would not apply. Instead we can simply roll back to an earlier version. Secondly, if you are convinced there is a blatant copyvio, but can't see evidence from the software tools, put as much information as you can in the tag, or use the talk page. Unfortunately, Template:db-g12 doesn't support a "notes" field, which makes adding extra information that needs to be drawn to administrators' attention somewhat difficult. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
So I take it you looked at the Earwig link generated by the template and didn’t check the GBook itself that I had linked? The link I gave showed the copy paste pretty clearly to a human eye. Looks like Earwig doesn’t parse GBook text. I’ll use the talk page in future then for similar situations.
I seem to recall I was having difficulty accessing the Google Books link to validate the copyvio. In retrospect, I probably should have just restored the redirect and put in a note in saying "copyvio suspected" or similar. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, both. I suspect Ritchie is right and that Earwig's tool can't see the text in Google Books. This may also be an instance of geographical differences in what one can see; I am in the US. (Of course, it could also simply be Google being bloody-minded.) @Triptothecottage: in case Ritchie still can't see the text, can you check my rewrite is sufficiently distant from the original? I also dropped a note on StateLionPro's user talk; you didn't think to tell them about the speedy nomination, and they may not have realized copyvio is a serious no-no. At any rate, now they know! Also, Ritchie, I've asked them about their user name. That state university's sports teams are the Nittany Lions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Earwig can't look inside a Google Book, all it can do is see the page that displays it, so it merely reports on the minimal text on that page: title, author, a few other things. In effect, it gives you a false negative. What Google Books is useful for, of course, is letting you view the inside of a book, so you can read those sections of the book yourself and compare them to the article that's sourcing them...provided it's in the pages it's allowed to show you (which sometimes is only a portion of said book). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the editor apparently copied from another source at Beaver Field and Sphilbrick had to revision delete. (Then they blanked the article??) I've left a second note and also used the source linked in the edit summary to add a bit more to the article, but this is concerning, esp. since the editor has also been further expanding Beaver Stadium. And I must now go to work, I'm afraid. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Losing my Wiki-mojo
Hi Ritchie, as you were my primary RFA nominator, and I think of you as a role model for long term Wikipedians, I'm coming to your page for some help/advice.
I've had a pretty rough time over the last year or so with health issues and also academic pressure - I completed my degree between hospital visits. It's had a really negative effect on my Wiki-work. I've logged very little activity compared to the previous ten years, I'm afraid of losing my wiki-mojo, as I find it really hard to get stuck into even simple tasks like routine mopping. This post is the biggest edit I've done in quite a while... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The best thing I've found to get yourself out of wiki writers block is to plan a mini project. Find a bunch of related articles where quality is not so good and improve them all to GA (or some other consistent level). The London Monopoly mini-project took about 2 years, and the London Stations one is about the same (just coming to the end of it now). Something like that keeps your mind focused; and related articles tend to use the same source material (or can do), so you're not stuck trying to find sources.
For admin work, CAT:CSD always has a few entries in it, and not all of them meet the criteria - having a log of declined and improved speedies seemed to put me in a better position for RfA than a stock Twinkle CSD log. Occasionally, I can find a "diamond in the rough" and pull out a DYK. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
H9v9n9
Hi, I approached you a while back saying that this user could create problems but got no response. They're currently going around uploading new versions of Camila Cabello artworks, which is clearly disruptive behaviour and needs admin intervention. [9][10][11][12][13].--NØ19:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
They're uploading new versions solely to be the uploader, there is nothing wrong with the prior versions of any of those covers.--NØ19:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This is still disruptive behaviour if there is no rational reason for any of those covers to be reuploaded. Such behaviour is a form of fan activity and has seen people get blocked in the past. It's really not a new concept. I'll add a tag for H9v9n9, in case they are able to provide an explanation.--NØ19:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It is generally considered polite to have a chat with the deleting admin first; as the edit notice says above when you leave a message here, "Did I delete an article you were working on? I can restore it to a draft - just ask". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Reverting should not be a blanket revert
"Nupedia will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right. We're more popular than rms now; I don't know which will go first – GNU or c2wiki. Larry was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."
Thanks for your input on my recent edit regarding Quadrophenia. I suggest you consider your actions a little differently when you revert someone else's edit because you may find their decision(s) annoying to you.
I mention this specifically, because I made several (albeit, minor) edits to the article, yet you chose to revert them all because you didn't find a mere tag of mine, requesting a citation, as appropriate. I believe you not only chose your own expedience over a careful reflection. I also believe you could have resolved my tag by, instead of a snarky comment, if you had just used the album sleeve as the beginning of your citation as source. Rather, the claim I asked for reference was to show that no other album fit the criteria of the claim.
I realize many WP editors are protective of certain subject matter and articles. Perhaps this is one of yours. I assure you that it is not one of mine. This message is very likely taking more time and energy spent on my edits, but this is beside the point. If you have at least given this your consideration, I hope you can understand that a blanket revert when multiple edits were made is both discouraging and counterproductive to the improvement of the collaborative efforts of Wikipedia.--SidP (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The summary of your edit was "formatting, capitalization, formatting" which is not true, you added a fact tag for something that is easily verifiable (if not free) by buying every Who album and looking at the back sleeve. In particular, any decent Who fan will know the background about the album, that Townshend basically made a reasonably simple idea complicated and the other three were busy with solo work or (in Moon's case) acting and, er, getting drunk and pretending he was Hitler with Vivian Stanshall. Since your summary was disingenuous, and you tagged a good article for something that didn't really need one, and that your other changes were minor and inconsequential, I concluded your edit was silly and reverted it. As for "if you had just used the album sleeve as the beginning of your citation as source", well why didn't you do that? An important tangent of WP:OWN is that it's nobody's responsibility to update changes just because somebody says so. You didn't say why you think such as a cite is important; if you had come here and said, "hey you reverted my [citation needed] tag but doesn't [album] contain only Townshend songs too?" I would have looked into it a bit more closely.
Anyway, I have added a sentence explaining why Townshend composed the opera in its entirety and didn't leave space for the others (particularly Entwistle) to write songs, citing Dave Marsh's biography.
In response to your other comments, I take exception to people walking up to an article without any idea of the subject matter, or even pretending to, and defacing it, and implying that since I wrote the majority of the article and improved it to GA status, that I am exhibiting WP:OWNership issues. Civility is nice, but not when it comes at the expense of writing and updating an encyclopedia. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)07:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't overemphasize my appreciation of admins who are content creators/GA-FA promoters!!! I was/still am in a similar boat at Alligator gar but as you can see on the TP and at 3RR, I was the one called down vs the IP who did the damage. 3RR resulted in full PP so I've been unable to do damage control. How fair is that? AtsmeTalk📧11:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. The two of you were in a dispute over grammar and MOS issues, which is not something admins adjudicate on. I might lean one way if somebody was adding clear and obvious spelling / grammar errors, BLP violations or copyvios, but otherwise it sounds a bit like "potato, potato, let's call the whole thing off". Full-protection sounds fair. The alternatives are to do nothing (not actually a bad idea here as you'd stopped reverting each other), semi-protect (favours you over the IP, not neutral), block the IP (likewise), or block the pair of you (oh yeah, as if we haven't got enough dramah at the moment let's slap a 24 hour block on Auntie Astme, that'll make EEng think admins aren't out to get people). Shearonink called it exactly right.
Anyway, I've seen this sort of thing quite a bit. Sometimes the IPs doing copyediting are experienced editors logging out to see who reverts them, or they're retired editors who don't like the maintenance side of things and just want to contribute to mainspace anonymously, or they're a confirmed sockpuppet of Kumioko.[FBDB] The best thing to do is wait, leave the article and come back to it a few hours later, then read the whole thing from top to bottom. If you don't notice anything wrong, there's not actually a problem with the IPs edits, so they can stand. It takes patience and courage to do that, but ultimately it can be the best option for the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I explained why the IP's edits were incorrect and did damage. Unfortunately, what tends to happen most in my case is that 9x out of 10, the admins who show up to respond to my concerns automatically consider me to be at fault for whatever reason - even after I've proven my case unambiguously. That's one of the things I find extremely frustrating about WP. It's a major incentive killer. j/s AtsmeTalk📧12:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I've had a look through the disputed changes. Some of them, such as the issue I just raised on the talk page, are mild cases of original research, some are beyond my understanding (what's the difference between "an abbreviated heterocercal tail" and "an abbreviate heterocercal tail"?), some are questionable (why remove all those links?) and some of the "have" / "has" stuff I think depends on which side of the Atlantic you reside. Anyway, I can't speak for any other admins, but when I see a dispute, I take no sides and will listen to all reasoned arguments, be they from IPs or longstanding editors.
I'm working on WP:DGAF but when you invest the time to bring an article to GA status and get it through the dyk process, then help steward it for years against vandals and incorrect info, it is bothersome when edits are made for no other reason than preference or misunderstanding of proper terminology because they don't understand the topic - I was relating my situation to what you said above. AtsmeTalk📧14:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I know exactly how you feel and I used to be like that a few years ago, but after you've done over 100 GAs, you get a different perspective on things and eventually you realise that somebody piddling around with copyedits on one isn't such a big a deal, or at least that's what I think. More popular than Jesus doesn't look really anything like it did when I took it through GA (although I've had to go back and hack it back into shape every now and then) and the world keeps on turning. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mi_Persona_Favorita.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Never_Be_the_Same_(Official_Single_Cover)_by_Camila_Cabello.png){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OMG_(featuring_Quavo)_(Official_Single_Cover)_by_Camila_Cabello.png){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pharrell_Williams_and_Camila_Cabello_-_Sangria_Wine_(Official_Single_Cover).png){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shawn_Mendes_%26_Camila_Cabello_-_I_Know_What_You_Did_Last_Summer.png){kind=link}