User talk:Ritchie333

Keeping an eye on stuff. Meanwhile, here is some music.[1]

ARCA irony

Hey Ritchie, I'm sure it's of no interest these days, but just wanted to let you know that your proposal to amend the topic ban under which I was operating passed this afternoon with an overwhelming popular majority. I appreciate your part in that, amongst all the other stuff too. Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember Thank you with open arms? TRM, you are welcome to review any of my DYK noms, - to be sure I'll make a note on the open ones! Ritchie, I'd love a caption welcoming you back. Until then, Die Fliege. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I began Britten's Purcell Realizations , thinking of you, and when expanding, came across that who sang the premiere of one of them? Margaret Ritchie. Had to be, I guess. Miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

arms open! Die Fliege removed!! braking news of the day!!! much better that WP:Great Dismal Swamp!!!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Ritchie333,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Harlan Cage

It looks like a classic "diva flounce".....

Hello, Ritchie333. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Harlan Cage".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: @Fastily: Since I don't appear to be blocked or desysopped, I'll bite. This notice came in at 14:05 UTC. It was deleted 23 minutes later. I only created it as a request for Mikeyland (talk · contribs), and I can't remember why I did. Have they been informed of the decision to delete their work? If not, why not? This goes back to the issue I raised with Tryptofish at the top of this page, and until these issues are looked at properly, I don't see any reason for me to return to regular editing. Now I'm logging out and going back to the non-WP world. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wish you'd stick around --valereee (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. Don't let the bastards get you down. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie, I'm glad to have gotten the ping, and I'm glad to see that you looked in here. Truly, I wish you all the best, and I, too, hope that you'll come back when it feels right for you. You are missed. At least by the people who matter, and the hell with the rest who don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

While I don't remotely think that I am one of those "people who matter", I third or fourth the sentiment that I wish you were back. But, that's my selfish desire and I'd really rather you are happy, whatever you decide to do. Just know you are missed. SusunW (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify that when I said "the people who matter", all that I meant by that are the people who have common sense about what happened to Ritchie, and recognize that it was unfair. And there's a lot of us. On the other hand, the people who lack the common sense to see that Ritchie was treated shabbily, they are the ones whose opinions are worthless to me, and should be worthless to everyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all the comments. I inadvertently looked at my watchlist and consequently got motiviated to fix a bunch of errors, mostly unsourced content or IPs adding opinions or unclear information with no explanation on GAs. So I guess I can't consider myself "retired". My personal life finally looks like it's on the way up, so I would hope that the depression-related outbursts and attacks I have sporadically made over the past year will no longer occur. I don't like doing this, as it looks like a classic "diva flounce" one-month break, gathering sympathy for the "retired" message, and then suddenly bouncing back when everything's died down. However, I have been in conversation with Arbcom off-wiki and Worm That Turned has been particularly helpful, and I think an understanding has been achieved, or is in the process of being achieved.

Meanwhile, I would re-iterate that I am not happy with Fastily's "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude here, and I believe Iridescent has had cause to complain about them as well. I'm not going to run off to Arbcom to request a desysop, because life's too short and frankly they all need a break before the whole lot of them retire from exhaustion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(sorry to top post, didn't want to interrupt flow of "welcome back"s below) I'm glad you're back too, Ritchie. To be fair to User:Fastily, though, it looks like there were two essentially identical drafts in draftspace: Draft:Harlan Cage, and Draft:Harlan Cage (Rock band). Both written by User:Mikeyland. The one that was at Draft:Harlan Cage somehow had lost it's attribution to Mikeyland, and just showed you as the page creator. That's the one Fastily deleted. Then User:UnitedStatesian moved the other page (which did have proper attribution) from Draft:Harlan Cage (Rock band) to Draft:Harlan Cage, which is where it is now. So Fastily wasn't acting hastily, so much as clearing the way for UnitedStatesian to make a move of the page with the proper history to the correct page name, and Mikeyland never lost anything. The article sitting there now wasn't restored from being deleted, just moved to the proper title. I don't think Fastily did anything wrong here. Just to avoid unnecessary bad feelings. Glad you're going to stick around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish is celebrating having Ritchie back! I agree with everyone whom I just top-posted that this place is better with you back. I know what you mean about depression-related stuff and how it makes the problems with Wikipedia that much worse, because I've been going through similar stuff, and editing a lot less, of late. And in so many ways, I think Wikipedia has been going through a very strange period of time, to put it charitably. But I'm cheered that you are back, and that you've had some promising discussions with ArbCom. Great to see you, my friend! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Very happy to see that "retired" template go and glad you're doing better Ritchie.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Seconding what SusunW said; first, be happy. If it makes you happy, be here. :) I don't think anyone who matters thinks you did a diva flounce, fwiw. --valereee (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Welcome back me ol' mucker, Tbh everyone has a crap few weeks or even months due to RL stuff everyone does so it's understandable, As I say to everyone RL should always come first always,

You have nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed of either,

Anyway glad to see a friendly face back, Hope you're okay too :),

Take care, Dave 14:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see you back, more than I can say. Now, let's see what I can rope you into helping me with ... SusunW (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Good to see you back. Cheers, and let's raise our glasses to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• missed you too 😎 Whispyhistory (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Welcome back. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Good to see you back, Ritchie. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Welcome back, Ritchie. It's big of you to show any sympathy to Arbcom, and I'm glad to see the draft article has been restored. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Welcome back Ritchie, this place is better with you around :) — sparklism ^hey! 18:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• So happy to see you back, Ritchie. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• I got Green Smoke! I got Green Smoke! Welcome back Ritchie. It's a pleasure to see you back on. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Get to work. EEng 00:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Now look Mr EEng, I don't like you coming here sewing conflict and casting dispersions, please maintain a civil and constructive manor weather or not you agree with my views - please help me to diffuse conflict. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Diffusing conflict" is perhaps the best description I've seen about what ANI actually does. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with depression over my lifetime and I hope this cloud lifts over your life. Your health is infinitely more important than any online pursuit. But know that many would welcome your return, should the desire to edit come back. You are missed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• I am very seriously relieved to see you back. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Really glad to see you back! Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• +1 - so happy you've decided to return. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• I know this was rumoured at the last London meetup. But I'm glad and relieved it has actually happened. Welcome back. ϢereSpielChequers 08:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blind Faith

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Blind Faith 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Westway (London)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Westway (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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA. An important addition in the world of concrete 1960s urban motorways... I've always had it in mind to do the Coventry Ring Road at some point, a must-be-experienced rollercoaster in my home town!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy editing

Welcome back. Sorry to see you had some troubles here of late, R3s. Very pleased you're back on the frontline, in the trenches – where it matters. (Because anything else on Wikipedia does not.) JG66 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hooray, you've returned! This place wouldn't be the same without you. Also glad that your off-wiki life has lately improved. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My Georgraphic Stub

Hi Ritchie333, I recently made my first couple of drafts, I noticed you reviewed a few other geographic place articles in the past so I wondered if you'd be the right person to review my draft? Draft:Carr, South Yorkshire. Wincobank (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wincobank: Geographical location are generally accepted; the worst that will typically happen is they get redirected to the local borough. Is there a mention in the Domesday book? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Query

One, I've already read the discussion on Fram's talk page, and two, while I appreciate your desire that editors not voice their view on an Rfa prior to transclusion, is there any harm to the encyclopedia by so doing? KillerChihuahua 13:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua: All it takes is one person who doesn't support Fram being an administrator saying "Hey, why are we bending the rules for this candidate?" and the heavens will tremble. There will be plenty of time to re-add your support when the RfA is transcluded. I'm pretty sure Fram would not want to give an impression of being unfair or exhibiting impropriety, and I'm sure if they took exception to what I did, they would have called me out on it by now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No need to ping me when I've asked a question, I do watch.

So because people might complain, we're being rules-wankers? Eh, not complaining (much) and I can see the point. Still a bit silly, but since it would be you and Fram in the crosshairs, totally support removal. KillerChihuahua 13:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I did the same thing on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Galobtter without complaint. I think I will probably abstain from participating in the RfA, as and when it occurs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why you're telling me about that other Rfa? KillerChihuahua 13:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm fairly certain this is standard practice; some folks found my RfA before it was transcluded, and !voted, and then had their !votes removed by BU Rob. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Ritchie mentioned the other RfA to demonstrate that this had nothing to do with Fram and only to do with our normal practices. Normal practice is a 7-day RfA that starts when it's transcluded. If Ritchie hadn't removed the early votes, it's quite likely someone else would have. --valereee (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I actually already got that from his first reply to me. Again, not sure why the second Rfa was mentioned, since he'd already made it fairly clear he didn't see this as an IAR situation, and I'd made it clear I understood and supported his action. So he's telling me about another Rfa why? He's already explained, I've already said Yeah, gotcha and agree - so I'm missing if there is other information he's trying to communicate. Thank you to both of you, but so far you've not seen any new info being communicated either, so I'm still perplexed. KillerChihuahua 18:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The point I was making that it isn't just the need to avoid all appearance of impropriety in Fram's case; the removal is to ensure that the RFA is fair (not giving "insiders" a longer time to comment) and has been done elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I took that as understood. Ok, I think Ritchie was being redundant/thorough here, no need to continue this. KillerChihuahua 18:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Westway (London)

The article Westway (London) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Westway (London) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blind Faith

The article Blind Faith you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blind Faith for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

GAR of Bengal famine of 1943

Hello. This is spam, forgive me. I'm gonna go through various GAR/GA pages and look for people who appear active. All I'm asking for is a review, not asking for any specific outcome (i.e., not begging for a KEEP). The GAR is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bengal famine of 1943/1. If you review and Delist, that's OK, so long as it gets a meaningful review...

The article is big, detailed and has a terrible history in various Content Review forums. In fact, it has been residing in Content Review Hell for a couple years now... In return for a review (not a specific outcome) I'll do any kinda gnomish or research work you wish. Forex, I love converting inconsistent referencing into {{{sfn}}}, regardless of article size. I also help with all the errors that show up as described User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. And so on. Thank you for reading this; forgive the intrusion. Cheers ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Rob Hunter

Tragic. I'm going to do my best to clean up the referencing and get this into the RD section of ITN, but I'm rather busy this week so any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was good to go when I just spotted it, so I've posted it on the main page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I found some time to clean it up later. Thanks. 15:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh?

How did we end up here?

A quote that had been around for months, cited to an offline source, was changed by an IP, with absolutely no explanation. I switched it back with an edit summary of "please don't alter a quote". Can you please explain to me how that could possibly be considered abuse of rollback? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandarax: You only need to take a spin through WP:ERRORS to see that mistakes can sometimes take a while to be spotted. The quote had been transcribed incorrectly; This source shows the word is "achieved", not "accomplished". The IP was therefore making a good faith edit that made the article factually accurate, and WP:ROLLBACKUSE says "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The key word being "standard". The next, very important, paragraph says "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary ..., then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting."

As for the edit, thank you for correcting it. I had attempted to check the source listed, and when that wasn't available, I looked at an edit two months back, and saw that the quote was the same as before the IP edit. It's not unreasonable to assume that something that's been around for a few months is more likely to be correct than something that an IP changes it to, with no edit summary. I see lots of people attempting to "improve" things, not realizing that they shouldn't be changing text within quotations. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the point of using rollback on a single edit? That just seems daft. The best course of action is to check the edit, if you can. If you can't, then you can revert with a summary like "not in source and can't find one". At all times, err on the side of over-explanation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(tps) Not sure why it got the “Tag: Rollback”- they used an edit summary. Maybe it wasn’t explanatory enough, but I don’t see this as rollback abuse since they used more than a generic edit summary. –xeno^talk 11:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The tag is defined by the MediaWiki software (see Special:Tags). Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that you think using rollback on a single edit is "daft". Just look at recent rollbacks, and you'll see that the majority are, in fact, undoing a single edit.

Based on your response, I can't tell if you understand that you were wrong to accuse me of abusing rollback. According to the full guideline which you partially cited, my edit was incontrovertibly not rollback abuse.

You asked "How did we end up here?" Well, we ended up here because you falsely accused me of abusing rollback, and I want to make sure you understand that, so you won't make similar false accusations against anybody else. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It was one revert, fixing something that was factually incorrect, on an article I did extensive work on (including rewriting to take to Good Article status). Get over it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you can't strike your edit summary, I think it would go a long way to indicate that you perhaps didn't notice that an edit summary was provided and were simply looking at the Tag: Rollback - that you understand no abuse of rollback occurred... –xeno^talk 12:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Westway (London)

The article Westway (London) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Westway (London) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A belated 'welcome back'

Having just seen your username appear in the history page at an RfA, I came over here and was really encouraged to see you've started contributing once again. I spent ages last month, trying to draft an email massage of support to you. But none of the versions I wrote seemed to say anything better than those who had already posted on your talk page, so it seemed best not to message you and possibly make matters feel worse. Time, they say, is a great healer, and Wikipedia is not only incredibly addictive, and needy of competent editors and admins like you. So, I hope you'll ease yourself back in gently, take care, and really feel welcomed once again. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Nick Moyes: You know one thing I'm quite certain would make Ritchie happy? It's this. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Wot Vanamonde said. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)