User talk:Ritchie333

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

This user misses Dr. Blofeld

Redirect of Magik Ninja Entertainment to Twiztid

You are the one who chose the final decision to make a redirect form a company to a single group , so I am writing to you. I submitted a semi protected edit request to get the page restored with evidence of how it fits the WP:NCORP standard. The issue is the label is a smaller one that is not anywhere near mainstream, so articles wont be as plentiful as say Universal records articles. What other information do I need to supply to get that page restored? Froggyfixit (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Froggyfixit: I think John from Idegon has given you the appropriate advice - you can challenge the deletion debate at a deletion review, or file a retargeting request at redirects for discussion. As the closing an administrator, I don't have any strong views on the article - if I did, I would have a conflict of interest, which would be bad). Looking at the page's history, I see a huge amount of disruptive back-and-forth editing, which is what led to the page being semi-protected. I think at this stage you're probably best of forgetting about this topic and looking at one of the other 5 million articles on Wikipedia to improve instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: So if you as the closing one shouldnt have any conflicts of interest, should the nominating one not have any? John from Idegon was the target of verbal harrassment due to his repeated deletion of linked content (not from me, I saw those last night) before he proposed deleting the entire page; and relenting to the redirect. I feel that may have created animosity there. I will challenge in the other spots you have mentioned, but if the final decision cant be biased, why can the one who initially proposed it have bias? Froggyfixit (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply put - nobody who participated in the debate said they wanted to keep the article. That's pretty much the extent of my involvement. For the record, John from Idegon should not have violated the three revert rule on 27 August, and had I been around at the time, I would probably have blocked him for it - but blocks are not punishment so doing it retrospectively is against policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Restoration of Majik Ninja Entertainment Wikipedia

Hello, one of the readers of Faygoluvers.net, a website that I have owned and operated for nearly 20 years, brought to my attention that the Majik Ninja Entertainment page has been unpublished due to unreliable sources. Most of those sources are from my website, and attributed to myself (Scott Donihoo aka Scottie D). I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that we are unreliable, as we work directly with Majik Ninja Entertainment, as well as other artists and labels that we cover.

This is the link in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Majik_Ninja_Entertainment

Please respond or feel free to contact me directly at (Redacted) with any questions. Thank you.

04:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Scott Donihoo (aka Scottie D) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.179.232 (talk)

As stated above, I have no opinion on this article, I simply closed the Articles for deletion debate. See the above reply for suggestions of what to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the level headed response. I see in the admin chat that I was accused of a conflict of interest, or being a sock puppet. I dont really like that, and it appears I was away too long ot be able to respond there. is there a way I can clear that up or should I just let it go? Froggyfixit (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

inna widddly-diddly styleeee, mi bredrins

I was just wondering if you were at all familiar with this 2003 classic? A real treat for dub-wise Floydians everywhere (and full available on YouTube, of course, in case folks are curious). It's pretty cosmic. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC) widdly-diddly

Are those iron butterflies flying around this thread title? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

.... ooooh, I'd never thought of it like that before...! -- Interstellar Teapot Traveller 123 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC) " According to drummer Ron Bushy, organist/vocalist Doug Ingle wrote the song one evening while drinking an entire gallon of Red Mountain wine.

September 2018

Wilful tickling, or other uninvited titivations, may result in a loss of your editing privy ledges

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly tickle a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at this madhouse. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you think I just go and tickle anybody? Good grief, do I look like I have enormously long orange arms? I think not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not long? Are you 'avin' a turkey, or wot?? After all, you are known as the orangutan of the Hammond organ, are you not?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

...always reminds me of, 'Threesie Kings of Orient are, two in a taxi, one in a car  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

'ere mate, strike a light! I 'ad that John Henry Hopkins Jr. in the back of me Yuletide-rip-off cab, the uvver nite. ... and 'e left me a pair of is sandals an' all!" Blimey Charlie! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's created the Cockney Wikipedia. "Awight mate, you can edit this parsley and sage!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

But of course, a folk classic. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Blou (band)" article AfD closing

Greetings. You closed that AfD with a "no consensus" decision. Yet there was only one dissenting suggestion against two opposite ones. Moreover, you justified the closing with this: "Since the pre-copyvio version was restored, nobody has commented on a definitive option for the article." However, after Michig restored the pre-copyvio version, I commented extensively on the sources Michig provided, as well as other sources out there, and I believe I refuted all claims for notability. So, it's surprising to see the proposal closed like this. Do you think the closing should be somewhat revisited? -The Gnome (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The principal problem was there was so little participation in the debate. If one other person had said "delete per Gnome, who has summed up the argument well", that might have been an argument to delete; if two people had, it definitely would suggest a "delete" close. I would see if you can improve the article, then re-nominate after a suitable period of time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the informative response, Ritchie333. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Victoria line

Hello sir! Here is something I happened to have saved on archive.org. Might be useful for the Victoria line article — https://archive.org/details/op1265392-1001. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I wasn't planning to improve Victoria's article so much, but in the words of MelanieN, "Finding an article that is lacking something or needs work - well, that is like a dog seeing a squirrel, I am immediately distracted from whatever I was doing." (WP:SQUIRREL on standby). I did do a search on "London Underground" on archive.org texts, but didn't find anything useful. Day & Reed's The Story of London's Underground and Woolmar's The Subterranean Railway seem to have most of the facts; for individual stations and tidbits, M.A.C. Horne's The Victoria Line: A Short History seems like a good detailed source for everything else, but I don't have a copy. DavidCane has done a lot of tube GAs, so he may be able to advise on these. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. I must get my hands on a copy of those two books. Prog on. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Horne's Victoria line is very good on specialised history. I used it quite a lot on my recent update of Green Park tube station which has just been made a good article and is currently a featured article candidate. The others in the Illustrated History series are also excellent. Unfortunately, they are mostly out of print and hard to get hold of. Day and Reed and Wolmar provide good broad coverage of the Underground's development. I've used both extensively as sources. Antony Badsey-Ellis's Building London's Underground, is a recent book which provides a lot of technical information about the actual processes of construction for the tube lines. If you have a membership to your local library check to see if they subscribe to Gale Databases. This has digitised archives of The Times newspaper and Illustrated London News both of which contain articles that show how developments were reported at the time. The free access The Gazette website contains the London Gazette archive in which all of the private bills for new railways were published. For early lines the published bills often describe the plan line in some detail.--DavidCane (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I do have Gale access through my library card and it's invaluable. I don't think Victoria line is too far off GA; it's been there once before and had a PR since, so it was in reasonable shape when I got to it. I've got most of the history done with Day / Reed, Wolmar and the Times archive, which (once I'd gone through the relevant search results) managed to verify a lot of the unsourced content in the article. There are still some {{fact}} tags, and the technical / rolling stock information needs revising, which really isn't my area of expertise. It strikes me though, that armed with Horne's book, it shouldn't be too hard to make Victoria line a good topic, given several station articles are GA or could be without too much effort. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review?

I have a nom open for GA which I'd like to send to FA eventually, but for now it's still short: BWV 134a. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda I must apologise for the Jonathan Ross Fan Club turning up this evening and gatecrashing my talk page ... if nobody has grabbed this by the weekend, I'll see if I can have a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologize ;) - I consider a review for the fan club then ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mixed info: I had a GA on the weekend, but not this one. I have the vision that you will do it then, friend ;) - (I was told that I can't translate Freundliche Vision to friendly vision.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that was super-efficient and friendly! - Only now do I realize that "your" GA review came with bot assistance, while the other one looks more handmade, - and the article still lacks the little green symbol. Would you know what to do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The bot puts the symbol on, it also adds a revision ID of what the article looked like when it passed GA. So it's better than doing it by hand; you just need up to 20 minutes' delay while the bot comes round on its next run. Occasionally it trips up and just removes the review from the pile with a log of "maintenance", in which case you need to do everything by hand. I've never worked out precisely what causes it to barf, it just does. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The bot transcluded the GA review (or I would not have noticed, but didn't do any of the messages to my talk, nor add the symbol. The talk page is fine, so is the list of GAs, thanks to Figureskatingfan. I want to do nothing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, it's literally been years since I've regularly reviewed GAs (mostly because I've just submitted a couple myself, and believe in quid pro quo, even though it's not required at GAN), and you disparage me. When did I tell you you couldn't translate Freundlich Vision to friendly vision? All I did was tell you to stop confusing us 'Mericans with fancy-shmancy stuff like calling a song a lied and to use more refs that us mono-lingual hicks can understand without using google translation. The addition of that green button-thing was done on its own, and yes, I did update the GA list. That I can do, but tables [2]? No-freaking-way! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Christine, I'm sorry that you confuse two things (and that I was not clear enough), the question about how the GA bot works (which related to you and the GA process, so I pinged you), and the "friendly" question which had nothing to do with you, but you invited to look here. Moonraker said that "friendly" implies a friend, and a vision thus can't be "friendly", - can't find the comment, though. - How will the article get the green icon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda sweetie, did you not see the smiley emoticon? So much of my life is already full of Big Bang Theory moments, and you just made me have another one? Was I being sarcastic? Oh no, not at all. Actually, one of the ways that I provide BBT moments for others is to attempt to create humor, and I fall flat on my face most of the time. And the green icon question has already been answered. Or is that yet another social cue that I missed? At any rate, please forgive me for inserting myself into the discussion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Christine, teach me telling smiley from other. I saw it but thought it was for the last sentence. - Just yesterday, I saw a great opera on the difficulty of seeing what's real, what not, Lost Highway (opera). Nothing to forgive about entering a discussion to which I pinged you. Sorry about BB, and about repetition: the article still didn't have the little green icon when I looked today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

As my dear departed mother would say, "Heh." I went ahead and did it by hand for you, 'cause that's just wrong. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like your influence is spreading, Gerda ..... [3] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have created an article. You know about these things

"SQWIWWEL!"

Hi Ritchie hope all's good. I seem to have created my first article. Well it's now a blue link anyway. It is Saturday Zoo (TV Series). I think it's notable and will not get wiped. I did not use the article wizard. Should I just beaver away at it, and will various bots sort it into categories etc? I've only been a regular since 2012, but better late than never I s'pose. Irondome (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's already got ominous-looking tags all over it. Looking for sources now. Irondome (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it meets WP:TVSHOW : "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)". Was this the show where Nirvana went on and played "Territorial Pissings", trashing all their gear at the end? That's a DYK hook and notability right there. Let me see what I can find regarding sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah! It was also Steve Coogans very first TV break and it had John Shutteworth giving Danny DeVito and Christopher Walken some of his music tapes. I still remember DeVito's face lmao! It had some A list guests. Cheers for any help mate! Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah no, Nirvana was two years earlier on Tonight with Jonathan Ross. But yes, it was Coogan's first TV moment ("bag o' shite") and Shuttleworth, and I've got a source here that said Madonna was on it too. Give me a mo and I'll beef it up a bit more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It was Coogan's first outing of Paul 'bag o shite' Calf yep. The show is also strongly mentioned in this bizarre little spat [[4]] from 2009. Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the help Ritchie. You are a great colleague. I am just a bit paranoid that the speedy delete crowd would trash it, which would not be good for my content creation confidence :/ I owe you several dozen pints at the next London meet up. Si. Irondome (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As stated in a recent above, things like this are like a dog spotting a squirrel. I've got some admin stuff to attend to, and shopping in real life, but no - one look at that stub, and .... "SQUIRREL!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been trying to give up shopping in the real world. But I know just what you mean about squirrels. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry Martin, e/c):::::::::Glad it got your interest Richie! I love odd little things like that. I have ideas for other stuff in pop culture and other areas that has not been touched by WP. My age I suppose. I am just too bloody slow, and I suppose I should prepare my sources before creating a stub. I dunno. Now I am aware of why there is the schism between deletion and project growth. Anyway, it is scary to think something may be wiped. Gotta get my head round that. Really cool how you (and others) immediately pitch in and improve when you see something worthy. Really restored my faith in WP. Ta. Si Irondome (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry Domey. We all get fits of paranoia now and then. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Did I see a volcano mentioned here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Did you know .... that I've got an even more garwish jacket than this one?"

Well, we've done the hard work of getting it past stub-stage, so now let's think of a good hook for Did you know so we can get it on the main page? And yes, the rumours are all true - when you get a team working on an article and pulling it together like this, it makes you think that WP is something worth persevering with! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's actually quite moving. Don't laugh now! I am now reading up on DYK..Thanks everyone. Sydome. Irondome (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Am pleased to say that there are some gems on YT, including the magnificent John S aka "The Shuttmeister" with the enchanting "Pigeons in Flight". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Used to like it when we used to put up YT to express a point or just for the lulz. But we can't now, I know. (Sigh) Si. Irondome (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No, we still can if we're planning a little holiday from Wiki and want to stir up a little mini drama. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Right then ..... Template:Did you know nominations/Saturday Zoo Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow so those are the 'hooks'? Cooool! Si Irondome (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Curmudgeonly commentary - I was going to review this to encourage Irondome regarding how much fun and profit there is in article creation, but I've run into a little snag regarding the first hook. I can access Easily Distracted via Google Books, but it says that his first television appearance was on a show called First Exposure in May 1988. Am I missing something? I can't give you a page number, because Google isn't kind enough to provide me that information. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the "It was also Steve Coogans very first TV break" comes from this talk page thread, not the source, so I obviously got the two things mixed up. I've adjusted it to say it was the first TV appearance of Paul Calf, which is what it should be. The source is here if you can access that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting much deeper into curmudgeon territory than intended, but the source says that it was the first TV appearance of Pauline Calf, yes? I don't want poor Irondome's DYK experience to end up at ERRORS. <shudder> 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That was also debuted on Saturday Zoo but after Paul Calf (who had been first tried out at live shows). AFAIK, the source means the first appearance of Pauline full stop was on the show. Or we could just cut out the middle man, ping The Rambling Man and send the whole shebang to WP:ERRORS2...... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Got it. By context, I gather it appears on one page I can't access via the link. Alright, I'm going to do the review now. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, enshrined at YT, I'm glad to say (published on 31 May 2012, 70,057 views), but it is possible that "eurochrissy2" is not the true copyright owner. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A throwaway source here, but it does show some of the characters - "Simon Day and John Thomson play Bruce and Larry, with news from Hollywood." .... "Penn and Teller rodent roulette etc " (... their first time in the country? - now that might be worth a DYK hook?).. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I get that you have to source hooks, and I don't know if they were in the same episode, but how about 'DYK a rodent and a calf both appeared on Saturday zoo?' Irondome (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That's much better than the starter for two I put in - if you can get the sources, we'll have that. In the meantime, I'll run off and create WP:SQUIRREL..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Haha, what a cool hook. Not real rodents alas, only rat-traps, but at least Lazy Susan gets a look-in.... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bugger. If only we had YT, it's like we are working blind. This is a three pint problem Dr Evans...Irondome (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, I expect the high-priced lawyers over at Sue, Grabbit & Runne, acting for the penniless Mr Ross and Channel X, are even now waiting to pounce on the slightest link to a copyright infringing clip of a 25-year-old show that most people had forgotten about..... but, as you know, policy is policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bag o' shite Irondome (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that somebody once got Jonathan Woss deleted without even going to Wediwects for discussion. Witchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You are cowwect. It was the well-meaning Anthony Bwadbury I believe. Irondome (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Dilly dilly!

In case you can't get yours... here's a damps quid just for you... and don't "Dilly Dilly on the way!"

Sir Ritchie333, you are hereby awarded the Diffusing Conflict Award of Extreme Merit (with Gold and Silver Stars) [5]. EEng 13:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed I managed to find a diff of "civil and constructive manor". I see this sort of mistake more on what youngsters call "social media" (and I call "arguing with random strangers on the internet"), along with things that really get my goat like "wouldn't of done that", mixing up "were" to "where" (as Aleksandr Orlov said - "DON'T EVEN SOUND SAME!"), and "damp squid". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Damp squid?!? Allow me a LMFAO on that one. Never heard that abomination. Irondome (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's right there with 9 others! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's there! Its all true! Nip it in the butt!! That is my favourite now. Nip it in the butt hahahahahahahha!!! (snort) Sigh. Yes. Irondome (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Resign

I'll resign when he does.
Does impeachment count? What about if he resigns to avoid impe-BWAHAHAHAHA Sorry I couldn't spit it out with a straight face...

I cannot read this. Please resign.

-EEng

This is past its prime. Time for a re-sign.

This nonsense explanation is evidence that you have no business being an administrator. That "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)" repeatedly inserted unsourced, contentious content into a BLP, which you would have quickly discovered yourself had you taken just a minute to look at the recent edit history of the article. I did precisely what Wikipedia expects in this situation with a BLP: removed the unsourced content and explained why via edit summary. It wasn't a subjective matter; it was obviously objective. So when the "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)" repeatedly inserted the inappropriate content, I issued a warning on their talk page. The editor then immediately (one minute later) retataliated by issuing a warning on my talk page, even though I had done nothing improper. But she knew that a biased admin like you would see what was going on, jump in, and take the side of the editor with an account and go after the IP editor, even though the IP editor was completely correct. You took the bait. And after all the ridiculous battling, the "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)" finally admitted that she knew all along that there was no source for the content she kept re-adding, but that she just assumed it was probably true based solely on her her own beliefs and logic. And when I asked you why you issued me a block but not her, you said you didn't want to "whack (her) over the head with a silly block!" because she's been around a long time. Did you even hear yourself as you typed that? Talk about gutless. Well, guess what, I didn't ask you about blocking her. I didn't even say a word about a block. I simply asked why you didn't warn her on her talk page, as you did me? Although it's amazing I have to explain this to you, what you should've done to immediately put the dispute to rest was to simply tell her, "Stop re-adding unsourced content to that BLP. The sources do not say that!" And then you should've thanked me for protecting the article. But you took the easy, cowardly road by using your powers to go after an IP who was clearly right, and protecting an editor with an account, even though you knew damn well what that editor was doing was not only disruptive, but a clear BLP violation. Finally, you said, "And 'I am right and the other party is wrong' never gets you off the hook with a block. Actually, that's total bullshit and is obviously completely wrong. But you already know that. Do you think when there is a dispute between two editors on a noticeboard, and one is determined to be right about the issue at hand, and the other wrong, that the editor who is right is "not off the hook"? So, when you say, "the job of an admin is to try and reduce disruption and defuse difficult situations," is that what you accomplished in this situation? Think long and hard about that. Grow a spine. An admin's job is to protect the encylopedia, not editors. That is the most basic tenet of being an effective, fair and competent administrator. You did the opposite. You should resign. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered the merits of a nice cup of tea and a sit down? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

More evidence showing why you should resign. You posted your response literally within 15 seconds of my comments appearing on your page, which proves not only your immaturity but also your inability to be trusted to do what's in the best interests of this project. Resign. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The current version of Edgar Snyder says "After 32 years of marriage, Snyder and his wife Saundra (Sandy) began divorce proceedings in 2014." which I believe is what you wanted the prose to read. Regarding "Finally, you said, "And 'I am right and the other party is wrong' never gets you off the hook with a block. Actually, that's total bullshit and is obviously completely wrong" - the remark is part of the examples of bad unblock requests, which in turn is part of the appealing a block guideline, which in turn is described as "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". Furthermore, the edit warring policy says "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." - so far from being "total bullshit and obviously completely wrong", it is actually "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I timed it at 15.8 seconds. I think a resignation is called for only below 15.3. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

15.3 is the bright line standard. It's still up for debate whether 15.8 seconds calls for a resignation. 15.9 seconds is pretty much in the clear, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, hang on, 15.9 was done in the Suzuki Liana, didn't they all change when we switched over to the Kia Ceed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's true, but until you manage to up your drifting game, you can expect editors to continue to call for your resignation. How can you mop if you can't float, bro? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

But please don't be quite so waspish with the passive-aggressive and petulantly condescending tea advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You are the prince of red herrings, sidestepping the real issue: your behavior as an administrator. But you know exactly what you're doing by this tactic. It's classic trolling. The content as it stands now is completely irrelevant to this converstation. When you issued that bogus warning, you completely disregarded the fact that an editor was repeatedly inserting unsourced, contentious content into a BLP. A quick look would've shown you that. So you're either incompetent or lazy. Or you just didn't care; you saw a named account vs an IP, and you went after the IP, regardless of what the edit history was showing. You still have yet to acknowledge that what the editor did was an indisputable violation and that she was fully aware when she did it that no sources existed for that content (even though she subsequently admitted it). And you keep blabbering about blocks when no one, except you, has ever said a word about blocks. It's clear that you're afraid to even mention the edit-warring exemption for contentious, unsourced content in BLPs? Why didn't you stop it from happening? Why didn't you address it with the editor who was doing it? Why did you choose to issue a warning to the editor who was removing the bad content, but not to the one who was adding it? We already know why. Because she's a "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)". Your words, not mine. Regarding "Hang on, hang on, 15.9 was done in the Suzuki Liana, didn't they all change when we switched over to the Kia Ceed?", again proves your inability to act fairly and professionally in your capacity as an admin. You've proven yourself to be a childish little boy, afraid to directly address any criticism. I guess you'll need more help from you little friends to protect you. Resign. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Going off topic a minute, if you haven't watched the brilliant Rules for Rulers, watch it now. As you can see, the best way for rulers to optimise a democracy towards their needs is to gerrymander and bias the voting system so that your popularity is super-duper low, but your electability is, if not super-duper high, just enough above everyone else. (And, oh look at all those tax cuts, straight out of the "how to make democracy play into your hands" handbook). And that's where we are. So impeachment is still a very long shot, and heck I'm not even sure about the Dems (or even a Republican who's not a total nut-job) getting in in 2020, because I'm fairly confident that Trump will play his "the establishment are out to get me WAAAAAH" card, and he's only got to get one vote above the competition and no more. Still, unlike Brexit, it's statistically likely there will be a time when I am still alive but Trump is dead, so that gives me a ray of optimism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

One issue I take with these sorts of videos (though I'm watching it now) is that each one presumes itself to be 100% correct (Yep. It's that tired old problem again), even when they contradict each other. It's really not something that we can say "Do X, Y and Z to succeed as a ruler" and be accurate with any certainty.

That being said, the claims here seem to have some meat to them. It's describing pretty much exactly how Trump won; he got the Electoral college votes by taking advantage of republican gerrymandering and low Democrat turnout. Remember, Hillary lost that election as much as Trump won it, even though she carried the popular vote (by quite a margin, no less).

I haven't given up hope, and the current trends seem to back my optimism: Republicans in much of what was Trump Cuntry two years ago are not only getting more critical of Trump and his broken promises to bring back the manufacturing jobs they wanted, but some are even switching sides. On top of that, Democrats are mobilizing in record numbers. The "blue wave" seems to actually be a thing at the moment, though of course that might change.

The South might still be 90% Trumpsters, but the midwest is changing from a slightly purplish red to a solid shade of lavender. It's actually rather shocking.

Despite my inability to give up hope, I'm actually resigned to another Trump/Trumpesque term, though I would bet good money that an impeachment would happen before 2024.

Honestly, the best hope for America is for Trump to have a heart attack and die (which is quite likely, all things considered) before the end of his term. That, or an impeachment, because Trump would almost certain screw himself over during impeachment proceedings. Pence could never run that election against any decent Democrat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I hear he does like a burger. Rather puts our puny UK politicians to shame. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, after events of the last few years, I have kind of given up hope in the democratic systems we have being able to insulate us from stupid people. Sample comment from a forum yesterday when I complained about Brexit being economic ruin and a house price crash was "money isn't everything" (except if you're homeless and starving to death, when it does mean something). Democrats might be mobilising in numbers, but they mustn't make the mistake they did last time of putting up a candidate that is "eh" at best, and the "Trump killer" (who is basically going to get all the moderate Republicans and Libertarians to switch without losing any Dems, which is what you need to win) has not turned up yet (or if they have, they're not making enough noise about it). As far as dying of natural causes, it's possible and could happen at any moment. I'm wondering if his (current) wife is going to leave him before he dies - if you saw all that misogynistic groping and affairs over the news, and you were spending lots of time apart and not allowed to stray from the party line, you'd feel like jumping ship wouldn't you? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I never had any hope in Democracy insulating us from stupidity. But I've noticed that the level and type of stupidity is fluid, so I push for the nicer, lesser stupid.

I like you example. It reminds me that America doesn't have a monopoly on astronomically stupid political arguments. I'm still chuckling over the sheer vapidity of that.

The lack of the Trump Killer is not as much of a problem, I think. Or rather, I think most people have set their bar for whom they would consider a Trump Killer too high. Any charismatic, centrist politician who's not afraid to take on Trump's level of bluntness can do it, and Trump has certainly been making politicians more blunt. The main problem I see is the Dem's rush to push progressive candidates. Yeah, I want the Dems to move to the left, but that's not gonna win over republicans, except for a very few who feel completely disenfranchised, like minorities and women. But that's always been the case: the Republicans have been bleeding women and minorities for decades, a slight uptick won't change anything.

As for Melania, I bet there's a prenup standing between her and the door. Or possibly (just speculating here, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit) the actual threat of violence. But I would laugh my ass off if she filed while he was still in office. Maybe that would be enough to set his fatty black ticker off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're going off-topic. Because that's what you do; run from criticism and questions about your actions. It's what children do; change the subject, try to bury it, and hide. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If I wanted to run from criticism and questions, I would have deleted your edits and blocked you, yet you are still here to tell the tale. I've given you an answer; it's just not the one you want to hear. If you feel hard done by, you can raise a complaint on WP:ANI. I would suggest that the light ribbing you have received from other editors on this page suggests that nobody else actually cares about your complaint. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I dunno about that. I know I would show up at such an ANI thread and having something to say about it... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. First time a sitting Arb blocked! EEng 17:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih isn't a sitting Arb. Softlavender (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Our dear friend EEng is late with the gossips. Alex Shih (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess so. OK, well, let me rerun a similar joke from the past. [6] EEng 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the best hope for America is for Trump to have a heart attack and die (which is quite likely, all things considered) before the end of his term. That, or an impeachment, because Trump would almost certain screw himself over during impeachment proceedings But then we get Pence and honestly I think, if I believe in Satan, he may actually be him. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That reminds me of a joke. Trump and Pence are sitting around the oval office talking about Trump's critics.

Trump: The less people talking about this latest scandal, the better!

Pence: The *fewer*.

Trump: Shhh. Don't call me that in public yet.

But in direct response; like I said above. There's no way Pence could win an election against any reasonable Dem candidate, especially if he'd had a few months or a year in office already. He's further to the right than Trump is, and has none of the buffoonishness that some people interpret as "charisma". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to say it took me a while to get that joke - if you read it in a British accent it doesn't scan as appropriately as a Deep Southern one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to read it in one of those funny London accents, *tee-hee*. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Pence is the human embodiment of this scary guy. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure he's not this guy? I mean, if Pence turned up in the sewer outside my house and said he'd found the paper boat I lost as a 6 year old and that life down in the sewer was good for the economy, well ..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, clowns, even killer clowns smile too much to be Pence. Also he'd probably catch fire if he were caught in rainbow. ;) Besides, blood sucking secret vampire seems right up this administrations alley. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Chrissy. Trump himself might be a stupid version of Pennywise, but Pence is more like this guy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My new campaign slogan, thanks MPants at work!I've been reading this book and in my head it's a dystopian novel but then I remember it's real life. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Leadsoprano

Hi Ritchie333, regarding this, Leadsoprano1 (and Leadsoprano2) are not socks of Leadsoprano - it was Nsmutte being disruptive. He has created quite a lot of pretend socks of people who've been reported to WP:3RR over the past couple of weeks. --bonadea contributions talk 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

+1. These two numbered accounts are Nsmutte. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a checkuser (waves to BU Rob13) to confirm this? If so, I will reduce the block accordingly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Compare [7]. I guess I got the "simple and obvious" wrong! Bishonen | talk 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC).

Checkuser needed and endorsed, fwiw, to expedite loosening the block (I can't comment for certain that Leadsoprano is not Nsmutte, but I'm very certain of the others) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Not too familiar with the technical markers of Nsmutte and haven't looked into whether the accounts are them, but I can say they definitely aren't socks of Leadsoprano. Completely  Unrelated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP address 119.94.158.55

This IP keeps on adding fake content, for example changing names of contestants on the polish show to those from philippine version, or changing them to names of movie characters, such as Fluttershy or Frankenstein. This is obvious vandalism. Lupus28 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There have been no edits for 12 hours, so I'd leave it be for the minute. If they start up making rapid-fire unexplained changes, we can block then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ritchie. Just a question that's been bugging me. Was there ever formalised admin coaching on WP? It came up because I checked out the essay WP:TTR and it has a couple of rather enigmatic references to it. Just wondered what it's history was, and does it have a place in today's WP RfA scene. Cheers mate Simon Adler (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think admin coaching was popular back in the old days when we had 10+ nominations every month. You basically got somebody to tell you when to !vote "keep" at AfDs and up your "AfD score" and which noticeboards to post on, in order than everyone would support you. Nowadays, people can spot when you're trying to game the system, so it doesn't really apply anymore. Instead, we've got Request a RfA nomination which is more or less the same thing, adjusted for the fact we now have about 1 RfA a month, and it can be contentious and unpleasant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah right. Yep that would account for the references to it. Appreciated. Simon Adler (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Arb

"Gosh, I think I just saw a blade grow a fraction of a millimeter ... OMG I can't get any more excited than this ..."

Arbcom: Conception

Arbcom: Reality

-EEng

Hope you and family are doing well. You must have been asked this before (I've not checked, but assuming so...); I'm wondering why haven't you considered running for arbcom? Given your experience here, I, for one, would look forward to having you as one of the arbs... Lourdes 05:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've been asked directly, but I find Arbcom work as about as exciting as watching grass grow, I'd just procrastinate over everything, and tell all participants to go and look at kittens. What was that screenshot Iridescent posted a while back saying "You have 793 unread messages"? That just makes me think "I don't get paid for this - forget it". Unfortunately, that means that Arbcom is a perfect example of the Peter principle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have indirectly asked Ritchie before. Arbcom work is flexible, as you choose your own workload; meaning that you can just stay inactive for the entire year while telling people to watch kittens in the background. That's entirely acceptable. At least for the sake that one of the critics would now need to think of a new line to critcise, eh? What have you got to lose Ritchie, other than 1 less GA a month (I guess that's a lot to lose though). Alex Shih (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There's little point in criticising Arbcom for anything. It achieves nothing at all. The latest episode where an IBAN was extended without appeal for six months just for asking if it could be considered to be removed sums up the futility of it all, and demonstrates that those individuals believe they run Wikipedia, not that they're a service who work on our behalf. Don't go there Richie, ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie, I agree. Better do GA reviews ;) - On the committee, all you can do is agree with Opabinia regalis. Alex, you could have done that, no? Instead of leaving them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can agree with OR (eg: "hey, aren't cats wonderful?") without needing to join arbcom to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Strictly for arb matters of course. I asked all these candidates if they could agree, most said yes, then I voted for some of those, then they didn't. Disappointing. - I'm happy that Joe returned, even after this waste of time of two cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a quick read through Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a now and see if I'm up for reviewing it. In the meantime, here is a lovely four-part fugue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the music! - I should probably not interrupt your reading, but now I typed it (ec): How about being a candidate, if only to prevent that another valuble content editor gets banned for 6 months? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not expecting her to say "yes" but I think with all of the management of Trump articles this year (what a masochist), MelanieN might make a good arb .... if we can keep WP:SQUIRRELs away from her, at least. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not expecting her to say "yes" Your expectation is correct. Thanks for the thought, but I'd rather drive bamboo splints under my fingernails. Flaming ones. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And that's very much the issue, isn't it; anyone who wants to be an Arb really badly shouldn't be one, and reluctance to be on ARBCOM is very much a feature of some of the best candidates (you included, MelanieN). Vanamonde (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Band notability

I'm not able to find evidence of notability for Thieves and Villains, but I was wondering if you could take a look before I send it to PROD or AfD. Thanks in advance, Vanamonde (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The litmus test is to type "site:billboard.com <band name>" into Google. If you get nothing back (and I didn't), then it might be an AfD candidate. A genuinely notable band should at least trip up on one search hit there, ideally showing a chart position. The nice thing about WP:NBAND is that having a hit is an easy bright line that you either have or you haven't, so it tends to stop arguments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, good to know! I'm confident in my ability to search for conventional sources, but there are obscure but reliable music sites I know nothing of. Appreciated. I've sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thieves and Villains. Vanamonde (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Majik Ninja Entertainment

I was wondering why an entire record labels page was deleted by you? All company history information was deleted and was redirected the page of a band on the label (and founders) wiki page.

There are 24 current and active bands and artist on this label. and it is a subsidiary of Universal Music GroupI have read the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majik Ninja Entertainment and as I am not an admin, therefore I don't really understand the reasoning of "Absolutely no indication this endeavor meets WP:NCORP" so can you explain?

I am currently a member of the labels promotion street team and a major fan of this label. Maybe I can help with some of the information or conversation. At the very least, can you explain why this company and its artist don't meet the requirements for a page?

--Privitor (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Privitor: I didn't delete this article, the history is here. There has been a follow-up discussion here which you should read carefully first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok, I looked but didn't see other questions on your talk page. But I understand that this has been a continued conversation for you. I did see in the history that you didn't "delete" the page, just redirected it to the artist's page which then got redirected to a sub-header. My opinion on the matter is I know its hard to find a source of information for this and that is what is needed for wiki content. The primary source typically comes from interviews, live streams, videos, social media, and newsletters from the founders about the label so it's hard to pinpoint a direct source. Wikipedia was used as a collection place for most of the data making it the official source of content. I can attempt to add verifiable information about the company to the band's personal page if that's what we must do. and as for the now deleted Majik Ninja Entertainment Discography, maybe we can start adding the information in the individual artist pages. Just thought it was silly to delete (redirect) all content to an article when the band originally started the independent label. Would it be better to leave the formation info on the band's personal page and add a new header explaining the new status of the label and merge the old page into the band's personal page? --Privitor (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when an admin closes an deletion discussion, they can only go on what people asked for. It's a bit like blaming the returning officer for an election result you didn't like - they just did their job and did what people wanted. There are a number of options available that were discussion on the noticeboard thread; the most obvious is to use the article wizard to create a new draft article that can be independently reviewed and then put back into mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Old Street station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Old Street 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI

This may be of interest, or not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thanks for the heads up. I think the four threads at the top of his talk page right now are reason enough for me to think an RfA from that user would at best get no consensus, and at worst get SNOW closed, depending on how mean spirited the first opposers were. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. At least one of those represents poor editing judgement and it's too recent. It would become a lightning rod for opposition at an RfA. It doesn't help that they didn't admit the mistake although they did disengage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

On occasion, I have done a couple of WP:BOOMERANG blocks at AIV, where the user reported was not unambigiously editing in bad faith and where the reporter had continually reverted them to the point of 3RR. At that point I've got a policy backed reason to block, and I've used the occasion to explain WP:NOTVANDALISM very carefully. The minute they "get it", I unblock. It's a bit of a blunt instrument, but it can be a useful learning tool. I think one guy retired, but had about 2-3 other admins (who aren't particularly close friends of mine) telling him the block was good and he should have seen it coming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Old Street station

The article Old Street station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Old Street station 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

With sincerity...

	"Sunflower Award"
	Your work as an admin is not being graded, But it certainly is much appreciated, To know that you see with vision that's clear, A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear. Thank you for all do! Atsme✍🏻📧 14:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"ear, ear". Let's hope he carries on Forever. [8] Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan block reduction

Block reduction

-EEng

Block reduction

What you've done here is quite risky, especially when the user just broke her promises shortly after getting unblocked. I personally would've kept that block indefinite. She is known for being deceitful (often through sockpuppetry) and her words should be taken with a grain of salt. It wouldn't surprise me if she breaks her word again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

She's young and excitable, and I can easily picture my kids being the same. She's still blocked, and that gives time for people to raise concerns on ANI and elsewhere. I have to AGF she didn't really realise she was breaking sanctions, and she did apologise afterwards immediately, and the content in question didn't look troublesome, and the blocking administrator was cool with it. I have spelled out exactly what the issues are, and short of putting in words of one syllable, I'm not sure what else I can do. Let's just chill and see what happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Age doesn't justify anything here. Regardless, I do hope the conditions you laid out there are actually obeyed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A number of people are complaining on ANI that the block is punitive, even when reduced to 24 hours. Anyway, age can be useful as a predictor for future disruption. Take a 15 year old who's being a bit of an arse. Come back in five years when they're 20, there's a reasonable chance they will have grown up and cringe at what they did back then. Now take a 65 year old who's being a bit of an arse. Come in back in five years when they're 70 - chances are they'll be exactly the same, if not worse. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. (But you can try and impeach them). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• I see this block reduction as in line with a reasonable assessment of consensus and, by definition, therefore correct. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been quite the day for me reversing blocks, hasn't it? :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You're getting good at it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Years ago, I first heard someone say "Anyone who doesn't believe they were an idiot as a teenager is still one." I've yet to see even the slightest hint of evidence that this aphorism isn't entirely true, and I've seen much evidence to suggest that it is. So my advice is to not worry too much about permanently banning the 17 year old (who will likely be reflecting on what an idiot she was at 17 in just a few more years) and worry more about whatever other pages are on your watchlist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Gone awry

-EEng

Let's hope it doesn't go awry. This episode reminds me of an incident years ago on the other website I am staff on where some young users likewise could not listen to requests to stop... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've run, or been close to the management of, several forums in the past. I saw a hyperactive 17 year old who basically lived his social life on the forums and annoying just about everybody by replying to every single fucking post with "that's interesting", "thanks", "cool" etc etc. IIRC he got put on a hard "no more than 5 posts per day or you get banned" limit, and two years later, he was a pretty good poster making insightful comments. Then there was a girl who ended every sentence with "lol", which backfired when another member was upset their dog died, to which she replied, "sorry to hear about your dog lol", offended about 10 people and got kickbanned. On the other hand, I have had intelligent and reasoned debate with people, and been very surprised to find out later on, that they were 15 years old. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

In my experience on that other website, there is little correlation between age and maturity, probably because what adults don't have in terms of immaturity they often more than make up with what I'll politely call Firmly Held Opinions. It also seems to me that teenagers tend to vary their maturity depending on environment, i.e if they are in a formal environment they'll behave like mature adults and when they go to an informal one like stereotypical teenagers. I believe that https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229707000536 may be related. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Would you be able to hide the IP edits on Lawrence O'Donnell 1 2 as they are BLP violations. GhostOrchid35 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like another admin with oversight privileges got to this already, but I can't tell whom. It sounds like the thing GorillaWarfare would do but I don't have access to the oversight log. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

China/Hong

Morning. I'll leave this and this with you. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

.... and as good as my word, both semi-protected for three months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the unsourced info, as neither countries have announced their entry yet. Hopefully that's not a blockable offense. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Waterloo East railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Eastern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Greg Herman / Fashion Designer: Page deletion

Dear Ritchie333,

We hope this email finds you well. It was brought to my attention by one of Greg's associates that his Wikipedia page was deleted. Per our research, we noticed that it was you that removed the page. We were shocked to find this out. We could understand if some edits were required, which have been done in the past number of years by your fellow contributors. But a full deletion of a page- we believe that was extreme. Your reasoning/ position for removal was sited as (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Please elaborate. Per our review of the copy, we don't see that. Instead, it is a realistic portrayal of our client. Greg Herman - both the individual and the brand has and continues to contribute greatly to the world of fashion- namely accessories.

We took a second, third, and fourth pass, as did others in reviewing the article- and while it could use some edits, none of us thought it was unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was a true and accurate depiction of Mr. Herman, his early life, career, etc., and feel that the deletion was unwarranted. I understand that Wikipedia must be filled with tons and tons of articles that need to be deleted, however, this is not one of them. Greg Herman, his history, this article, has been part of the Wikipedia community for many many years and he's been listed in the various Wikipedia lists. He has contributed so much to the fashion community- his philanthropy through design (which we were planning to add), his history, and groundbreaking work to help and spearhead a boutique designer market that is still struggling in a sea of imports, his TV accomplishments, etc., were all wiped away at a push of a button in the world of Wikipedia.

We are advocates of anything and everything community. We also understand the difficult task you have at hand in keeping it all real and honest. Greg Herman- the person, the brand, the fashion designer, etc., is a real and authentic voice that has and continues to contribute nationally and abroad. I appeal to you, our team appeals to you to please restore his page. We are not very knowledgable in the inner workings of Wikipedia, but (if possible), perhaps you can be the monitor of the article as the page evolves in the future. Thank you for all your help in this matter.

Best,

Robyn Davis

～～～～

The article was largely full of claims without any citations to high-quality, reliable and independent sources, which is an absolutely essential requirement for biographies of living people as it prevents libel and slander getting into articles. The prose contained unsourced text such as "While living in Impington, a village just north of Cambridgeshire, England, Herman became inspired by his weekend trips to London, where he immersed himself into the heart of England's fashion scene. It was at his home in Cambridge where he designed his first few bags, which were later sold at the very stores that helped to influence his creative vision." and if you cannot see how that is completely inappropriate prose for a neutral encyclopedia article, you should not be editing this article in any way shape or form.

If this person is genuinely important enough to be in a worldwide encyclopedia, somebody else will create the article as a matter of course. (Talk page stalkers - if you think you can create a BLP-compliant stub on this person, please just do it) I see that your request to restore the article on Requests for undeletion has also been declined. Therefore, I don't think I have any consensus to undelete this article, even if I wanted to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333,

Thank you for your prompt attention, along with the information and clarification. Both you and other Wikipedia members have been very helpful in this matter and it s very much appreciated. While I understand that restoring the existing article in it's current form is not possible, can we open a dialog as to how to establish a new one and/or could you aid with that. A conversation at the very least to establish his name back into the Wikipedia community. Whatever assistance you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again and have a wonderful day.

Best,

Robyn

～～～～

Hi Robyn; basically in this scenario I try and write a new article myself if I can. To do that, I have to start off with basic source material, and in this case that would be a google news search for "Greg Herman" fashion. If I could have got 2-3 hits from that, that were dedicated pieces specifically about him, I could have probably written something. Unfortunately, I need to have evidence of that source material presented in the article, so anyone else can fact-check it at any time, and they also need to be there to prove this is a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Without that, I'm afraid there's not much chance of being able to write a new article :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Houses of the Holy

On 23 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Houses of the Holy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the cover of Houses of the Holy was designed by Hipgnosis and based on photographs taken at the Giant's Causeway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Houses of the Holy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Houses of the Holy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Irn Bru. Made in Scotland. From Gerdas.

Congrats, + love the rabbits below! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you noticed how Gerda sounds a bit like Gertcha? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't. It doesn't even sound like Gerda as most Englis-speaking people pronounce it ;) - Guess what: all GAs that I nominated are reviewed! That hasn't happened since I started ;) - Time to write a new one, I guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

32 different ways! :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think since I started writing GAs in 2012, there has only been one instance where I've not had at least one on the queue, and that was during a 2-month wikibreak in 2016. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You can’t beat a good Gerda fork, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chas Hodges

On 23 September 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chas Hodges, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

rabbit rabbit rabbit rabbit

rabbit rabbit rabbit rabbit

yup yup rabbit rabbit

Not forgetting....

Fortunately, I have another bottle of beer tucked away in my piece of period furniture. --Arthur Negus 123 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. you put Sainsbury's to shame.

Gertcha When your talk page is vandalised by a sock

Gertcha When they come off a 24 hour block

Gertcha If they complain about breaking policy

Gertcha Cause the trolls dragged you off onto AN3 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Meh. You grumpy old admins are all the same.... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Now I don't mind having a chat. But you have to keep givin' it that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Beer flood? Now that's a nice way to go on the paper. Alex Shih (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Apoorva (actress)

Apoorva (actress) can you please move it to the user page ill improve it Iamheentity (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Done - User:Iamheentity/Apoorva (actress) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Rev-del request

Hi, I wonder if you could rev-delete the edit summaries left by Special:Contributions/184.175.102.29? The edits were nonsensical and appear to have been made with the goal of defacing article histories with swastikas, "Sieg Heils", etc. The user is currently blocked, but the edit summaries remain. I would appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Should all be scrubbed. That sort of stuff has no place on this project. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; much better! There are still two swastikas left; they are at the bottom of the page here: Special:Contributions/184.175.102.29. The specific edits are [9] and [10]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Vanamonde (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! @Vanamonde93. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent behavior

Your behavior as of late is becoming increasingly problematic and indicative of an administrator who thinks they are bound to a different set of rules than everyone else despite saying that admins should be held accountable for their actions. Recent examples include disparaging other editors in order to undermine their credibility (your comments about MelanieN in an RfA that was not about her and your comments about Widr when I echoed his concerns in a CU vote about someone else), hounding me at different RfAs and different pages (I can reasonably be assured that you will respond to any comments I make at any page even if my comments have nothing to do with you), and ignoring other guidelines such as WP:TPO and removing comments you don't personally like that do not violate any policy. I'm taking the liberty and letting you know my objection to your behavior as a response to this comment where you state Editors should be able to criticise the project’s administration and state their views provided they do no descend to personal abuse... Thanks. Nihlus 05:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Has this really been bothering you since early August ? That's quite astonishing and worrying, really. Nick (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Considering the level of day-to-day crap I see from editors and admins alike, Ritchie's comments seem to be little more than exasperation with blinkered incompetence. Have you tried to look at his comments with a gram of AGF, rather than accusing an admin of hounding (without any evidence)? Perhaps not trying to stir a dramah pot would be a better start to the day for most of us. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, Nihlus, is that in my view you don't really seem to like contributing to the actual writing of the encyclopedia very much, and don't have very good dispute resolution skills, and consequently you end up picking fights with people for no reason. For example, if I examine your mainspace contributions, the only content you have contributed to in the past two weeks is an mild edit war on One World Trade Center over the alignment of an image, whereas if you look at my mainspace contributions, you can see a huge range of articles worked on over the past 48 hours. In the specific instance you cite, you decided that TonyBallioni should not receive checkuser privileges and cited another editor's comments who said they had a "Terribly self-important, generally unpleasant know-it-all approach" and accused him of hat-collecting. You didn't supply any diffs to back up your argument, and I thought your wanton unwarranted criticism was an unpleasant cheap shot, so I asked you a direct question; "How on earth did you conclude that Tony was hat-collecting?". You did not answer. Elsewhere I see you templating a longstanding editor and having a go at a longstanding editor where I am not surprised that you felt you had to have the last word.

I think you should check your assumptions over what my working relationship with MelanieN is. We've worked together on several different articles in the past, such as Ika Hügel-Marshall, Beer in San Diego County, California and Laura Lee (sex worker) and generally had a good and congenial relationship. See WP:SQUIRREL.

My advice to you is to stop trying to be an admin; it won't work. Find a topic you want to work on, or monitor new page patrol for new articles, clean them up and improve them. You'll gain a lot more respect than just getting the hump every time sometime disagrees with you. Chill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Typical response at this point. You just cannot help yourself from trying to disparage others in order to make yourself look better while at the same time derailing topics and deflecting criticism. I suggest you stop thinking you're better than anyone on this site whenever you try to whip out your edit count or comparing whatever you've done lately. People contribute where they can, when they can, and how they can. You've developed a pattern of berating me for not being up to your level of content editing, and it's one of the very reasons I don't want to be. That kind of behavior makes content editing unpleasant with your haughty attitude and the way you look down on others who find enjoyment elsewhere. The next time someone brings up an issue with something you've done or the next time you disagree with something someone says, I challenge you to try to talk about why someone thinks that or why someone said that instead of going through their contribution history to poison the well. Nihlus 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You linked to Wikipedia:There is no Divine Right Of Editors. This essay includes the following: "They block without good reason and refuse to unblock. Bad cases may even WikiStalk the blocked userpage to weed out any unblock requests." I'd like some hard evidence with diffs that I have ever done that, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Way to cherry pick what you want out of that while ignoring the big nutshell at the top: Just because you are an established editor, you are not above the rules, nor are others below you. Nihlus 16:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You're like a Conservative MP, Nihlus! "Strong and stable!" "Leave means leave!" "No deal is better than a bad deal!" You don't answer the questions I ask, you just answer the question you'd like to answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You know what an encylopaedia actually is, I suppose? 90% of grief on this site would disappear if those unprepared or unwilling or unable to work on content (broadly construed) would go and find a social media site to play with. If you can't or won't "do" content, you should be asking yourself if this is a worthwhile hobby for you, 'cos it sure as hell is not improving the encyclopaedia in any way, shape or form. The dramah board clique who wouldn't go near an article if their lives depend on it are one of the worst blots on this site - sitting pontificating on others without an actual clue on how to carry through the core rationale of why we are here: to write a fucking encyclopaedia. If you can't do that, stop being a pain in the arse to those who can. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't appear to be finding enjoyment elsewhere though, from what I can see of your behaviour in recent months, the only enjoyment you appear to be deriving from Wikipedia is getting into bizarre fights with editors for no apparent reason. It's all very strange and disconcerting. Nick (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Another stalker here. This needs to decisively conclude, either with Nihlus putting money where their mouth is and seeking some kind of formal sanction against Ritchie, or with Nihlus avoiding making contact with Ritchie. All the preceding conversation demonstrates is a marked disagreement between Nihlus and Ritchie, and is (realistically) a complete waste of time and energy. We should all get back to making some more content for Wikipedia instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I do have to thank Nihlus for pointing me towards Wikipedia:There is no Divine Right Of Editors, it looks a lot better (and more amusing) since I improved it this afternoon. Meanwhile, I am anticipating that I will throw another GAN on the pile this evening, if I can finish tidying up and double check sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

What, do you think all your useful contributions to this site make you more valuable than anyone else?? The correct answer is "Yes." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

My contributions are awesome. I mean, they're like the best contributions evaaah. You're all getting sick of how awesome my contributions are, is the crowd with me? Yeah, this Podunk, Alabama Beer Hall Putsch is really great, you guys are so awesome! What are we gonna do with Jimbo? LOCK HIM UP! TheDonald333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, we get it, Donald. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

O clap your hands! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

.... or even just the sound of one hand clap. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Somewhere, on a corner of the internet, there is an argument about whether Jon Anderson says "This is a song call-ed Clap" or "This is a song called The Clap" immediately before the song. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

In the article, I thought I was extra correct saying The Beatles for their revolution, but no ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ps: should the revolution be mentioned in the lead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, which article are we talking about? I just mentioned The Wikipedia Revolution on another thread and like Tigger I'm all confuzzled. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The clap article (a little above) which mentions use by The Beatles in Revolution 9, - see Main page. Every now and then there's somehing hooky in classical music, - clap please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Michael Hardy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not your employee or servant

My milkshake brings all the gentlemen to the 0.9144 metres

Please avoid leaving edit notes like this in the future. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

What would you like me to do instead? If I don't think an article meets the appropriate CSD criteria (which are deliberately narrow as unilaterally deleting an article without discussion can upset people), I won't delete it. If I haven't got a clue what to do with the article (which in this case I don't, as I tend to stay away from medical-related articles as I feel I don't have enough subject expertise to edit them) I will suggest something to the tagger, who I assume has more of a clue what to do with the article than I do. I hope that all makes sense. On a related note, I'm surprised we don't have an article (or at least a redirect) on the phrase "I remain sir, your humble and obedient servant" which is commonly seen on civil service correspondence to MPs seen on files in the National Archives. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Hey Bitches!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Oooof. Just take a chill pill, CL-Threesie

I just got epilepsy. GMG^talk 22:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I got a sudden urge to put on some REAL MUSIC instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have deleted it. Your servant, Drmies (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is a phrase that marks out a gentleman, and is thus all but extinct in the modern world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"My milkshake brings all the gentlemen to the 0.9144 metres" ooof, even by R333 standards that's baaad - TNT ^💖 22:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

All the best puns are the worst ones. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for John Cunliffe (author)

On 28 September 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Cunliffe (author), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah blocking Congress

See [11]. Natureium (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I just get a subscribe message when I view that page. I just think blocking the Representatives right in the middle of an extremely controversial confirmation has a huge possibility of being misinterpreted in the extreme. A block like that is controversial at the best of times, but at this specific point in time, I think it should only be done by WMF staff, and only then with extreme caution. Sure, protect articles because of BLP, that's neutral and acceptable, but shutting out every Representatives IP from editing .... yikes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Jaw, hit floor. Is there already a discussion about this somewhere? - TNT ^💖 20:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it’s justifiable when someone is posting personal addresses and phone numbers of congresspeople. There’sNoTime, clearly you haven’t been on IRC recently. Natureium (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been on IRC ever, I don't even know where it is. Is everything there logged and accessible by anybody in the same way as diffs, so there is full accountability and transparency? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You can open that in a private window and you should be able to see the page. I haven't read it yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Or use archive.org GMG^talk 20:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarification, did someone actually block the entire US House of Representatives? Even given the very serious abuse, that's a pretty brassy move w/o any kind of discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Yes they did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

On simple merits, under normal circumstances, a 12-hour range block would be acceptable (but a week?) The block instructions for admins state "These ranges are allocated to major governmental organizations; blocks of these organizations have political and public relations implications of which the Foundation's press relations team must be aware. Avoid long blocks of these addresses, and be especially careful in formulating your block messages because your block message will probably be seen and commented on by the press." As an administrator, I can see some of the redacted edits, and believe me, if Trump got hold of those he could make the WMF's life .... unpleasant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe this needs to be discussed on one of the noticeboards (AN?). -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned it here on the CheckUser appointments threads. Okay, I'd already opposed Oshwah, but the question was more to make people who have !voted "support" double-check their view and make sure they're absolutely comfortable about doing it. I haven't gone to ANI yet because I've spent too much time on ANI today and have had enough. I'm not going to stop anyone else raising it there, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Um. What I see on Special:Contributions/143.231.0.0/16 does not exactly sound all constructive and libel law compliant. Perhaps it's indeed better to keep them blocked until the charade blows over and not just a 12 hour block with a high recurrence risk. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to that cheeky DYK hook that names someone called Brett as an expert in the Devil's Triangle (drinking game).... oh no, hang on .I think we have just done that one for someone called Donald...?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kama_Chinen_(2nd_nomination)

The keep arguments were WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, someone bringing up a mention in an article about someone else and a WP:PERX statement, while the Delete votes cited policy (BIO1E, GNG and others). Please reconsider. » Shadowowl | talk 20:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am at a complete loss to understand why longevity articles cause more heat than light, but they do. As I said in the close, I could have relisted it for another week (and if you're unhappy with the close, that's the option I recommend) but I just felt we'd end up in the same place; plus the arguments were getting heated, and would probably stay that way for any remainder of the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am at a complete loss to understand why longevity articles cause more heat than light. Thats because most of them aren't notable. I've relisted. » Shadowowl | talk 20:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Essay directory

I have been trying to find an essay which says something similar to "don't invent the problem". But I can't recall the name of that essay. Do you know what essay is it? Any TPS? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it WP:AINTBROKE? Or WP:SLOP? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks a lot! I was looking for WP:AINTBROKE, but SLOP is a little similar too. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeking some advice

Greetings,

so after Tutupaca, Taapaca and Ubinas passed at FAC I was thinking of going back to articles which I wrote earlier and bring them up to FAC readiness, which often would require a total rewrite. Some of these articles such as Coropuna are currently GA and if I were to rewrite them for FAC there would be a period where they bear a green star despite being very unlike the version that passed GAN. This issue has held me back, any advice. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly possible for a GA to change substantially, while still meeting the criteria. Have a look at this diff which shows the differences in The Beatles (album) between when it passed GA four years ago compared to now; it still meets the criteria despite numerous changes (although not really a significant amount in my view). I don't most FAC reviewers just take the article as they see it, and would only complain about it being a GA if it very obviously did not meet the criteria eg: too short, too much unsourced content, obvious spelling / grammar errors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

RevDel Request

Can you RevDel the edit summary for this IP edit under RD3? [12] funplussmart (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

IAdmin

Hello Ritchie333, per your request I've added temporary IADMIN access to your account. Please keep in mind this is a stop-gap process, and getting Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators to closure is still important. Please follow that page for developments, I expect once done there will be a period for temporary grants to get processed to permanent ones. Regarding your specific request, please thoroughly review Wikipedia:Gadget regarding the expectations of adding new gadgets before adding a new public gadget. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Geoffrey Hayes

On 1 October 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Geoffrey Hayes, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"Aah ahh aaah I want all the credit for improving the article!"
"Bu bu bu Zippy, that's not very nice, all you did was nominate it."
"I didn't just nominate it, I AM A VERY HARD WORKING WIKIPEDIAN!"
"Oh, stop talking like Trump, Zippy! And where's Bungle got to with the shopping?"

An ITN rainbow for you! -- Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It is a little known fact that a namesake of mine actually named his band after this TV series. In particular, he found Zippy a key influence on his personality. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought it had something to do with that lovely curvaceous Sonja Kristina?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I should trout you for that, Martin! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Pls note: Questionable behaviour by Philafrenzy

Hi Ritchie, since you've been the sponsor of Philafrenzy's failed RfA, I'd like you to take note of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alessandro_Strumia Imho this daringly unencyclopedic stub raises dire concerns about the author's attitude towards Wikipedia. And he even dares to lie about it - “hijacked“, huh? Also, still no summaries. Grrr. But pls make up your own mind. Best regards Gray62 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The version as written by Philafrenzy here is a short stub, but there is a claim to WP:PROF, and there are numerous book sources here to use as a starting point for expanding the article. The primary contributor seems to be DanyelCavazos. I'm not going to !vote "keep" just yet as I'd like to expand and add citations to the article first. Andrew Davidson and Whispyhistory may be able to help in that respect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Also, my complaint was based on an embarassing mistake by me. I must have screwed up when comparung versions. Philafrenzy's stub was ok. I apologized. Sry for raising a lot of brouhaha about nothing, Ritchie! Gray62 (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but you raise a legitimate point that the article is (currently) lop-sided in neutrality and needs sourcing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Err...out of curiosity, why didn't you call me out for this?! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, because I like to leave talk page discussions up and let all you lot comment on them. Either a thread is suitable for viewing, in which case it stays up for ~30 days until it's automatically archived, or it's completely unsuitable for WP full stop, in which case it gets blanked and revision deleted. I like free speech, even if it means I might have to leave up a message like "Excuse me Ritchie333, I'd just like to let you know that you're a total libtard fuckwit - TRUMP FOR 2020!!!!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know. Please answer the question Mr Howard. So why didn't you say anyting to me about it?! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's dealing with the relevant point of what I was instructed to do, what I was not instructed to do, what I did do, what I did not do, but I did not overrule him ... I assumed you'd have "got the hint" from the edit summary, and starting a thread was superfulous, and likely to lead to off-topic conversation. Of course, if you'd like me to start an off-topic thread on your talk page.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you had, I would have been able to say "Gosh Ritichie, thanks, as I didn't even know I'd done it". Know what I mean? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you threaten to overrule him? Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's dealing with the relevant point of what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do. I gave SerialNumber54129 my opinion. I gave him in my opinion in strong language. But I did not instruct him. (On a related note, how on earth did we get from Zippy and George to Michael Howard?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to block him Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There's something of the blight about him , to be sure :) sorry R333 for polluting your page with Messrs Howard and Widdicombe; all I meant was, was that your original edit-summary made it look ike a misjudgement rather than a misclick. But, no: I make few of the former, many of the latter. Hence the (attempts at) clarification. Right! 13:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me Ritchie333...

Fancy using the word "total". I'm shocked.

I'd just like to let you know that you're a total libtard fuckwit - TRUMP FOR 2020!!!! 123.456.789.101 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

For the talk page stalkers, Mike W has rangeblocked 123.456.789.0/16 as a sockpuppet of Put In The Putin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Good. This is the same guy that keeps posting on my talk page, the jerk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Fancy using the word "total". I'm shocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC) ... I wouldn't want to add Fuel to the Flames here....

@Ritchie333:. Not an expert here but appreciate your call for suggestions. A search on his work on neutrinos and physics would be a good starting point. [13][14]. Does that help. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I was able to find quite a few more sources including that NYtimes piece, which I mentioned at the AfD Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I wasn't really sure where to start on Strumia's article, but there's definitely more than just the recent kerfuffle in the news. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and say thanks to Galobtter for providing those references in the deletion discussion. I was able to use them to expand the article a fair bit. I'll be away from it and WP in general for a while thanks to deadlines at work (which is probably a good thing — I don't want to get too snippy), but at least now it reads like a fairly ordinary academic bio and makes a decent case for passing WP:PROF even without the recent dust-up. XOR'easter (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think Galobtter needs a medal of service, or something, for all the queries he's fielded at Talk:Donald Trump. Rather him than me! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN deserves it, not me; has 4 times the edits to the talk page and had to deal with the talk page during the height of the election Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red invitation

Hello. I was wondering if you wanted to join WikiProject Women in Red. I've seen your great work on Did You Know alongside other WIR editors on Catherine Kerrison and Renee Powell. You are not obligated to join, but if you are interested I would love to work with you for this WikiProject :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: (are we related?) I have to give credit on those two articles to Megalibrarygirl (with a side helping of SusunW on Kerrison), whose prowess at working on BLPs like these two just leaves me feeling like Wayne and Garth bowing down saying "We're not Worthy!" I am conscious that at times I feel like I have become the Official Megalibrarygirl Fan Club ^(TM), but it's because she is always eager to help, and so I am happy to bounce things in her direction. In terms of the project, I obviously support WiR, and do help out where I can, but writing new articles on women just isn't my area of expertise. I have joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green, which takes existing articles about women and improves them to GA, which is more of my "bag", so to speak. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That's even better. I did see your GA nominee on Carol Kaye. I would review it but I have a vested interest in it cause I read a book about the Wrecking Crew. And no we aren't related (I don't know what you mean by that lol). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 methinks he meant your surname (333) LOL. Ritchie is a valued ally and he doesn't recognize always how much he really does contribute. I'm happy to let him delude himself, because he haunts places I would never go and says, hey, this needs work. SusunW (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well what we do (and by extension, what WiR does) is teamwork. We all club together, with our different specialities. I put my admin specs on and look for things we can rescue, you do the rescuing. Everybody's a winner. Nobody ever gets yelled it, nobody's edits get reverted, and we look back, and think "job well done". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, while I'm here, I spotted Draft:Elizabeth Alker earlier today. She presents the BBC Radio 3 weekend breakfast show, so she's got to be notable; I'm just unsure of what sources to arm myself with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

While I'm here! I'll have a look. It can be surprisingly uneven which journos have any secondary source coverage, relative to their real-world significance, but a music journalist sounds like an incredibly pleasant subject to turn my attention to just now, so I'll be glad to dig in as best I can. Thanks for the flag. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

If you're around, may I please trouble you for a revdel? Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, where's the beef? Er, diff? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Oy, missplaced link. Here it is (edit as well as edit summary). Innisfree987 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RD2 (isn't that a droid?) dispatched. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha indeed. I thank you both for the help! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Annoying vandal

207.236.93.210 is obviously not here to help build the pedia. Surprised they've been allowed to keep on keeping on. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've given them a week, given the previous blocks and the apparent lack of constructive intent. Atsme The issue is we very very rarely indef IPs, given the possibility of collateral damage. Ritchie (or anyone else), if you feel comfortable upping the length, go ahead. Vanamonde (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh oh...collateral damage?? Wasn't aware, and afraid to ask...but I do have a vivid imagination. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Other individuals who might be using/might want to use that IP address for legitimate edits. Vanamonde (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ohhhh...I get it. Thank you for explaining, Vanamonde. I just learned something I should have known; i.e., to look at the bottom of the TP. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

A cheerful view of the Scottish countryside. From Top Places to Assassinate Trump, Amberley Publishing, 2017 p.14 ISBN 978-1-451-62171-6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A719 road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnberry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Well would you adam-and-eve it, we don't actually have an article on Tunberry the village (although it doesn't help that maps sometimes call it Milton). Despite the constant disambiguation notices covfefe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roksana Ciurysek-Gedir as no consensus

First, including the nomination, it's 2:1 for delete, and that's counting the single weak vote (week keep) as a regular one. Second, while thee was no consensus after first week, each subsequent week generated delete votes only. Third, while this is of course my biased POV, I think delete arguments where more policy-based than the keep ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally, a no-consensus close means there is no harm in re-opening another AfD at a later date. If you're still struggling to improve the article after a while, that's an option. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

G5 is not silly

"G5 is not silly"

C5, however....

I dispute your claim that G5 is a "silly reason to delete" and suspect JamesBWatson and many other admins would feel the same. Is there any reason for you unilaterally overturning it? IIRC this isn't the first time (apologies if I'm wrong on that). SmartSE (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

In this specific instance a G5 was inappropriate because it was, as the old saying goes, commenting on the contributor, not the content. I was looking at another article by this user after reading the Quartz piece about Donna Strickland, did a quick news search and thought "hmm, this might be notable and certainly possible to improve". I think an AfD would have been preferable in this instance, hence my suggestion of sending it there, and while I appreciate Geert Wilders isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea (including mine), creating a significant documentary about him does take the biography out of the bounds of speedying. Remember, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to destroy one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleting a spammy article created by someone who regularly sock puppets to create spammy articles seems abundantly appropriate to me, WP:NOTPROMO and all that, being an encyclopedia we aren't supposed to be used for native advertising, and keeping it that way is also part of building an encyclopedia Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't care who creates articles, and never have done, and in 10 years' time when the article has been improved, nobody else will either. Might sound a bit harsh, but you can't see who's written an article when you read it; you have to do to the history and look at diffs, which takes forever. In this case, there is a draft at Draft:Stephen Robert Morse, and I don't think that's the only one; that was another reason to think the deletion was an accident. The result of an AfD could always be to return to draft or a redirect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

.... and dagnammit, if I'd just recreated the article from scratch, I could have had "Did you know .... that Stephen Robert Morse describes himself as the Ryan Air of film-making?" Harrumph. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Smartse: Thank you for drawing this to my attention.
• Ritchie333, this is perhaps the most blatant example I have yet seen of something which you have being doing for years, namely knowingly acting contrary to policy because you personally do not agree with the policy in question. That is abuse of your administrative powers. You are free to argue your case for changing the policy if you wish to, but as long as it is policy you are not free to use your personal disagreement as justification for flouting that policy. Although, as I have said, this is perhaps the most blatant example I have yet seen of your doing this, there are plenty more cases in your editing history of your openly and unashamedly putting your personal view above policy. There are various aspects of policy that I personally disagree with, but I accept that they are policy, and never intentionally act against those policies. Is there any reason why you should not be blocked for deliberate abuse of administrative powers? Indeed, is there any reason why you should be allowed to continue to be an administrator while expressly stating that you intend to continue acting against policy? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with James here. Disliking a policy is not a reason to ignore it, particularly in this case when it's directly against the TOU. It's unbecoming conduct and given your propensity to push things for discussion, this is hypocritical, at the very least you should have started one. G5s are not subject to WP:RFU like most criteria and for an administrator to unilaterally overturn a policy based deletion months after the fact with absolutely no comment or request from the community or deleting admin is absurd. There was no request from a third party to overturn this, publicly, so far as I can see, so what prompted you to go against long standing consensus and policy? If you felt he was so notable, why not create an article on your own instead of restoring the work of someone who has repeatedly shown disregard for the work of an encyclopedia? Also since you seem to think that this policy in particular is silly, do you care about the integrity of an encyclopedia or do you only want to make sure every topic under the sun is covered by Wikipedia? Praxidicae (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I also have to question your judgement, you repeatedly brought up a draft from 2016 as a reason G5 couldn't/doesn't appropriately apply. How? Praxidicae (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

PILE ON HATE!!!! Wait, wut? Don't all these other admins have better things to do with their time? Shurely? We should be told... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was that supposed to be constructive? Are we not allowed, as a community to ask questions of an administrator elected by said community when they unilaterally (and without discussion) overturn a long standing policy and community consensus because they don't like it? Grow up. Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"I'm sorry ... grow up!" Wow, srsly? You need to work on that hate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)