Jump to content

User talk:Ron Ritzman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saiful 9999 (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 27 August 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please formalize an AFD for me.

"Bonsai Kitten" (thanks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.23 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to decline this one. While the article in question could be better written and better sourced, I've done a google search and come to the conclusion that the subject meets our general notability guidelines. Two sources in particular are this and this. Both represent "significant coverage in reliable sources". If I saw this article at AFD I would !vote keep. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. It's a hoax, but it's a notable hoax. DS (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's time again

Hi Ron, it's time again for someone to suggest you'd be a good admin. Please consider taking up the mop. I understand your reservations, but think the project would be better with you holding the mop. Heck, you already mop up enough stuff around here. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd be happy to second that opinion. The peoject needs calm heads. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Caponigro

With respects to your very proper relisting, the article has now been approved and the nomination has been withdrawn. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned From Argo

Your close of this AFD is exactly why non-admins shouldn't close them. Closes are supposed to be on the strength of the arguments, not a vote count. That there are no other delete comments is not relevant. I suggest that you stop closing AFDs until you actually understand the AFD process. Otto4711 (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If helps Otto, I'm an administrator, and I support Ritzman's AFD close. There was no other way this could have possibly resulted in a deletion. –MuZemike 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the nominator's frustration but it was a "low risk" article (ie not a BLP) with no "delete" !votes. If an admin closed it "delete" we would be at DRV overtuning it. I recently started a thread at the village pump about this very issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rev Keith Garner's Wikipedia page

Ron, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't want to cause difficulties. I have endeavoured to edit the page ... I don't want to be deleted as many friends/colleagues access Wikipedia when I have been preaching. I am happy to re-write it if necessary ... any advice you could give me would be appreciated. Warmly, Keith Garner —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorthingtonJones (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really involved with the discussion of the issue of whether or not Keith Garner should be deleted. The only thing I did was relist the discussion for another 7 days. However, I strongly urge you to review our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Monday I was told that the page had been relisted for seven days. After four days, it has been deleted. I think Wikipedia has to understand what is meant by consensus. Will someone please make contact with me. Keith Garner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorthingtonJones (talk • contribs)
The AFD in question was closed by Cirt so he's the one you need to discuss this with. After that, if you still wish to challenge the decision, then you can have it reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2010 (UT
I understand it was not you. You will follow the fact that in my role I cant enter into a protracted conversation with someone who has not followed the 7 day rule. I have a conflict( i know myself), my wife does( she knows me) and immediately we find someone who does not it is deleted. A strange practice.how would I contact this person anyway? Keith —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorthingtonJones (talk • contribs)


Given up - cant see how i can communicate with cirt and as he or she is regularly deleting I dont think that a rethink is going to occur. Thanks for your help - some simpler notes for beginners are required about how to send comments. Frustrated but not at you. all the best.

AfD nomination of Metallurgical education

An article that you have been involved in editing, Metallurgical education, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallurgical education. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check engine lights

I noticed that you used check engine lights as an analogy for talkpage warnings on ANI. Specifically you stated that continuing to drive a vehicle after the check engine light has come on would be a bad idea. I don't know what your locale is, but in the US, many states once required that vehicles undergo emissions testing on a regular basis. That requirement has generally been dropped, as automakers have included control systems that will turn on the check engine light if the control system senses that the vehicle's emissions are less than optimal. (often this is because sensors are dirty, not because there's actually a problem) This results in many people ignoring their check engine lights. Therefore, I think it would be wise to find a better analogy. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is

How is 4 merge and 2 keep consensus to keep? [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the close but here's my rationale for it. AFD primary mission is to determine whether or not an administrator should hit a delete button and it was obvious that that was not going to happen. I don't like to close as "merge" unless the consensus for it is overwhelming and I didn't see that it was. I don't just count the number of "keep" vs the number of "merges". I only close as merge if all, or nearly all !voters say "merge" and are in agreement for a target and in this one, 2 different targets were suggested. IMHO "keep" was the most logical close. Also consider that a "keep" close does not stop a merge from being done anyway. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A merge vote is a vote to not keep a separate article. So that is almost the same as a delete vote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion too. I admin-overturned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I.Q. Hi to a "merge". Plotty barely notable fiction-related articles often have a parent article where an AfDed article could be merged easily, so better not close as "keep" if consensus is to not keep the article as a stand-alone article. – sgeureka t•c 08:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trucks and Bus Company

You relisted this AfD once and then closed it as "No consensus" despite there only being a single vote! This is not an appropriate non-admin closure. I looked through your contributions and I see that you are closing hundreds of AfD's as non-admin closures. This is inappropriate. Please stop immediately. I have reverted your close of this AfD and I will be reviewing some of your other recent ones to ensure that you are not acting inappropriately anywhere else. Please read closely: Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures. SnottyWong yak 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, per WP:RELIST, that was a good close by Ron. I don't agree with the guideline, but Ron was following the letter of it, which should be perfectly fine in my book. Ron has been closing many AFDs for over a year now, and I have always seen him do excellent work. I also don't think your rollback of his closure was appropriate; I am sure that he would have been perfectly happy to self-revert if you asked politely. NW (Talk) 01:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion on WP:ANI regarding his non-admin closures. If he wants to close a lot of AfD's, he should apply for adminship. I have never seen an AfD that was only relisted once get closed as "No consensus" by an admin. They are always relisted two or three times before something like that would happen. Whether or not it was appropriate per WP:RELIST is debatable, it's not an open and shut case. Therefore, it's not uncontroversial and should not be getting closed by a non-admin. SnottyWong squeal 02:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ron, sorry for all of the trouble. I can see that most of your closures are good. However, I think you should really reconsider all of the No Consensus closes that you're doing on AfD's with one relist. They truly are unproductive. There is no difference between relisting it a second time, and closing it without prejudice to an instant renomination. In both cases, it's going to get relisted. By closing it prematurely, you're just wasting the nominator's time, and wasting the time of anyone who might have !voted already. Thanks. SnottyWong express 04:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your tireless work in closing AfDs Cyclopiatalk 02:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to close AfDs frequently please apply for adminship, or limit yourself to only those AfDs which are clear keeps or deletes, or to relisting. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a wild guess that the close you are concerned about is the Arabs For Israel AFD which I initially closed as "keep" and then reverted. I stand by my close as there were no arguments for deletion except the nom and it was obvious that no delete buttons were going to be hit. As long as AFD is called "articles for deletion", "delete vs don't delete" will be the primary issue. Also, a "keep" close doesn't prevent someone from being bold and merging that article anyway and even if it was closed as "merge", there would be no way of enforcing it if the article's regular editors were dead set on keeping it as a standalone article. In most cases a "merge" close is a "keep" close with a big purple tag on the article.
That being said, I have closed as "merge" before but only if the consensus for it is overwhelming and it wasn't in this AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not any one particular AfD that I am concerned about. I have in the past had to deal with problems where non-admins have caused a lot of drama with incorrect closes. Non admins should stick to simple, procedural closes - or apply for adminship. Please desist. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troutsmack

User:Stevertigo/Trout elektrikSHOOS 05:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ironically, I would rather be relisting a lot less and I don't like relisting twice. Until recently, I was closing non-blp AFDs as "no consensus" after 2 weeks until I got dragged to ANI for it. Even though what I was doing was supported by WP:RELIST and by several other admins, I decided to err on the side of not making unnecessary drama.
In the case of the "media panic" AFD, it wasn't a BLP or other "high risk" article so after 2 weeks "no consensus" was the right call. On the Ewing AFD, the only thing I can say is that I had a big "stupid sandwich" for lunch. (but who knows, Robert Ewing III might turn up alive in someone's shower) ‎--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, just do it already

As I've just stated over at WP:DELPRO, I think you are doing a fine job despite what Snotty and Verbal seem to think. That being said, you really do seem like a prime candidate for adminship, you've got users lined up wanting to nominate you, and it would get rid of this particular (non-)issue. C'mon Ron, throw that hat in the ring. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say this once...

...because I hate repeating myself. I'm sick and tired-sick and tired, I tell ya!- of all these discussions about non-admin AFD closures, and hereby declare that the only way to stop them is to nominate you for administratorship. The time has come to drag the horse- that's you- to RFA and make him drink. Courcelles (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat my support, for what it's worth. Hell, you seem to have at least a half-dozen experienced editors lined up who'd happily nominate you; I'm one of 'em. That speaks to the job you're doing. The occasional complaint is going to happen. Shimeru 02:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - Mark Prator. discussion concerning deletion?

I had no idea the deletion regarding "Mark Prator" had taken place, and had no venue with which to argue. I'm not terribly savvy in this world, but I would like you to reconsider your deletion request. I have had a long career in this business as a sideman and played a role in many albums and projects as the guy behind the scenes that plays a vital role. When a drummer can't do the gig, I get called in. That is my specific expertise. Also, I excel as an engineer/producer, logging many projects. I'm not sure how I would qualify for deletion in the first place, as every line item on the page is verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.210.178 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our policies on autobiographies, conflicts of interest, and verification through reliable sources. Also, Ron did not nominate the article for deletion or preform the actual deletion, he was one of several participants in the discussion where a consensus was reached that the article did not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was never the original author of the page, heneforth, it does not qualify as an autobiographical page. I only edited errors. I did not know the page existed, until I was made aware of it. I only made corrections after the fact. This should be an undeletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.210.178 (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually participate in that discussion, I only relisted it a few times. The discussion was closed and the article deleted by Cirt. After discussing it with him, the next step will be to have the close reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Country Day School

I'm not sure why you relisted this one--the nominator said he was "happy to withdraw" the nomination, there were no other delete !votes, and since it's a high school the normal criteria applied to schools dictate a keep. Am I missing something? Thanks, --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that. I sometimes miss those if they are sandwiched between 2 other comments. I deserve a big...

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a sardine--it's no problem at all. Thanks.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demarco Morgan

An unsourced BLP with such potential is one of the few which actually merits a relisting... specially when only the nominator continues to push for deletion over improving. Tell you what... If rather than do a close, you instead relist, I'll personally improve it when I get home later this evening... and you know I can and will, if I say I can and will. But if it gets incubated before I get home, trust that it will be improved and back in mainspace within days. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already relisted this twice and WP:RELIST strongly discourages third relists. I agree with your argument but there isn't enough participation for a keep close so it's a clear "no consensus". The only reason I recommended incubation was because the article is a BLP. If it were an article on a Pokemon I would have closed it. Whether the article is sourced in mainspace or in the incubator doesn't matter. A sourced BLP improves the encyclopedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know... and as you may realize, I only came into the discussion after the second relist (I can't be eveywhere at once... sigh). But as there is support for "incubate until sourced", and as stated above, even if it is incubated before I get home, I can source it when I do get home and request a move from incubation back to mainspace, as issues will then be addressed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this is ready to go back into mainspace yet? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Been busy in the RL. It's close, but let me get back to it tonight and I'll report in. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call

Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Carfax 400 broadcasters

You relisted this - looks like an editor's already been bold and merged it to the main article, which is a reasonable move I suppose. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clipping path service

Unfortunately,The article clipping path service has been redirected to clipping path according to the administrative decision. Well, obviously I have respect and honor to the decision. At this situation, can I edit the clipping path article by adding content, Sir? Thanks for your consideration. Md Saiful Alam (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ron_Ritzman&oldid=381244352"