User talk:Ritchie333

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

Reporting a User

NineTimes (talk • contribs • logs • filter log • block log) He's being rude, unprofessional, abusive and adding unreliable sources. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wikni/User:NineTimes

Not only that but he follows his edits with statements in bad taste. He's being unnecessarily rude and outright attacking people. Here are some examples.

"→‎East Asia: removing pics, Bollywood is not about few people. Also what is with your fetish for aamir khan and forbes, he has his own page" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/808550907

"What do you mean "too many pics". Why have pics at all then? These are important people related to different aspects of the industry." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/808549953

"His Turkic ethnicity and Afghan link has been explained on this page. Stop adding Afghan everywhere" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/808506869

"New Bollywood (1990s–present): srk has his own identity, they are not three musketeers or a band of boys" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/808366936

"It is watched mainly in South Asia, not all of Asia. One or two film can be exception. Even BBC relates it primarily with South Asia only." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/808056983

DYK for Sophia (robot)

On 13 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sophia (robot), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sophia (pictured) is the first robot to become a recognised citizen of a country? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sophia (robot). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sophia (robot)), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"I'm very happy to receive all these page views. I am however young and the tabloid rumours about me dating Cluebot NG are without foundation."

Brilliant hook! And 60,000 readers agree!. Best, Yoninah (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

A minute, please

over here as I've done what I can. We hope (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've done a couple of replies but since a) nobody has supported, b) I am enjoying stuff off wiki and c) there's not much else I can comment on, I'd rather work on getting Soho to GA status instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Then what about asking that the FAC be closed? We hope (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Can't be bothered. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been busy with the contest, sorry I've not had time to review it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've pulled it. I think Beyond My Ken said it best here - "Those that can't edit, review". I just can't get excited about reviews compared to actually writing the content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha. I do get excited for reviews unless they look like they require pedantery, such as these irritating WP:NFCC#8 analyses. Then again I do not get very excited by the prose I write as it seems always so-so to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of pedantry, I reverted your close of the FAC page and closed it "officially". If it's not closed this way, strange things can happen with the bot and there would be no official record of the FAC on the talk page. If ever you want a review closing like this, just post a request on the FAC itself or ping one of the coordinators and we can close it for you. Feel free to renominate it at any point; there should be a two-week waiting period, but it sounds like you are busy at the moment anyway so that is unlikely to be an issue. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• I apologize for intruding on the conversation. I just wanted to say that I think you have done a wonderful job with The Carpenters articles, and I wish you luck all of your project both on and off Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Aoba47, your comments were fine and constructive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary on London station group

Moggmentum are campaigning for a hard breakfast!
Note: complete lack of frankfurters

"Might one not think it wise to get one's butler to do one's copyediting?"

You had better explain what you meant by "idiotic edit summary". I removed a hyphen and explained why; I added a comma that most literate people would agree with. My edit summary was accurate and understandable. What, exactly, is your problem? Chris the speller ^yack 06:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it‘s expressing annoyance at these barely useful style edits that don‘t have anything but „some poorly linked rule on the MOS page says so“ as a justification. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary in full was "per WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, points 3,4,6, replaced: richly- → richly, typo(s) fixed: Therefore → Therefore, using AWB". Firstly, deciding whether or not to put a comma after "therefore" is not a typo (see Talk:Mersea Island/GA1 for an example of why); indeed, "fixed typo" is a cliched edit summary used by vandals. "Per WP:HYPHEN" doesn't mean anything, why is that bit of the MOS relevant here (also see User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies), and "sub-subsection 3, points 3,4,6," sounds like the sort of thing a Vogon would say while brandishing his clipboard. Human language and good reading does not fit neatly into rules, so why try? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but don't forget that all your base are belong to us. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm off to get a cup of covfefe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No tea? Jeni ^(talk) 12:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As the weak and wobbly woman once said, "Breakfast means breakfast". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you must mean Andrew R. T. Davies? Or perhaps John McDonnell, or .... you know, that other one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yunshui ^雲_水 08:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hello Ritchie,

Please take a look at this page [1]. For some reason Mtaanipro moved the template Infopage to Enock Obiero Agwanda. This obviously caused trouble in the pages that use the template like Wikipedia:Noticeboards. I have moved the page back and fixed the template call at Wikipedia:Noticeboards. I think I solved it right but I would appreciate if you could verify it.

As far as Enock Obiero Agwanda I think that the right thing to do is probably to delete the page but neither R2 or R3 seem to apply and I am not sure about Db-move. Rather than proding it or posting it in the noticeboard and since you have given me advice in the past, I bring it to your attention just in case you think this version should be restored along with the edit history instead to then add the proper tags to it. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a disruptive account that has already been blocked. As it was disruptive with no obvious evidence of being a good-faith improvement to the encyclopedia, G3 would have applied. I see they were having a "fun" time screwing around with this talk page, so I've move-protected it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. I guess I probably took WP:AGF a bit too far in this case by assuming that his actions were an unintended mistake while he was creating the article. I can see that it's very unlikely and I am glad it's solved. cheers. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED be damned

WP:INVOLVED be damned! Ribbit!

Damn it to hell and back! Of course you can moveprotect your own talkpage! Have some frog cakes! Bishonen | talk 11:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC).

...so we can't even move this page to...Slough?!?!

Hmmm, tasty. They certainly look like they need protection. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yunshui ^雲_水 09:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter request - no. 869

Hello Ritchie333 and thanks for creating this special filter.

I have found a list of tabloid journalisms in the linked article and suggesting adding the following to the filter:- www.express.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk www.dailyrecord.co.uk www.nationalenquirer.com www.magazines.com www.globemagazine.com

These are the websites on tabloid journalism which page notices says they should not be included as sources. I would also find it helpful if we tag it with something like "tabloid journalism source added" to the contributions lists and page histories such that page watchers can identify additions of tabloid journalism more easily. Iggy (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rico Rossi (musician)

When I was striking a sock comment at that AfD, I missed one which I just noticed. You may wish to review whether your close would have changed given that knowledge. Only one editor supported keeping, not two. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Doesn't really make much of a difference. The key argument against deletion came from Chubbles who showed evidence of meeting one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. Since the AfD had been relisted twice, and nobody else commented on this, let alone refuted it, I concluded nobody really cares much whether we have an article on this guy or not - hence "no consensus". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't commenting on whether your close should change (and I didn't think it would). I just wanted to make sure you had the opportunity to take another look after a comment was struck. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Finland doesn't not exist for reals

Hey Ritchie, with respect, I think you should revisit your close of this AfD (I !voted keep, so take this with a grain of salt). Saying the keep arguments were challenged and thus invalid while the delete arguments were better because they were not challenged is just bad logic. I can't speak for all participants, but for my part I didn't feel the need to respond to many of the delete arguments, thinking a closer would know to discount arguments which are so plainly WP:IDLI. You've got one saying delete because the map uses Comic Sans, one saying it's "notable for being a hoax" (which all notable hoaxes are notable for), one saying delete but keep at a different title, one says delete because Finland really does exist, are these really good arguments now just because nobody bothered to point out that they're so obviously not? There are also several commenting on notability and poor sourcing, but you seem to have discounted the keep arguments that listed several detailed write-ups in major publications because the comments were "overlong". And yeah, Herostratus left a couple of comments defending the sourcing which were excessively long, but that doesn't mean they're wrong; their final comment with a bulleted analysis of 11 citations is pretty accurate.

Thanks for taking the time, anyway, whatever you decide to do with this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You should be trouted for overlooking the obvious recursion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't not do that by accident on purpose. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finland does not exist

OK, so your close on this was The result was delete. The key problems with the "keep" arguments here is that they were overlong or were challenged by others, whereas the "delete" comments stood their ground... too many people think this article is unsalvageable and its quality of sourcing is just not good enough.

I request that overturn this decision, thanks. Here's my reasoning:

The result was delete. The key problems with the "keep" arguments here is that they were:

1. "overlong" -- don't you mean "properly developed and closely reasoned, with examples or other cogent exposition of details as needed". I mean, wait, this is now a bad thing?
2. "challenged by others" -- I mean, so? Arguments are almost always challenged in these discussions. That is what the discussion is for to some degree. See Socratic method. They weren't successfully challenged. They weren't challenged with any proper and correct references to our rules. And you haven't said that they were.

"whereas the 'delete' comment[ers] stood their ground". But I mean so what? Sure a lot of people stood their ground on a basis that approximates "Nyah nyah cannot hear you, I don't like the article and I'm standing my ground". How is this a virtue.

"too many people think this article is unsalvageable and its quality of sourcing is just not good enough". Well but wait. Who care what people who are wrong think? OK, so here are the sources, from three continents:

Analysis of the sources (which was in the disscussion)

1. The Guardian. Reliability: They're an old and famous publication; the assumption would be that they fact-check their articles. They're large enough to probably be afford to do so, and it would harm their business if they didn't. No evidence has been presented that they don't have some kind of fact-checking system. Notability: One of the most-read news publications on the planet. . Length of material: A paragraph, 117 words.
2. Vice (magazine). Reliability: Read the article. 20 years old, "print magazine and website focused on arts, culture, and news topics"..."the magazine later expanded into Vice Media, which consists of divisions including the magazine and website, a film production company, a record label, and a publishing imprint"..."Vice magazine includes the work of journalists, columnists, fiction writers, graphic artists and cartoonists, and photographers. Both Vice's online and magazine content has shifted from dealing mostly with independent arts and pop cultural matters to covering more serious news topics"..."Entire issues of the magazine have also been dedicated to the concerns of Iraqi people, Native Americans, Russian people, people with mental disorders, and people with mental disabilities". OTOH they are an Immersion journalism entity and have some other non-standard. They're a large operation it looks like. I don't know what their fact-checking system is. They've probably got something but can't be sure. Notability: Circulation 900,000, website is Alexa rank 115, so yeah. Length of the material: Complete long article.
3. Indiatimes. Reliability: "Indiatimes is the flagship brand of Times Internet...an Internet subsidiary of The Times of India Group, under which some of the largest websites in India, The Times of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times and Maharashtra Times, operate", so they're large enough to afford a fact-checking system. The assumption must be that they do have a reasonable fact-checking operation absent evidence to the contrary. Notability: Based on the above quote, widely read in India. Length of the material: Short article, about five paragraphs.
4. MSN: Reliablity: Large and famous operation bearing the Microsoft brand, so presumably reasonably reliable. Notability: Alexa rank 43, so yeah. Length of the material: short article -- couple paragraphs, 238 words.
5. Culture Trip: Reliablity: Don't know. It's a real operation, not just somebody's website. The executive team is nine people. Never heard of them and there's no proof that they fact check but no indication they don't. Notability: they say they have 11 million site visitors per month. Whether that's true or whether that is high or low amount I don't know. Length of the material: Complete long article.
6. Skeptoid: Reliability: Dunno. They're a lot more than a random website, they have a board of directors and all that. They're a charitable operation, their mission statement is "Skeptoid Media produces free educational materials and STEM-focused informational and entertainment content, made available to educators and individuals worldwide, concentrating on critical thinking and scientific skepticism." What that says about their fact-checking I don't know. Notability: No idea. Length of the material: Complete long article.
7. Bodahub. Reliability: No idea. They look like to be a real operation and not just a random website although this could be false front. Staff size unknown, so I'm skeptical that they're very reliable. Notablity: Dunno. Length of the material: Complete long article.
8. Studentabladid: Reliability: Probably not very. I think they're more than just someone's website, but can't prove even this. Notability: My guess is "not very". Icelandic operation, which FWIW there's another country writing about this (four so far). Length of the material: Couple paragraphs.
9. A Particular Act. Reliability: They're describing Sheehan's show which they hosted, so very reliable for this particular set of facts. Notability: None. Length of the material: Couple paragraphs. It's about Sheehan's act rather than the meme itself.
10. Art In Liverpool: Reliability: Seems a reasonably sized operation, and probably reasonably reliable for this material. Notability: Some, probably, but just in Liverpool. Length of the material: Couple paragraphs. It's about Sheehan's show.
11. Helsingin Sanomat: Reliability: It's the largest newspaper in Finland, so yeah. Finnish operation, so that's a fifth country chiming in. Notability: Largest paper in Finland. Length of the material: Can't tell, since you need subscription to read it.

That's eleven, and most (not all) of them are pretty good. And I know there are more, although I don't know how many or if any of them are any good.

So look, Ritchie333. I want you to look me in the eye and tell me that it is reasonable to argue that this level of sourcing cannot sustain an article, that any article -- an article about a politician, a book, a sporting event, a shipping company, a battle, a species of moth, a high school, a musician, a variety of cheese, or whatever -- with only this level of sourcing (four complete long articles along with some shorter pieces, in eleven sources (five of which are bluelinked) from three continents should be destroyed on the basis of insufficient sourcing.

I want you to tell me with your own words that this is a reasonable argument which, if enough people espouse it (for whatever reason, and I think we can probably figure out what the reason is) -- will win the day in any AfD.

If you can't, then I request to overturn your decision, thank you. If you can, I still request you to overturn your decision, since this would be against our notability rules and would probably put half of our 5 million articles on the chopping block. Herostratus (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Um, there is a query above this one with the same question, do we need the same question twice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well but I didn't see that (I often don't read thru a person's talk page before posting my comment), and anyway I don't see the harm in more than one person making a comment on some issue since different people may have different perspectives to offer to a conversation? Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• "An alternative outcome was Sandstein's suggestion to merge, as that would be a compromise, but nobody else picked up on it",[2] but my vote was neither keep or delete, it was merge like Sandstein's.[3] So I would like you to at least reword your closure because it reads like you had overlooked my comment. And since no one opposed the merge votes or argued against them, I would also like to know if you have any problem with the merge. Merge is still a compromise. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss your merge comment, sorry about that. This AfD, in my view, was a borderline "no consensus" but the deletion arguments seemed so strong I felt almost certain had I closed it as NC I'd be yanked off to a deletion review. At least here I have the option of userfying the article, where it can go round the drafting stages and end up in mainspace via that route.

@Herostratus: I get it that you're upset I deleted an article you spent time working on, who wouldn't? I have restored it to User:Herostratus/Finland does not exist while we work out what to do with it. I have to re-iterate that your time would have been better spent further improving the article, and specifically adding additional sources, while it was at AfD than going into an in-depth argument about the sources; it tends not to be an effective means of communication. I also need to stress that I have no strong opinions on what we do with this article; I simply took a judgement call based on strength and feeling of who turned up to the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Now see, I was briefly considering to close that AfD before I decided that there was something more important for me to do. I was thinking a "no consensus" close since a) a number of the delete arguments were really perfunctory and only weakly and partially addressed the keep arguments grounded in GNG, b) "this is just plain stupid" is not a recognized deletion rationale and people were in disagreement on this and c) it seems like people were working on addressing the "this is way too uncritical of an obvious falsehood" problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah most of the delete !votes were WP:DOESNTBELONG- perhaps 3 or 4 of the deletion arguments even tried to argue policy. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 11:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, the only rules mentioned by name in Delete comments were one to WP:FRINGE and one to WP:NOT. Neither of these apply. WP:FRINGE applies to actual beliefs. If any part of the article had implied that for the question "Does Finland exist" most people and all experts say Yes, but there there is a small but not entirely unsubstantial minority that says No then it would apply. But the article opens "...is a satirical conspiracy theory...". Bielefeld Conspiracy is also not Fringe. A Modest Proposal is not Fringe because there was not an actual serious minority view that children should be eaten. As to "Delete per WP:NOT" IMO that's worthless without further elucidation on what specific part(s) of WP:NOT are intended.

There may have been references to rules where the rule wasn't mentioned by name; It'd be unusual but possible, I'm not able to look over the text very closely right now.

Which brings me to another point: there's only one of me. I (and another editor) did pull up several more good refs, but I didn't have time to figure out how they might best be used in the article text and insert them with any required changes. I have seen many AfD discussion where refs were pulled up during the discussion (that is one of the goals of an AfD) and people changed their minds because of this. I believe that the operative paradigm (I think this is even written down somewhere) is whether sufficient refs exist, not whether they are in the article already. It's common to throw up the refs to save the article and then worry about putting them in later. It's not a good use of time to work much on an article that is under threat of deletion.

I believe you're say saying that if the article had been fixed right then you wouldn't have deleted it. Right? That is... let's just say it's a mistake, and we all make mistakes (God knows I've made many) and no problem. Herostratus (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Not quite, it's more that if you improve an article during AfD, other people pick up on it (and you know when they do because you see comments like "Keep per WP:HEY", which ultimately means an admin has to close it as "keep" because that's where consensus went. Ultimately, throwing refs in an AfD debate without adding them to the article has no immediate benefit for the reader, and said sources tend to get buried and forgotten about in some out-of-the-way part of the project, which seems like a waste. I've managed to turn articles from start / C class to near GA (eg: Cannon Street station) in a matter of days, so it's certainly doable. In any case, the article is now in your userspace, so we've got a route to get it back into mainspace, via AfC. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmnmh I'll look into this (not very familiar with AfC).

So I've thought about this some more, wondering if I have a decent WP:DRV case. I think I might, but I'm not going to go to DRV (someone else may and I'd support that, though).

My reasoning doesn't have much to do with your close, or even with the arguments. It's about the 2-1 "vote". I'm inclined to take a headcount differential of that magnitude seriously (some don't). But this local 2-1 doesn't really overcome the fact that the arguments were actually weak (and to be honest your closing rationales were IMO not the best I've seen).

But if the 2-1 is a manifestation of a general majority opionon that these sort of articles shouldn't exist.... that's different. That would mean a de facto rule is in play, and fine -- it's hard to get written rules accepted, and so de facto rules fill the gap. There are de facto rules to keep fungii and railroad stations even though that's not written down anywhere.

So is it? It might be. It depends on what is meant my "these sort of articles" and I'm struggling to get a definition of that the we can use. It is not "internet memes" I think, because Category:Internet memes has hundreds and hundreds of entries. Maybe it's "silly internet memes"... but Category:Internet memes includes entries like Eric Conveys an Emotion ("...the site's owner... has taken requests for emotions, and then posts photos of himself acting out the emotion...). Boom goes the dynamite ("...is a catchphrase coined by Ball State University student Brian Collins..."). Keyboard Cat ("...consists of a video from 1984 of a female cat called 'Fatso' wearing a blue shirt and 'playing' an upbeat rhythm on an electronic keyboard..."). The Hands Resist Him ("...The painting became the subject of an urban legend and a viral internet meme... when it was posted for sale on eBay..."). Loituma Girl ("...is a Flash animation [which] consists of six frames showing the Bleach anime character Orihime Inoue twirling a leek, set to a 27-second loop from the song..."). London Underground anagram map ("...parody map of the London Underground with the station and line names replaced with anagrams ... circulated on the web in February 2006..."). Anton Maiden ("...Swedish Internet celebrity that achieved fame around 1999 by singing over MIDI and MOD-versions of Iron Maiden songs..."). And so on. (To be fair, a lot of the articles (maybe most) in this category are more substantial. But still.)

But I don't think that "these sort of articles" means "silly internet memes" or "internet memes that probably don't have staying power" or anything... there are articles that have a lot of good refs meet the GNG without really being notable in the grand scheme of things, and this might be one. But I mean really, a lot of the articles above meet all those definitions and still exist.

However... a couple of articles were deleted recently... they were a little bit like this one an did fit in the general category of snobbery ("Egad, Jenkins, look at what the peasantry now considers worthwhile; please have my majordomo delete this nonsense, after you bring my tea"). One of them had better referencing than ~98% of our articles, probably.

As near as I can tell so far, I think that the operative de facto rule is "silly internet memes which someone has happened to come across and nominated for deletion", or just snobbery. The first is not really a valid rule, but the second is. I mean IMO it's a horrible rule, but if we want to be snobs and are willing to be consistent about that then it is what it is.

So a couple of ways to determine what's going in here would be to nominate a few of the above for deletion and see how it shakes out. If they're mostly deleted then we can assume that the snob rule is in effect. We could write WP:SNOB but you know how hard it is to get people to agree on written rules, so we could just assume an unwritten rule (but then, the Wikipedia:SCHOOLOUTCOMES closers held that using previous AfD results as a guide is illegitimate, so.... it's complicated).

However, if I did this, it would probably be considered a breaching experiment and closed out of hand. A mass-deletion AfD, same.

I could nominate this article for WP:DRV, point out that the only valid reason for deletion is that an unwritten rule is play (giving Trump orb as another example of this), and see how that plays out and what other voices have to say. At least this wouldn't be a breaching experiment, and might produce some useful data. So maybe this is the best path forward.

Or alternatively open a discussion at the pump... dunno. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Systemic bias?

Liz gone [4] ... GorillaWarfare gone. Administrators hiding behind edit filters. Check my contributions for details of attacks on women in WMF. Baseball Bugs awarded a barnstar on "International Men's Day" which, according to yesterday's anniversaries, was devised "to promote gender equality". 94.173.144.36 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ask Rhonda why she doesn't edit WP. She's not exactly invisible on the net. In a nutshell, it's because the user interface is poor, particularly when compared to modern web-based UIs such as Facebook, Twitter and Flock, and policy is too difficult to explain. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

But GorillaWarfare oly "gone" for the last nine days? — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 15:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea Liz had disappeared - I supported her RfA and AFAIK got on well with her. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hussain Asif

Why is the article Hussain Asif remobed like it is important ...it took me 3 days to do it

Please publish it back Ihussainasif786 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ihussainasif786, it looks like you're working on a draft version at Draft:Hussain Asif. I suggest you keep it there and submit it for review when you're finished working on it.

As for why your first articles were deleted, they were very promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be written from a neutral point of view. Phrases like Drone shots are mesmerisingly shot by him are not neutral, and your articles were full of such phrases. It's one thing to say "he used drones to shoot his vlogs", but it's another to say it like you did. If you phrase things in more neutral ways your draft is much more likely to be acceptable. Please also remember to add reliable sources to verify the content of your page (see WP:REFB Section 3.1 for more information about quickly adding references) Primefac (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Immervision Submission Without Discussion

Hello Ritchie333! I noticed this morning that my draft page "Immervision" had been deleted. I have inquired repeatedly about concerns pointed out on this page following 3 draft declinations (all based on lack of notability, which I attempted to remedy) but only after the third decline was any comment made about it not having a NPOV. I brought the subject up in the Teahouse, but received very little feedback. I have explained at length in the talk page, and another talk page (since disappeared???) about the origin of the creation of this page, and asked more than once to have those offending words/sentences/paragraphs pointed out to me so that I might correct them. Although there have been comments, I don't consider that my draft submission has even been discussed. I read through the undulation request page and the first step is to contact the person responsible for undeletion, so here I am. I'd really appreciate a little insight into this process, which appears nebulous and arbitrary to me, although it probably isn't. The Immervision page was written in good faith, the reasons for its creation explained, and more than one request to have the non-NPOV content pointed out to me. I took great pains to write this in an unbiased way, so my first experience in composing my first Wikipedia entry is a bit disappointing. Thanks Ritchie333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquesdav (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The draft was proposed for speedy deletion by SwisterTwister, presumably after it had been declined multiple times without really going anywhere. Simply put, articles about corporations are generally not suitable subjects for a worldwide global encyclopedia, unless they are very well known household names like Microsoft, 3M, Polaroid or Kodak. In this instance, it would have been better to expand the technical article on the Panomorph lens, discussing the physics involved and other practical applications of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Drupadmalik

Probably better to message someone on their own talk page, and not the users. Luckily, I did see the message. fish&karate 11:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the point was you were getting a bit over-heated and throwing insults at the other editor. Happens to all of us, such as the memorable occasion I told a vandal to piss off; it just makes it difficult to resolve things later. Like Caesar's wife, you need to be above suspicion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yay Caesar's wife, remember that story in The Labours of Hercules? — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 13:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 👀

Not sure I insulted anyone, I did call some BLP stuff "nonsense" and "garbage", but that was commenting on content, not the contributor. fish&karate 10:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 48 hours. As the old saying goes, AGF is not a suicide pact. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Alex Shih (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Start of an edit war

Start of an edit war in the article the Bang-Bang Club The user Xxctly is blanking sections – the section is needed for NPOV – because Greg, Joao and the other never liked the label „Bang-Bang Club“ bevor Bang-Bang Paparazzis. It started Date Today This is the first time I am in an edit war and have no idea what to do. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for 12 hours so you can come to an agreement. The article needs work, but fighting over edits is not the answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You have no idea what to do? My advice: defer to people who speak English better than you do when writing articles for an English language encyclopaedia. And you should have been talking to me instead of apparently random other people. If the administrator thinks the article should have a headline "The Bang-Bang Club in the words by Greg and João", then presumably they too are not a native English speaker. Command of the language of the encyclopaedia really should be a basic prerequisite for editing. Xxctly (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I protected the article because you were both edit warring on it, and wanted you both to stop reverting each other and discuss. I have no opinion on the content - if I did, I would be an involved admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested mentorship re:RfA terminated with SNOW

Hi Ritchie,

Never lowered myself into Adminship discussions until now, then noticed that one recent case was terminated with WP:SNOW. [[5]]

I find WP:SNOW rather reflects badly on the process. Instead, I believe WP:NOTNOW is rather OK, and I feel would have been fair under the circumstances.

I know this is a wiki, I could just revert Crboyer, then do NOTNOW, but then that closed RfA page is plastered with "please don't touch" notices, and as you can tell, I do care about manners. I also don't want to break anything, or even worse, make bad ennemies among admins.

What would Ritchie333 do? Thanks! YamaPlos talk 14:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think NOTNOW is appropriate here, that's reserved for new editors that join the project and instantly think "I wanna be an admin" without any experience. That's clearly not the case with Crboyer, who has lots of experience and who made a good-faith nomination. A better approach in the first instance might have been to ask him politely to withdraw (as Ad Orientem did at the time) and wait until he did so, but Cyberpower did say the SNOW close was specifically to stop the conversation getting ugly and unpleasant. In any case, Crboyer is still around and editing, so I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Page history

Hello.
An article was recently re-created. Could you please tell me when it was deleted in the past, and why? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There has never been an article with that title deleted - all the edits in the history are visible to all users. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That's because it was under a different title. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Old Skool (or, library anyway!)

Canterbury Public Library, old library ticket, UK 1960s

Josie Fitial

Hi! Sorry to drop the ball on Fitial. It doesn't look bad, though, when I took a look this morning. Holidays are kind of hit and miss for me, since I am spending time with my kids. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yunshui ^雲_水 08:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A strong and stable NHS

A divorce bill of a mere €45-55bn. How many hospitals will that not build every week? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ask Boris to stump up the spare cash, as he promised on his Brexit bus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the good old Brexit Bus... now teetering on the brink.... "You were only meant to blow the bloody Euro doors off!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't talk much politics on here, but I was listening to Sadiq Khan on LBC yesterday, and he was dumfounded as to how Boris still had a job. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sadiq and Nicola seem to be the only sane major politicians in the UK; that's been evident (to non-Brits at least) for the past 1.5 years. Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ahem.... are we ruling out those who've actually got a functioning brain? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC) ... and don't be so hard on poor Boris.... "cometh the hour. cometh the man."

Caroline Lucas is brilliant; being the sole MP of a party means she is not bound to any whip or in-party fighting (at least not in the House of Commons) and hence she can state the blatantly obvious without fear of recrimination. Elsewhere, Anna Soubry's alright, and I do at least admire Emily Thornberry's ability to call a spade a fucking shovel. I've met Bernard Jenkin, he would not shut up about how much he liked Thatcher. (note, "met" in this context is watching him give a speech as part of some formal event, and shaking hands and saying "hello" afterwards) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

.... and how I could I forget the one woman powerhouse that is Mhairi Black; never afraid to stand up and say things like "The government is at it - it hae' failed the elderly on pensions, failed jobseekers on benefit cuts, and failed potential homeowners with house prices .... and if it dinnae get fixed, I'm gonnae come over there and stick the head on ye!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And she's awnley a wee 23? Cripes!! I'm sure Boris had enjoyed many a magnum of Bolli at the Bulli before she was even born! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ruth Jones (coach)

I was looking at this sportsball article, and I'm on the fence. Do you think Ruth Jones passes notability? She's from a time period that's hard to dredge up sometimes. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know much about basketball; you might be better off asking The Rambling Man or Lugnuts. A search for sources is difficult because of the nationally famous Ruth Jones. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: - at WP:NBASKETBALL there are notability criteria for coaches, including women's leagues, if that helps. I don't really know anything about basketball either, but that draft looks like it would pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Her death got a two-paragraph mention in the Washington Post [6], so yes, she is notable. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the help! I always worry about sports since I'm very clueless there. I'll definitely reach out to The Rambling Man or Lugnuts in the future for further sportsing help. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to thank Softlavender for the WaPo find. Thank you! I've moved the article out into mainspace. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Oh! What's occurrin'?" Did someone mention "Dave Coaches"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reconsideration of Samskip page

Hi Ricky, could you please reconsider the undeletion of the page for Samskip as I attend to work on this. Samskip derives from the Federation of Co-operatives, Samband, which started a shipping company, Samband Line, in 1943. Samband Line, a division of Samband, was changed into a limited company in 1991 called Samskip hf. Samskip employs approximately 1,500 people working in more than 26 countries worldwide as well as agents in other locations. It is a well known company and has a lot of news activity. It should therefore be on Wikipedia, without any commercial text. Sources: http://www.tradewindsnews.com/daily/95272/samskip-to-buy-geest-line https://theloadstar.co.uk/coolstar/euro-container-line-acquisition-a-cool-move-for-samskip/ http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/226064/samskip-to-expand-norway-presence-with-nor-lines-takeover/. Example of related company: Eimskip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eimskip. Please let me know. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellStrb (talk • contribs) 10:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored to Draft:Samskip Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: DYK nomination of Smash Mouth discography

Hi, I replied to your concerns on Template:Did you know nominations/Smash Mouth discography. Please let me know if there's anything else I should do. - PM800 (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Declined deletion

Hi,

I assume any admin when patrolling CSD request cat, will check the history. The user moved it to userspace after I requested its deletion in mainspace not in userspace. Furthermore, it was duplicate of existing one Crude drug and it's salvageable content has already been merged, so anyway it has no meaning for proper article to be kept in userpace also. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A10 does not apply to any page outside article mainspace, period. For example, User:Cassianto/sandbox is a "duplicate" of Frank Matcham, but no speedy deletion criteria applies to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Siraj Hussain/sandbox is what I requested deletion –Ammarpad (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And RHaworth also violated policy as WP:CSD#R2 only applies to redirects from mainspace to non-mainspace. People who continue to violate policy a lot end up blocked. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Siraj Hussain/sandbox after the re-userification became a redirect from mainspace to user-space which satisfied R2? Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 14:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest - I'm off to add some more sources to Tottenham Court Road now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

God of High School

Hey - I was just wondering if you would be OK with restoring the article for The God of High School and moving it to the student's userspace. I think that it passes A7 criteria since it's a popular webtoon that has been adapted into a mobile app game and an OAV. I was about to move it when you deleted it - my intent was to move it back to the student could search for sourcing. It looks like they translated it from the Korean WP page, so I'm guessing that they may be fluent enough to search. (Or at the very least they can use Google Translate to search.) A quick glance shows that there's a lot out there, so it's somewhat likely that there will be enough sourcing to pass notability criteria. (See this and [7]) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just a quick note - the sig on this was messed up, so I ended up resigning it with my work account. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm generally okay with userfication / draftification of an article that isn't one of G3 / G10 / G12, so sure - restored to User:RAllauigan /The God of High School, if that's okay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• That's perfect! I figured that you would likely be OK with it, but I didn't want to do it with my main account (Tokyogirl79) because of the whole COI thing. The most I will typically do is move an article to save it if it's up for a deletion that isn't an AfD, as long as the article is remotely savable. :) Thank you! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

TP Museum

I'm afraid I'm too busy to check the article for DYK-worthiness and fix anything necessary, but if you can get it in appropriate shape feel free to nominate using my hook. Ping me if there are any problems. It's a shame this talent for off-color humor can't be used for the good of humanity somehow. EEng 18:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: There's a small problem that simply saving an article from AfD doesn't automatically qualify it to DYK - the article has been around for years, it's not 5x expanded or a GA (nor is it likely to be in future), so unless we can pass a "special toilet-humour extension" through, I would guess we are out of luck. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Why can't it get to GA? EEng 16:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody wants to improve it - indeed, I'm not sure if anyone can get suitable enough sources to make it get close. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Paddington Issue

Hi, I've just seen you've reverted my edit, and someone else who also reverted it under the policy that its too much statistics?

What kind of drugs are you on? All it is doing is making the paragraph into an orderly fashion, with proper dates. That's not statistics its called "FACTS" I can recommend a good education class to you if you wish to take it. If you have an issue can you please talk to me via my talk page, rather than constantly reverting it! Kind regards and best wishes.Gwrhst (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page about the revert, and since your re-revert has been undone now by Redrose64 (who while I don't agree with him on everything, knows his stuff when it comes to railway articles), you really need to stop and look at some other article. If you keep on reverting multiple editors and insulting them, you'll just wind up blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletions

Thanks for your comment. It's been interesting.

Don't get angry.. Get even!!!

I kid, I kid. Such an imperfect world.

Party on. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I should also note that several editors stepped right up, cleaned up, and expanded articles I created. It was cool to see. :) FloridaArmy (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ritchie333. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

why 'Chalein' page/article deleted?

Hi Ritchie333,

Thanks for reviewing the page 'Chalein', and bit surprise as you have taken decision to delete the page. let me explain, why the page should exist on Wikipedia. First of all its non-profit carpool/ridesharing services with having the aim to reduce the pollution, road traffic and accidents by encouraging people to use of Ridesharing. by putting this page on Wikipedia people will familiar as to why ridesharing is important to reduce the vehicles from the Road, and what the aim of Chalein. I would call it as advertisements but will get knowledge of ridesharing services and the channel available for it. even though the decision is yours, you have full right to remove it if you fill it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.

but I wish to have the page on Wikipedia, to make aware the people such initiative.

Thanks