User talk:Ritchie333

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

Question

Vandalism

Assume good faith

Hi, should I report blatant disruptive editing (and the editor refuse to communicate) to AIV? I sometimes do that with the reason clearly stated and they're being blocked, is this really the correct way to do that? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's my take of it (disclaimer: just because I have an opinion doesn't mean all admins share it, your mileage may vary, obstructing the doors causes delay and can be dangerous....) AIV should be for editors that need a block immediately without comment - anyone reported there should be someone who, if I came across them myself, would hit the block button without question. For blocks on users who are being disruptive, irritating, have hearing problems but don't meet the definition of vandalism (see my plain and simple guide), ANI can be a better solution. Firstly, the discussion is preserved, whereas the AIV log is cleared pretty rapidly. Secondly, disruptive editors (as distinct from vandals who just don't care) tend to whine a lot on how unfair things are and how completely unjust you were to block them. By pointing to an ANI thread and saying, "sorry it's out of my hands, the community requested the block", you give them less ammunition to fire back at you, meaning everyone gets back to writing the encyclopedia. If I had to point to an accompanying essay, I would say WP:BEANS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, it is very helpful. However, I still can't determine whether a disruptive editor is deliberately trying to make Wikipedia worse. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My advice is: If in doubt, don't assume vandalism. Ritchie has a great guide, but I've got an even shorter, simpler one. Unless it's one of the following, it's not vandalism:

• It's both factually inaccurate and hilarious, or at least potentially funny to a 12-year-old (e.g. Edgar Howard Wright (born 18 April 1974) is an English director, screenwriter and producer and giant poopypants).
• It's not language (e.g. ashjkgljsdfghajlk).
• It's inaccurate and repeated across a large swathe of pages (e.g. changing birth years of female actresses to make them older).
• It proclaims some random person (not the article subject) to have some random qualities (e.g. Peter has a little d**k!!!).
• It proclaims the article subject to have some very well or very poorly regarded qualities (e.g. Edgar Howard Wright (born 18 April 1974) is an English director, screenwriter and producer and the coolest dude in Hollywood).
• It's a removal that starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or word (I think this one is self-explanatory).
• It's a removal that is repeated across a large swathe of articles (e.g. deleting the lede or first section of three different bios).

Believe it or not, there is an even shorter rule-of-thumb. When confronted with disruptive editing, ask yourself "Does this edit make or strongly imply a claim of fact that might be considered to be encyclopedic, in any way?" If the answer is yes, it's not vandalism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikiexplorer13

"I'm not a sockpuppet! You're not dealing with Dawnslayer666 and Armageddon217 who have been even more disruptive! Unblock me now, I have a right to free speech!"

Self admitting block evasion[2]. I think that User talk:Tootifrooti11 needs to be semi-protected now. ML ^talk 17:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well we could leave it as a honeypot - any IP caught editing that with personal attacks gets an instant block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trespass (album)

The article Trespass (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trespass (album) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Dishonourable and manipulative adminship

After your evasiveness in the Dream thread, I checked your contribs and found you saying :I can't emphasise this enough, the reason to start the ANI thread was to get a consensus instead of just unilaterally indef blocking DF ... I just have to be seen to be fair."

Together with comments like ...I want solid consensus before indeffing a long-standing contributor. and other irregularities with your actions mentioned in the thread above, it's impossible to AGF that your claim to have made a "valiant" attempt at stopping Dream from being blocked was anything other than an audacious lie.

You saw Dream in a vulnerable position, and used deceptive manipulation to try to set him up for an indeff. Thankfully no one supported more than a month. Dream is a good editor and a light spirit who inspires other wikipedians. Your dishonourable attempts to get him permanbaned are despicable. In certain cultures H could tell you about, those who shame themselves so thoroughly would sometimes fall on their sword. It depends on what motivated you. If you had positive reasons, like wanting to reduce a tiny but still real risk to another excellent editor, then perhaps you can redeem yourself without handing in your tools. Just try to act with more humility, and put in the hard work to actually be fair, not just to seem it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: We (you and I) don't know each other at all, but I have very recently encountered FeydHuxtable in an Afd (this AfD). Should this "Dishonourable and manipulative adminship"-thingy go to "court", then feel free to ping me, in case an outside opinion is wanted. -- DexterPointy (talk)
@Nagualdesign: Only within past two days have I seen the handle "Ritchie333" ever mentioned (I read the/your ANI against Winkelvi). I, like you, am at the doorstep of exiting WP, and am currently contemplating if knowing some admins could provide a path to stay. Hence, may have some input on that from you? (Not here, that'd be like spamming Ritchie333's talk-page; I'm only pinging you here, in case you got something related to "Dishonourable and manipulative adminship".) -- DexterPointy (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Every now and again, somebody takes exception to something I do (even if has been backed up by consensus) and drags me off to ANI for it (examples here, here, here and here). The best option (unless there really is a case to answer for removing the tools, in which case people who are looking out for you will tell you, and one ought to have a sense of remorse about it) is to ignore it and concentrate on content work instead. And to that end, I have done a bit of copyediting on List of breakfast drinks and suggested one obvious way of cementing the article's notability, with a source. If an article you have worked on goes to AfD, the best thing you can do is improve it, and I note that the sole activity during the AfD's nomination was to remove a <br/> tag, which makes the "keep" votes something of a Pyrrhic victory. As I hinted above in the (now closed) discussion, if you concentrate on mainspace activity and improving content, you'll get respect; whereas if you just whine about admins doing stuff you don't like without much mainspace activity, you'll get labelled as a whiner and treated accordingly. This, by extension, is why we tolerate some editors who are known to "not play well with others" but contribute enormously to featured articles, so they should be kept around for the greater good of the project. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fall on your sword?? I can’t quite work out if you’re Warlock or The Bishop. But if you do decide to do the honourable thing, could you please first return that Bic crystal I lent you a while back? Ta. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay Devious, don't move! Da Bishop 333 ^(talk) 14:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Ref. : >>...we tolerate some editors who are known to "not play well with others" but contribute enormously to featured articles, so they should be kept around for the greater good of the project.<< : Where can I find more information (e.g. WP guideline, essay, or whatever) elaborating on this stance towards the editorial body of WP? -- DexterPointy (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators goes into some detail. Also, Observations on Wikipedia Behaviour covers it in point #3 : "One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia." As for specific examples, hang around on WP:ANI often enough and you'll spot them. (As for the counter-argument, "well you just blocked Dream Focus for a month!", firstly I also unblocked him first to give him a last chance, and secondly exactly how often do you see me do that sort of thing?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

... not often enough?! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: OK, though unless I missed something in the "Ramblings on content creators", then WP:OWB#3 is the closest thing to hitting the target I had in mind, yet ending in "Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult." is far short. What struck me in your statement, was the possible lack of attention to hidden costs, which can be phrased as the (unanswerable) question: How many highly competent editors can a troublesome editor cause leaving(?) Implicitly, how many featured articles would the highly competent editors have helped versus the number of featured articles helped by a troublesome editor(?) -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any benefit of me naming specific editors, but if you really want to pour through some of the details, you could try Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions if you've got a spare weekend to digest that lot. I'm not convinced we lose editors permanently because of a single person; generally it's because the fun has gone out of the project for them and they just want to move on. Civility threads pop up on ANI every now and again, everyone yells a lot, then it fizzles out as people forget about it and move onto other things. Having said that, there are certain parts of Wikipedia, such as the Israeli / Palestine conflict, where you really shouldn't invest any emotional time in if you value your sanity. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I'm not talking about any set of specific editors, but rather the stance towards problematic editors. Yes, there's a relation, but, I'm essentially attempting to question the fire brigade's perspective on their own strategy (and not even tactics), and that's very different from asking where fires are found (which are trivial operational details).
I agree that no single problematic editor is likely to quickly chase people out the door, but a pack is. I'm not suggesting that there are wolf-packs lurking, but I am suggesting there are much too many pockets of WP idiosyncrasy present, making new editors experiences nearly indistinguishable from being attacked by one or more wolf-packs. And not only that, but also: The more competent an editor is within any specific field, the faster such an editor will flee. -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Not much in the way of strategic thinking has gone into informing the admin's stance on these matters Dexter, it seems to mostly develop organically. Even to imply a unifed stance may be misleading - admins and other editors have conflicting rules, some strongly feeling that WP:Civil should be enforced equally on all editors, while others agreeing with Ritchie (& me fwiw) that good contributors should be given more leeway for occaisionaly passionate outbursts. No one can explain how it all works , it's the sort of thing you'll pick up if stay here for long enough and keep an open mind. @ slick rick, I'm glad you've responded gracefully to this. As you imply, it's extremely rare if ever that you pull stunts like you did with Dream, overall you seem to have been a hugely postive prescence here. And thank you for the reminders on contrasting outcomes for editors who focus on improving content v those who go about whining. This has given me a great idea for my next contributions (which don't worry, will not be on your talk page.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• @FeydHuxtable: Please drop the stick, and stop making baseless accusations and quoting people out of context. The first quote you provide, in the context in which it was originally posted which you carefully avoided providing, clearly meant "I don't want to indef block unilaterally, so I proposed an alternative solution -- an IBAN -- and since that solution affected you I was obliged to notify you", and the second was "I didn't want to indef block unless community consensus left me with no other choice". Neither said, as you insinuate, that R was planning from the start to impose an indef block and looking for an excuse to do so. You should apologize to Ritchie for the above baseless personal attacks against him, and for carefully and deliberately removing the context of those quotations. I will be watching to make sure that you do not make such remarks again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  (talk page watcher)Please don't watch.Whilst DF has been (rightfully) blocked, your comments on a concerned thread, (long after it has died), might give impressions of a continual failure to dis-engage coupled with potential grave-dancing.And shall any of DF's friends take it too far, be pretty certain that there are plenty of folks who will be quite willing to bring him under the scanner; it has't got to be you, at every opportunity.∯WBG^converse 05:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  Hijiri 88, let me echo the concerns expressed by Winged Blades of Godric. You are the very last person who should be commenting on this matter. You are hereby warned that further disruptive pot-stirring will lead to a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Hijiri needs to butt out of this thread, but why the hell is nobody saying this to Feyd?! There's no serious discussion about whether Ritchie misstepped with this block, so why two admins would come along to chide Hijiri and not say a fucking word to the editor making thread after thread to prosecute continued unjustifiable personal attack in the same breath is a question just begging to be asked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Despite the botched ping, I have noticed this, and I am prepared to disengage, but I don't want to be told not to respond when I am being talked about. The comment at the top of this thread reframed an assurance to me that I was not under investigation as something sinister; claiming I am "disruptively pot-stirring" "long after the thread had died" when that would be just as applicable to the comment to which I was responding is questionable, but I'll let it go. I would appreciate everyone else letting it go as well. Cheers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Image without license

A frank exchange of views

Unspecified source/license for File:Trump Protester in Parliament Square.jpg

Hey dipshit, you forgot to tag File:Trump Protester in Parliament Square.jpg with a free license tag, you stupid pillock. Do it now.

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I like this bot... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I think Mifter should give serious consideration to adding a feature to the bot so if the uploader has more than 2 years' service and 10,000 edits, they're deemed a "regular" and the bot can dispense with the niceties and just call a spade a spade. Would save on disk space just saying, "oy, no free licence, dingbat" too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like that bot better. Hint hint, Mifter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If you have a moment...

Ritchie always has a moment...
For justice.

Could you stop by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help needed at Trinity, assess the consensus in the subsection Proposal: Ctmv should be indefinitely blocked from editing and institute a course of action based on that? I don't see any benefit to dragging things outs any further. Thanks. Note: I have sent this same message to all currently active administrators who talk pages I watch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Damn, that was fast. Thanks! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion earlier today, and had already made up my mind to close it as a topic ban but thought I would just leave it a little bit longer to cement consensus. So I had the close all prepared and good to go :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Writing about "topic banned from Christianity", I was reminded of this video. (I do admire Richard Dawkins for at least standing up and stating his views eloquently, but he doesn't half troll some people....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Dawkins may occasionally suffer from a bout of foot-in-mouth disease (where social issues are concerned), but he's wickedly smart and quite funny when he wants to be. "It works. Bitches." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think my favourite is "You accept every single fact of science without ever questioning it .... BECAUSE YOU'RE GAY!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly why I accept science. I personally prefer "Your famed intelligence is nothing more than the fart of God." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a nice quote on User:Spinningspark about Dawkins : "I agree with virtually everything he says, but find myself wanting to smack him for his intolerance." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a good one. I don't think Dawkins is intolerant really (but I don't follow him like a favorite celebrity, so I may be wrong), I think he -like many people with an abundance of natural charisma - doesn't think through emotional/personal/social ideas and comments before airing them. And then, once he's publicly staked out a position, he must defend it of course. Admitting you were wrong is a grand quality in science, but in the public sphere and the instincts of those with good social instincts, not so much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Smacking Dawkins for intolerance? Sounds like someone who never heard of Christopher Hitchens. -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I love his limmericks, and Letters to a Young Contrarian. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Europe '72

Truckin'.....

The article Europe '72 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Europe '72 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 MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

... and just in time, the Bickershaw Festival weather has arrived! Cue the mud pies! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Very nice! Thanks for all your work on that article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin IV

The article Led Zeppelin IV you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin IV 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-addition of social media links at Iraq Alliance

In your edit at the article you claim "no reason to remove this." On the contrary. I'm a little confused as to how you're not familiar with some of the policies on external links, being an admin and all, etc; but here is the WP:ELNO section stating no social media links:

"Links normally to be avoided=... Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists."

Also noted is the caveat of "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5]." For this, see also WP:ELMIN:

"Normally, only one official link is included... "

and

"...For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation."

As seen on the article page, there is already a link to it's official page, and also, that page itself has links to social media accounts. These social media links should not be re-added. There's also the issue of both social media pages not being used for the past 3 years, since 2015. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 16:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That guideline is out of date, particularly in the last 2-3 years. Nobody uses Myspace anymore, and after seeing a huge explosion on Facebook with support for Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump gobbing off on Twitter (engaging mouth before brain), means that Facebook / Twitter have become used in the everyday world, regularly mentioned in the news, and have dramatically increased importance. And of course, the Russians have been accused of tampering with them, spreading "fake news" and changing the way we communicate with people, including brainwashing them and spreading propaganda. Additionally, citations to Facebook / Twitter can be suitable links these days, to extent of satisfying WP:BLPPRIMARY. You can also sometimes see them complain about Wikipedia if you look closely enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Youtube (a social media site) can be used as a source too. On Lana Lokteff for instance ,it was needed to show her rebuttal to a claim that she was a White Supremist. So there are cases ,at least in that case where using social media as a source is within policy. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Cliff Oberlin Speedy Deletion

Hi Ritchie333,

I am just starting out on Wikipedia and wanted to give publishing a page a try. I've come across Cliff's name a few times being in the finance industry and thought it may be an easy start. I would like to try editing the page to get rid of any information that you think is a COI or irrelevant, and then I'd like to try reposting with your comments in mind. Thanks for your time. Jumperfan (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jumperfan: I have restored the article to Draft:Cliff Oberlin and trimmed it down to a basic description. You should be able to retrieve the other text in the history as a basic start, but don't restore all of it otherwise it might be tagged as WP:G11 "blatant advertising" again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square.jpeg listed for discussion

Nice template, sir!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Guanaco 21:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Jbh

I've drafted a co-nom statement, if you could take a look that would be great. If you are fine with it, then the rest is just waiting for your main statement. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I think your co-nom is fine (though I might be back to nitpick over it if I've got a mo). I've added my nomination and the usual boilerplate to that page, once JBH answers the standard questions and accepts, it can then simply be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley and we're good to go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request for List of breakfast drinks

You have participated at Discussion for List of breakfast drinks Therefore, you might be interested in the deletion nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Undiscussed blanking

Hello Ritchie. I recently created an article that—without discussion—was blanked and redirected. Because of 1RR in ARBPIA, I cannot revert. Can an editor simply blank a whole article with discussion or an AFD. Any insight is appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You certainly can; in this instance I would recommend filing an AfD (not RfD, you want to discuss suitability as an article), leaving the article in its current (single redirect) state and explaining that you can't revert because of ARBPIA. I've filed a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Shiloh settlement shooting to manage this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Ritchie. The approach just seemed somewhat underhanded because the article offers different historical context and aftermath than the Asher Weisgan bio. I was a bit flustered, but I think everything will work itself out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Conejo restoring

Dont want any problems on restoring notorious Conejo's page. Well known rapper from Southern California with articles/citations in two languages from several news outlets. Nyc media research (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC) NYC media Research

What do you need my assistance with? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Refering to Conejo (rapper) which you deleted and has been recreated. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh right. The recreated version doesn't seem to suffer from the problems of the previous one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Urgh. Quite a lot of reliable sourcing, although most of it focussed on his extradition rather than rap career, which seems to have gone down like a on-legged man doing the hokey cokey. Also there's an elderly gangter drug cartellarista-type with a similar name but of no actual relation. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Better that than having a one-legged man going down on you while listening to the hokey cokey, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Congrats...

The US entry for the Tour de France caught some off guard a bit

...on Geraint's Tour win. I assume you cheer for the Welsh? :) Drmies (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm yeah. Cheers, Threesie! Well done and all. Is it the clouds of pepper spray or the buckets of urine that give one that tasteful yellow jersey? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

On your bike, Evans! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Love you too, Threesie. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, yes, since my family history is mostly Welsh, it's good to see a win. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

And since my family history is also mostly Welsh, it's good to see a twin. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

What's the problem in this articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.130.2.220 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Essentially, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want a small number of articles that are well written, factually accurate and a good free alternative to Dave Lewis’ research? Or do we want a whole bunch of articles that are not very good and are mostly formed by plagiarising interviews? A question to ponder. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Carpenters

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Carpenters 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 Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

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

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

flowers, music, balloon

... Thank you for today's DYK lead image (under debate, sigh). - It's my parents' wedding anniversary, and the bridal flowers were gladiolas from her parents' garden. I share them in loving memory, with a touch of art. The link is shameless canvassing - to the same image ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better...

This kindof thing bugs the living crap out of me when I visit a metropolitan area and I'm trying to spot things that would be educationally useful images, but wouldn't violate some esoteric copyright law. It's stupid to the level that only Parliament or Congress could manage to come up with it in the first place. Heaven help us if they ever get together. GMG^talk 01:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so but you're complicit in the stupidity. The idea that some third party might download Ritchie's photograph and use it to make their own Trump Baby balloon, thereby infringing on the copyright of the original artist and somehow making Wikipedia culpable, is one of the biggest loads of bullshit that I've read on Wikipedia. By that rationale any photograph of almost anything could be deemed a copyright infringement. Charlie Brown, Papa Smurf, Pikachu, Ronald McDonald and Angry Birds are all copyrighted works, to name but a few, not to mention the designs of countless other commercial products that have been photographed and uploaded. It's pretty obvious that the only reason the Trump Baby photographs have been targeted is because of people getting all uppity about people making fun of Trump, who's proven to be even more divisive than George W. Bush. If it really bugs the living crap out of you then stop doing it. I can only hope that someone who has the power to stop this sort of bullshit realizes that people are subverting the rules of Wikimedia and deliberately misinterpreting copyright law for their own agenda. It's particularly pathetic that people are quoting Commons:Freedom of panorama, which is about copyright exceptions, then asserting that because FOP doesn't apply the images cannot be kept!

Cuckoo! … Cuckoo! … Cuckoo!

Adding to what User:IP:146.198.129.210 posted above, and what User:Alanscottwalker said in that AfD, then:
I'd say that "Delete" is inane because it goes against the interest of the balloon creator.
It's furthermore insane, because the attempted argument (photographs of non-permanent 3D objects) implies that it's then near impossible to take pictures in the street: Someone is likely to wear clothes, a hat, a piece of jewellery, ... which they created, and therefore have copyright to. And even if they don't themselves, then the manufacturer likely do. - e.g. Some guy in a Hugo Boss suit: Is that "Sorry, no can do, no photo unless showing permission from Hugo Boss, or undressing completely; Yeah, that include taking of your underwear that says Björn Borg".
-- DexterPointy (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

All these images have also now been nominated for deletion on the same grounds. I wish it wasn't a reality we had to deal with, that of answering emails from people who've been threatened by a lawsuit because they've reused content from Wikipedia, or Wikimedia Commons, but it is, I've seen it, and that's the world we live in. If you want to stop it, then call your PM or Congressman and encourage them to adopt common sense freedom of panorama laws. Until they do, we have to do our due diligence to comply with them, because a lawyer with dollar signs in their eyes doesn't much care for your or my opinion on whether copyright laws are bullshit. GMG^talk 22:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: What about this? : That dress, worn by the woman holding the sign, certainly look like a 3D work of art under copyright.
And how about this 3D work of art?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Clothes are a utilitarian item, and so have little protection under copyright. That's why cars are not copyrighted but toy cars are. Liquor bottles specifically are also utilitarian items.

And that's pretty much the problem with these discussions. It ends up being a lot of people who don't understand copyright, telling people who more or less actually do, how incredibly stupid they are. The law is often stupid. I completely agree. But it does no one any good to go 200% Fox News on the issue, about how Obamacare will euthanize our elderly, because you understand neither euthanasia nor the Affordable Care Act. GMG^talk 23:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@GMG: For the record, I wasn't telling you how incredibly stupid you are. In fact I don't think you're stupid at all. I notice your contributions from time to time and you strike me as very reasonable and thoughtful, which is the only reason that I thought it worth appealing to your better judgement.

Let's pretend for a moment that you are correct and that taking photos in a public place, such as the one in question, is a violation of copyright law (something I find utterly unconvincing, but let's pretend). There is still no requirement for you to be complicit in any stupidity. Remember, laws are not immutable. Even a police officer who witnesses a crime has the option of using their discretion, depending on the seriousness of the crime. If somebody sees a person collapsed at the side of the road and pulls over to help, a traffic warden isn't forced to issue a ticket for parking on a double yellow line. To do so would be asinine. Conscientious objection is a real thing, even during wartime.

A traffic warden saying "It's more than my job's worth" may have a point, but you are a volunteer. There's no requirement for you to do anything here whatsoever, and everything you do do is by choice. So when you say words to the effect of, "I know what I did was stupid but I did it anyway, we're still cool though, right Ritchie?" it doesn't wash with me.^{[I do not speak for Ritchie]}

The only way these Trump Baby photos are going to be reused is by people posting them on their own websites, or maybe printing them on T-shirts, mugs or whatever, all of which are Fair Use. Nobody is going to take the photo and use it as a blueprint for making their own balloons, undermining the original artist's right to make money (it was a crowdfunded, not-for-profit public protest!) and even if they did it would be impossible to implicate Wikipedia, since there are hundreds of similar photos available. I see that you've now marked all the other balloon photos for deletion in an apparent attempt to appear evenhanded. Personally, I think you're just doubling down on your own foolishness.

I'm not saying any of this just to be disparaging. I'm trying to urge you to think twice before doing something which you consider to be stupid in the future. Nobody forces you to vote, or to nominate images for deletion, so if you genuinely believe the law is an ass find something worthwhile to do instead. It isn't rocket science. And if you choose to make dickish decisions and admit that you knew you were being dickish don't be surprised if people call you out for that. 146.90.174.128 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

PS. But it does no one any good to go 200% Fox News on the issue, about how Obamacare will euthanize our elderly, because you understand neither euthanasia nor the Affordable Care Act. Not the most ridiculous analogy I've ever read but definitely a contender. I don't think anybody here is actually as foolish as you seem to be implying. Please, just take what we're saying on the chin like an adult and don't react like you've had your ego bruised. You were the one who pointed out the stupidity of the law which you purport to be applying, so it's probably not a good idea to retaliate by calling other people stupid.

Sorry anon, (and sorry to Ritchie for clogging up his userpage with this), but we can only plead prosecutorial discretion in as much as we're willing to admit to ourselves that we actually don't give a legitimate shit about our mission: to make more knowledge more free for more people. Part of that service is that when we say something is free, we mean it's free. We didn't cut corners, and we didn't blur the lines when it was convenient and intuitive. Across the various Wikimedia projects we help primary students learn about geography, as we help undergrads with their term papers, as we help first time authors with images from Commons, as we help post-docs with primary documents from Wikisource, as we help researchers with structured data from Wikidata, as we help lots of people doing lots of things that they would not otherwise be able to do without us. Because at some basic level, some basic access to free knowledge should be a human right. And we are the first line of defense for that right.

But if free doesn't mean free then there's no reason for people to utilize and have confidence in these resources that hundreds of thousands of people have put millions of hours into making, because we're willing to cut corners when it's convenient, and there's no way of telling when those corner have been cut and when they haven't. Fudging the specifics doesn't help that mission; it undermines it at the most basic level. GMG^talk 17:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That was genuinely rousing. You're absolutely correct, Mr MeansGo. What the hell was I thinking!? I nominate Thomas the Tank Engine. Down with that sort of thing! 146.90.174.128 (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:42, 31 July 2018 (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.

Enterprisey (talk!) 05:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

How to include images from non-WMF sources?

Having followed the AfD for File:Trump_Baby_Balloon_at_Parliament_Square.jpeg, then comes the natural technical question
: How can images, hosted on non-WMF platforms, be embedded in WP-articles?
I've read Help:Visual_file_markup which suggest that it can not be done, but is that really true?

Also, I don't understand why your photo got so much flak, when seeing articles like e.g. Ron Mueck
- Am I missing something (other than naively to suspect trumpanzees at play) ?

BTW/FYI: Google's Picasa is long gone. Google's "replacement" is Google Photos. (Note: I've never used the Picasa app/client, I only ever used Picasa Web Albums.).
-- DexterPointy (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not technically possible to embed third-party images in articles. The reference to other websites was simply a comment that there are better and more user friendly places to host your photographs online, and publicise them so people know about them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Music vandal

I see you have blocked 73.32.84.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) due to mass unsourced changes to music articles. Believe I've dealt with this character before as well. It appears they're now using 96.64.51.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); note the same edits to to Kiss songs, and both geolocate to Comcast in Houston. Home Lander (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Despacito/GA2

Hi Ritchie333. I found you listed as a GA mentor at WP:GAHELP, and am wondering if you'd mind taking a look at Talk:Despacito/GA2 when you have a spare moment or two. I'm not really familiar with the GA review process and did not review the article myself, but I only came accross it as explained in User talk:Fhsig13#Despacito. Tbhotch's comment about needing a WP:GAR at the end of that discussion thread in particular makes me wonder whether a review of this GA review might be needed. Since you seem to have lots of experience doing GA reviews of music related articles, I though you'd be a good person to ask for additional feedback. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Sorry about the delay in this. The GA review doesn't appear to have covered issues in depth to the level I would normally expect. Even when I have done reviews where the reviewer has said there was little wrong with it (eg: Talk:London Victoria station/GA1, Talk:The Carpenters/GA1), there is always room for feedback and suggested changes. From a cursory glance at the article, it doesn't appear to be far off the GA criteria, or at least there's nothing that would suggest a quickfail, but I'd need to look at the prose and sources carefully, and also check for copyvios, before I can make a definitive decision. I admit I am not exactly up to date with music these days (somebody asked me to play "New Rules" at an open mic evening recently, they were surprised I'd never heard it before and mildly offended I dismissed it as "a simple three chord trick" and ripping off the chord sequence to the closing section of Camel's "Lady Fantasy") but it does seem quite lengthy for what's just a pop single. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for taking a look at this. I've never done a GA review before myself, but I did think some of the comments in the review might have indicated that it wasn't checked a closely as it should've been. Then when Tbhotch (who's seems to be a pretty experienced GA reviewer) commented in the aforementioned user talk page thread (about some of the things I had noticed) that maybe a GAR was warranted, especially so soon after the GA review was completed, I thought it might be worth having one of the GA mentors look at it just to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Carpenters

"I'll say goodbye to lunch"....

There's a kind of thrush....

We've only just begun....

The article The Carpenters you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Carpenters 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 Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It's been 24 hours since this message, and not one witty pun from Martinevans123 has graced this thread. What's going on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

C'mon dude... Don't rush me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ...forget about your Physical Graffiti and Close to You, this is the sort of album that is crying out for a GA [3]

I don't suppose Southern Gospel translates well on the "correct" side of the Atlantic. Actually, that record label is on my to-do list as highly significant to the genre. If you like that cover, there's a hundred more where that came from! (Namely, Sing Records). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I'd go quite as far as the l-word. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

heh, even if you don't, I can still find them. Y'all better behave now, bless your hearts, I have now discovered more resources at my disposal than the block button. Not that I'm threatening anyone, noooooo! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, on a more serious note, DYK hooks anyone? I'm struggling to find anything that's not a) boring or b) rather sad. The best I can think of so far is being fired from a residency gig for being "too radical", but that pre-dates the Carpenters by a few years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Some suggestions, since I might as well try to be of some small help around here.

• ...upon meeting The Carpenters, Herb Alpert stated "Let's hope we can have some hits!"?
• ...when signing The Carpenters contract with A&M Records, Karen Carpenter's parents had to sign for her?
• ...Rolling Stone's Sue Cummings wrote that the 1990s acceptance of The Carpenters' work was "a renewed ironic appreciation"?
• ...The Carpenters received hate mail because they combined a soft ballad and loud electric guitar?
• ...From spring 1976 onward The Carpenters' tours would include a drum medley for Karen?
• ...one of Michael Jackson's favorite bands was The Carpenters?

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That's great - I've added a bunch to the DYK nomination. I can't call you a "music nerd" as that would be the pot calling the kettle black. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Karen did vote to legalize it. Shame that's not stuck in a footnote! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's Barnstar time!

		The Original Barnstar
		Dude, you're just rad and such a necessary asset to the WP project. Thank you for swooping in and saving me on some major article milestones. It's very much appreciated! — Miss Sarita 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Carpenters

I have a query for this entry. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS In return, I have for you (and everyone else reading this) a query for something else here. (I don't think that talk page has much traffic). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not familiar enough with the million award to really comment here. Hopefully someone else can help out soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

admin candidate?

When you suggested they run for adminship, I'm guessing you also didn't know MBL was coming off an indefinite block for sockpuppetry, right? [4]. Vanamonde (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I did see that. Simply saying somebody might want to think about adminship in the future doesn’t mean they’re ready now; I have asked this question to a few people about 2 years ago but they’re still not quite there. So yes, he would need to think very carefully about how to manage that. (“I was young and stupid” is a good starting point). I think my point was more that I was disappointed that I could get an initial favourable impression of MBl, only to have it crushed by a load of unnecessary drama. I am always on the lookout for admins in India, Pakistan and anywhere else in that area that has English as a formal or de facto language; as I (briefly) said, Indian sockfarms are big business here (as you can testify from your own RfA). Somebody who can do GAs and AIV is a bit of a rare find. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In five years, yes, possibly. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I don't know if you read the AE request from which that t-ban came, but the unfortunate fact is that multiple folks involved there, on both sides of that conflict, could be good admins; but editing content related to religious and nationalist conflict they seem to lose all good sense. The broad ARBIPA area needs more admins, to be sure. Both Doug Weller and myself have been trying to get Ugog Nizdast to run for a while, but he's been on wikibreak for some time now. Kautilya3's content work is solid but he has no interest in adminny things, and a few others I have my eye on are still too new. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I may be "interested" at some point, but I don't have time at the moment. Before Vanamonde became an admin, there was a dire need of admins in the ARBIPA area. But now it is more or less adequate, even though I realize that the load on the existing admins is quite heavy.

WBG is an obvious candidate. So is Adamgerber80, who has a balanced view of things and has managed to keep his head above waters. Saqib may be ready for adminship at some point, though becoming a public persona may have its draw backs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Godric might sound like an obvious candidate, but I've seen too many AfDs and discussions where he's been over-cocky and said things like "OMG this is a complete load of COI crap, kill it with fire before I feel my IQ dropping". (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Roman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Political Graveyard). That's not going to be endearing to the RfA crowd. Then there's the whole fisticuffs with Coffee; even though I think WBG was right and Coffee was wrong, it won't sit well with those who like admins to be super-civil. I looked at Saqib a few months ago; when I checked, I thought he had started too many AfDs that closed as keep. However, I think he might be able to pass at some point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My assessment of Godric is similar, and I've frequently asked him to tone it down a bit, and/or not to be cute. The situation with Coffee may not help, but at least that's over. He needs to keep his head down and stick to what he's good at; if he does that (Godric, if you see this, I suggest you take Ritchie's advice very seriously) he may be ready in a little while. I admit I am less well acquainted with Saqib, though I've seen him around, of course. That I cannot readily recall our interactions is probably a good thing. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As for "public persona", both Cullen328 and Megalibrarygirl have had their Wikipedia work documented in reliable sources, but that didn't stop them from being the two most successful RfAs ever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

WBG would make a terrible admin, given his lecturing about "the flimsy pretense" without "knowing the circumstances", his poor knowledge of wikipedia policies and behavioral issues. WBG does make productive contributions, tries to, and I admire him for that. He is not an admin material because not only is he can be uncivil as Ritchie333 notes above, to me, he can be uncivil when he has not done the homework and is wrong, and he comes across as naive of our policies, their intent and as someone misinformed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't honestly see anything in that diff from Godric that would fall foul of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA - he was simply advising you on how to reduce the risk of you getting permanently booted off the site (and given you can edit here, it seems the advice worked). Indeed, recently I've wondered what on earth is going on regards civility, and needed to refer back to the policy page, which states clearly, "First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification.". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That diff supports WBG advising without "knowing the circumstances" part. Not the uncivil part. I agree with your last highlighted sentence, but it really does not apply in WBG and my case. The illustrations for my WP:Civil comment is covered by Vanamonde93 and you above. With some dozen GAs, numerous DYKs and some 30,000+ contributions to wiki sister projects, I have come across WBG's comments and contributions now and then. He is not admin material, not yet, and he is far from it. I must say, I like some of the work he does and hope he continues and learns from the advice others note above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

The sole reason, I mentioned myself to be supposedly not aware of the issue was to reduce the chances of your's indulging in any discussion with me about the block and allied stuff, so that any comment from your side might not adversely affect your t/p access, courtesy a bunch of folks, who were too keenly observing your moves amidst a parallel ANI thread.

As much as I reverted an oppurtuinstic mudslinging attempt at your t/p, what you were doing equated to casting random aspersions in an on-wiki medium and thus, an abuse of t/p access.Pretty many admins would have been willing to revoke your TPA, shall you persisted and you might also wish to see Swarm's (who is a sysop and might be non-naive in policies) closing statement at the ANI thread consisting of if frivolous talk page editing continues.

I chose to comment at the ANI thread against a t/p access removal and alerted you, because I disliked seeing a productive contributor getting dumped to the trenches but your response over here is stunning, to say the least..Whilst many folks have accused me of many things/issues, naivety in policies is certainly a new feather and will be a reminder to avoid trying to help others.∯WBG^converse 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As to Ritchie's assessment, I can but only concur:-) Whilst, IMO, I don't find anything uncivil in the AfD about Roman and would rather describe my behavior at the other AFD as un-neccesarily terse (I, OED, Rusf10 and Sitush all appeared post RAN's disruptive activities as to the site, which precipitated his ban), it might be because that my boundaries are pretty extreme (unless it comes to some form of behavior that can be aptly described as being an *#$@%^ for the sake of it ) and I've found many folks (I'm not taking any names......) to be quite civil, contrary to the reputation they carry-about in the wiki-sphere. But, yeah being less blunt and snarky would certainly help:-)

The Coffee-saga was well........

Anyways, an RFA is not anywhere in my priorities-list for a long time.......And, GSS and Ugog Nizdast might be impressive candidates to vet for an RFA:-) I also think Saqib and Adamgberger80 would make extreme good candidates in the near-future.....∯WBG^converse 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

GSS was actually one of the editors I was referring to at the top of the thread. The problem is, every now and then (and it really is no more than that) I decline one of his speedies or close one of his AfDs as "keep" and think "dagnammit, back to square one". I'm looking for six months with a squeaky clean CSD log to pass RfA, which is silly really as in my personal opinion he's perfectly qualified to use the delete button right now. However, I know not enough people agree for him to pass easily. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As for civility, several times recently I have compared the excellent atmosphere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to other parts of the site, and wondered why every conversation I have seen with editors like Rosiestep and SusunW has been civil, polite and productive (both with my own discussions, and those from other parties) and a model level of conduct that I would like to see everywhere, and yet I seem to be incapable of having a conversation with some editors without tearing my hair out, thinking "why the **** can't you understand what I'm getting at?" I would love the whole of Wikipedia to have the same level of civility as WiR where everyone treats everyone else respectfully, but it just doesn't happen. It does match what I see in the real world, where some people (and it generally tends to be women, but not exclusively) are just able to communicate better without the other party getting annoyed, fed up or cross, whereas if I said exactly the same words it wouldn't happen. I'd love to figure out why this is, because it makes my head hurt trying to understand why. :-/

Hey

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.

_ Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) About bloody time too. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I don’t think I’m the best person to deal with that. If you want to prove sockpuppetry with off-wiki private evidence, try BU Rob13 or Bbb23. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was more hoping for your assessment of the strength of evidence, but if either want to Rob or Bbb want to hear it I'll forward the e-mail to them. It's a bit long and rambly, kind of built together on the fly from fifty or so open tabs. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lamest Edit Wars

Even though I'm an administrator, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.

Regarding humorous style, you wrote:

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. While "tightening phrasing" on a general article is a good idea (because it allows the reader to understand the topic faster), that doesn't really apply to humorous essays, where being more verbose can be funnier.... I seem to recall reading once that one easy way to be funny is to be specific and verbose when you don't need to.

I think the key tool of humor, both written and spoken, is timing. The audience has to "get" the surprise of the punchline at exactly the right moment, neither too soon nor too late, and an extra word can be as dulling as a missing word.

This obviously depends on the audience, and someone who has read the text over and over will have a hard time judging the reaction of a new reader. I didn't think the punchlines in the intro were worth the labored windups, and I tried to make them more in the style of throwaway lines.

I think we can agree Wikipedians are about as funny as computer code. (That some of us find computer code funny just proves my point.) The real question is, can we be funnier collectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magyar25 (talk • contribs)

The general set of regular Wikipedians covers a huge array of different cultures, upbringings, thoughts and ideals. It's impossible to find something that's funny for everyone; I'm certain the editorial staff for Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1011 thought the front page was funny, but not everyone else did (to put it as mildly as possible). Similarly, the image and caption to the right has turned up on talk pages and EEng got a block for it, later described as "hand's down the worst block I've seen, and I've seen some whoppers". Personally, I think the best humour is as close to the truth as possible and only just the "wrong" side of sensible and factually accurate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)