User talk:Ricky81682

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Oh, here we go....[edit]

Could you take a look at the contributions of the following IP editor?

They've been adding AfC templates to drafts. Apparently, this is their attempt to game the system and achieve deletion by WP:G13, as they've explicitly stated here. They've continued even after an editor politely asked them to stop. Before this wastes the community's time with an ANI thread, RfC, and predictable SNOW result that contravening MfD is unacceptable, could you consider intervening? ~ RobTalk 18:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @BU Rob13: I think the editor has stopped. I commented as well on their talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Back at it, unfortunately. See here. ~ RobTalk 05:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The massive irony of me doing the block. Of all people loll. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Need guidance on Draft:Komal Jha[edit]

Hi There ! Could you please help me creating the aforementioned article and to sort out the issues around which are mentioned here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Komal_Jha. I need to get it published as soon as possible. Thanks Ch.th (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does it need to be published as soon as possible? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Then how should we go ahead? I need the guidance being a newbie to contribution. But, looks like some of the admins are interested in deleting the article most, which is discouraging. I have started the draft with the nod of admin USER:Jimfbleak, did research and wrote the article by getting rid of all those issues which were present earlier in the past article on the same subject. I don't understand what is the harm in having a well written content. This confuses me ! Please opine. Thanks Ch.th (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Well ! I can answer it now. I mean to say, ASAP after the article is in shape to publish. The article may be in a shape to publish after some contributions are done as admins may deem it as appropriate. I do not have any objections if you wish to help in contributing the article. Also, since it is my first article on Wikipedia, I want to complete this and move on to next article. You will see more contributions in future from me on Wikipedia. Hope this answers your question/s. Please note that I am not going to vanish after one odd article, would be looking forward to do long term contributions.
I have received a set of article writing tutorials from User:SmokeyJoey yesterday and currently going through them to write the better article. Thanks a lot and look forward to more support and guidance ! Ch.th (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Ch.th, I'm sure you're not doing it on purpose, but please be careful not to remove other people's comments on this page. I've restored them, along with your own previous comment (remove that one again if you wish). Bishonen | talk 09:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC).

Deletion[edit]

Did you really mass delete a person's sandbox drafts? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

They aren't drafts. They are whole copies of public domain text in the thousands. I've been comparing them against current pages and 90% of the text is worthless with very little text of any value. I was reviewing it with other editors on IRC as well, there's nothing of any use to keep and it's been picked up by various bots and nothing else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It would literally be better to WP:TNT and start the ones that haven't already been made (most have been) from scratch rather than review and analyze close to probably 20,000 or so pages for the two possible lines of text that is going to be available online but likely have to be re-checked since it was pulled at least four to five years ago. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Dang, thats a lot of effort in copying text. Good luck dealing with all the text. Just one question. Is there a mass delete all? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Huggle allows for batch deletion and I did screw it up a bit but whatever, better than wasting time at MFD or making a bot request for it. It's nice boring admin work lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I went to a random page. Google said it was a blatant copy of this article and this. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Both I believe are public domain copies as it says on the bottom of each page. However, in terms of actual use, it's virtually worthless compared to the time to re-write and incorporate that into text. It's more likely someone testing their ability to create a bot and program than someone actually interested in editing here. That's two different skills and you'll find a lot of the former but the latter is much harder to find. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of rewriting some but i saw his talk page that had a deletion for 1 of them so i didn't. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfC closure on Natalie Portman[edit]

I would indeed like to craft a better RfC regarding the use of "a major role". I am thoroughly convinced that its both fluff language if not out and out original research. As the original RfC creator, I'd like to craft one correctly this time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd just strip the language in Natalie_Portman#1995.E2.80.9399 so that it reads "as well as in the Beautiful Girls, for which she garnered significant acclaim." Suggest that generally and if not agreed upon, an RFC comparing the two may be needed but it seems more on point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Ricky81682, since there has been a longstanding consensus that "major role" is acceptable, and the recent consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of it not being biased, I think it would be inappropriate for any editor to again (any time soon anyway) seek another consensus on that same issue. I think it is discouraged on Wikipedia for an editor to repeatedly create a new RfC on the very same issue again and again simply because he doesn't agree with the consensus. Jack Sebastian has tried to bulldoze a nonexistent consensus by trying to declare a consensus that clearly was not there, and now it seems he has intentions to continue that process. I think enough is enough and it's time for him to drop the stick on the "major role" issue. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Sundayclose I was just answering the question about structuring a future RFC. I missed that Jack Sebastian was asking about the one with an overwhelming consensus against not the no consensus one. Yeah, there's no support for "major role" being biased so that should be dropped. As to mainstream success, that's another matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Ricky - I didn't realize that my Wiki-Stalker was going to show up and - well, there is no other way to put it - out and out fucking lie about an "overwhelming" consensus. There wasn't one. The main problem with the RfC is that it wasn't clear as to the two points in contention. They should have been addressed singly. I wanted to make sure the matter was properly addressed. Again, sorry that Sundayclose stalked on over to add his little bit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
There was a consensus. Now if the argument is actually about sourcing, that's another matter but the RFC was on whether the term "major role" is by itself biased and the consensus was basically "if sources say that, it's fine." What is the actual issue, whether she had a "major role" in that work or whether "major role" at all is appropriate? The latter seemed to be the point of the discussion but I'm not suggesting going through another round about it until there is some idea why exactly is it so bothersome. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The point was that such an evaluation of a role requires sourcing. Without it, we have an editor judging that the role is 'major', which isn't allowed, since its OR. It would be like me classifying Justin Bieber's music as 'ground-breaking.' See? Without a source, its just my opinion that the music is anything beyond ordinary.
And sorry for going off on your page at Sundayclose; the user is fairly good at being a jerk, and is well aware of how to push my buttons. I should not have let them do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
If the issue is: (A) Yes we can describe someone has having a major role (per the RFC) (B) but this is a poor example because there's no source that this is in fact a major role, that did not come across at all during your RFC. Not one person evaluated the source nor did you mention it at all. The user does then have a point that the RFC had a consensus that the word "major role" in and of themselves are not so biased as to never be usable. This is why I said the RFC was poorly worded. If you are now going to argue about the source and I haven't read the entire talk page nor know the history, I presume this is actually an issue you've mentioned before but it got mangled or something but otherwise it looks like just WP:TE to argue for the same things yet again. I don't have a clue what you are going for here and it's obvious no one else seems to either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Khazars[edit]

In May 2016 you closed an ANI about User:Galassi. You confirmed that Galassi was topic banned from the Khazars on the strength of his existing ban from Ukraine. That seems logical to me. The question is being asked again at WP:AE#Galassi, in case you want to comment there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

Ricky, you recent wholesale moves of subpages of WikiProject:Outlines to DraftSpace is inappropriate. You are misreading the agreement to move AfC subpages. Please move them back, and obtain consensus before continuing mass moves. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

These are not "AFC subpages." These have nothing to do with AFC. These are drafts and being moved pursuant to Wikipedia:Article_Incubator#Time_limit and Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses. Most incubator pages have been moved without discussion and I have no idea why you would object to these but fine, I'll create a requested move request if you object about them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The incubator was shut down, which is why it was appropriate to move the subpages. The same logic absolutely does not apply to the subpages of WikiProject:Outlines. Please let me know when you create the move request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You do realise that Wikipedia:Article Incubator is tagged inactive and retained for historical reference. It is outrageous that you would use its text to justify mass page moves out from an unrelated WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The same thing was done with incubators hidden away within various WikiProjects. Feel free to object once it's all prepared and argue that we are somehow better off going back to WikiProject WP:OWNing drafts in their own space for some odd reason and creating their own local consensus about styles and notability requirements and then arguing about this stuff at AFD once the pages get there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
This objection is well considered and firm, but it is specifically in reference to WikiProject:Outlines. This WikiProject has drafts of outlines that I really do not think you should move to DraftSpace, where people unfamiliar with WP:Outlines may pick them up and do bad things. User:DGG said he support Outlines, which is something serious, but others really objected to them. At the time of the demise of activity, I was proposing the Outlines should become its own namespace, sort of replacing the failed/failing Portal namespace. I think there is a good argument that Outlines do not belong in mainspace, although they may belong elsewhere.
I make no objection to you moving "incubator" or "draft" WikiProject subpages from other WikiProjects if the pages are obviously intended to become mainspace articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why you were telling me to stop it then. Go see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history and explain what your opposition to me is this time. As I explained with this move it's immensely easier to find and direct people to Draft:Outline of London than to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of London even if that was created after draftspace was started. It's not like I'm taking someone's userspace content in mass, it's a single project that is dealing with content across a number of others and I see no reason why not to use draftspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"I have no idea why you were telling me to stop it then". You, it seems to me, have a peculiar inability to understand me. The RM at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history is an excellent way to resolve this, thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop tagging for WikiProjects you are not affiliated with[edit]

Please stop mass tagging WikiProject banners for WikiProject that you do not act for, are not affiliated with, pages that the WikiPorject members have never indicated interest. It looks to me to be some combination of recklessness or mischief. It devalues the meaning of WikiProject banners for third parties to paste them too easily, and it misrepresents the WikiProject's interest on the pages for visitors to the pages tagged. WikiPorjects decide themselves on their scope. Outline articles are not proper articles, but navigation aides, and it is not to be assumed that any WikiProject with interest in a topic area wants to take any responsibility for any WP:Outline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProjects are meant to be self-organised groups acting on a common interest. How does placing fake banners for inactive WikiProjects help anything? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
What is a "fake banner"? I have never seen one. Inactive wikiprojects have the potential to become active in the future and it will be beneficial to them to know what articles are part of said project. BTW there is no policy or guideline which states that an editor cannot place wikiproject banners on article talk pages. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't even make sense of this complaint. Whenever I create a new article on an ukiyo-e artist, I add {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Japan}}, and {{WikiProject Visual arts}}. The only one of those WikiProjects I'm affiliated with (by having plunked my name on a list) is WP:JAPAN. You're saying I should stop adding the other two? As if. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
A fake banner is one placed by someone uninterested in either the article or the WikiProject, a banner that implies a cross-interest when there is none. NB. Outlines are not articles, and the WikiProjects in question are interested in articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
False—otherwise we wouldn't have |class=redirect and |class=disambiguation. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So you have decided that you alone know that these eleven projects expressly have no interest in a proposed Outline of Ancient history page? If the page was actually moved to Outline of Ancient history, would you also object to those projects be included? So why is it objectionable that those projects be informed about the draft? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I submit that it is very unlikely that editors working in those wikiProjects have any interest in the stalled efforts of WP:wikiproject outlines. There is no evidence of it. The banners are therefore disruptive. If someone takes note of the banner, they would reasonably assume some interest, which is false.
To be tagging pages with WikiBanners, I would expect that you should have a particular interest in either (1) the page; or (2) the WikiProject. When I see you mass tagging pages related to a wide variety of subjects with banners from a great many WikiProjects, some defacto inactive, I find that very hard to believe.
You appear to be working on the assumption that Outline pages are articles that belong in mainspace. I believe they are not articles, they contain no unique information to the pages they link, what content they contain is entirely forked. Whether they belong in mainspace is debateable. Many are in mainspace, but there is the question of how many levels belong in mainspace. You are seeking to move some quite low level things, via draftspace, to mainspace. I think this is a bad idea, and that certainly it should be discussed first.
You did attempt a discussion, appropriately, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Outlines.2FDrafts. You then proceeded to ignore the response and do mass edits/moves regardless. Obviously, I have to escalate to get you to pay attention.
Some people have argued that Outlines belong under "Content" pages, which is in Portal space. Personally, I agree, largely because forking in mainspace is an attribution hazard and will continue to be so indefinitely.
Admittedly, a quick review of AfD discussions [1] reveals that Outline pages in mainspace are mostly kept, sometimes per SNOW, but not always. Often they are upmerged, suggesting a level limit. And anyway, deletion discussions are largely constrained to the binary decision of delete or not, and these discussions have not much egnaged on the questions of content forking, outline levels, and mainspace versus portal space versus a new namespace.
I you think the WikiProjects should be interested in Wikiproject Outline subpages, I think you should ask them before further acting on your assumption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The banners are therefore disruptive—how so? Seems awful unlikely to me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It's only disruptive if you've made yourself judge, jury and executioner on the scope of all WikiProjects. Outlines like Talk:Outline of Vatican City in mainspace regularly have other projects to the Outlines one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It's disruptive to the poor sod who comes along and thinks that the Wikiproject lends their name to the page. An outline in mainspace fair enough, but mass bot-like edits, adding eleven WikiProject banners to another WikiProject's subpage that is little more than a templates creation, that's going too far. OK, in degrees of disruption it is only the possibility of disruption one persons briefly. Still, please discuss mass edits before doing them. I really don't know if you are trying to help outline articles, or get rid of them by a back door method, but whichever, you should discuss first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I honestly can't make heads or tails of what the compaint even is supposed to be. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone disagrees and rather than accepting disagreement or discussing it in a reasonable manner, name-calling and insults are considered appropriate to them. The last comment of course is a complete lack of WP:AGF but that's par for the course. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I say you are inappropriately adding wiki banners. I say WikiProject outline draft subpages are not appropriate for DraftSpace. You disagree. What then? You ignore me and proceed anyway? Did I miss something? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

People pointed you to the relevant policies, you ignored that, the discussion was closed, we came back here, and so yeah I'm going to ignore you since you don't have a point here and no one has any idea what your ranting is about other than that you've made yourself judge of what the scope of all WikiProjects are and what is covered by all projects and no one else cares. Your response here ignores the actual issue and is just about your choice of edit summary. When you can show me any RFC that supports your theory that drafts for outlines should be kept separate from drafts, fine, then I'll support that outlines are distinct from regular draft pages. Draft:Outline of Sikkim and Draft:Outline of LGBT topics were perfectly fine in draftspace, contrary to your personal opinions of how this entire project should be organized. People are allowed to disagree with you and unlike you, I don't actually insult you when I do so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Ok, I apologize for the overly direct & confrontational language including edit summaries.
I think I have said more than enough to make my point about WikiProject banners, about posting them like that not being beneficial. If you don't agree, and no one else agrees, I will let it go.
The RM for a lot of outline subpages has just been closed. While it is always gratifying to have someone agree with you when you go out on a limb, it's not a win. Outlines in mainspace are an oddity. Draft:Outline of Sikkim and Draft:Outline of LGBT topics are interesting recent cases. I may turn out to be entirely wrong, maybe mainspace will be appropriately filled with outline pages, but I do maintain that WikiProject

Outlines should be left whole until there is agreement otherwise.

I also maintain that you should discussion before embarking on mass reorganizations. Your edit rate is too great for you to be easily followed. However, you are free to take that as you will, I have no power to stop you if I can't persuade you.
For completeness, I should note again that you do an lot of different things, all else I have seen is good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I still have no idea what your view on WikiProjects is. Your demand that only participants be involved is an unusual one, one that no one else understands either and has no basis in policy. As to what I'm proposing, it's the same as with this project and with this project. I have no idea why you think Outlines are some unique outlier in terms of policy but they aren't and the project is no different than any other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 ::On the contrary, I for one get a bit pissy when an editor includes a sum of WikiProjects and then leaves mine out! Like if you are going to be there and include projects X, Y, Z, why not the obvious ones? Two years ago I resurrected {{WikiProject Haiti}}, in fact it was still part of the lowly |Caribbean= parent extension, which was also dormant. Had editors stopped tagging (where in most cases this had happened, not because they figured it was inactive but likely due to the "lack of interest" or motive), I would have been screwed trying to muster up all of these pages. Many times I had to do direct google searches site:wikipedia.org to gather them all up and boy was it a headache. Now, the project is on the right foot for even further expansion. Remember that any one of these dormant projects can one day be picked up by an editor of interest and become active again. As per above mention (by Curly Turkey), I too include project banners of projects (especially the most common ones such a Bio etc.) that I am not affiliated with because I believe it is common courtesy saving members the time looking for pages that many times can be pretty much lost (some even lacking defining categories) and are just completely off the radar, especially when said article would pertain to a particular project. Now, with that in mind, I may not include quality or importance assessments as my knowledge of scale in those projects may vary. If I am a bit familar or know for sure, I'll insert it, but on the other hand leaving it blank or (???) further indicates to said project that the article is newly added and needs to be assessed by a duly editor of the project, which I usually prefer. I do not know what the exact situation is here (like which edits were "fake" inclusions) but always try to assume that the editor was operating under good faith. With that being said, there are no such things as "fake banners," and you do not have to be apart of a particular project to include banners. The only problem I ever had once with an editor of a project was assessing a few pages too high in which I offered to revert; so I've learned my lesson and I am a lot more careful about it. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Savvyjack23: The edit in question and the projects in question is this one. I have no idea either what "fake banners" are referring to nor do I understand how SmokeyJoe has determined unilaterally that none of those projects would be interested an outline of ancient history (especially since they are all within the scope of the actual Ancient history article). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Years in the Durrani Empire has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Years in the Durrani Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor repeatedly puts fake WikiProject tags on talk pages. Thank you. ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the discussion is now here. DexDor (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User drafts[edit]

The purpose of me abandoning that specific draft was because this falls in one of the perennial issues that WikiProject India has not formed consensus on; whether such a list should exist, why should it if categories are there and why especially if every known populated place is anyways allowed to have their own separate article. Also, after forming similar page for a different district I had received feedback then that this page though is a eventually a list of notable topics waiting to have their own articles; its merely a stats page which is on borderline with WP:NOT; and I don't disregard this argument completely. Also, user's keep draft copies of various topics which they think are notable, but can't establish it completely having started writing about them. I have various such articles in my draft space of personalities which are borderline notables and/or are pre-internet era of non-English regions where it is difficult to establish notability.
I know that we do not delete user draft spaces for inactivity; at least yet. But I said this all because you mentioned that that particular draft was unedited for 3 years despite me being active then. That discussion not being about my draft's deletion should not have mentioned this especially when this would not have been a valid argument even if it was my draft's deletion discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: As I noted at Draft talk:List of towns and villages in Raigad district, it seems like it's overly broad to go since we're going multiple levels with one jump. From what I can tell, we have cities/villages --> 15 taluka --> 4 subdivisons --> district --> state and instead of it being cities in the villages, it's cities in the district. And yes, I imagine the Indian page isn't settled but so what? Create it and move it to mainspace and if it's deleted, then we can discuss it then. I do also agree though that the populations per village is pointless. I'd prefer just a simple list: look at something like List of towns in England or something like List of townships in North Dakota which then breaks down further at Dickey_County,_North_Dakota#Communities. If that's what you are going for, then I say we work on at the taluka level making simple tables there and then building up a list of villages and town for inclusion down the line. I mentioned the age because I had no idea why you just let it get listed in AFC and moved around, it didn't make sense to me. I've been sitting around with some drafts for a couple of years as well but I do keep watch on them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Nikkolas123/Super Squad[edit]

Hello, Ricky81682. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Super Squad".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin Let's talk! 14:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please revert all bold moves from subpages of WP:Wikiproject outlines to Draft space.[edit]

Hi Ricky,

Would you please revert all of your pages moves of subpages of WP:Wikiproject outlines to Draft space. The same logic applies as did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Some have been proposed for reversal. Draft talk:Outline of Star Trek and Draft talk:Outline of golf show support for keeping it in draftspace. I suggest you do a RM on the remainder if you think they are better served within the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You might take a look at this user[edit]

This user seems to have some odd behavior and quickly zeroed in on a few events that suggest this may not be a new user. User:POC2016 Mentions the Koch truth guy [[2]] Contacts just one user of all the users on Wikipedia [[3]] Given the other edits by this new account it seems like a questionable user. Springee (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Historic districts in USA Virginia Northern[edit]

Yeah - it's something to do with the infobox being keyed to a particular map. I've seen it happen before, and it will probably happen again.

I think there's a fairly easy fix, but I have to make sure all of the articles affected are in the proper category before I take care of it. I'll take a look later this afternoon and see what I can do. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Yeah the same is happening with this change creating Category:Historic district contributing properties in Boston rather than Category:Historic district contributing properties in Massachusetts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll add it to my list of things to fix. I don't want to change the infoboxes until I'm sure that everything in, say, Category:Historic districts in Virginia will remain once I've made the change. So it'll be a bit tricky, but I think I have a plan... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Look at Template_talk:Infobox_NRHP#Problem. It seems as though you should be able to fix all these since the AWB changes has created them. I count at least sixty or so pages that are going to red-linked categories at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes - that's the fix I'm talking about. I hope to get around to a comprehensive fix shortly. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

About Tom McCall (Georgia politician)[edit]

Hi Ricky,
I've moved this draft article you commented on into article-space.
Article would appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN as McCall is verifiably a member of GA House of Representatives.
I moved the article without going through the proper processes for WP:G13-d drafts.
What do you think about this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Dacia drafts to draftspace[edit]

Just a heads up that we've created several new CNRs from projectspace to draftspace, and there might be an RfD in the future over those.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  10:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth Hang out at MFD and you can join in the debates about whether duplicates of mainspace articles should be deleted or have redirects created. - Ricky81682 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthea Moys (July 12)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Daniel kenneth was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Daniel kenneth (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Ricky81682, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Daniel kenneth (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg I see that you closed Wikipedia_talk:Videos#RfC:_Full-length_films.2Fvideos_in_articles - thanks for that. Just curious - are you aware of any place where major RfCs like this one are listed after being closed? Having access to a list of the outcomes of major discussions like this would be useful, and I do not immediately know how I could find such a list. Does one exist? What does happen when these are closed beyond just the closing comment? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Bluerasberry No, the problem is no one listened to my advice and either worked at WP:VIDEOS or created the MOS guideline I suggested so it kind of fell into the ether. Else we would have argued it based on what the prior consensus showed. Like I said, I happened to know it because I took a miserable few hours closing those. Why not start the MOS guideline and people will come with the RFCs to you? It's be a proposal but I think that's the key here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry - what advice did you offer? I failed to recognize it. Could you link to what you mean?
Whatever you said elsewhere, I agree with what you are saying here that something about videos needs to be in the manual of style. I just made a change there and started a discussion about it. It is a small step but it establishes the change. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I meant the fourth paragraph of the close at Wikipedia_talk:Videos#RfC:_Full-length_films.2Fvideos_in_articles. I'll look into the MOS idea as I think that's what is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Marthoma Syrian church[edit]

I request to move the Marthoma metropolitan section in the Marthoma Syrian Churchto Marthoma metropolitan Phantom (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment in the RM discussion section. Someone else will close it in about a week. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

W124l29[edit]

I refuse to drop the commentary about the other editors. You did not give me any time to build a case in defense, and there were quite a few points to make with "diffs". I repeat: I refuse to drop the commentary about the other editors. Why did you not allow me to respond as I promised that I would? Your decision is infuriatingly condescending, and takes no other perspective into consideration but those whom I had a conflict in the first place. How is that at all a fair judgement to make, and how do you manage to sit with that sentence?

I quote: How you could manage to warn me but no other person involved, only for my repeatedly requesting that they follow Wikipedia policy, is beyond my comprehension. Lest I digress: I will attempt to respond more comprehensively to you on this here ANI and within the very relevant Talk page of MrX of fame within the next twenty-four hours, and until then, am requesting that this Talk section be protected from blanking per relationship to an ongoing dispute in which you have made yourselves involved—as Wikipedia administrators. I trust that you would tell me if you knew, in good interest. I would also like to know whether there is any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or suggested behavior anywhere to your knowledge for an administrator to remove him- or herself from moderation of a dispute where there might be a conflict of interest due to conflicting parties being established relationships as editors to such an administrator. All statements which I have made were grounded in objective interest, all claims by myself of hostile behavior from others were warranted, and all subsequent counter-claims by others of bias and/or hostility from me are unwarranted. I stand to all statements made on Wikipedia, and if that so warrants some sort of administrative penalty, then I accept such penalty, but only with well-formed explanation free of subjective bias. Frankly, I'm flattered that I've offended so many people, granted that you're established editors. I ask that any decision made be made not in absentia, and that I have ample opportunity to respond with consideration to the reality that not everyone can log onto Wikipedia every day or made-to-order. Thank you very much for your consideration, and your patient kindness is much appreciated. Warmest regards, W124l29 (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

My claims are not false, and I'm patently offended that you talk down to me in such an assuming & condescending manner. They were not helping me. They were telling me to shut up and move along. If I'm topic banned, then I'll move past Wikipedia entirely. I have broken only one rule, as I typed before, incidentally of ignorance of said rule, and so cannot be found guilty of intentionally violating said rule--legally. Within this vote, I point to Pincrete deciding in bad faith that I intentionally WP:SYNTH. Within this vote, I point to Cullen328 calling me disruptive, even though I've only posted on Talk pages. Hysteria ensues. Because you disagree with my desire for objectivity? Prove me wrong. I point to Criticism of Wikipedia & to the fact that there is a brainstorm page due to Wikipedia losing editors. Coincidence? Again, prove me wrong. Is my asking for clarification in a Talk page really considered by definition "disruptive"? What is the point of having a Talk page, where any question is answered with essentially a cutely worded "shut up and move along"? W124l29 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I would again ask that you, as stated above twice now as I'd hope you've read, I ask that any decision made be made not in absentia, and that I have ample opportunity to respond with consideration to the reality that not everyone can log onto Wikipedia every day or made-to-order. I would like you to wait for me to state my case as I above requested, in other words. Since the creation of this ANI, I have ceased to edit on Wikipedia less a single Talk page, not that in question, where I made known that it would be best that I did not edit the article directly. You shall have my full response before 8:30 PM (20:30) UTC, 13.07.2016 (July 13, 2016). I trust that this ANI is not going to run away in the meantime, and that it is not consuming Wikipedia resources by sitting here alone. Thank you very much for your consideration, and your patient kindness is much appreciated. Warmest regards, W124l29 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC) W124l29 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I would further like to add that my supposed "disruption" of the ANI was to revert an edit, if you would check the very "diff" cited against me, made to one of my comments as quoted above, by one of the very editors whom I was accusing of breaking Wikipedia policy. I'll ask: did you read the ANI before closing it, and, if so, what is the exact basis for your decision to prevent me from defending myself, as I clearly requested time until a specific date? I have been absolutely the epitome of civil on Wikipedia, and as such there is no basis for any of the comments made within the ANI. This process is an example of Gaming the system. W124l29 (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:BURO. Move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Point has been made. Thanks for all the help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
His comments about "drop the commentary" indicates he read your close of the ani. Don't let him feed you that nonsense that he didn't know the tban applied to the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:PBAN I was quite clear that the talk page was included. This isn't my first rodeo here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I know but he's trying to argue he couldn't know the talk page was part of it. But he couldn't not know if he read your close, which he did since he's using your words from it. Just wanted to point that out. Not meaning to insult you or anything. Just saw the attempt to feign ignorance and wanted to point it out. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he was ignorant or not. Either he read the closing and violated or he didn't care to read it, argued on my talk page and felt that dumping that excuse meant he wasn't subject to it at all and violated it. Neither one is a good excuse. If he half read it and misunderstood that when I said "and its talk page", thinking I meant something other than "its talk page", that's not my problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

EEng, don't you think it's a bit underhanded to comment on another user when they are clearly banned from responding to you on the page, a mere minute after the pageban was enacted too, doesn't that fall under WP:GRAVEDANCING? though I agree with Ricky81682's actions. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Nude Dude, what makes you think that I, on my little 3-inch phone screen in the middle if that giant article talk page, knew anything about something that had happened 60 seconds earlier somewhere else? Isn't that WP:ASTRAINEDINTERPRETATIONOFTHEOBVIOUS? EEng 12:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
EEng For the record, its R N D dude, not nude dude? I apologize if I was being too presumptuous, but, you have to concede, the fact that the two occurred 60 seconds apart is a bit of an odd coincidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Merely a bare (or nude, you might say) coincidence. Besides, what would whatshisname have said in response anyway? If he's as smart as he wants us to think he is, he'll just take his medicine without complaint. EEng 23:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@EEng and Mr rnddude: Can you both stop? I've never had this much discussion in a collapse before and since it's MY talk page, please respect MY collapse of it. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What a poor host your are. And just when Mr. Dude and I were just getting to be such good friends. EEng 23:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Arcituno[edit]

Hi,

Are you sure that all those pages created by User:Arcituno should have been deleted?

I understand that the user is banned, but if the page is otherwise OK, why delete it? Isn't that over the top?

All of the following seem OK to me—they have references and they appear in Wikipedia in other languages: Louise Dumont, Marta Husemann, Olga Gzovskaya. I haven't checked the others in detail, but they may be OK as well. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amire80: WP:G5 is stupidly restrictive. There's not a lot of leeway about it. None of those pages had content from anyone else so it's a problem of whether to keep it around not being sure it's good. However, if you think that they are good, I'll restore the pages to draftspace and you can review them. If you're good with them, move them back. The point is that another editor must be willing to confirm the content to avoid the nonsense that can occur from like copyright abusing editors and the like. This master was originally blocked for misuse of fairuse images and lifting copyrighted content so again G5 is strict. There's a lot of pages and I think there's three admins reviewing and deleting them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, if you don't mind, I can restore them myself. I'll check one-by-one that the content is generally acceptable before restoring. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Please restore Rita Montero I and a number of others had contributed to it since it was created and I would like to continue improving it. Thanks Eartha78 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize you're an admin as well Amir. Eartha78 please see Draft:Rita Montero and moved as you wish. I'll review your deleted edits for other pages as well later today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Huh, I wonder if it truly qualifies for G5 in the first place. Since it's a translation from another language edition of Wikipedia, perhaps the actual content creation (e.g., here) should be considered. That example does not look like it would qualify as "no substantial edits by others". (We could always Special:Import the original edits in such a case, if we wanted to make that clearer.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing Well the translation is largely by the banned sock so that's why I'm considering. The original "original" text was of course in a different language which is probably another reason to just G5 and have someone else do it. I don't think an importing is needed since the original edit gives the attribution. Either way, as I said, it's restored there and if someone else wants to check it and confirm that the translation is accurate and not some copyright violation or the like, then they can move the page. If no one is going to, I'll re-delete it in a few days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Between Google Translate (for accuracy) and a quick web search (for copyvios), you could probably figure out those issues in a couple of minutes for each article. But I'm thinking about the more fundamental question: Should G5 apply to translations of Wikipedia articles at all, given that there is, in some real sense, "substantial edits by others", namely the editors at the other language editions of Wikipedia? (I'm assuming that the banned sockmaster didn't write the articles in the other languages, which would of course need checking in each case.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, the issue is the actual English language and whether the translated text is accurate. G5 has been applied to good articles before because it's considered too much of a headache to search and figure out in what way problematic sockpuppets are causing problems. G5 isn't a debatable CSD criterion. Again, if you feel like the draft is accurate, then I'll move it back to mainspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
G5 doesn't say that only contributions in English should be considered. There is definitely no prohibition against considering those contributions for the purpose of G5. Furthermore, CSD says that speedy deletion is only acceptable "in the most obvious cases", and that applies to every single criteria. I'm not sure that it's "obvious" that known, identified non-English contributions should be ignored in a CSD criterion that excludes deletion if there are any "substantial edits by others". I don't recall it being discussed anywhere; this is probably new territory for us.
(Also, in terms of G5, the accuracy of the translation is irrelevant: if you're deleting for the social purpose of WP:DENYing the sock, then even perfection can be deleted.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The contributions are in English. I don't care that someone claims that they copied it from another wiki properly. This claim is from a banned user who repeatedly sock puppets. If the user actually cared about their stuff, they can asked to unblocked on their main like an adult. Instead, they don't and everyone else plays clean-up. Again, what is your point here? If you want it restored, I've done enough, move the page if you agree with it. I don't care to bother to check on various translations and sourcing for this. If not, I'll delete it and you can go somewhere about your insightful technicality of the page having been created in another wiki first as if that changes the actual situation here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have irritated you.
I'll ask at WT:CSD if it's desirable to consider updating the criteria to address the question of translations. I don't know what people will choose. The outcome will probably depend mostly upon people's personal values, and how their values affect their views of Wikipedia (sort of the Wikipedia version of isolationism vs international cooperation). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to ask but my view is that when we have content from an editor who gets blocked for copyright violations, who then socks to get that content added, when the editor lies about their identity, I see zero reason to trust that they properly translated the content by that editor's word alone. As such, G5 allows for deletion and if another editor wants to confirm their work, then it's fine and it can be restored. So again, why are you going through this much effort if you won't just check the content yourself? Do you think we should just presume that a person who repeatedly misused copyright so much to be get blocked, who then used another account to continue editing without identifying themselves is actually telling the truth about all these translations? Or presume that the editor is lying about something here and if someone else confirms that it's accurate, we can restore it? Otherwise you are just creating a giant hole where our worst copyright violators will just claim everything is some translated page or will just point at all sorts of pages in obscure places and leave it to us to check again and again whether or not they are screwing around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Because I'm a metapedian. I don't actually care about these articles one way or the other (especially articles by a banned sockmaster). I care about having well-written, practical policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the policy is practical. If I created a bunch of content here and someone else went and copied those to Spanish Wikipedia and was blocked there for repeated copyright violations there, I wouldn't be angry if they said "look, this guy has a bad history of copyright violations here, we presume he's still doing it (WP:AGF is gone) and rather than try to solve the puzzle of whether the translations are accurate and not further issues right now, we'll delete it but if someone else who doesn't have this history checks it, it's good and we'll restore it." It would be quite odd for me to come there and say that they shouldn't delete that content regardless of what that editor did and to either (a) make the deleting people immediately have to check whether the person reformed or (b) let it there stay there and hope that it's been resolved when the actual solution is for the character to go back to their main account and admit guilt and return in good faith rather than continue to create a pile of work for others. Otherwise, we have had editors who go through hundreds of accounts creating and revising all sort of pages with half being usable, half being copyright violations or just misrepresentations and then saying "hey, either delete it all or solve the puzzle again of what's wrong while I just start all over again tomorrow." The concern is whether you want to drive the community of people who police this stuff away to basically enable a single editor who's shown a repeated pattern of poor behavior. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Malaysian tennis biography stubs has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Malaysian tennis biography stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dawynn (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

ITN[edit]

We don't close the discussion immediately on posting, as there is often further discussion and tweaks, and maybe even a pull if consensus swings or it was deemed to have been incorrectly judged. Discussion are closed though if there is no consensus or if the item goes stale. Just leave a comment to show that you have posted and change the header accordingly. Best wishes, Stephen 00:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I must have missed that in the admin instructions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Primary School[edit]

The decision was to rename the category and to remove the tag from the main space to the talk space. So why are you removing the work I am doing ? What do you want me to do ? I am going utterly lost here... Anthere (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Anthere Is it? I see you changed the template so it should be moving them. I was moving the tag by first copying them to the talk page before the mainspace removal. Is the project still a part of the WikiProject South Africa? If not, we can create a separate template for the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. It moved them. Cool ! Very nice. Yes, it is still part of South Africa project. Anthere (talk)
@Anthere: Ok, I think we're all done here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh gosh ! Great ! Thank you so much ! Really appreciate. Anthere (talk)

british empire and england[edit]

I fail to see why you need to add... please explain, in all WP:AGF why a component of the british empire needs to be added to an already cluttered group of categories. The other categories in such categories is an array as it is, why england? Hope it is an easy/simple answer - cheers JarrahTree 06:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: It's been there for a while. I was only adding it to the ones that didn't have England. The British Empire categories are in the United Kingdom categories and then I think in the Great Britain categories and before that in the England categories. If you recall, there was once a Category:17th century in the English colonial empire which was renamed back to British Empire. If you disagree, why don't we host an RFC on the matter or something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nah no big deal - maybe leave for the moment. If someone was being pedantic about when specifically the brit empire officially started and keeping the brit empire away from earlier modes, maybe, them I could see a validity of adding england and all - but hell Indonesian project has a glorious conundrum of netherlands east indies and indonesia confusion when it was changing in the 1940s - I think in the end, at some stage in the future, someone needs to invent a template that allows changes in colonial empires/colonies as at dates of legal changes (this was english/then it was UK/GB) - rather than the horrible sets of templates that infer well out of their meaningful range as legitimate topics... another day, another lifetime perhaps JarrahTree 07:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I think the agreement was calling it the "British empire" rather than "English colonial empire" for whatever reason (WP:COMMONNAME perhaps) so English is the likely category rather than using the Great Britain "island not nation" ones. As I said, an RFC may come in the future to sort this all out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
ahh what you say stirs memory cells for even discussions in wikivoyage over similar issues of UK or GB or En - my problem with templates having no facility for 'stops and starts' between diff subjects/rules/eras things is something I suppose I should start sometime as well in the rfc territory, sigh JarrahTree 07:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Well these aren't actually the template so much as parts of them. Besides, given how few items are in each category, we may end up merging them into decades for further but that's still being debated in bits and pieces. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Indian films[edit]

Hi Ricky, could I please trouble you to add List of highest-grossing Indian films to your watchlist for a little bit? I'm seeing a flare-up of activity where a bunch of users keep changing the box office data of Kabali to 320 crore, when each of the references attribute this value to the producer's claim (i.e. they're using primary sources for controversial data.) The article is semi-protected, so many of these users are autoconfirmed, but some are suspiciously active after long periods of inactivity like this guy and this guy. I can't provide round-the-clock scrutiny, so any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. I've also asked SpacemanSpiff for a helping hand. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb It's already there. Should we just increase protection? The level of poorly sourced information may justify it especially given how many semi protection requests there already are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I've thought of increasing protection, but it seemed a bit premature and I worry that it's just going to turn the talk page into a garbage dump for these problematic requests. Another option might be to change the page edit notice to be clear about what sort of content is appropriate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I raised protection. We can consider the notice but I highly doubt any of those people care. It's the same routine whenever a current film is moving around the ranks. There's just a crowd who consider Wikipedia a live action box office. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts about whether Kabali (film) should be fully protected? I'm still seeing autoconfirmed users rising from inactivity to inflate the gross, like this guy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, User:Pearll's sun added it anyways since it wasn't protected in contrast to the highest grossers. I say take it to WP:RSN and see if anyone there will take this seriously (I doubt it). I mean we're literally talking about twice as much gross reported between two different source or about $45 million discrepancy. This is why I stopped bothering with any Indian related task force or articles for the most part. People don't care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I'll try that and should it fail, well, I dunno. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, one semi-related thing. Not sure if you were aware of this, but someone created an article List of highest-grossing Tamil movies a few weeks ago. Obviously we also have List of highest-grossing Tamil films which the guy has also edited. I'm assuming it was an honest mistake of course. I've merged one of the tables from the duplicate article and then redirected the rest. Thought I'd mention it since you nommed the other article for merge to general highest-grossing Indian films article. Enjoy! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb No surprise to me. See all the incoming links to the Indian one. There's almost guaranteed to be at least two or three versions created by a bunch of "new" users for each language one to make some point there that's silly. There's a reason the merge discussion sat from December 2013 until June 2015 when I closed it. It was a rough, violent force to get it going and many people still dispute it for their purposes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, full protection has expired on List of highest-grossing Indian films. I've restored the semi just to keep the IPs and fly-by-nights out of business, but I'd appreciate if you could please keep an eye out for more Kabali madness, please. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

User pearll's sun appears to be using the inflated figures as incontrovertible fact at both Kabali (film)[4] and List of highest-grossing Indian films[5] despite my objections and has bowed out of conversation on the matter at these talk pages, commenting instead at RSN while citing blogs as references. What's reasonable here? Remove the box office data entirely and up the protection? I don't know. I'm not interested in edit-warring and I don't have a dog in this fight, with the exception of not wanting Wikipedia to be used for Indian film promotion. I think it's highly suspect that the only data that the Kabali fans are interested in publishing are the high figures that emanate from Financial Express, which represents the totality of Pearll's examples thus far. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: I'm hoping that the discussion at RSN will prove useful. Either removing the gross entirely from both articles, or presenting them as a range that is clearly flagged as in dispute seems to make the most sense. I'm hoping Pearll will handle it properly, as I can't do it myself right now. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Highest Grossing Indian Films[edit]

I have opened a discussion on Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films and on WT:ICTF. You are invited for help and your valuable opinion. We could make this article better by maximum using reliable sources. Thank you. Ambeinghari (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ihs-logo.svg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Ihs-logo.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirect from draft space?[edit]

Why would we leave a redirect from draftspace to mainspace when the draft is done? bd2412 T 12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't ask me. That's a common issue at MFD for some odd reason. It's helpful in terms of the MFD closing though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC) ==
User:BD2412, I argue in favour of leaving others' redirects from draftspace alone. Non-admins will produce them as a matter of course, and they do no harm. A reason, albeit small, to leave a redirect is so that others who contributed to the draft, or others who might similarly think to draft the same thing, are sent to the relevant mainspace page.
Creating redirects out of ill-conceived drafts, ill-conceived because the topic is already covered in mainspace but the author is unaware of the mainspace coverage, is a standard WP:ATD.
It may appear a trifling matter, but my interest in it comes from wanting to keep MfD from being swamped with busywork, a rationale in keeping with WP:ATD. That's why there may appear to be advocacy for DraftSpace redirects. However, if the sole author wants to delete a redirect from draftspace to mainspace, I see absolutely no reason to object. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of redirects...[edit]

There's a draft, Draft:Outline of meals, that is ready to go into article space.

But there is a redirect I created awhile back in the way.

Can you delete the redirect at Outline of meals for me? (Per speedy deletion, G7).

Thank you. The Transhumanist 04:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Transhumanist All done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Cheers. The Transhumanist 04:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

bad edit[edit]

here, but I fixed it. I fixed about a dozen of these yesterday as well. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

OH, didn't realize it broke those. I'll double check the edits myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

How to see redirects[edit]

I noticed from what you mentioned on the bot page that you can't see the difference between article links and redirects (they both appear blue to you).

I thought you might like this trick:

I've been using it for years. The Transhumanist 22:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Declined AfC submission[edit]

Hello, Ricky81682. I recently declined the submission of Draft:Njeri Rionge at Articles for Creation. I see from the article's history that your only involvement was to submit an old draft written by someone else. Still, I thought you might be interested in learning its fate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Ricky81682. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting your reply to additional correspondence. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding WP:BIOG template using AWB[edit]

I'm wondering, if there's a possibility at all that you could fill in the living parameter when you add {{Wikiproject Biography}} (like you did here. I get it if the answer's is "Not currently.", because I'm an AWB user myself. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 12:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Ricky81682. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Ricky81682. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Help Needed[edit]

Hi There,

I have been following your recent edits on Israel Corporation. You seem like you truly know your way around Wiki. I would like to ask you help improve Zeek Wikipedia article. Any input from you would be greatly appreciated. Looking forward to hearing from you. Ymd2004 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]

I'm sorry that I removed the sysop bit from this account earlier today, further to the Arbcom post at WP:BN. Also sorry that I forgot to notify you that this was done. Even more sorry to see you go. Without commenting on the Arbcom decision, I'd like to thank you for the good parts of your contribution, which were many. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Damn, Ricky. I've been contemplating a great deal lately about the futility of this project, particularly in the free-for-all world of Indian cinema, and it was at least comforting to know that there were a few admins here or there who were aware of the problems and could help out in this very distasteful editing area. This situation is a huge bummer and it will have negative repercussions. You did a lot of strong work and It's unfortunate to see you leave. Best of luck to you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:200 Central Park South[edit]

Hello, Ricky81682. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "200 Central Park South".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ricky81682. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ricky81682. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:1948 in British India has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:1948 in British India, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Stone Age sites in France has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Stone Age sites in France, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. All the best Wikirictor 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1155 establishments in India[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1155 establishments in India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2005 has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2005, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:1640s in Dutch Brazil has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:1640s in Dutch Brazil, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:CC-BY-SA listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:CC-BY-SA. Since you had some involvement with the Template:CC-BY-SA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification[edit]

Information.svg

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:7th-century disestablishments in the Roman Empire has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:7th-century disestablishments in the Roman Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft talk:This Man, This Woman[edit]

Hello, Ricky81682. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "This Man".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:210s disestablishments by continent has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:210s disestablishments by continent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed[edit]

Hello Tippopotamus! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MusikBot II talk 20:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1950s disestablishments in British India[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1950s disestablishments in British India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:History of the Adal Sultanate has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:History of the Adal Sultanate, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:4th-century disestablishments in Mexico[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:4th-century disestablishments in Mexico requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Likewise, Category:8th-century disestablishments in Mexico and Category:10th-century disestablishments in Mexico. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I have also proposed renaming of Category:4th-century establishments in Central America and merging of Category:3rd-century establishments in Guatemala, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 23. – Fayenatic London 22:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Another empty one is Category:7th-century BC establishments in Mexico. – Fayenatic London 15:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Languages attested from the 4th millennium BC[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Languages attested from the 4th millennium BC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpbT go beyond 15:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)