This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Ritchie333

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Keeping an eye on stuff. Meanwhile, here is some music.
It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.
A word from the special one:

I roll my eyes
At all the socking (wooah-oah)
They all need blocking (wooah-oah)
Page protection too

When they return (when they return)
They are so fickle (wooah-oah)
Had to install Twinkle (wooah-oah)
Any 'dmin will do

(from José and his Amazing Technicolor Comic-Sans signature)

IP editing experiment[edit]

Yngvadottir, Drmies, you'll be interested in this. Today, I popped into my local library to get some books, and picked up one that was "reference only" that I couldn't take away. I didn't have my laptop, so I was reduced to using a public computer. Now I'm not crazy enough to log in as an admin on a computer any old person can wander in off the street and use. I thought about creating a public account, as many admins do, but then I had an idea. Why don't I just try making the article edits I would normally make, but as an IP without edit summaries, and let's see what happens? It's allowed (AFAIK through numerous discussions) and it allows me to do work without leaving a paper trail of my admin login where prying eyes can see it?

Well, the evidence is in, and it's here. @NgYShung: I would now like an explanation of why you removed a good faith edit that was cited to an expert source on the South Eastern Railway to Folkestone Harbour railway station? Would you have reverted it if I had made the edit logged in as Ritchie333 (which would have been absolutely identical except for an edit summary of "add background to SER purchase")? I await your answers with interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"Shocked and alarmed", Threesie. Please don't get yourself blocked, with all this permissiveness. Murielevans123 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Can't say I'm too surprised. The software also tags IP edits much more readily than logged-in editors' (look at the recent changes feed). I must admit I don't understand why a whole bunch of regular editors decline to register accounts. But you should have disabled the autocorrect. I hate hate hate that anyway. (By the way, in fairness I should mention that when I submitted 3 articles via AfC from a public library computer I was treated very nicely each time.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Well, I think I'm the chosen one, hahaha (is this some kind of tribute?). First, I'm a bit new on wikimarkup, and I've never seen something more complex than this. I usually stick with WP:ASL and Template:reflist. Secondly, still on the wikimarkup side, I thought the reference was redundant (I've never seen WP:SFN), because it seems cited wrongly, and I've never thought it linked together. Third, per second, I only know Template:cite book. Last, I was using User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool and I can only see the source code changes instead of the page view so I don't know that this is a valid way of referencing.
I'm just gonna say I know and read WP:IPHUMAN before. But first, I was using Lupin's Anti-vandal tool and was patrolling the Recent IP edits tab and Filter recent changes tab, so I think if you logged in the main account, it will not work, actually... But if you logged in and I saw that (maybe I'm using WP:RTRC), I think I'll maybe visit it and see if there was any error per above reason. In conclusion, I don't know WP:SFN and never used or seen something different than WP:ASL. Well, as a tester, hope your hypothesis is correct! Thanks for conducting the experiment on me! Face-grin.svg (Don't be disappointed, maybe conduct another one next time on another user?) Cheers! NgYShung huh? 15:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @NgYShung: Given your 'explanation', would you please explain why believing the reference was redundant and the markup complex to you justified the wholesale reversal of an edit which added sourced information, and doing so without an edit summary? This is a very serious error and your reply doesn't suggest to me you understand its gravity. BethNaught (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
{{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} are pretty much shibboleths in Wikipedia. If you normally use one, it probably means you are providing sources on hard-to find paper books that aren't online. That means you're a serious researcher who wants to write content; trudging to a library or forking out hard earned cash means you are prepared to sacrifice more of your life on Wikipedia to write things than most sane people. I don't think I have ever seen an IP use either template (though I dare say that 99 chap has used one) so putting one in as an IP was an interesting test. Anyway, lesson here for today is NgYShung is this : Anti vandal tools complement encyclopedia writing, they do not replace it. You should never judge whether to revert on whether the edit was by an IP or by a logged-in editor - it is irrelevant. (Can I call this "wiki-racism" or would that upset people?) If you're not up to speed with how to write an article, you are going to run into trouble. FWIW, I decided to write about Folkestone Harbour station because I did a gig on the seafront there last week[1] and was reminiscing about the time I boarded a ferry for France there on a school trip many moons ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
{{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} are pretty much shibboleths in Wikipedia. If you normally use one, it probably means you are providing sources on hard-to find paper books that aren't online. That means you're a serious researcher who wants to write content; trudging to a library or forking out hard earned cash means you are prepared to sacrifice more of your life on Wikipedia to write things than most sane people. Huh. I've recently started using {{sfn}} (on Qal'eh Hasan Ali) because my first articles included no pagenumber citations at all and the method I used on Laguna del Maule (volcano) and others (i.e list-defined references split by page numbers) requires a lot of hopping between sections to verify. I didn't know the people attach that sort of interpretation to it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No surprise here. I don't understand the editor's explanation for the revert. Anytime you see someone adding what appears to be referenced content you should think very carefully about what's happening. I've done quite a bit of IP editing, and my experiences are mixed. I found admins to be helpful, I found regular editors to be myopic, and that includes a couple of editors whom I know, and who know me. Esp. in spam removal (you know--BLP and company puffery, long lists of accomplishments, directory-style info for organizations) they are sometimes very quick to revert, and what bothers me more is that a. they use semi-automatic machinery for it, templated warnings and all, and b. rarely explain why they revert--probably because they couldn't explain it. I've had some positive experiences like Yngvadottir had with article creation, but I bet that in half or more of those cases the helpful editor/admin suspected they were dealing with a registered editor.

    NgYShung, sorry, but if you make the revert you should be able to explain it and take ownership of it, and if you somehow can't explain it, you should probably apologize and change the way in which you patrol Recent changes. There are many established editors who operate in this way, and it is turning off new editors. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Face-smile.svg to (talk); WP:TROUT to NgYShung (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure established editors would stoop to create sock accounts with ridiculous names rather than edit as IP's, for fear of getting blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the revert I did, still I'm still a bit new and can make some mistakes. And yeah, I should've checked the edit before reverting. I'll be more careful next time. (Feel free to WP:TROUT me, haha) And again, sorry. NgYShung huh? 08:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Folkestone Trawler Race 2016: Everything you need to know about this weekend". Kent Live. 3 August 2016. Retrieved 20 August 2016. 

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [1] follows [2]. Also [3] today. FYI. Muffled Pocketed 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Tamar Bridge[edit]

Ritchie333, Gatoclass changed the hook, according to the edit summary, because the marchers removed the fake breasts prior to crossing the bridge according to the source. (And made a similar change to the article.) You've just reverted to a hook that says that they marched across the bridge with the breasts on. Please recheck the source and adjust the hook if necessary so it's accurate (I haven't had time to do so myself.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just addressed this at WT:DYK and explained the rationale. You have correctly described what is in the source, but in my opinion this does not make the hook factually incorrect as I read it. If this is a serious problem, it should be logged at WP:ERRORS and pulled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree, Ritchie. The blurb said "carried fake breasts pending a walk over the Tamar Bridge", which exactly matches the picture in the Torquay Herald Express: [4]. The hook says "pending" (both hooks said pending) and there they are, as the caption says: "Fundraisers with their giant breast costumes before they crossed the Tamar Bridge in Devon." I think use of the phrase "removed their boobs" might seem offensive to some readers in the context of breast cancer. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess the hook should have been "... that a group of people removed their huge fake single breast costumes and carried them for a photo shoot, before walking over the Tamar Bridge to highlight breast cancer?" Pretty punchy, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC) fact, thinking about it, maybe better to have by-passed that joke-GA-stuffed-with-factoids altogether and just pasted in a link to that picture in the Herald Express?
The hook should have been "... that the Tamar Bridge was opened on 26 April by the Queen Mother, and on 26 April by Princess Anne?" as I originally suggested. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
No way. Far too boring. I know... instead let's play bingo and hope you get the 5th slot?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
New improved sensitivity!!
New from Wiki-Ronco... AS SEEN ON TV… the new improved:
Wiki Insult-o-Meter © !!!

Keep track of those pesky insults flooding in from other (more intelligent and industrious) editors!

Hours of fun!!! Available NOW for next day delivery.

***One deposit of $99.95, followed by 186 monthly payments of $49.95. Normal credit checks apply. (No sockpuppets)***



I've started a discussion at WP:AN#Involved action by admin Ritchie333 on Main Page. Fram (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yawn yawn.. Missing your work on West Country. Currently Gloucestershire, Cwmhiraeth expanded an important junction earlier.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It's the August Bank holiday which means it's gig overload. Just having a 20 minute breather between two of them now, then working until 1am, repeat tomorrow and a bit on Monday. Sorry, West Country Challenge will have to wait. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Whaddaya mean "20 minutes"? Decent editors can fit in a third of a GA review in that time. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I see Fram has not made a mainspace edit in 10 days yet we still have nearly 3,000 completely unreferenced BLPs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Ouch. But you missed all the fun. I bet you feel a right titty. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

See you at Arbcom? I'd hate for you to miss out on all the fun. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see one arb has taken up my suggestion of tossing that case out as a waste of time, so there's hope yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
There's no hope, Pandora had it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I thought people who were mentioned at ArbCom had to be formally notified in some way? Or can one just casually slag an editor off, with a passing "editors like so-and-so are deliberately ruining the project", for good measure? Perhaps it's expected. The keys to the kingdom even. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC) p.s. and talking of editors who are strangely silent in mainspace, I see the project doesn't yet have an article on this fun-filled classic.

Let's see: Martinevans123 has created 84 articles since 2007, 5 of those in 2016 (and one deleted as a copyvio in 2014). Ritchie333 has created 93 articles since 2005, including 15 in 2016 and 2 deleted ones (though those weren't that problematic). I have created 1471 articles (14 in 2016), 3 of which have been deleted since (a test page, an incorrect redirect, and an article on a nonnotable subject from my early days here). Many of those 1471 are run-of-the-mill creations without a lot of value, but even discounting those I have added more articles to Wikipedia than either of you (or both of you combined). But yes, not making a mainspace edit in 10 days (and worse, not editing at all for 7 of those 10 days!) is of course a hideous crime. No idea why you bring up the 3000 unreferended BLPs, before I started highlighting these there were more than 50,000 of those, so blaming me for the remaining 3,000 seems bizarre (or do you think that we shouldn't care about unreferenced BLPs especially and my efforts to get rid of them were somehow detrimental to Wikipedia?). And no, mentioning someone at Arbcom doesn't mean that you should drop a note on their talk page (I was mentioned as well and didn't receive such a note, just like many others probably). I did ping Ritchie333, and he was already present in the discussion so one could assume that he would read the page in any case.

Oh, and Martinevans123, speaking of copyright violations, it looks as if many of the youtube links on your user and talk page are probable copyright violations. Please remove them asap per WP:LINKVIO and WP:UPNOT. Fram (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to just all chill out a bit. The hook for Tamar Bridge was definitely rubbish in retrospect, and I wish I'd never put it up (it wasn't even my first choice) as I only put it in after searches for some of the other unsourced paragraphs in the article (particularly the potentially BLP violating suicide spot claims) to see if I could rescue any of that. It seems to have caused a huge load of dramah while I was busy gigging and earning money over the weekend. Next goal for me is to get all of Regent Street sourced. Everyone back to mainspace, now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kris Kross Amsterdam[edit]

User:XPanettaa has asked for a deletion review of Kris Kross Amsterdam. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 20:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you contacted Sarahj2107 who closed the AfD in March? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi Ritchie333, recently you removed NgYShung from the AfC participants' list. They have readded themselves to the list. Would you mind having a quick look at some point to see whether your concerns have been addressed? Thanks, /wiae /tlk 10:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wiae: Apologies for the late reply, but I see that NgYShung is still getting complaints about NPP tagging. I'll have to have a stiff word. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

"I put all my genius into my life, I only let Wikipedians deal with the articles...."

Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Feel free to add all your London roads and others to the main list and update it whenever you've edited a British article. Thanks.

I'll update that main list once the West Country challenge is complete though so don't worry about adding your entries for the contest to it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In terms of User:Ritchie333/Monopoly, the outstanding articles needing improvement are (in increasing order of difficulty) Regent Street, Liverpool Street railway station, Marylebone railway station, Mayfair and London King's Cross railway station. All need books, only the first am I confident I have all the offline sources to hand right now. I think Rod is going to wipe the floor with everyone regarding Somerset articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi there, I had challenged the request for speedy deletion but it went ahead immediately without comment. Shouldn't there usually be a short discussion before this happens? If you don't agree, can I have the page text to work on an improved draft please? Deku-shrub (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Deku-shrub: The problem is that there are thousands of internet forums, most of which haven't lasted 20+ years, which is the sort of timeframe we want encyclopedia articles to cover. Some of the concepts mentioned in the sources supplied though, such as the charmingly-titled eWhoring (why can't we have "cup of tea" cams where you can sit down with someone over a nice cuppa?) might be worth spinning into an article, and BlackHatWorld could be mentioned there as a mouthpiece for the topic. Or I can restore the article to draft space where it can be worked on without any threat of deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a major forum which dominates its space, it's a commercial market, news and community site, not just another forum. In the world of Black Hat SEO is it the authority. Please can you put it back into the draft space and let me know some feedback about where improvement is needed. Deku-shrub (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
If it was a major forum I would expect to see at least one hit on BBC News, but there doesn't appear to be anything. Anyway, I've restored the article to draft at Draft:BlackHatWorld. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rye (R&CT) railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Rother (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Highworth Branch Line[edit]

This train's awfully late.... what's taking so long?
Help yourself to the refreshments while you wait...(*kindly sponsored by Richard Branson)

Nice one! I looked at that a couple of hours ago (as a Wiltshire stub in the West Country Challenge), found a couple of online references, and thought I'd give it a go after shopping and lunch. Refreshed later and it was done - good one.

It got me thinking - if I look at a few more articles, do you think you could update them? Would save me a lot of work. Face-smile.svg Robevans123 (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles like this are fairly straightforward to beef up once you've found the right sources. I'll happily update anything if I've got a spare minute and have read sufficient sources on the topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) There's an interesting article about its opening here if you have British Newspaper Archive access. Joseph2302 17:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm3.svg Facepalm There's only one way to top that, and it's "Infoboxes III - this time it's personal .... ON ICE!" (coming soon to the Bournemouth Winter Gardens) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
"(Arbcom and) Beadle's About, Beadle's About!"
Marcel Wave, anyone? [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel I'm just "Stuck in the Middle with You": [6] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Need advice on a music article[edit]

Hi, Ritchie! Can I ask you to take a look at a music article draft for me? It's about the Canadian singer Kai. I deleted an article about her in June, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai (Canadian singer). The consensus was TOOSOON. I then userfied it here: User:Magusmusic/Kai (Canadian singer). That user, Magusmusic, never did anything with it. But a second user, Esmost, has been improving it and is asking if it can be returned to mainspace. We have been discussing that request here and here. I think the improved draft is significantly different enough that it couldn't be G4ed, but I don't know if it could survive a second AfD - or if it's still TOOSOON. Can you take a look and advise? Thanks a bunch! --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: As Kai has been verified to be on a No. 1 chart hit, I have moved the article back into mainspace. Hopefully it should be okay, as it does seem to pass WP:NMUSIC now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Do you think we should delete the cross-space redirect from the draft? --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
You can if you want. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Abdul Rehman Shaikh[edit]

Hi, the article which I had previously talked to you about has been created again, under a slightly different title and by a different account from last time. Notably, it was first created as a redirect and subsequently expanded. As noticed in the past, the article uses questionable (not to say 'fake') references to support claims that are not credible to a reader who has a minimum knowledge of the subject: apart from three dubious (self-submitted?) refs, the others either don't mention him at all or they are not verifiable (404 error or no URL provided). For example, if this rider really exists, he has never competed in the FIM Superstock 1000 Cup, as stated through a piped link in the lead sentence, nor in Grand Prix motorcycle racing, as implied by the infobox, and the rest of the biography is quite vague; for sure I can add more details if you need. I am quite puzzled by the effort behind this article (opening a domain, submitting press releases to some sites, ...) and concerned that a reader (or a page patroller) who is not familiar with motorcycle racing is led to genuinely believe to these statements as they look to be well referenced at first sight. Best regards, –Gpmat (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gpmat: The curious thing is the citation to - we do not have an article on New York Journal (that's a redirect to a defunct newspaper) so while it appears to verify things in the article I am rather sceptical about it being a suitable source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel grateful to you, Ritchie, for your clarity . . .[edit]

I feel grateful to you, too, Ritchie, for moving my own editorial focus to its proper place:
from that of the Writer,
to that of the Reader,
as I most surely had not done myself, I must confess.
Wordsmith (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club DYK[edit]

While I understand your reasoning for pulling Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club, let me be clear that the one that ran was NOT the one I proposed. I had already stopped an alteration in the prep but once it got to the queue, someone altered it again and there was nothing I could do about it. The issue here is that other editors imposed their personal preferences in there over the original I had proposed, that kept the hook within the context of the quote. Can I please ask if the hook can be restored with the original hook that was approved on the nomination page? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the original nomination, but in my view the hook still does not really represent what the source says. I take "Who do you think makes the tea" as a flippant remark that is not intended to be taken as a serious fact. It's like me saying "of course fathers can go into the delivery room, what's the chair in the corner going to be used for?" Having been dragged through the hedge backwards on ANI recently over things like this, I can say from personal experience is to forget about it and work on your next DYK. It isn't personal and never will be. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course it was a flippant remark but the original correctly portrayed it as just a claim from that official not necessarily because it was a Kent policy. My main concern is that others railroaded their opinions onto this in a position where I, as a non-admin, cannot touch. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A substantial meal? In leafy Tunbridge Wells, maybe. I've been to a few clubs where you'd be lucky to get a mug of squash and a Kitkat. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed alternatives that Only in death stated to have no objections to. ....that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because of a Kent official claiming women made teas in there? Or ...that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because a Kent official denying a ban on women asked; "who do you think makes the teas"? I'd like to ask if you can reinsert the article based upon these proposed alternatives please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The second one is least accurate with respect to the source as far as I can tell. I can't remember the procedure for hooks that have already hit the main page and then pulled though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is one. I think you can restore it if there is a free space. If I'm wrong, then I'll take the rap. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man:'s pulled a few[citation needed], he'll know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
My take on it is that if a sufficiently consensual agreement is reached at ERRORS, then the hook could be reinserted, as we don't replace pulled hooks (for various reasons). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Do you have any opinions on the proposed hooks above? Would 3 supports be sufficient for reinstation? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I happened across this and have that page on my watchlist because it's related to KCCC. Both hooks suggested seem a little too convoluted to me - why not just go with ...suffragettes burned down the Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club pavilion in 1913? That, at least, we know to be accurate - there appears to be an awful lot of speculation about the purpose behind the attack and any rationale for the target. The article we have on the Nevill Ground suggests that it was "due to Kent having a policy of no-admittance to women", whereas sources linked in that article suggest it might have been as a protest about Pankhurst's imprisonment without any specific rationale for the choice of target.
To be totally honest I have some doubt about the DYK anyway - to me the hook belongs to the much older article about the ground - and the article about the club, it strikes me, is actually repeating an awful lot of what we have on the Nevill Ground page rather than saying very much new. But, y'know... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It's in the book source where it says it was because of a no-admittance policy (which led to that famous quote). The protest against imprisonment is implied because of the photo left behind. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned at WP:ERRORS, the County Cricket source mentions some other interesting points, which are probobaly all much more easily verifed: e.g. "during the turn of the last century, the county boundary between Kent and East Sussex ran through the pitch.... The pavilion was designed by architect CH Strange, and was built at a cost of £1,200.... . EW Swanton described it as "no mean contender for the most delectable English cricket ground""? If that source is reliable, maybe they could be added to the article? Of course, one hopes that the ladies didn't just make tea, but also baked a few jolly scrumptious cakes. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think you're getting the Nevill Ground mixed up with TWCC. I'm sure the ladies made more than tea, I'd wager in keeping with cricket tradition, that the women would have had a few sandwiches on the table for the players. :) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The county boundary is a good hook - although, as I suggest above, it's really a hook about the ground rather than the club. The two articles need rationalising at some point - and a main template using on the club one I'd say. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
As I've just said elsewhere, it actually looks like the book on the 1913 Kent season rejects the claim as "an amusing flight of fancy", mainly because ladies do appear to have been admitted to the Pavilion - certainly at the St Lawrence. The same source - which quotes from Kent Minute Books from 1913 for example - suggests that police investigations found no proof of suffragette involvement and that there was something of a witch hunt in the local community based on newspaper headlines - and so the "fact" passed into history. Certainly the KCCC minute books from '13 tell us that there was a definite policy of admittance though - which would suggest some doubt about the quote in my mind. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed there may have not been a ban, but there probably must have been implications of one which is why the Kent official was probably asked about it (or maybe TWCC had one and KCCC didn't and as KCCC were using it, let them in?) and indeed he did deny it but then went on to make that epic comment. Personally I'd have thought that photo and literature was sufficient evidence for suffragette involvement. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox on A836 road[edit]


I noticed that you'd removed the infbox on A836 road. Your edit summary suggests that the info in it was just wrong? I'm assuming that an accurate version of it would be fine? Or do you have a wider problem with an infobox on the article?

It's not an article that I've edited but I happen to have had it on my watchlist because it runs through some places I have edited. I was feeling rather annoyed by the crappy list of places on it but time is not on my side re:major editing just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes can be controversial, but my general heuristic is to only add one when the article is sufficiently large enough that a summary is useful. Otherwise it dwarfs the article, making it harder to read, especially on a tablet. When an article is sufficiently developed (eg: Regent Street), an infobox can be appropriate then. In this specific case, there was no source saying the A836 is a primary route (it's a goat track through the middle of nowhere without any mobile signal!) or that it is 129 miles (as opposed to 128.5 or 129.7, for example), and also that it goes from south to north, which isn't really correct as large portions of it go east - west. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
What?! Goats are people too, you know!! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Let the bleat control your body. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
See you at Starbucks, (the noo) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Piping hot....
Yes, please, - just drop parameters that a wrong. - Listen! (top of my talk, we are on YouTube.) - Ritchie, every revert is a cause of unrest, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing quite like hearing the incredible dynamics of an organ in full flight, such as the one in Canterbury or Lincoln Cathedrals. Anyway, the '836 has got plenty of scenery, but it takes about three hours to do the whole trip and if you want a loo break you'd better be comfortable with peeing on a rock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You can't beat a good bit of rock, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I was just wondering to myself if it was possible to drive from one end of the A82 to the other in less time than it takes to play the Grateful Dead's May 26 1972 date at the London Lyceum in full. Maybe I'll give it a go one day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
On a segway perhaps? Depends on your vehicle. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Never try and teach Pigpen how to play the harmonica. It wastes your time and annoys the Pig. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Some helpful advice on how to avoid a CBAN: [7]. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Damn you and your easter egg links, Martin! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Free download!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Just take care with all that railway humour, Threesie, or that Averagely-sized-Rambling-controller will be after you!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

nice close[edit]

here; i love it when folks like NA1K are acknowledged. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Regent Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charing Cross station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I thought convention was that a tube station is included in the article for the mainline station's article if it exists (eg: Liverpool Street station, London Waterloo station) or did I miss the memo? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
No; I did a list for somebody a few months back, showing that some have shared articles; some are separate. I did work out the reasoning, but I can't find that thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 32#Nottingham station but it's not the thread that I was thinking of. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

White space on Regent Street[edit]

Hi Ritchie, I've moved the panorama of Oxford Circus so it's beneath the text. The {{-}} you added creates a lot of white space on larger screens. Is this fine? Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that looks okay to me. Unless I'm mistaken, everything in the article is verifiable to an inline citation, which is good, Next, I need to check I've captured everything in the Survey of London and Old and New London (I'm pretty sure I've mined everything relevant in the London Encyclopedia), and add any remaining factoids, throw in any more images that would spice the page up a bit, copyedit the entire shebang from top to bottom (or ask Sagaciousphil nicely), and it will be good for a GA nomination. If you're still bored, pick another article off User:Ritchie333/Monopoly to improve. Liverpool Street station is on my radar next, the underground bit needs a book source in my local library and the GER history could do with a check. The other two stations need some improvement too. Once that's all done, then it'll be Mayfair and that's it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)... If I get a bit of time over the next few days, I'll take a look at this. CassiantoTalk 11:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you be able to double check Ref31 (Hibbert & Weinreb 2010, p. 236) for whether the store was called "Dickins and Smith" or "Dickins & Smith" (see first sentence of Retail)? Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: According to my hard copy here, it's "and". I've got to nip out now to do sociable things with children, so finish off the copyediting and I'll quickly look over it today or tomorrow, then we'll be good to go for GAN. The citation, by the way is technically wrong, as both Ben Weinreb and Christopher Hibbert were deceased by 2010, so it should be Weireb, Hibbert, Keay, Keay 2010. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Fixed the ref. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Lambeth Pier[edit]

Hi can you, Anarchyte or SchroCat flesh this out a bit? Surprised it was missing. Schro I'll review your FAC tomorrow ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: It's up to about 2K of prose now and destubbed. Unfortunately I can find sources linking it to the Whitechapel Murders and the Marchioness disaster, although both are incidental to the main events in both those articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks for that. Surprising omission, the sort of article you'd have thought would have been started in around 2004!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
As a follow-up, we could do with a proper article for horse ferry, the current one redirects to team boat which is about 19th-century US ferries, while what we have here is failure to communicate something going back centuries earlier. Normally I'd ping Montanabw for anything horse-related, but I don't think this is the same thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Horse fairies? Whatever next! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Driveby comment—the structure currently called "Lambeth Pier" has no connection with the historic Lambeth Pier (the one with the horse ferries) other than the name. The site of that was at the end of Lambeth Road, and completely obliterated in the 1860s during the construction of Lambeth Bridge; when you see older sources talking about landing goods or passengers at Lambeth, unless they specifically mention the horse-ferry they're likely talking about the more extensive complex of piers and wharves at Vauxhall. On a more general note, there are probably over a thousand piers, jetties and wharves still operational in the Port of London and we don't even have articles on all of the 35 or so which are currently in passenger service; it's not particularly surprising that we don't yet have articles on the minor piers like this. Bear in mind that to all practical purposes WP:THAMES was just User:Nancy and myself, so what's covered in detail (with the exception of the rowing articles) tends to correlate quite closely with what the two of us got around to writing. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This image gives an idea of its general position in relation to the bridge. And quite an interesting image entitled "The landing Stage at Lambeth Palace, Wencelaus Hollar 1607-1677" at this site Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not particularly unusual for businesses or properties to move around a bit, Hamley's has jumped around Regent Street a few times, and the Marquee Club wasn't always on Wardour Street. Provided the article emphasises the pier moved as a result of more bridges and the Albert Embankment construction, I think the typical reader will get what's going on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

West Country Challenge[edit]

Congratulations on your winning in The West Country Challenge, please email me at to arrange where to send your prize. Cheers, Karla Marte(WMUK) 10:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A4 road (England), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great West Road (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the closure of community ban discussions[edit]

It is been widely held by consensus for some time now, and stated in policy that sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. Please avoid closing them too early in the future, it seemed as though the discussion had more life left in it[8].

Not much to be done now, just a friendly note reminding you of how banning discussions are handled. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 22:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's widely held by the gestalt entity known as Ritchie333 that if you consider cases on their individual merits, rather than getting wound up in red tape, then you end up with a better encyclopedia. In this case, as I talked about content rather than sound like the leader of the Salem Witch Trials, the editor concerned was as nice as pie. Now, Engleham won't be improving Angus Montagu, 12th Duke of Manchester (who seems to be a strong contender for the Upper Class Twit of the Year award) so I guess muggins here will have to do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.


For reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination)

I'm sorry but could you please explain me how this has been random? You didn't even mention that in your explanation but only said that others linked nothing but google searches. I have analysed the sources in detail and you didn't even care about refering to that senseless effort. I'm asking myself why I've wasted my time if you don't care about my content based points. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This analysation was also referring to SteveQuin's false claim that the sources he himself was looking up would be useless because the sources would not be about the person but only little mentions of her. I was a bit late (as it has been a big effort I originally did not want to do) but I was refuting his argument by stating enough articles that indeed were dealing with her rise and her career. That also gave other users' arguments more weight again so that their arguments shouldn't have been discharged but considered for the decision. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Btw: I'm really happy that in de:wikipedia admin-kept articles stay kept and cannot be discussed a hundred times.

The community decided this person did not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. Also, I have heard complaints from people who do not want minor "adult" photo sessions from 20 years ago springing up in a prominent place - while Wikipedia is not censored, it's not a good idea to be mysoginistic either. On your own talk page I see you saying variants of "I can't believe we have an article on 'x'" so your complaint does strike me little of the pot calling the kettle black if I'm honest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, that was about the fact that your Wikipedia has an article about every individual Arsenal Football Club season in history, very strange (and probably not meeting GNG in 1887). However, I will NEVER make an AfD about such an article, and I don't think I have ever mentioned that someone wants to censore anything, or did I? You came up with that point of people you've heard complaints from, which has rather nothing to do with this here.
What users nominating porn articles always refer to is the GNG. I was refering to the GNG, as well, not to Pornbio, which is what you must have meant with "community decided" (although her respected porn parodies could be called a single contribution to a porn genre but that wasn't my aim). It was a big effort and cost me hours to translate and choose the right sources, put them in an accurate order and formulate those paragraphs. Yet, you didn't even say anything about it in your explanation. Why did I even do that?
This discussion has btw never been about balance between "censored" and "mysogenic". Actually, while at first your wording with "conservative" did not disturb me at all, you now slowly make me think that you didn't even really care about the discussion but about your own opinion (formed by "complaints from people who do not want minor "adult" photo sessions from 20 years ago springing up in a prominent place", whoever these irrelevant people might be.), or you just didn't understand the issue of the discussion (it was not about Pornbio). Arguments like "Some people do not want minor singers, who not even were a one hit wonder, from 20 years ago in a prominent place" are invalid, I would say. Also, note that my reasoning was not at all about a photo session but about the fact that magazines gave background information on the person and her career, which was exactly what the Delete-people were demanding in order to meet GNG. Shall I open a Deletion review now? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Just dropping by to thank you for your close. I took a whack at closing this about a day before you did, and came to the conclusion that delete was the only possible close. Then I decided I just didn't have the energy for the inevitable arguments and DRV. It's good to have the independent confirmation that I was on the right track. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that I was pretty late because I just didn't want to have so much work, but there has been no serious research from anyone before my last contribution (which actually came, after you looked at it). I would have awaited the admin to evaluate my extensive researches but he/she didn't mention them with one word. So I'm disappointed about that. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The best thing you can do during an AfD is to improve the article greatly, so nobody else will consider !voting delete - as far as I can tell you only reformatted a few sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly's of Cornwall of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff West services for an example of how editors pitch in to do this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I know that improving an article is the best thing and I am nerved that nobody tried to do this, but sadly I myself (no native speaker) cannot really write proper encyclopedic articles in English but only am able to participate in discussions in a colloquial way. :) However, I did not at all work with sources from the article but was searching for articles that cover the person and her career. If I would have retaken them from the article, it wouldn't have lasted for a half night (which was btw not due to the (quite easy) research but due to translating and bringing all that many sources in a logical order). The most not even were in English but French, Spanish, Italian and Greek. Maybe there were these languages because I live in Europe, but that shouldn't be a problem. Again, it appears to me that you didn't really look at them. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I was dissapointed with the close. Our wikipedia recommendations suggest that when there may be a possible miscalculation an article should be kept. But hey, whatever, I've seen worse closes. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@SamWinchester000:, @Pwolit iets: - if you want the article restored to draft space, just say "aye" and it will be done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Two of em?[edit]

I see you aren't buying the assertion at Talk:Bond Street that the IP editor there is not the IP editor you think he is. I haven't been keeping up with developments since "best known for" was banned, and I note the LTA page is out of date, but on the surface of things, the responses at the Bond Street talk page don't look like the same person, and the last time I checked, "best known for" was editing from IPs explicitly labeled as London University. How sure are we that this is the same person? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Given this one has not dumped a bunch of personal attacks on this talk page, or filed seven declined unblock requests, I'm inclined to believe it is somebody else. However, the point stands - if you don't use any edit summaries, and jump from one IP to the other for every edit, you effectively leave no means of communication or discussion short of locking the page and forcing it with the grace and subtlety of a lump hammer. This then upsets people and derails the conversation off the content in question, none of which helps the article improve. In this particular instance (not this article but Regent Street) I specifically responded to an off-wiki complaint via email, and the editing pattern looked very BKFIPish. I referred to Category:All articles needing copy edit simply because if tinkering around with prose is your bag, that is a good place to focus your priorities. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm kind of reluctant to look at Regent Street—I believe that was the one derided at the unnameable site when it had just been scheduled at TFA, and predictable fast and furious editing ensued, with me bowing out fast. Also, neither is my kind of street :-D However, I've extended an apology to the IP editor, while trying to avoid going into several years of wiki-politics including my status as former cowgirl admin. Maybe they'll register an account. Or turn out to be Eric slumming. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
No way is that Eric. For starters, we get on, and he's astutely aware there are probably still about 20 admins who would jump at the chance to indef block him for sockpuppetry if he tried it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was half tongue in cheek :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Well done. Muffled Pocketed 13:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What a pleasure to read a diligent review...[edit]

The effort you put in into such reviews is fascinating. Thank you. Lourdes 14:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Declined? Could you check the edit filter log and note the edit from earlier today to Cinnamon Toast Crunch, moments after a nearby IP was reported for vandalizing the same page? I'm sorry if I've made a mistake, but... Joel.Miles925 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If an edit gets trapped by the log, it won't affect a page and so a block is superfluous. The contributions log has no edits after 19 September, and the last edit looks like good-faith (certainly not what I would class as vandalism myself) so in my view Widr's block is punitive, although the actual damage his block has done is probably minimal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Ritchie333. 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)

NPP & AfC[edit]

A dedicated venue where a work group is also proposed has been created for combined discussion about the future of NPP & AfC See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The war on IPs continues[edit]

User talk:

Well I've never managed to completely fail to improve an article because of a block before, but today was that day. Ho hum :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to vent here, where I've given some of my thoughts on the current war on IPs. At some point the penny drop with the WMF that there just might possibly be a link between "we have problems recruiting new editors" and "we treat new editors like shit". ‑ Iridescent 15:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it's 99% certain that, like I did originally, most folks try will to make a few edits anonymously before committing to an account. (Surely it's not beyond the wit of wiki-man to actually research this with new users?) Even though it's so easy to create an account (many would say too easy, of course, especially for socks) there is something about creating an account that remains slightly arcane and daunting for new users? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed—what all the WMFs high-paid consultants don't understand is that it's not the ease of creating accounts, it's that people don't like creating accounts unless they have to. It doesn't matter how easy they make the account-creation process; anyone with even the vaguest experience of the internet will assume that "account creation" is a time-consuming process involving entering your email account in duplicate, providing your address and phone number, creating security questions etc—why should someone who just wants to correct the "and and" in the second paragraph of the lead at Malvern Water (bottled water) think "yes, this is worth wasting fifteen minutes of my time creating an account to fix"? ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a long time ago, but I edited as an IP casually and the only reason I created an account originally was to take part in a talk page discussion. I think it's worth putting my cards on the table that I opposed this blocking admin's RfA because I was not confident he had sufficient content creation and conflict resolutions skills - I have questioned about 3 blocks of his so far as being over the top and not helpful, and frankly if he pulls this stunt again I'll have to bite my tongue to stop an ANI thread about them. I am not going to create a public sock for adding a few book sources about twice a month max. Sure, some IPs are vandals and some need a SHORT block, but I happen to know from reading the library's policy that any block on that IP for over an hour is effectively blocking a different person. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to add my experience, I too IP-edited for a few months at first, just now and then, before creating an account. No matter how much we tell people how easy it is to create an account, that will always be a slight barrier for someone just getting their feet wet. I wish it weren't so but that's the reality. If there were some way, after 20 edits, for the system to say, "Hey, it's time we set up an account fir you! What do you want to be called?" That would be great, but since some IPs are shared I don't quite see how to do that. Not impossible, though, I think. EEng 18:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)÷