User talk:Ron Ritzman/Archive 4

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

123Archive 45678910111213


Please formalize an AFD for me.

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

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

It's time again

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

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Caponigro

With respects to your very proper relisting, the article has now been approved and the nomination has been withdrawn.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

  • Thanks Ron. Thanks MQS. Good luck Jeff. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Now THAT was fast. Thank you both. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
      • That's because my pulse always races whenever I see that damn orange bar hence the parody of it on my main user page --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
        • (chickle) As long as the orange bar isn't bad news. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
        • A "chickle" is a small chuckle. More orange! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned From Argo

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

If helps Otto, I'm an administrator, and I support Ritzman's AFD close. There was no other way this could have possibly resulted in a deletion. –MuZemike 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand the nominator's frustration but it was a "low risk" article (ie not a BLP) with no "delete" !votes. If an admin closed it "delete" we would be at DRV overtuning it. I recently started a thread at the village pump about this very issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I will also note that Otto's every argument was premised on an encyclopedic ignorance of filk music and the conventions and traditions thereof. A very solid close. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rev Keith Garner's Wikipedia page

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Metallurgical education

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

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

Check engine lights

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

How is

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

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

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

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

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


Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your tireless work in closing AfDs Cyclopiatalk 02:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • evidently you can't please everyone. Your presence is requested at AN/I. At your leisure. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Instead of wasting time with arguments on whether NACs are allowed or not, why don't we just get rid of the problem by making you an admin? T. Canens (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Could be a good idea. --Cyclopiatalk 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Ditto the above. JPG-GR (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I also second the barnstar. You're doing a fine job closing the most non-contentious AFDs (at least those that are non-contentious in most editors' views). –MuZemike 19:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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


Rainbow trout.png The Wet Trout Award
I, Elektrik Shoos (talk), have the honor of presenting you the Wet Trout Award for for relisting an AFD for a second time because it's a BLP, when the subject in question has been dead for three years (and is clearly stated in the article).

elektrikSHOOS 05:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, one never knows about Ewings. Sometimes they aren't as dead as they seem. On that note: I was reading a comment of yours at Deletion Review just now, and my first thought was "Well, if even Ron Ritzman doesn't think it should be re-listed at AFD …". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ironically, I would rather be relisting a lot less and I don't like relisting twice. Until recently, I was closing non-blp AFDs as "no consensus" after 2 weeks until I got dragged to ANI for it. Even though what I was doing was supported by WP:RELIST and by several other admins, I decided to err on the side of not making unnecessary drama.
In the case of the "media panic" AFD, it wasn't a BLP or other "high risk" article so after 2 weeks "no consensus" was the right call. On the Ewing AFD, the only thing I can say is that I had a big "stupid sandwich" for lunch. (but who knows, Robert Ewing III might turn up alive in someone's shower) ‎--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, just do it already

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

I'm going to say this once...

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

I'll repeat my support, for what it's worth. Hell, you seem to have at least a half-dozen experienced editors lined up who'd happily nominate you; I'm one of 'em. That speaks to the job you're doing. The occasional complaint is going to happen. Shimeru 02:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm a full supporter as well. Ron makes reasonable decisions and is even-handed.--Milowenttalkblp-r 01:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion - Mark Prator. discussion concerning deletion?

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Country Day School

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

My apologies for that. I sometimes miss those if they are sandwiched between 2 other comments. I deserve a big...
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

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

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

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demarco Morgan

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

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

Good call

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Carfax 400 broadcasters

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

Clipping path service

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

Sir, I have added a new section “clipping path service” in the clipping path article, If any mistaking occurred in the editing, please let me know. Thanks. Md Saiful Alam (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime Lords

This one been open since August 12 without a re-listing. Could you take a look? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's transcluded onto the log for the 24th. (looks like dumbot screwed up and missed it for 12 days) Therefore, it comes up to be closed or relisted on the 31st. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ahh... the intelligence (lack) of software. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


I caught the correction you made to my AfD close on KRMS. Much appreciated, thank you! --je deckertalk 23:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Manny Machado AfD

Why did you make the Manny Machado page a redirect when it was a consensous to keep it over redirecting it to the Orioles Minor League players? -- Ice (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes the consensus was "keep" as I stated in my closing statement. (and on the talk page closure tag) The redirect was editorial decision on my part which any editor is free to revert. It was simply a concession to those with concerns that he hasn't played any major league games yet which is likely to change in the next few days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


I think it's worth a try. I realize you have some reservations about less content work, but you've been doing heavy janitorial work already for Wikipedia, and I think you'd benefit the project by having a mop and bucket. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ron Ritzman Triona (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to harass, because I know you get a lot of suggestions to throw your hat into the ring, but you'd have my strong support as well if you ever decide to run. --je deckertalk 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, since this is the second time someone has created this page, I'll give this some serious thought and if I decide to jump in front of this bus, it will be this weekend when I will have the time to answer the 100 or so questions that are likely to be thrown at me. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
And let me know if you want a co-nom :) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're in the neighborhood later...

Perhaps you might consider evaluating the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 a Minute? I'd hate the new editor IP to get himself in more unneccessary trouble by closing a discussion that he himself has particpated in. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had already evaluated that AFD and decided not to close it and comment about "removing this box" did jump up and bite me. I read it as him removing the AFD tag from the article, not closing the AFD. I did look to make sure the tag was still there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It was a good save and a decent close. Courcelles got to it some moments after I tagged your page. Thanks for checking though. The reason I was concerned was the IP was showing the same newbie angst that hits rank newcomers when their efforts are sent to AFD. Earlier, her had blanked the whole article in despair and frustration. Hopefully, he'll see that patience and civility are usually rewarded. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

is this something you do?

Evaluation of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Demarco Morgan to see... if what was once unsourced[2] is now ready for a return to mainspace? And to return the mainspace categories[3] if it comes back? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And a second one that I believe is ready for return to mainspace is Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Marine Story. It was incubated because its release was imminent. Well... it got out, is winning awards, and has received a nice mount of press. User: Action grrl did some work on it until last July and it semed to then be forgotten. So I got to it, did some neccessary cleanup, added several more cites and a couple more decent reviews. Send it back to mainspace too? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ron Ritzman

Hi Ron Ritzman. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that RfA, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 06:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Psst! Fastily! It was actually Triona (talk · contribs), not a self-nomination. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, that will give me this weekend to decide if I want to go through with this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It would be a challenge to come up with my usual questions. I'd have to find some really difficult ones for you. ☺ Hmmm. Maybe I'll pick CFD or FFD instead … Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • If I do go through with this and if by some miracle I pass, I plan on sticking to the areas where I have the most experience (at least at first). That being AFD and some speedy deletions. I also plan on working at WP:REFUND. However, I guess I should expect some questions outside my "comfort zone". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It's a pity that there are almost no outstanding SFD requests. That would really flummox you. ☺ The other part of the challenge, of course, is that I couldn't pick, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebasing and ask you what you would do. Uncle G (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
          • At this point it's a no consensus close. And you're right that I haven't boned up on our disambig guidelines. However, if somebody actually wrote those two redlinked articles suggested by the delete !voter (and assuming they were themselves more then dicdefs) then Rebasing could be turned into a good disambig page. (perhaps with a move to Rebase) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
            • It's more the case that we already know what you'd do. You've already done it. ☺ I'd have to find discussions that you haven't touched yet.

              See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) by the way. Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

              • I'm surprised you haven't asked me how I would close this one. It's tougher then it looks because it's a BLP and therefore IMHO a candidate for "admin's discretion". (if it were about a Pokemon it would be a keep) I would say that since there is a plausible redirect target then do that. It can always be restored if someone finds independent sources "about" the guy, not just his work. However, there's no doubt that an admin closing it that way will be taking his lumps at DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
                • I haven't picked any discussions yet. You have to accept the nomination before you get my question. ☺ What I pick for such questions is from whatever is open at the time. And I still haven't ruled out throwing something from RFD at you, just to keep you awake. ☺ I have seen one that is particularly à la mode, and indeed relevant to what you just wrote. Uncle G (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ron, I would like to encourage you to accept. I've seen your NAC closes and they look good to me, so baring something that pops up from the woodwork, I'll support. I thought you done waz a mop handler at one point. BTW, check out my argument on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebasing example Uncle G didn't give. — Becksguy (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Bring on the big painful bus --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, !@#$%^&* you for being nom'd already (well, !$%&* Triona and Tim Song, and no personal attacks meant to anyone :P). I was going to nom you a few minutes ago after marveling at your going through all the old AfDs already and saving me and everyone else some time relisting and such. You will be such a help at AfD if when you get the tools. fetch·comms 02:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dazzling headlights coming close

I'm not going to point you directly at it. That would defeat the object. But you've missed something, something that I hoped you would see straightaway, and it's a fairly large something that has torpedoed other people's candidacies. Please take note of what I wrote at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Uncle G (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still curious about this. Has Uncle G, or anyone else, explained it somewhere? Soap 10:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
See below, at #Things that need cutting out ☺. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your rfa

Attempted some exhaustive statistical and factor analysis of past ivoting data in rfas. Provides definitive empirical evidence at the second of this posting that beyond this moment of time, the probability of your passing the rfa is equal to (not 'close to', but 'equal to') 100%. Allow me the liberty of being the first one to statistically congratulate you on your new role. Wikipedia needs editors like you and I'm thankful that a statistically significant majority of our community has reposed our faith in you. (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but even with these stats The opera isn't over til the fat lady sings :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's going well....<and knocks on wood> Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Beat the 'crat congrats!

Face-smile.svg Airplaneman 02:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I opposed but nonetheless good job and good luck :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well done. Enjoy your mop! T. Canens (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RlevseTalk 02:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:Thumperward#First_use_of_admingrats, asked him to fix it. RlevseTalk 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. T. Canens (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Wooot! Good luck. Buggie111 (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope it's your size, I didn't save the receipt
Congrats Ron. Meet me out back for the secret handshake. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Ron. You deserve it. I know you will do all of us proud. — Becksguy (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


... and take a bow :):):):) Congratulations Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, I'm pleased that you passed. J04n(talk page) 02:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations. So I guess we won't be seeing any more non-admin closures from you any more? Reach Out to the Truth 02:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
You didn't spot Ron Ritzman's new userbox, that was created only a short while ago? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The one about performing non-non-admin closures? No, I hadn't seen that one yet. Pretty clever. Reach Out to the Truth 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done. MtD (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Ron :) Aw heck why not, I did with Wifione so...
Featured article star.svg

Ron Ritzman has been made a member of the Order of the Mop,
for their work as an admin and is entitled to display
this award for being such a great admin,

Kind regards and happy editing,
Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм Champagne?3:42pm 05:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin mop.PNG
For a userbox version go here.

Thanks to our most well-known non-admin AfD closer. Congrats on getting the tools and good luck :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм Champagne?3:42pm 05:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you made it (though I was pretty sure you'd pass towards the end). I hope to see you around. Soap 10:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you don' need no steenkin' badges, I 'spose I'll have to overcome my shyness (!) and drop by here to say congratulations! If you ever need help with XfD closes, give me a ... no. I am definitely not going to have the audacity to suggest that. I'll be looking to you for advice! TFOWR 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm definitely going to need a little help as now I'm "eligible" to to close AFDs that I previously wouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole. On the "badges" thing, I have decided that I'm not going to hide the fact that I'm an admin but I'm not going to HONK about it either. Adding myself to the trout slapping category and making sure it's the last one listed is as far as I will go. Chances are that somebody coming to my talk page to question/correct me about an edit I made is a better editor then me and I don't want him to feel intimidated or reluctant to correct me because I'm an administrator. If somebody comes here to question an admin action then he already knows. In short, I'm only going to break out the mop and bucket if there's something to clean. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a fantastic answer, and in my view entirely justifies my support. I feel spectacularly unqualified to help, but if I can do please shout. TFOWR 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Condolencesgratulations on joining the admin corps! Glad it worked out for you. -- Atama 15:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Things that need cutting out ☺

Now this imperative takes on a new, second, meaning. But are you going to be brave enough to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ (2nd nomination)? ☺

Now I can finally make this edit to the page that had Mkativerata's hands itching. Uncle G (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I just logged on ready to act on that now that the RfA had closed, but you beat me to it... Well done, Ron Ritzman. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Congrats! If you need any help or advice, feel free to ask! Enjoy the mop :) GedUK  08:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well that's one way to cut down on non-admin closures at AFD. Congrats from me too. When you've got to the stage of finding out what a faff it is to hunt for the appropriate block message each time you block someone, have a look at the scripts in my monobook - you may find some stuff there worth cribbing. ϢereSpielChequers 13:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Grats on your getting your mop! --WolfnixTalk • 18:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article star.svg This admin has been awarded the Order of the Mop Admin mop.PNG
Admin Puzzle Icon.png This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
Don't forget to uncheck "Non-admin closure" :) Juliancolton (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS, RON RITZMAN. I wish you the best of luck with your tools. I hope you don't turn out to be like the other mods. Protector of Wiki (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and just for the record I did figure that your second to last edit to the RFA was some kind of glitch and not "vandalism" (that would have been the ultimate oppose) because you were replying to the other opposers. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for assuming good faith. I am hopeful that you will be a decent mod despite my opposition. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Normally this doesn't happen to me, but I seriously thought you already were one! Congratulations anyways mate! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
They say adminship isn't a trophy. But they're wrong. Here's yours. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


...For passing your RfA! I've seen you around town, and you are truly deserved the mop. Congratulations again. Have fun deleting the Main Page and blocking Jimbo and good luck! MJ94 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And belated congratulations from me as well. Well done, and well deserved! --je deckertalk 02:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia e-mail

Hi Ron Ritzman

Did you see the Wikipedia e-mail I sent?

Bongomatic 08:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed it. I don't check my email that often because I rarely use email anymore. However, I now suspect that more editors will be sending me email then then they previously did so perhaps I now need a dedicated account for it. Reply pending. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

deleted "Dillon Callaway" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

My article did in fact indicate importance and significance. I am writing you in grievance. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and if there are administrators that delete history from the web, then wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This was probably User:Dillonmcallaway, whose only edits (besides the autobiography) were to vandalize this page and your userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on receiving your first complaint about your admin actions! When working in deletion expect one every few days. ;-) King of ♠ 01:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin action #2


Did I come at a bad time to offer my congratulations? Hmmm... would you please do me a favor Ron Ritzman? If I ever go insane enough to run for admin, please slap me with a trout. :-) —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I expected this would happen sooner or later though I've had worse that that shoveled at me in my usenet days. In any case since MQS has already responded to him, I'll remove it. I don't frame flames. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In their innocence, newbs sometimes take things far too personal. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
That's true but note this quote from the now deleted flame, A movie that i will be making very soon. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanthaan Vendraan

Nominator showed an sad lack of WP:BEFORE... but when available sources were pointed out to him he kindly withdrew. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've closed the discussion and informed Armbrust who !voted "delete". If he asks me to reopen it I will. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough... and thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


I am working on expanding my AFD explanation rationales a little bit more. :) What do you think of this one, and also this one? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that would be needed for obvious cases and I'd lose the wikilink to unanimous. It might be viewed by some as "pointy". However, since you usually restore and relist your "one !vote" deletes (ie P is for Panda) on request you might consider saying "will restore and relist on request" in your closes on these. That might be a benefit to those who like to go running to DRV without asking you first.
I've decided that I'm not going to do that unless there is a consensus for "soft delete" like was suggested at the relisting straw pole. I like to see at least 2 !voters agree with the nom for any kind of (hard) delete close unless there are BLP issues, the article is unverifiable, or is a speedy candidate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the response and helpful suggestions. :) I especially like your last part, about the two users in agreement, that might be a good idea going forward. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see [4] and [5]. Better? :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Better, but still I'm not going to close like that myself. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
How would you do it? -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What I meant was that I won't be making any "one vote" deletes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think cases like these are at the administrator's discretion. If the nominator and the delete !voter are both sounding reasonable, and if the closing administrator can verify the existence of their concerns, I think a delete close is fine. I especially like the soft delete concept (different from Wikipedia:Soft deletion), where the closing administrator is willing to restore the article if a rational restore request is made. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
When I originally proposed it, any administrator could restore it or it could be done by a request to WP:REFUND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure! I like it! :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

inre your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quahog 5

I understand fully. I had gone through this puppet's AFD nominations and comments only back (so far) to September 14... and doubtless there are many more to look at. So if I find other of his nominations that were deleted because of numerous "per nom", I'll bring them to your attention for a possible re-opening and re-listing. And more, if I find others that were deleted based upon his being the sole delete !vote, I'll be back faster. For example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben 10 Ultimate Alien: Fame his was the only !vote... past the noinator's... and after asking the closer to relist, and then myself offering an opinion, the nominator chose to withdraw the nomination basd upon my reasoning. As I dig further back into histories and if I find other such examples... they may need to be re-examined as well. Damned puppets. And thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, could you check the blurb I wrote about you? Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-27/Features_and_admins Tony (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. Support. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dulcis foetidus

Since you deleted the article, please cut and paste the content on my talk page. I spent hours on that and I can move it to Wikinews. (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have emailed it to you if you had an account. Instead I pastebined the wikicode here. It expires in a week. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Andolsek Bradley

Hey Ron, can you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Andolsek Bradley? I nominated it for deletion but Schmidt brought up something that proves notability and I'd like to withdraw my nomination. I'm not sure if that's possible though, per the outstanding delete votes present there. Nomader (Talk) 00:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with 2 outstanding delete !votes this should run its course. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Nomader (Talk) 03:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem with a nominator stating a withdrawal on the page anyway, explaining his reasoning, and then possibly even !voting keep himself? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD for Dr. Priya Ranjan Trivedi

You recently closed this debate as "delete". However, the article was re-created today (I have already tagged it CSD G4). The article has previous record of being re-created immediately after deletion (through CSD or XfD) - see log . Is it possible to include it under Special:ProtectedTitles?

Thanks, SPat talk 06:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Already done, sorry for bothering... SPat talk 02:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem and sorry for not responding but I did notice that it had already been salted when I first read it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A safe bet to snow close.... per WP:OUTCOMES

The topic has the coverage that exceeds the GNG and the article was nominated for deletion within hours of having been created and and while it was still and obviously being edited by its author. My sense is that there was either poor BEFORE, and/or a lack of understanding of notability guidelines GNG and NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded at the AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Saw it, and just posed the question to the nominator.[6]. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an easier one...

Article has been markedly improved since the nomination and the sole delete vote were made.[7] And the nominator himself acknowledges the improvements and requests a closure.[8] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look this over and if I do punch it, it will be under the same conditions for which I punched Vanthaan Vendraan. Also, and please don't take this the wrong way, I do occasionally make WP:SNOW closes and I do sometimes punch AFDs when the nom withdraws but there's a "per nom" delete !vote or 2 per WP:IAR because there's no point in leaving an AFD open for the sake of process if it's all but obvious that the article isn't going to be deleted. However, I need to come across these on my own and make my own independent judgment on whether or not they can be closed early per WP:SNOW. I often do go through the logs for the previous 7 days looking for relisted debates, withdrawn nominations, etc. that can be closed so it's likely that I'll eventually find these. However if I don't and/or don't think it's a candidate for WP:SNOW (and some other admin doesn't punch it) then there's little harm in it being open the full 7 days. If an AFD clearly meets one of the criteria listed at WP:SK then I'll be happy close these on request. (of course you can also close these if you wish) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough... and yes, I can wait... as the article in question is in no danger of deletion. And toward your last sentence, I could/would never close an AFD in which I opined... except against my own interest... and I opine in so many (chuckle). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Suzannah B. Troy

How did you get to delete ? Nobody gave any comment after my request for help ? If the only way to repair the article is to userfy it, then please give me an opportunity to do it. I would like the help of a wiki editor. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I closed it as "delete" because, after 20 days, that was the consensus. However, because I was thinking of userfying it anyway, I've went ahead and done so here. If you can fix it so it addresses the concerns of those who commented at the AFD, then you are welcome to take the draft to deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I O.K., thanks. I want to make it a good article, so I will continue to do my best. i just hope you realise that this article attracted puppet accounts, who voted to delete it. So, vandalism was demonstrated against the article. I don't know what happened to the archive of AfD comments, but I hope that that history is considered after I enter amendments to the artlcle and then ask for help to return it to the main wikipedia space. Thanks for your help. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are referring to Are You The Cow Of Pain?s !vote, trust me, that was the only sock and he's been doing that over numerous AFDs, not just Suzannah B. Troy's. We're still cleaning up his mess. The rest were all good faith !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)