Open main menu



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


Contents

Good article helpEdit

Hiya I am planning to put a couple of articles forward for good article review, therefore I thought I would in turn choose a couple of articles to review myself. Since I'm new to this, it seems a good idea to use the mentor scheme. I was wondering, would you be available to answer any questions I might have? I'm planning to get into it the week after next, so the beginning of July. Thanks for any help! Mujinga (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Sure, which articles were you thinking about? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
hiya i thought i'd start with Maria Dulębianka. there's already been some funny business! Mujinga (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah right. The bot does that when it detects an article that previously was in its internal database as being reviewed no longer has a "GA reviewing" template without a corresponding "GA passed" one on the talk page. I've seen it happen before when I know something has passed but still brings up a "Your GA review has failed". Susun's got a good track record of GAs, so I don't expect too many difficulties. One thing that (unless you're a good Polish speaker!) you may need here is to get Google Translate to translate some of the non-English sources so you can confirm what's in the article and what's in the source match up factually. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks it seems like perhaps it was something to do with the diacritic, anyway seems to be OK. I agree the article seems to be in a good state already. Yes I've been wondering about how the referencing to Polish sources intersects with WP:NONENG, specifically As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. To be a good article, should possibly controversial statements already have a quotation, or it's not necessary? I'm thinking in particular of the sentence about the relationship between Dulębianka and Konopnicka, which begins The nature of their relationship has not been conclusively settled by academics... it has four references on it, two in English, two in Polish. It would seem the easiest way to demonstrate the controversy would be to give direct quotes. Mujinga (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
You could suggest putting the quotes as part of the references. That would mean anyone could cut and paste the quote into Google translate and be able to have a stab at verifying the content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Hiya thanks for the reply, yes that's pretty much what ended up happening. As a broader issue I have been thinking about the same thing quite a lot recently with regards to an article I have been creating where the sources are 90% in Dutch - I would definitely agree it's good to put the quote in the references. What I've been doing is translating the quote, thinking someone can always check the linked reference and confirm it with google translate. Maybe it's better to keep the original language, I'm not sure which is better. To be honest I'd like to see something clearer in the MOS about this. Anyhoo, the nominator's answers were prompt and thorough so I've passed Maria Dulębianka yesterday.
Now I have just taken on Charm School (Roxette album) for GAN review. As before I'll be grateful if I can pass by with any questions. Mujinga (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I've run into some problems with references on Charm School (Roxette album) so I decided to put the article on hold to allow time for them to be fixed. If you have the time could you tell me if that was the best course of action? Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mujinga: Hmmm. Generally if I put a review "on hold" it means "if you address all the outstanding issues here, I'll pass the review". If you're not sure if the sourcing is up to scratch, you can wait for the nominator to address your concerns before carrying on. Homeostasis07 is technically correct in as much an article can be at any assessed status and still nominated as GA, but I think he's missed the point that if an article isn't in good shape, it's going to need substantially more work to pass than something that's already reasonably well-written and sourced and just needs a few copyedits. I think you make a good point about Marie's brain tumour needing better and additional sources to meet WP:BLP. And finally, I did have to check that Tits & Ass Studio was real - it is, there is an article on the Swedish wikipedia and EEng should be thinking of a suitable DYK hook around about now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Obviously I'm flattered to be selected for this important assignment, and the potential here is vast. But I'm having trouble identifying the English-language article whose meaning I'm meant to reinterpret as something dirty. EEng 23:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you'll have difficulty because the English-language article (which would probably start "Tits & Ass is a recording studio in Halmstad, Sweden. Its best known client is Roxette's Per Gessle.") doesn't exist yet and I can't find any reliable sources to write one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I googled Tits & Ass and got plenty of results. EEng 23:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
And if this doesn't work out maybe we can get somewhere with First-level NUTS of the European Union. EEng 05:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thanks for the comment about me and the nominator misunderstanding each other that was helpful. Unfortunately there are still problems with verifiability so I failed it, I hope it succeeds next time. Regarding T&A, I think it's a horrible name.Mujinga (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Assume good faithEdit

You assumed DuncanHill liked Fram, he denied it. I will tell you too, I too, have a similar denial. I am no friend nor admirer of Fram. Before WP:FRAM, I did not know anything about Fram other than their user name. I did not know anything about WP:WPWIR either. This isn't an "us versus them" scenario. starship.paint (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

File rename requestEdit

Hi Ritchie.

I replaced a GIF with a PNG file, and used temp descriptions in the upload as I was planning on using the existing file rationale. This has worked, apart from the filename which is supposed to be "Cyberun_1.png", but instead is "File:Temporary description prior to upload - video game screenshot.png" - would you help me out and rename it please? I was given the rename link on the Help desk, but I don't have the necessary permissions. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: I think I've fixed it, should now be at File:Cyberun 1.png. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. The file is called "Cyberun 1.png", but the article is "Cyberun_1.png" - with an underscore, not a space. It seems to work for both though. Thanks for fixing it! Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you with open armsEdit

 

... as a thank-you-click didn't work (because of too many GA symbols for Cirt), thank you for reverting censorship. Sylvia Geszty (pictured as Cleopatra in the East) - did you know that article dates back to April? I like the pic a lot! Thanks also to GRuban who dug it up, and David who cropped it. Celebrating open arms (vs. secret police, with no appeal). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a caption competition for that - I'll start the ball rolling with "I beg of you, please let my hook be in prep by next week!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
28bytes, not again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I changed to just "welcome!", but the blue blues days are still with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

WoohooEdit

Happy Birthday from the Birthday Committee

Wishing Ritchie333 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjs1991 (talkcontribs) 09:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there cake? I would like some cake. And to thank the user for their contributions and civility (by sharing in the cake). cygnis insignis 20:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!Edit

  • eh? —usernamekiran(talk) 20:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
June
 
cornflowers

Some wildflowers for a happy birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC) (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019Edit

Hello Ritchie333,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.


Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2020 BangkokEdit

Hi Ritch. I won't be going to Stockholm most unfortunately, because I really can't afford $3,000 just for 5 days in the far north of Europe. I'll leave that trip to the Europeans and the 70-strong WMF junket. But next year Wikimania is right on my doorstep. I hope you will be able to come. I will be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time. Regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've never been to Wikimania - the London one was practically on my doorstep but it clashed with a family holiday, and that takes priority. The bottom line is I don't have much spare cash, and even going to Manchester from London is a bit of a luxury for me, so I can't realistically expect a trip halfway across the world to Thailand to be at all practical. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Buffalo Creek (Texas)Edit

Hi. Never said it was a hoax, but it was created by a very active sockmaster. Leaving these types of articles, imho, only encourages that activity. Onel5969 TT me 19:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a fairly innocuous article about a river. I would have deleted if it didn't make any obvious attempt to be an encyclopedia article that somebody could improve, but at the very least it could be a redirect somewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

AppreciationEdit

 
"Sunflower Award"

Your work as an admin is not being graded,
But it certainly is much appreciated,
To know that you see with vision that's clear,
A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear.

Thank you for all do!

  Atsme Talk 📧 16:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy (belated!) birthday!Edit

  The "Merlin the Happy Pig" award
...now for the song about the goblin! ——SerialNumber54129 14:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I was totally wired.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abraxas (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh well..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

PassivdomEdit

Hey, User:Ritchie333. Can you explain please how long does usually the AfD voting process last and who has the final word? Just curious.--Graphenon (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Graphenon: AfDs usually last at least a week and an admin will decide what to do with the article based on the suggestions and comments made during the debate. If there's no agreement as to what to do, the discussion period can be extended, and if there is still no agreement, it can be kept as "no consensus". The deletion process has further information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Hello, Ritchie333,

We don't cross paths much on Wikipedia but I just wanted to thank you so much for not only spotting good candidates for RfAs but for putting yourself out there and nominating them. Unfortunately, it not very common these days but it should be happening, every month. I hope others see your example and start encouraging more editors to venture out into the scary world of the RfA. I would want them to know that it is survivable, even if people do not think you are the ideal candidate. I should know! Thanks again, from me and for the entire project. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hear hear. Thanks from me too, for bringing us two new additions to the corps this week. It actually does take a lot of courage, and I haven't dared to attempt a nomination myself yet - the potential for it to backfire, if unknown skeletons come out of the woodwork, is always real. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I do remember being swayed right at the last minute to support your RfA however many years ago it was now. I was originally planning to nominate several RfA candidates in the first week of July, but in the event only Valereee and Kosack were committed to running, which given WP:FRAMGATE has to be even more commendable than usual. I'd quite like to run another bunch next month, and put them all forward at the same time, or co-ordinate with other nominators to make sure we file ours around the same time. Basically, the more people who can be recruited as admins, the less of an "us-and-them" culture will develop. New admins tend to bring new ideas and thoughts to the proceedings and aren't just tired old admins doing the same old thing because "that's the way we've always done it round here" regardless of whether or not it improves the encyclopedia. Amakuru If I can think of an RfA where your co-nomination can make a potential huge difference, I'll give you a shout. I don't have a perfect track record, but just over 75% of candidates I've nominated were successful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please look at....Edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrija19961

Same person, just difference of an accent mark. Plus with the user name, that is why I suspect autobiography. Please check it out then reply here on why you think the article should not have been deleted. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@MensanDeltiologist: In this case, I declined a WP:G4 speedy delete for procedural reasons, because I couldn't find the link to the AfD debate. Now I have found the discussion, I have deleted the recreated article. In future, if you tag an article because it is a recreation of one previously deleted at AfD, remember to specify the discussion in the link eg: {{db-g4|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrija Matic}}}. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

AIVEdit

 
Ah dinnae ken why the users are still at it.....

Could we please get an admin at AIV. A lot of the reports of of users who are still at it. CLCStudent (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind that, Blind Faith has been sitting in the GA queue with the intention it would have been done in time for the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Park concert ... which has been and gone. And the sourcing and layout problems at ARP Instruments won't fix themselves, ya know? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the Inglis Wikipedia. Aw contreibutions maun be in Inglis  . Adam9007 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
What we need here, obviously, is a voice of calm.... like "Limmy going off on one about Scottish Twitter..." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Question and ThanksEdit

Thank you for spending the necessary time on my unblock request. Sorry to bother you with such a stupid question, but do you think it is okay if I clean up my talk page? Or is that considered bad form or perceived negatively? ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@ADP85xzVcQD: The list of things you should not remove from your talk page is here. You only need to keep declined unblock requests while you are blocked. As you are not currently blocked, you can safely remove them.
While you're here, if you are interested in improving coverage of women scientists, please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red for like-minded people who can help you work on them in close collaboration. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for both links. Can you help me understand how I would use the Women in Red page to help improve coverage of women scientists? I don't actually see scientists listed and I wouldn't know how to "find" someone. I think that is one of the problems I struggle with. The guidelines suggest finding editors to collaborate with, but I don't know how to do that. Posting on my talk page or my sandbox doesn't seem to make sense--I'm a nobody and nobody will see it. I saw a link last night to something that made me think it was a roundtable for that, but I lost track of the page. I will also fully admit that I am also really scared to even try; this whole thing has been a really bad experience. So if you give me pages and then I don't actually act, I apologize. But I actually really enjoyed skimming your talk page because there were a lot of articles that hit close to home that I need to circle back to read. Do you mind if I just put a link on my own talk page so I can find it again later? It made me particularly happy you were the one who tackled my unblock request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talkcontribs) 15:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@ADP85xzVcQD:If you put {{User WikiProject Women in Red}} on your user or talk page, you'll have a permanent link to the project site, and other people will know you're interested in them. I don't know much about how to navigate Women in Red; you're probably best off asking one of the project's co-ordinators such as Rosiestep or Megalibrarygirl. I don't often get involved in writing about women scientists myself simply as I'm not particularly good at it, but I can remember improving Abbie Hutty and Women in Computing, off the top of my head. As for your bad experience, I'm really sorry about that; the best thing I can advise is to get to know these two editors as they will look out for you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
One more question. I think I ultimate got on the wrong side of an editor because I misread a banner. The banner could easily be re-worded to be more clear. I suspect there is a talk page for each banner where such a change could be proposed. 1. Is it ill-advised to make such a suggestion? 2. Is there such a talk page, and how would I find it? Using the search Wikipedia box has helped me find anything. I thought if there was a talk page and looking at it and its history would probably help answer the first question.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@ADP85xzVcQD: (for talk page stalkers, we're talking about Template:db-g12) I understand what your issue is here; unfortunately I have complained about this for years to little effect. What I would say is that the administrators who actually act on speedy deletion tagged articles are far more lenient than the new page patrollers who put them on, and often if an article is tagged for G12, I will reduce it down to a stub that does not directly paraphrase text and remove the tag. As I've just said elsewhere, what Wikipedia calls copyright is very different to how it's understood in the real world, and I've written an essay User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios that helps explain things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@ADP85xzVcQD: if you're interested in Women in Red, we have a great community and are very supportive of each other. We're here to help anyone working on women's biographies or other topics relating to women. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Do you have a guide for noobs? Or a "here's how to get started"? Or anything like that? Or a mentoring system? I don't really know where/how to start with it. I've looked at the page and can find users, and I see goals, but I'm looking more for an FAQ, or how to get started. Thanks! (I am really intrigued by Women of Atari too...; not sure I can contribute, but I liked the idea.) ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@ADP85xzVcQD: I would start here. There's some good essays to get you started and you can always ask anyone for help on the talk page. I tell most newbies to write about people who have good coverage in the media. It's easier to write about them that way. On some of the crowd-sourced Redlists there are links to information about the person in question. If you need any help with women in Atari, my library has a book on women in gaming. I might find information for you there. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Thank you! This is great. So if I were to draft something in my sandbox and then post to the talk page there, I could find someone who could give it the once over and tell me what to fix/improve?
@Megalibrarygirl: or @Ritchie333:, Two final questions. (1) What is the difference between how I called out each of you here? "yo" vs "ping"? Is one more polite/formal? 2. Do either of you know a page that describes primary v. secondary reference usage on Wikipedia? I come from a background that really favors primary references; secondary references are scorned. And a long time ago, I learned encyclopedic articles are written from primary sources. But I seem to get the impression that isn't true on Wikipedia. I wonder if there is a page that helps explain this that I could add to my bookmarks. Thanks again for letting me hijack your talk page, and for the help.
@ADP85xzVcQD:, I just wanted to stop by and say hi. Also wanted to let you know that Women in Red delivers a monthly "invitation/announcement" to editor talkpages regarding our upcoming events, and if you'd like to receive it, just add your username here. If you are curious about our July offerings, here is a link to that announcement. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)ADP85xzVcQD. In general, Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources. However, for many topics, we define that more broadly to include some news reporting. Additionally, we generally allow primary sources for uncontroversial information or when directly attributed in prose to the source. I hope that you stick around. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

As alwaysEdit

... you protected the wrong version, the one that the warrior left ;) - Btw, how do you like his opera? Could you perhaps help with the stalled nom? - Again btw, I just saw another work staged by Kupfer, La Damnation de Faust. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The DDR is not generally called the GDR in English at all, it's always East Germany (or the former East Germany). Conceiving is something you do to produce babies; please keep that private. I'll have a think about an alt. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
How do you get pregnant with an opera then? - One of these days, I'll stop articles that touch what Wessies used to call "the so-called DDR". East Germany still sounds wrong to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
In general, if a country puts "Democratic" in its name, it isn't. Still, I am in a good mood as a DYK that was deleted has finally found its way back to mainspace courtesy of that very nice Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what everyone was so worked up about. There was very little wrong with it. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Also in a good mood, returning from a lovely concert with artists in residence of the Rheingau Musik Festival, and the recipients of their prize, receiving it and playing, all Schumann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Back to work: the hook which is not welcome is ... that Gerhard Müller and Georg Katzer (pictured) conceived Antigone oder die Stadt, based on Sophocles, in the DDR's final stage, but the opera premiered at the Komische Oper Berlin after the Wende? How is this:

... that Gerhard Müller and composer Georg Katzer (pictured) collaborated on Antigone oder die Stadt, based on Sophocles, in East Germany, but when the opera premiered at the Komische Oper Berlin, Germany was again united? - Missing that thus the work as a commentary to the targeted system was no longer as relevant as it was meant. "We pounded at the doors of the mighty; unheard remained the heart-wrenched agony, our people's mournful fate!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:London encyclopediaEdit

I think it should be {{London encyclopedia|###}}. I just tried it and it works, although differently than the Butt-Stations template, as with yours, the value of ### is irrelevant, or maybe that's want you wanted? 82.14.227.91 (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings about the template; I just created it because I cite the London Encyclopedia a lot, and I got fed up with copypasting the cite book template again and again and again. I don't know what the ### does; maybe Redrose64 can help. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. I can see you're not assed either way. 82.14.227.91 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The |### does nothing because the template doesn't contain any code to process parameters. So {{London encyclopedia}} is the only valid form. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Question on how to make a wikipedia link work in Gmail if there's a period at the end of the Wikipedia link.Edit

Links for these two pages...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr.

...are not working when used in a Gmail. The link is made with a Command C, copies well including the period at the end, but when a receiver clicks on the link, it doesn't work because the period at the end is not being included in the link.

Does anyone know how to make this work?

Hathalm (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hathalm, That is... strange! I was able to reproduce it in gmail. If you change the last period to %2e (the Unicode encoding for "full stop"), it appears to work. It's an ugly workaround for sure, ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr%2e. SQLQuery me! 16:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hathalm: expressly include the full url. If you are composing an email, use the insert link command and enter the entire path. Note also, this problem occurs elsewhere as well, for example your links above don't work, but you can make them work like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr.
That one doesn't work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr.
That one does work.
xaosflux Talk 17:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@SQL: FYI above. — xaosflux Talk 17:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, The issue is that gmail converts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr. to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr when you paste the link into an email. That being said, using the insert link button works as well to properly link the article, without ugly utf-8 encoding. SQLQuery me! 17:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all. You solved it. (Embrace.) :) 184.88.249.16 (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Link spammerEdit

Holy smokes! Mass spamming. I've removed from pages I watch but there's no way I can cover all of these. But maybe it's not spam? The site is free, and it has a list of contributors. I posted on their UTP suggesting that they upload images for use in articles. Your thoughts? Atsme Talk 📧 19:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: My apologies, I got distracted over the weekend by large quantities of live music, Curious IPA, Hop House 13, whatever guest ales were in Pendrel's Oak and red wine. Is this still an active issue? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind such a distraction! In fact, (less the ale), I have an 8 yo singer/musician being developed and give my 100% support to large quantities of live music! Re: the reason I came here has been resolved. All is well. Happy, happy. Atsme Talk 📧 14:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

ZineWikiEdit

Hello. It seems like you deleted ZineWiki as per CSD G10. In the current state, it appears to be an attack page. However, as far as I have seen, that page has some very old, likely neutral, revisions it could be reverted to instead (I think they are as old as ZineWiki itself). Are you sure these are bad as well? The page looks like it has been vandalised into its current state entirely by a single IP to me. Edible Melon (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Edible Melon: See User talk:Slashme#ZineWiki, and per discussion there, I have restored the article and opened an AfD discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZineWiki (3rd nomination). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:81.133.5.100Edit

Hello again. I just looked into the edits of 81.133.5.100. The most interesting one I found so far is this one, where they claim to be Dove Windsor, the person who they accused of everything, including extensive sockpuppetry at ZineWiki. Does that count as a confession? Should anything be done about them? Their edits to Des Coleman involve reducing the person's age by 10 and claiming they died at 15 July 2019 without providing any sources. I haven't undone any of them yet, as I'm unsure. According to libregamewiki, their founder is not Dove Windsor, but Han Dao. Edible Melon (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like a troll to me, and the best thing to do with them is deny recognition. I have blocked the IP for 48 hours for obvious disruption and will wait and see what happens at the AfD; for now I don't think any other administrator intervention is required. If you have evidence that somebody is trolling lots of articles, that would be worth a thread on WP:ANI, but if they're just focusing on one article, that can be dealt with relatively easily. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Engagement at User talk:Jimbo Wales seems somewhat unlikely and somewhat fruitless. Feel free to remove that thread if desired. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Some might say engagement at WP:JIMBOTALK is "unlikely and somewhat fruitless", full stop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Ooooh, worra bitch. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Neal - Rare LtdEdit

In response to your "how on earth is that U5 or G11?" message on User:Neal - Rare Ltd, the page should fit under U5 for " blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host" as it consists of nothing that is closely related to "Wikipedia's goals" and is literally a very short blog about the user, detailing their job and a link to where they work. It also fits under G11 because the user seems to be advertising Rare Ltd., their username matching the content on that page and the information on the page appears to simply be advertising themselves and the company they work for. The79 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@The79: The prose in question is no more a "misuse" than "Ritchie333 is a fortysomething software engineer, musician and real ale drinker" or "This is the profile used by the journalist and commentator Peter Hitchens". The policy for G11 states that a qualifying page must be "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten" You can't "fundamentally rewrite" one sentence. In any case, Rare Ltd, in their former guise as Ultimate Play The Game made Sabre Wulf and some of my favourite computer games as a kid; they aren't some backwater company. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
According to WP:NOTWEBHOST, "limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia" and that "personal web pages are often speedily deleted". The page is literally a personal web page, the only content on the page is "member of the Web & Community team at Rare Ltd". Also, just because it's not some "backwater company", does that mean I'm allowed to advertise it? I would've thought that regardless of the size of the company, even say, Google, I wouldn't be allowed to simply promote it in both my username and my user page? If you don't want to delete the page, that's fine, I am not going to argue further over a user page, I was simply tagging it because I felt that it had nothing to do with Wikipedia's goals and simply seemed like a personal web page about what they do and where they work. The79 (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I would say that nothing you have said or done here has anything particularly to do with Wikipedia's goals either, which is writing an encyclopedia. Have you ever written an encyclopedia article? It would seem not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you implying that you are only fulfilling Wikipedia's goals by starting a new page and/or article by pointing to the list of pages I've created? So other people who edit Wikipedia and contribute information to Wikipedia have done nothing for Wikipedia? Also, this is a talk page, the details on WP:NOTWEBHOST was pointing to user pages, not talk pages. The79 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
With over three-quarters of their edits being semi-automated. Never mind an article, what about a sentence?! :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So how about the other quarter? Clearly you've only seen where I've done vandalism reverting and completely ignored the other pages I've contributed to. Just because most of it is reverting vandalism, that means the rest is nothing? The79 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The real point I'm making here is that you don't seem to have a good handle on empathy and don't have a sufficient grasp on the relevant social skills to work within the spirit of what the policies and guidelines are developed for, as opposed to just being a bunch of rules you can whack people over the head with. A lack of content contributions are an easy way to determine that; if you did do lots of writing on the encyclopedia, you would either discover the correct level of empathy and tolerance to work with other people on a collaborative project, or you wouldn't and get blocked, or you'd take umbrage at the first time somebody disagreed with you and flounce. And I would hope it would be the first of those three things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd like to point out that I was perfectly fine with whatever your decision was going to be, clearly pointing that I wasn't going to go further at arguing at whatever your decision was (in fact after that, I didn't really discuss any further about the page besides point out to somebody else about another matter). I did take offence at the fact that your statement implied that I hadn't done anything to achieve "Wikipedia's goals" by slapping a log of the new pages (as if Wikipedia is simply about making new pages) and commenting afterwards "It would seem not", before another user decided to jump in and mock by sarcastically saying "Never mind an article, what about a sentence?!" as if I've never done that before, when if you looked through my contributions, you could see that I have, underneath all the mostly counter-vandalism work I've done. I also don't see why you think I can't "work with other people on a collaborative project" when I've already helped others such as in cleaning up an article and making it far more presentable on the Operation Greens article. The79 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
No, you've misunderstood - I said that your entire discussion thread on my talk page isn't conductive towards building an encyclopedia, not your conduct over the entire project (which I haven't looked at bar pulling out a few well-known heuristics that generally turn out to be accurate from my experience), and the fact you're still here arguing about it instead of ignoring it and doing something else does indeed suggest you need to chill out a bit and not go into almighty tirades when somebody suggests ways you might become a better editor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I got that part - it's just that you brought up the logs for the list of pages by saying "Have you ever written an encyclopedia article", moving it from your talk page to "conduct over the entire project". Secondly, I stopped arguing over the original topic as I said I would, it was just that everything changed topics so it landed here, plus, I don't understand why you think I'm going "almighty tirades" and "need to chill out" when I'm responding to what you're saying in quite a civil manner, full sentences and everything, no different to how you are. The79 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Bingo. What they do and where they work = limited autobiographical information. ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Another. ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The user in question has not edited in eight years. They are quite plainly not misusing Wikipedia for anything right now. I don't see how it is productive to go around tagging such pages.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:U5 does say "It applies regardless of the age of the page in question." I wasn't even paying attention to the age of the page anyway. The79 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) @The79: - Our COI guidelines mandates disclosure of any Conflict-of-Interest and his user-page precisely did that. In light of his editorial activities about RARE's platform games, you ought to appreciate the user-page/disclosure rather than slap deletion tags. WBGconverse 14:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Propriopceptive Writing and Linda T. Metcalf Articles - since deletedEdit

Dear Reviewers,

Proprioceptive Writing is a legitimate intellectual and psychological method of endeavor, and of exploration. The content itself reinforces this - one has but to look into the scholarly sources, references, and associations to see that presentation of the discipline is more than a matter of mere promotion. Add to that, the associations with numerous listed academic institutions, credentials of creators and contributors, and relationships with noted centers for reflection, and we affirm that our dispute with it being labeled "advertising" is just and sound.

If the reviewers would like more information, they are welcome to look into the sources within the article itself, or to email any of the following persons to seek a better grounding in the nature of the subject:

Derek Williams, PWC/PWCSE web admin - jdw0408@gmail.com - Anne Bright - Ann Bright, PWCSE Chief Instructor - anne@thewayofwriting.org - Linda T. Metcalf - PW Co-founder, Principal Proprioceptive Writing Instructor - linda@pwriting.org

Please also consider the following existing Wikipedia articles, to help contextualize the work of PW and its founders:

Peter Elbow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Elbow

Ira Progoff - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Progoff

We more than welcome recommendations for edits/revisions to format and tone, if that would be preferable.

Best and Thank You,

Ddubb0044 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC) and The PW Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddubb0044 (talkcontribs) 17:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ddubb0044: The problem wasn't so much what the article was about, but how it was written. As Wikipedia is a collaborative process, other editors want to be able to help copyedit the article, add sources, and generally improve it, but if it's structured in such a way that makes it difficult to understand what the subject material is about, that can't happen.
By comparison, I was looking at this Metcalf Consulting piece about how to motivate 12 year olds at school by focusing on positive things; that immediately grabbed my attention and gave me a better understanding of the topic. Obviously you can't compare an encyclopedia article to an essay, but an article needs to be presented in a calm and neutral manner describing the facts; that way it will grab people's attention and make them understand the subject matter.
Moving forward, I think it would be easier to start an article on Linda Metcalf. The good news there is that she seems to have a confirmed post as Professor of Graduate Counseling at Texas Wesleyan University which sounds like she meets the notability guidelines for academics, so it ought to be possible to write an article about her. The other good bit of news is we have an established project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red which is dedicated to writing and improving articles about women, and I can call on several people to help write the article. I'll have a look and see what I can do and get back to you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I've put a follow-up post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Linda T. Metcalf. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

BKFIP?Edit

You asked the other day if 101.98.126.25 is this guy. I didn't have a strong feeling at the time, apart from noting a similarity of attitude, but now I'm starting to wonder. XOR'easter (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: It does like BKFIPish; however, as other editors have said, you went over the three revert rule on the article and were lucky not to get a block; while WP:3RRNO says you can revert banned editors without being sanctioned, you shouldn't rely on that and should have rock solid evidence they're banned and that the edits they are reverting to are definitely disruptive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)
Yes, this whole incident is making me realize that, whatever small good I manage to do around here, it's not a kind of interaction I am well-suited to... Where does one file a report about suspected long-term bad editing? Is there even a point to doing so when they change IP address twice a day? XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
If you're sure it's the same person, you can start a thread at WT:BKFIP, which I see you've done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I had hoped that would be the end of it, but see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Links_from_lead_sections_to_parts_of_the_article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I have declined that unblock request, and reminded him that in the past, an administrator has been in conversation with his employer about abusive conduct on Wikipedia. He is (AFAIK) still community banned, so anyone has a policy-backed reason to instantly block with talk page disabled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully the discussion there can go on in good faith now (and it seems to have entered a better regime). What's the best thing to do if they come back there from another IP, as seems plausible given their habits? XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Opinions vary. In my view, if they are cleaning up articles and improving prose and nobody is reverting or complaining, I won't do anything. It's only on the first disagreement and disruptive act that it is then worth blocking for sockpuppetry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Sonny West (DYK)Edit

Just an afterthought but I was thinking of adding the image from the article - any idea how to add it to the nomination? Dan arndt (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: The easiest way to do it is to find an existing nomination with an image (I picked Template:Did you know nominations/Trafalgar Square off the top of my head) and copy and paste the section immediately below the line starting "{{DYK nompage links", including the div and the main page image template, adjusting the filename to suit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - do you need to sign off that the image is okay, given that I added it after your assessment? Dan arndt (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
No, that should be okay, as the image is on Commons and verified as having a suitable free licence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hhggtg3279Edit

Hi, on July 8, you blocked Hhggtg3279 for edit-warring and personal attacks. Now, the user has continued to be disruptive. I can't list all the reverts (there are a lot), but here are some from the last 24 hours: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. DeluxeVegan (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Plus this one [16] two minutes ago. DeluxeVegan (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@DeluxeVegan: The disruption on Spider-Man: Homecoming has stopped (presumably everyone has got tired of edit warring with everyone else and gone to bed); however be advised I am keeping an eye on the article and if it starts up again, people (not just Hhggtg3279) who go over the three revert rule are at risk of getting blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

CherryPlayerEdit

Hello. Could you please explain why article about CherryPlayer was deleted from Wikipedia while the ones about Media Player Classic, VLC Player, etc. still present there? Oldfriend (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oldfriend: Breaking sticks tagged the article with {{db-g11}}, asking it for it to be deleted and recreated because it was written in a way that was fundamentally unsuitable to be an encyclopedia article. Nobody has recreated it yet. To start off with, you could use a source such as this review from GHacks and this German review from the Swiss IT Magazine, using basic information from those. VLC Player is still present because it has sufficient sources of information to easily stand as an encyclopedia article without being challenged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies and explanationEdit

Hello,

I noticed that you canceled some of my CSD requests. One of them seemed to have a message stating that I "was trying to place as many tags as possible". [17] I can assure you that is not the case. I am currently working on reducing the huge backlog at the stale drafts wikiproject/drive. It has lost traction a bit and I am trying to maintain its work. All articles I mark have been stale and are taking up space for possible articles. The Student Center at Yale had no content, was stale, and the user who created it had very little edits outside of it. That warrants a web host violation.

However, since you are the administrator, I respect your reasoning but would like a bit more info on the situation.

Thank you AmericanAir88(talk) 13:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: "I am currently working on reducing the huge backlog at the stale drafts wikiproject/drive." Can you show me a link to this drive, what its aims are, and how it is compatible with writing an encyclopedia? "All articles I mark have been stale and are taking up space for possible articles" I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation are desperately short on disk space; if they were you would see emergency equipment fundraising drives advertised on the site. I suspect more disk space is being used on vandals' sockpuppet accounts mocking administrators. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts which is part of the WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. By saying "taking up space for possible articles", I meant that user space drafts that are notable are being overshadowed by all the stale ones. Also, what do you mean by sock puppet accounts mocking admins? Do they really do that? AmericanAir88(talk) 16:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I note the project appears to have been started by two indefinitely blocked editors, which makes me somewhat suspicious of its purpose. And yes, vandals really do this stuff, and I think it would benefit for the project for all those blocked editors' accounts with 0 edits to be deleted, and the remainder redacted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Oh my. Thats shocking. Even you had some socks trying to mimic you. The purpose of the project is mentioned on the official wiki project page. I'll make sure to be on the look out for any mimics. Anyway to find new users? Also, one of the leads of the project was LegacyPac. Sigh. He was a big contributor who helped a lot, but sadly his temper and immaturity caused his downfall. What do you suggest we do with the project. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I seem to recall trying to ask for clemency about Legacypac on ANI, but it didn't take consensus. I'm not sure what to do with this project; the problem is, with a few exceptions such as Milhist and occasionally Food and Drink, projects tend to not get much focus anymore, so I'm not really sure if there's a good place, other than possibly the Village Pump. I would be interested to know if there's some follow-up just to determine its purpose and nature, and also if it's technically possible to redact usernames. I know that policy states you can't delete users because of attribution, but Fuck this I will go vandalize another fucking site (talk · contribs) has absolutely no business existing on Wikipedia, full stop, has been blocked for over a decade, and has no contributions whatsoever. I don't see a technical reason why it can't be expunged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I agree that users should be able to get removed entirely, all logs gone. The stale draft drive does benefit wikipedia by allowing notable drafts to be recognized more. Also, there are so many G11 and U5's out there that the drafts need to be in check. For WikiProjects, I have seen Aviation, US roads, United States (The 50k drive), GOCE, Orphanage, CheckWiki, Cleanup, and Portals be constantly focused on. I have been trying to revive certain Wikiprojects such as "Move image to Commons" and "Missing articles", but it is hard doing a WikiProject that has been nearly abandoned. I mean look at This. Its sad to see WikiProjects slowly fade out of existence. My fear is that they will suffer the same fate as portals, mass deletion. What should the plan be for everything? AmericanAir88(talk) 17:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the best plan for projects is to downsize them and merge them into a larger project. Although I rebooted Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin because I fancied doing a bit of work on some album articles, that's very much the exception than the norm; similarly Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd which saw huge input from Parrot of Doom, pigsonthewing and John, but since PoD and John have largely disappeared and Andy is busy elsewhere, it's kind of fallen by the wayside. I think the conclusion is that projects don't have a long shelf-life without a disproportionate amount of effort put into them. That said, there is still plenty of activity on the encyclopedia; in particular a lot of IPs do writing and fixing up established articles more often than you realise. I wonder how many of them are retired / banned editors who are still bitten by the editing bug? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: That is probably the case with retired editors. It would be sad to let WikiProjects go. I wish there was a way to get more editors aware of all the various drives such as abandoned drafts or the huge missing article page. TAFI seems to loosing steam. AFC, GA, DYK, and FA are going strong though. The one thing that needs more attention is the backlog. The backlog is growing and its not reducing by much, apart from the Orphaned articles. We need a way to drive more attention to it. Theres so much to do, yet I feel like it isn't claimed by people kind of like the ocean, so much potential exploration but only 5 percent explored. Anyway, I personally love being given tasks to do as I get a huge sense of accomplishment such as a backlog reduction. If you have any work to do or need any help. Im always here to help out. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

RebootEdit

Not that it matters, I'm sure, but I'm now all about the love for people who really care about the project. You're one of those. So let's reboot. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, although I must confess complete confusion over what a "bollocks face" is. Say, M25 motorway needs a GA review, and I think Gerda wanted a DYK hook about ten threads above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
A bollocks face? Well you could start with this one and add that one too. I'll think about the M25 GA, I spend long enough on it. EZL? I'm not even allowed to discuss that, as you know. Is that some kind of trap? So soon? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I missed that. When did that happen? I had a quick look on the dramaboards and the only thing I can find is a proposal being tossed out. In my view, it is poor form for an administrator to log something at WP:EDR and not put a link to the discussion that led to the consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You know me, I have so much drama swirling around (like a novice Fram), I couldn't point you to anything. I'm sure someone somewhere will be able to point to the bit where I was banned forever from engaging in that whose name can't be spake ever, although I was given the dispensation that I could do whatever I liked at WP:TRM which, obviously, is complete bollocks, but that's how we roll here. I think I'd be okay with making reviews of articles in isolation of any known main page "process of whose name I cannot speak", and I can draw attention to the myriad issues from said "unspoken other place" at WP:TRM, but I can't actively engage with the community, even when it's utter horseshit and full of problems and embarrassing and on the main page for hours and hours. Because that all makes sense. Can't risk it because there are certain admins who, in the past, have shown a determination to simply block, block, block, and move on, mechanically, almost like a robot. So I'm treading cautious these days. Happy to help with the normal sub-par stuff that gets onto "certain" parts of the main page, but I'm permanently "under a cloud". The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Basically TRM kept getting dragged to AE, so Sandstein went to ARCA and this motion was passed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that. I see there I wrote "As I said on the other thread, if you gain TRM's respect and have a quiet off-wiki word, he is reasonable. If you charge in on horseback with Arbcom pro-forma templates, you'll get blown a raspberry", though I seem to remember most of my participation in that discussion was to try and diplomatically get BU Rob13 to take off the spiderman outfit and climb down from the Reichstag. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It was my good friends at Arbcom who instigated the topic ban. As odd as it is. But I have renewed respect for some of them after their response to the board, so I'm letting it slide for now. I think I can trust at least a handful of the remaining committee to do the right thing. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have remained largely silent on the Fram issue aside from stating my views on it once (which drew a few comments of "that's far too sensible to post here") and kept a wide berth of the more hysterical side of discussions. I have said the WMF was, if not incompetent or malicious, extremely naive and unfair about banning a longstanding contributor without any explanation or any right of appeal, but I just don't think Fram has got the right temperament and communication skills to be an administrator and I would have supported a desysop, though probably not a site ban.
As for "that project", I will see if I can raise the issue at WP:ARCA and get some common sense injected into the debate. I am absolutely certain that Gerda Arendt would have no issue whatsoever in you reviewing her proposed text for Georg Katzer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Well sure. If I was a betting man/dog/amoeba, then I'd place 1000/1 on that Arbcom tell you to do one, evens that the ban is extended further (as normal when my appeals are lodged) and a million to one against anything favourable occurring. So sure, go for it, common sense is in short supply of late, but I think it's always trumped by the rejoicing hawks who await my demise. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The ban was the result of last autumn's round of drama, when the mysterious "TRM groupies" were brought into the equation and I think you offered someone a Christmas Ale, Ritchie. But probably as long as there are people at DYK who "complain when you're around, and rejoice when you leave" it's going to be difficult for TRM to find a home there...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Late to the party, back from another delightful concert, pianist playing his own piano concerto, first time in Germany (on my talk). No time for Wikipedia. The hook is not about Georg Katzer (I expanded the article but not 5 times), but his opera, and I tried to oblige saying East Germany (which I believe never was a country, - a region yes, a political system yes, but not a country)), and need a check if that would work. The opera with the useful quote about trying in vain to pound at the doors of the mighty. (Insert the mighty you think have too much power.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Paycor page deletionEdit

Hello Ritchie

You recently deleted a page I created titled "Paycor," but I don't understand why it was deleted. The reason was marked as a G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion. However, I believe I only had factual information on the page regarding the subject, and I referenced several outside sources including Inc Magazine and The Cincinnati Enquirer. I also fail to see how it is really different than other company pages I see on Wikipedia, like "LaRosa's Pizzeria" or "Paylocity" for instance, so I'm not sure why it warranted deletion. Can you give me an explanation? Thanks

Seanschaeffer24 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Seanschaeffer24: Company articles are a hard sell on Wikipedia; the basic problem is the world at large doesn't talk about them and mainstream news outlets and books don't write about them. If this sounds unfair, then unfortunately it's just a reflection of what the world thinks about payroll software compared to somewhere to have lunch. LaRosa's Pizzeria is included because it has coverage in multiple national news sources, such as this piece in USA Today which explains its longevity and regional importance, while Paylocity is included in the Deloitte Technology Fast 500. If you want the text restored to your userspace so it isn't lost, I can do that for you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I get what you're saying, so let me ask you this: If I included more widespread, national outlets/sources (like Forbes for example), would that make it so the page would be eligible to stay published? And thanks, but I still have a copy of the text I can use. Seanschaeffer24 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The best way to proceed is to use the article wizard at Wikipedia:Article wizard. This will take you through a series of steps, explaining basic dos and don'ts, and then create the new page in draft space, where it won't be deleted. If you need help, there is a good Q&A page called The Teahouse which welcomes new users' questions and can give further advice. Once you think the page is ready to go "live", it will be flagged for review and an independent and experienced editor will look at it. I hope that all makes sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Burghley Park Cricket Club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Stamford
Still in Love with You (Thin Lizzy song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Brian Downey

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: Do you think we should set up a move request for Brian Downey? Brian C. Downey is naturally disambiguated, and while Brian Downey (actor) has done a bit, he's nowhere near as notable as the guy from Dublin; a straight Google search brings up the drummer in at least the first three pages. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, why not? I somehow thought there were more Brian Downeys than that. The Lizzy man seems to be the primary topic? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Declined speedy Martin ConcepcionEdit

Hi Ritchie, I see you declined the speedy for the recreation of this article. I had raised the AfD at the time and have just done so again - this is (as far as I can see) an identical copy of the article back then. Nothing has changed. The only thing worth noting is that the original author of this article has been blocked and the new article is most likely a sock. There has been previous sock activity with this user and a new case has been raised. Very "ducky" behaviour. This may be worth considering in the light of a marginal AfD previously. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 17:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The article has been sent to deletion review and I have left a comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 17#Martin Concepcion. I don't really have any views on who created it; I was more interested in seeing the most appropriate consensus play out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

YouEdit

will find far better summaries that qualify as snarky, from me. That was an objective description of him. Have you ever heard of him or read his works? ~ Winged BladesGodric 19:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, the mentioned trio are orders more competent. ~ Winged BladesGodric 20:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I am well aware of Peter Wright and Spycatcher, which were major and re-occurring items on British news just over 30 years ago. I don't understand why calling him a fuckwit in an edit summary is conductive towards writing or improving an encyclopedia, and to then complain about other editors leaving milder edit summaries is, well, hypocritical. Update: Ah no, this is some other Peter Wright (and not obviously the Mail on Sunday journalist either); however that doesn't really invalidate my point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
All I see is that you are well-aware of how a person can write books from his grave .... What leads to you believe that Peter Wright is a coyrighted name?
And, that does invalidate your point because you had nil clue about what you were talking 'bout. This is the person, in, question. ~ Winged BladesGodric 20:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Godric, has it occurred to you that over the past 24 hours or so, you have acted like a massive cockwomble? I mean, honestly, I'm trying to do the review of Elisa's block as fairly as I can, and you're make a frightening spectacle of yourself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

thank youEdit

for the housecleaning services in my user space! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Now I seeEdit

 
Pick out a dye

Aaah, now I see, you're one of those crazy deadheads on Wikipedia who drinks real ale (the kind). I'll take half a cup of Rock and Rye to go with that, with the ale in a bocksbeutel, listening to the river sing sweet songs, to rock my soul. North America1000 23:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's strange how I like all that music (largely because it's improvised and you can dig out endless variations on a familiar piece of work, keeping it fresh in your mind) but I'm not particularly interested in the tie-died hippy culture that goes with it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

RequestEdit

I am going to leave one final request that you leave me alone, meaning, please refrain from editing my talk page unless policy requires you to do so and I ask that you refrain from editing my userpage, ever. There should be no need for you to intervene as an administrator as anything involving me would be easily considered WP:INVOLVED. I have done my best to stay away from your editing and I have refrained from commenting about much of anything you're involved in and I'd appreciate the same respect in return. Praxidicae (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ritchie333".