User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 105

Archive 100

←

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

→

Archive 110

Need To Learn and Advice required

Hi Ritchie333,

Thanks for pointing out my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PickYourTrail. Well, yeah I'm a rookie of wikipedia who is eagerly learning to contribute on wikipedia. I felt worried about the deletion of the page which i have created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PickYourTrail and also mentioned as advertising. Kindly help me to sort out this. How it is pointing as advertising? I even didn't added eny exxternal links to my website. And I'm sure i didn't wrote it as promotional. I followed the content flow of MakeMyTrip and like wise i was built the page. I believe you are a poet. Please remove or kindly guide me on setting up the page. Or what are the additional information's we need to add in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asrafali (talk • contribs)

@Asrafali: Sorry for the delay in replying to this. I see that Yngvadottir has left some advice on your talk page, which will be helpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:TPO

ORDEEERRRR! Since leaving my role as speaker, I am looking for new opportunities, and would like to request to the honourable Wikipedian that he withdraw the unparliamentary remark and retire to the peanut gallery!

In future, do not refactor a TP contribution of mine by placing your more self-important contribution on exactly the same topic ahead of mine chronologically. WP:TPO applies.

It's bad form. I'm talking about the latest RFA general discussion. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, it's possible Ritchie333 thought it was meant a separate or distinct comment, given it appeared below the "divider" hidden comment - a good faith mistake? –xeno^talk 15:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It clearly wasn't anything of the sort, was it? Not considering the context of the edit I made which was as much in response to you as anything and was quite plainly linked to the discussion related to !vote badgering and how you would respond if pestered !supports. FWIW I did not see the dotted line when I edited. Even so... Leaky caldron (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: I haven't (at least purposefully) refactored any of your comments - do you have a diff? You're entitled to your view as much as me or anyone else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Diff. [1]. Check the times, mine 12:15, yours on the same topic exactly, 12:30 superimposed above mine. Why would anyone do that? Leaky caldron (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, why can’t you just assume it’s a mistake and switch the position of the two posts with an appropriate edit summary? Save the high dudgeon for real offenses. EEng 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

In this case I agree with EEng. Leaky's edit clearly shows them posting below a separator comment; it's not surprising that somebody else would subsequently post above that separator. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"Why would anyone do that?" Well, presumably because the comment says "<!-- Place a horizontal rule (----) between separate discussions for organization. -->" so I added it as part of a comment to the same discussion. As everyone else said, what on earth's your problem; particularly as I'm agreeing with the thrust of your argument, which is opposing RfA candidates is okay, as is rebuking supports that are wrong, misguided or misleading, provided it is done in a civil manner. I'll also post this, this and this and let the peanut gallery decide who is doing more work for the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Geez, Ritchie, you had the 100% unassailable high ground right up until the very, very end, and then you squander much of it with the "who's got the bigger ... contributions" gimmick? Please don't do that; it makes you look wrong even when you're right. The proper response to all this is "LOL", possibly an eyeroll emoji, maybe even with a {{atop}}. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It has to do with me because Ritchie is a friend, and he has some [unparliamentary remark withdrawn per request] attacking him for no rational reason, and I thought he'd maybe value my suggestion on how to handle it if it happens again. If he doesn't value it, he can remove my comment, or ignore me, or even (gasp) toppost me, and I won't whine and snivel to anyone about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I just note the irony of Leaky coming here complaing about WP:TPO and then removing their comments, even though they have already been replied to?-- P-K3 (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the comments. If you come onto my talk page telling me to go fuck myself, you stand by the conviction of your words or apologise, don't attempt to censor the entire discussion because you got embarrassed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was responding to this: "would like to request to the honourable Wikipedian that he withdraw the unparliamentary remark...." Or is this just another misunderstanding? Where did I tell you to do that - I'm not seeing it? I would say that is false accusation - maybe like the invisible dotted line was. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The orderrr might have been directed at Floq? –xeno^talk 18:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Can't see how that works. The entire diatribe is aimed at me, including that specific unfounded accusation. Instead of pouring oil on troubled waters the guy is doubling down with unnecessary jibes. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It was this edit where Leaky said "What the fuck has it got to do with you? Go take this piss out of someone else." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

How was that a reference to you Ritchie, how did that tell you to go do anything? It clearly wasn't aimed at you but at someone who had joined later with the sole aim of demeaning me. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

← It appears to be a 17:58 image responding to a 17:11 comment. How I read it, anyway. See this series of diffs. (The paraphrase to “go fuck myself” wasn’t needed, I agree.) –xeno^talk 19:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that WP:PEANUTGALLERY is now a blue link, whenever that may or may not be useful to have around. GMG^talk 17:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice little essay, that.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I often try to pour oil on troubled waters. Even when it's way below the dotted line. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Threesie, I think it's time to draw a line under all of this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"<!-- have just watched the biggest car crash political interview in history. The aftermath is much more interesting than this. -->" Leaky caldron (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Leaky's edit clearly shows them posting below a separator comment To be clear, it's a comment saying to use a horizontal rule to separate discussions, and not a comment that is separating discussions in itself (which would be pretty useless). Yes, it would have made more sense for Leaky caldron's post to be placed before the comment, leaving it at the end to provide guidance for future editors who might want to start a new discussion. But just as I presume that was a good-faith miscue, I think the subsequent inserted post by Ritchie333 is another good-faith oversight, though one that I think ought to have been corrected once pointed out. (Usually I don't bother pointing it out when it happens to me; it's a bit galling but most of the time it doesn't have much effect. I don't like to fix it myself because some editors get touchy when you move their comments, myself included if it changes the order or the apparent post to which I was replying to something I didn't intend. I appreciate though that people have different ideas about how indenting works.) isaacl (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

How indenting works: [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you check drafts and published it.

Hi Ritchie. I have made alot of drafts of actors and actresses. Can I show them to you. I am new and i am learning new stuff around. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.43.108.158 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure I have any knowledge or experience of the topics you're trying to write about. Maybe Winged Blades of Godric can offer some advice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of More (soundtrack)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article More (soundtrack) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Holly Butcher

Hello, Ritchie333. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Holly Butcher".

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HasteurBot (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion." Well, it's not necessarily true that's unsuitable for mainspace, I just didn't think a one-sentence stub (albeit cited to multiple reliable sources) was a good enough starting point. And it hasn't been nominated for deletion, because Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Holly Butcher is still a redlink. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

An oven-ready glistening wet otter award for you!!

	The UK glistening like wet otters Award
	"I voted leave because I like leaves!" - Ritchie333	"Women's Beach Volleyball is at the heart of the UK's international sporting prowess." "...and just look at the Belgians" ... and if you find you're really too bored with UK sport already, you could always try really radical politics: pages to choose from, you know where!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC) ...although, "I don't even know where that rumour started."

DYK for South Audley Street

On 29 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article South Audley Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Queen briefly lived at 77 South Audley Street? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/South Audley Street. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, South Audley Street), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goom

Would you considered revising your decision to merge or redirect? It’s clear that the consensus is that it does not need an article, and there were no policy based reasons presented to keep it. I don’t really see the point of forcing a phony merge discussion per the user that undid my post-AFD merge attempt on something that clearly fails GNG. It’ll literally be either just the two of us, or the same participants of the AfD repeating the same exact discussion. TTN (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As an editor has already reverted your merge, you will need to start a discussion on it, which is separate to an AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that shouldn’t even be a thing because the AfD should not have been keep in the first place because there was only a single, full keep with no policy basis. You deferring it to editors when it’s a stub article with no traffic just makes it a bureaucratic jumble where no new voices are going to step in. It’s just a silly step that doesn’t need to happen. TTN (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You should have said some of that during the AfD debate. As it is, you said, "This article fails to establish notability" (see WP:JNN) while the only "delete" opinion said, "Fails NFICTION/GNG" (see WP:VAGUEWAVE). AfD !votes expressing classic arguments to avoid carry little weight. The other !votes at least expressed an alternative to deletion, in line with the deletion policy "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a heavily opinionated take. There is nothing I could have added to my nomination that isn’t evident by the article’s current state, and neither keep vouched for any source present in the article or presented evidence of other sources. I feel like nothing in the AfD is anywhere close to a keep. At worst, it should be no consensus, but that wouldn’t particularly help anything. Now, due to that we’re going to repeat the same exact conversation over a failed article. TTN (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"I feel like nothing in the AfD is anywhere close to a keep." I feel nothing Boris Johnson says is anywhere close to a coherent and rational reason to let him run a country, yet some people seem to want to vote for him anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t address you discounting short, but guideline based delete opinions and seemingly propping up keep opinions that present literally no counter argument or reasoning as to the merit of the article. TTN (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If you can't come to terms with people who disagree with you, then Wikipedia is not for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This initially would have been two messages and done, but you admitted you discounted guideline based arguments per "arguments to avoid" yet gave weight to literally two, top of that page "Just a vote" comments. Simple disagreement would be if you didn't admit to being weirdly biased. TTN (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Unidance

Hi, Saw that you deleted the article - I tried to upload it with a less advertising tone. It's pretty big in Israel. I deleted the links you mentioned that led to a payment page. Would love to have your feedback! I'm happy to work on it and improve it. I'm not being compensated for it or anything, it's just something there should be an article about. --Psychology Forever (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Psychology Forever: The deletion debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unidance was sparsely attended, and it was debatable whether or not it could have been closed as "soft delete" which allows an instant refunding. However; Wikipedia works as a consensus model, and currently Scope creep, Celestina007 and RHaworth do not think it is possible to create an encyclopedia article on this topic that can still be maintained by anybody in, say, ten years time. To give you a practical example, there's a dance instruction company about half a mile away from where I live that I pass on the way to work; it seems to be a popular and sustainable business, but it's not a suitable topic for a global encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Abbey Road

Hi Ritchie333, can you elaborate on why the information previously on the article is too much. Sgt Pepper, Revolver and Rubber Soul all have more... Isaacsorry (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Per the guidelines for length of a lead, for an article of 35K prose, about three paragraphs is right. The current revision is more aligned with the version that passed GA, though it was some time ago. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, on the other hand, had 57K of prose when it passed FAC, so a four paragraph lead is a closer relative balance. The good article criteria criteria 1 says the prose must be "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience" - anyone can edit a GA (ideally to improve it towards FAC) but every edit must still ensure the article meets all of the GA criteria. In this instance, I saw four paragraphs all starting "Abbey Road" and thought "I wouldn't accept that at a GA review" so some editing seemed necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to add, while I think more could be added about the album in the main body and, correspondingly, in the lead, I was just about to revert before Ritchie did, or at least cut & rework significantly. Main reason being the inclusion of "After the conflicting recording sessions for the proposed Get Back album, Paul McCartney suggested to music producer George Martin [etc]" in the second sentence of the lead. That's hardly one of the most notable or key points about Abbey Road. And per guidelines on writing lead sections, the opening paragraph should aim to give a basic description of the subject and then some pretty notable details. Instead, it seemed as if we were diving straight into the mundane. JG66 (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do think though that considering it's one the Beatles most commercially successful and has gained pretty high rankings that the lead does lack information, especially when you compare it to Let It Be. Isaacsorry (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Protests of 2019

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Protests of 2019. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cold Season (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Closure of Protests of 2019 Afd

Hi Ritchie, I just looked at the Afd you closed as no consensus (on my watchlist for opening it) and... it has 9 delete/merge against 4 keep, which is nothing like 50/50. I wouldn't usually challenge a closure or anything but it looks like your counting's a bit off on this one. I know I opened it, but still. Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It was a metaphorical 50:50; in the other words, the "delete" and "keep" sides of the debate both made good arguments, and everything seemed to be about equal weight. Hence, no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You gave for your reasoning that opinions are split 50:50 between keeping and deleting. You call it "metaphorical"; I call it untrue as there are 8 delete (excluding a vote to redirect/merge content) and 4 keep votes. Notwithstanding beyond this closing by headcount (which actually favors deletion), the proponents for keep, including the main contributor of the article, have provided weak arguments per policy for the article to kept. The main contributor is the only person who tried to refute the deletion arguements, which multiple people countered either in response or by the initial statement (as the refutation is very weak when reviewing the sources alongside WP:SYNTH et al, so much so that it doesn't counter what was originally said). I message you per deletion review policy. --Cold Season (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I was considering closing that AFD as well but ran into the issue that while most keeps have not done a very good job addressing the WP:SYNTH concerns, some of them did and the sources-establishing-the-connection they cited were mostly skipped over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I have actually addressed it. I said, paraphrased in simpler words, that comparisons between distinct subjects (or "connections" as people say in their arguments) do not indicate that the topic is a single entity and is therefore a WP:OR conclusion. --Cold Season (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No, actually. The sources I am talking about are these mentioned in this edit, which happened after your last post. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Comparisons between protests do not support the WP:OR conclusion that the protests are classed a single entity. Those sources even talk about the "different manifestations", "diversity", or "shared characteristics" (i.e., comparisons) rather than taking the protests as a whole. If the basis is that the article should be kept because people make comparisons between distinct topics, than that basis is very weak and does not support the OR. --Cold Season (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read the lead of the present version, for example, the last sentence: Larrère claimed that the differences in triggers for the various protests were misleading for understanding the nature of the protests, favouring rebellion against economic austerity programs and calls for more democracy as underlying causes.[5]. So a historian says that claiming that the protests are disconnected is misleading. Anyway, the question is whether Ritchie333 has inaccurately represented what s/he claims is a lack of consensus. To me it seems that the summary is accurate. We cannot pretend to be in agreement when we are not. Boud (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Maynard-Brewer

Hey mate, was going through my AfD log out of curiosity and it didn't pick up a result for this - would you mind changing your text to (or do I have permission to change): The result was draftify - the page has been moved to... so the XfD stats counter can pick it up? I know it's terribly pedantic, but thought I'd ask anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 08:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Hmmm ... well I could fix it, but as far as I recall the text is the stock boilerplate that the AfD closer gadget (written by Evad37) gives you, so the long-term fix may be to fix the AfD stats tool (written by Enterprisey) to follow suit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

That would be an even better option! Thanks for the response. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I checked the gadget code and there doesn't seem to be an actual "draftify" option, so those have to be done with a custom result. I suppose I could make "move" mean "draftify" when it's followed by a link to a draft, although that seems a bit fiddly - I don't suppose there's a better way, though... Enterprisey (talk!) 21:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cassetteboy logo.jpg

⚠

Waffle waffle File:Cassetteboy logo.jpg not used in any article welp yada yada. B-bot (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@B: It's been renamed (or rather re-uploaded by Panoramedia) to File:Cassetteboy logo.svg - the history of the two files needs merging. More to the point, when are we getting Cassetteboy vs Jimbo Wales? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User page

Hi Ritchie, I don't think this is a good idea. No problem with the sentiment, but who (not) to vote for in upcoming elections is not something we should have on user pages (and admins are apparently supposed to lead by example). I wouldn't wan't it if half the user pages I go to where plastered with "MAGA" banners, and if we don't want it in such cases, we shouldn't have it for better messages either. Could you please remove it again? Fram (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and somewhat related: ever seen this? Some of the best commentary on current British politics you can find nowadays. Fram (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it; I had something similar in 2017 but it may simply be that nobody thought to complain about it, and this time around I am not as enthusiastic about Jeremy Corbyn as back then (as are a lot of people), so I can't in good conscience put up a "vote Labour" banner, though many of my friends would. I don't use Twitter and don't have an account on there; it's difficult to know where to turn to for news these days - I like Channel 4 News in particular but I am concerned it's just giving me an echo chamber just like Fox News is to people with different beliefs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The election problem seems to plague some major nations (any half decent politician would have beaten T in the US first time round, and anyone with enough integrity and intelligence should be able to beat BJ), but coming from Belgium, I'm perhaps not best placed to berate other nations their political problems... The Twiter link I gave is someone who also has a good Youtube channel, [3]. No idea if it is your style or not, I like it a lot though. Fram (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you agree with the sentiment about Farage in particular; who got told off for saying that Herman Van Rompuy came from Belgium, which is "pretty much a non country". Relating to a thread below this one, just search for "Cassetteboy vs Trump", might be juvenile but makes me feel better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Current climate seems to be to confuse "boring" with "stupid". Van Rompuy is rather boring, but compared with the "colourful" politicians currently currying the favour of the masses, I think I prefer "boring" sa long as they are intelligent and responsible. Politics needs innovative, unconventional, provocative thinkers, as long as they are smart, relatively unselfish, and kept in check by some conservative (small C!) counterbalances. Which is getting rather far off topic for Wikipedia. I'll try and have a look for cassetteboy, hadn't heard of him yet. I usually see enough things about T which make me laugh (or cry) from Twitter replies or from Trevor Noah (Daily Show). Fram (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please can I haz some boaring? --valereee (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Green Man, Ashbourne

On 4 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Green Man, Ashbourne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there is a man in tweeds on a gallows outside the Green Man, Ashbourne? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Green Man, Ashbourne. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Green Man, Ashbourne), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ekta Jain Refund

Hey, I just got the notification for AFD Closure, I think it wasn’t appropriate, Because there was only one user to thought it should be deleted, and nominator was new user, moreover Ekta Jain is not new celebrity she is in the industry since 2000 so and that is the reason why I created an article of her. I would Like a refund for this. Or should I write it again? And then we’ll see if it should be kept or deleted? Ishasalian (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ishasalian: As the article was deleted as soft delete, it can be simply restored on request; so I have now done so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitto Password Manager

Hello! Can I ask you to relist the AfD once more, since I have planned to comment there, but didn't have time? 2nd relist should be appropriate. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the debate has run its course. Try improving the article, and if you can't do so in a few months, start a new AfD then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mitto Password Manager

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mitto Password Manager. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for GA New Reviewer Mentorship

Hi there Ritchi333! I'm Shrinkydinks, and I'm doing my very first GA review. It's for country music artist Eddy Raven. Could I ask for a moment of your time? Would you mind giving it a once over?

A couple specific questions:

• I left a lot of comments on prose clarity for the article. Is this an inappropriate level of detail, or number of comments/suggestions?
• I believe the article feels sometimes like a swath of names of albums, songs, producers, and chart positions. I mentioned it in my review and proposed a couple ways the nominator could improve this. I suppose my question is: Is this typical or atypical of this kind of article?
• Nearly all newspaper articles are hosted on newspapers.com, which has some type of paywall up. Is this OK? Is there a policy on this?

Would love your insight! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shrinkydinks: I've been busy over the weekend and won't be able to give this a thorough look until this evening, but from a cursory look I think you've got the hang of things - the review is thorough and suggests many ways to improve the article to meet the GA criteria. TenPoundHammer is a longstanding experienced editor, so I don't think this will be a difficult article to pass GA once the review points are addressed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A Pub

Hi Ritchie333....here is the pub where a skull from 1857 India was found. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory: I've put something together at User:Ritchie333/Lord Clyde, Deal, but since we don't have an article on Alum Bheg, that might be a more suitable target as all sources that talk about the pub have the person as the main topic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Amazing...here is Kim...I'll look at Bheg too...can it have its own article? Whispyhistory (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and I was going to use that as a way of de-orphaning the article immediately once in mainspace. The trouble with the pub is I can't find any sources for anything else outside the skull. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if anything in here. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Why the urgency to write about the pub? If it's the Skull that's notable, it's the Skull that should get the article. Looked at that way, you've already got yourself an article. And as you know, Wagner has alreday dropped a massively-RS on you, so the weight seems prett obvious. ——SN54129 17:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

no urgency...like this?? Whispyhistory (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, WH, it was R333 I wanted to poke in the ribs, not you. Yeah, The Skull Rocks. ——SN54129 17:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well when I was chatting to Whispyhistory in Pendrel's yesterday, they suggested the pub was the topic to write about (given I've already written quite a few of them), then after I cobbled together a few words, I found it was the skull (or owner of it) that was the more notable topic. Hence parking what I'd written (with sources) in userspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

/and up his nostrils/hot bananas thrust/ ——SN54129 18:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Begone, a mere editor with the intellectual capacity of a squashed apricot can be of no use to us. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion question

This is a bit long, and please feel free to disregard as it is neither very important nor very urgent. But given your more generous take on speedy deletions, I thought you'd have a good answer to this question: Is there a valid reason to speedy delete Draft:John Zachary Danao? Short version is that someone periodically tries to recreate the page, and someone supports the articles with cheap online PR packages that insert their name into low-quality news stories and contributor articles, all in an effort to promote and, it seems, to try to establish their (apparently fictional) Harvard graduate status on Wikipedia. Last time this happened EEng and I spent some time disassembling the whole thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Zachary Danao, which also resulted in a sockpuppet investigation and subsequent deletion of subject's similar efforts at Wikidata and Tagalog Wikipedia. I also note that the IP that created the most recent draft asked an admin to hide the AfD discussion. The history of John Zachary Danao is also informative. So, this version is only sort of a hoax, only sort of promotional, and sort of different from previously deleted efforts. I recognize that it can probably just be left to expire as a draft, given that no one is likely to move it to the deleted title if they look at the history, but I was curious if there was a speedy alternative. Thanks, and again, please feel free to archive this and move on if you're not interested. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo: Well it's not often I disagree with Cullen328 but in this case I don't think a G4 speedy meets the letter of the policy (but possibly the spirit - more of that in a mo). Specifically, "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." However, Cullen has also suggested the article may be a blatant hoax (per WP:G3), which would justify deletion - I found a source here that suggests it's not a hoax, but the chap just doesn't seem notable. I think I would just leave it be in a deleted state until and unless a neutral editor wants to restore it and improve it so the issues raised at the AfD no longer apply. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for taking a look. (The London Post article's contents did not hold up to scrutiny at the AfD, so I'm also sympathetic to the hoax rationale.) Indignant Flamingo (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The London Post article that states "When John Zachary Danao was a freshman, Mcdall asked him to be a founding member of the school’s poetry magazine, Harvard Business Review" cannot possibly be a reliable source. The London Post is an online only restaurant and entertainment website founded in 2014 with an editorial staff of two people. The Harvard Business Review was founded in 1922 and is obviously not a poetry magazine. Extremely fishy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the actual poetry magazine is The Harvard Advocate, which was founded in 1866. If I understand correctly from the AfD, the page subject is a living person, who should perhaps be congratulated on his extreme longevity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL, Tryptofish. Sorry for my use of "fishy". Let's not get the supercentenarian-obsessed editors involved in this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Indeed. Although I'll admit that Danao sounds to me a bit like danio. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

One of my sons used to keep danios, Tryptofish and now my two year old granddaughter is fascinated by the genetically engineered variety called GloFish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That's nice; I'm glad. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Air Balloon (pub)

On 10 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Air Balloon (pub), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Balloon went up in 1784 and added air in 1802, but now Highways England wants to blow it up? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Air Balloon (pub). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Air Balloon (pub)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy first edit day!

Happy First Edit Day, Ritchie333, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Clovermoss (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greyhawk deities

Could you consider relisting instead? The thing is a bunch of other lists of D&D gods were deleted recently, so it's a bit strange this one would survive (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragonlance deities. It is no different, content-wise, from those other lists, so the arguments may also IMHO be weighted cross-discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities was actually closed as merge rather than delete, and that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities is actually at WP:DRV. BOZ (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not inclined to relist as the debate had started to see quite a bit of to-and-fro between major participants in the debate without much input from anyone else, and that would likely continue with an increased risk of descending into personal attacks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

London Victoria

Hi Ritchie, I am somewhat new to Wikipedia so not overly confident not having a direct messaging facility as I would expect, so have been unable to reply to you. From the noticeboard you put me on, I gather you haven't actually accessed the site? That may be useful to understand what it's about. I will try my best to find a timetable for the train, but if this fails you can just look at realtime Trains. The train that is being considered is here: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W49011/2020-01-09/detailed - as you can see it stops at Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street. You're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamMattDavies (talk • contribs) 07:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@IamMattDavies: I would recommend looking at User:Enterprisey/reply-link and installing the reply-link tool (or getting an interface administrator such as Enterprisey to install it for you). It makes communication much simpler, particularly if you're used to the Facebook and Twitter way of doing things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

W/a Sir Robin, et al.

Sir Boris ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When asked to go on GMB
His bouncer swore on live TV.
Brave Sir Boris turned about,
Gallantly chickened out.
"I'm Brave!" He screamed "I'll get Brexit Done!"
Then hid in a fridge 'til the press had gone.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Boris!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)

You're more optimistic than I am - at the recent London meetup I predicted the result on Friday would be a Tory majority of 15. Obviously not what I want at all. :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't read it sa making any predictions, but. ——SN54129 17:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This must be the most unpredictable election in decades. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Redrose64, perhaps previously predicatble constituencies might throw up surprises... ——SN54129 12:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Vote Wisely - Vote Silly --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"I think the phrase rhymes with clucking bell..."

"Good luck everyone". ——SN54129 04:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 17:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas – Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

NFOOTY RfC

"Spanks in advance!"

This is my mental image of you, just FYI. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I wanted to ask you: in your opinion, what language, on what page, would convince a closer to close this AfD as either a keep or delete? Do we look at modifying WP:N, WP:ATH, or WP:NFOOTY? Or WP:CONSENSUS or WP:DGFA or a WP:CCPOL? Do we see if there's consensus for adding An article meeting an SNG [is/is not] a valid keep rationale, or something more like Closers [must/are encouraged to/may] [discount/not discount] !votes based on an article meeting an SNG? Just curious what your perspective is about what change to what page would break the logjam and provide some long-term stability/predictability in these notability discussions. Spanks in advance! – Levivich 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability currently has the sentence It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right (emphasis mine) which either needs to be affirmed or modified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That statement is worded generally to be flexible enough to accommodate all different kinds of subject-specific notability criteria. The sports-specific notability criteria, though, explicitly defer to the general notability guideline as the ultimate arbiter for determining if English Wikipedia's standards for having an article are met (in conjunction with other applicable policies such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). isaacl (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Editors gather at an admin's talk page to discuss a recent close. Levivich's mother (center, dressed in white) holds Levivich up so he can see. – Levivich 23:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Speaking personally, I think the strongest arguments came from Malcolmxl5 and HawkAussie (both "delete") with Smartyllama not far behind ("keep") - and like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitty (cricketer) there could have been argument to redirect / merge to Mansfield Town F.C., but nobody suggested that so it would have been a supervote. Now, in retrospect perhaps I should have just !voted "redirect" myself and left somebody else to close the AfD, but experience (not least from Chitty) shows me that if I closed it as either "keep" or "delete", I would get a couple of angry torch-and-pitchfork bearers turning up on my talk page. By closing as NC, I can quitely suggest you can just be bold and do the redirect suggested here, as the result from the AfD doesn't suggest you can't. Moving forward, I would recommend starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability to get it deprecated so that if you want to keep an article on a footballer featuring in a single match 80+ years ago, you need to produce enough sources to meet GNG. Then at least people can't complain when the AfD closes as "delete". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Six people asking to leave against four for remain? Hmmm, I think you should spoil your ballot paper....

I will try the bold merge, but I wish to record here my prediction that in response, I will be accused of disruption and threatened with ANI. – Levivich 23:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football is not the same thing as Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability; the former is the actual target of WP:NFOOTY and a guideline while the latter is the target of WP:FOOTYN and an essay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't get the no-consensus either, I thought the keep votes were a bit weak, the player was from the 1930s which is just before the war, resources for football? Well considering the time period, the onset of WW2 I hardly think GNG will be established for this player. Six people asking for delete against four? Govvy (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think closers are in an impossible position. For reference, here's (1) the AfD Ritchie just closed as no-consensus (a close I do not dispute FTR). Compare that one with (2) this no-consensus AfD that was endorsed at DRV; (3) this keep AfD (no DRV; I thought about it but decided it would be pointless); and (4) this delete AfD that is currently at DRV. I see all four of those as being basically of the same mold (and there are many more examples), but the closes vary. What's a closer to do? – Levivich 22:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well quite. As I said above, "redirect / merge" would be a good compromise, but I can't do that as nobody asked for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem with asking for an WP:NFOOTY review is that you are going to have two camps for and against having it change. The talk page is a prime example of this split. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I went to go merge Stanley Page to List of Mansfield Town F.C. players, and then I realized the list only lists players with 50+ appearances. Stanley Page had one. Doesn't seem like there's anywhere to merge to. Gotta love the logic of NFOOTY: not notable to be on the list, but notable enough for a stand-alone page. Ha. – Levivich 04:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

In that case, it's a shame nobody mentioned that during the AfD, then there would be stronger grounds to close as "delete"; I just have to go with what people asked for during the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

O, that Nigel Farage photo and quote made me laugh. Poor Ritchie, it looks like a mob of Wikipedians are picketing your talk page again. Guess it's time to go clean your wikipedia mug! Govvy (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that Corbyn didn't get in Ritchie. I know how much you love him!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Seriously? I think he pointed a blunderbuss at his foot by agreeing to Boris' election (when all the polls and stats said the Tories would win, as they indeed did) and pulled the trigger blowing his entire leg off by thinking he could win it. He got lucky last time by May running an absolute balls-up of a campaign; all Boris needed to do was hide in a fridge until it all blew over. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Come back here, you sissy, and I'll bite your Jewish legs off!". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)