User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 128
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | → | Archive 135 |
DYK for Say You Don't Mind
On 19 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Say You Don't Mind, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Christopher Gunning apparently only got paid £15 to arrange the top-20 hit "Say You Don't Mind"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Say You Don't Mind. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Say You Don't Mind), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
I've proposed an RM at this page; courtesy ping as the original mover. 162 etc. (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Asahi Linux
On 22 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Asahi Linux, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that you can now run Linux on an Apple-silicon Mac? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Asahi Linux. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Asahi Linux), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gravelly Hill Interchange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Prix.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Pink Floyd has an RFC
Pink Floyd has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TSP (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
April
 | |
| April songs |
thank you for miracles on RD! - memories: two people on DYK, both connected to Oper Frankfurt, and don't miss yesterday's video of Pink Floyd given to me! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page history/2022 April 13: the TFA is hard to overlook, but there are also peace prayers, a soprano and a theatre manager, - if you don't find them try here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
dance and singing, peace doves and icecream --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
next offer: now you can listen to what I heard live yesterday, Kyiv Symphony Orchestra, Luigi Gaggero & Diana Tishchenko (violin) / Kulturpalast Dresden (25 April 2022 on YouTube (that's 25 April in Dresden, a different violinist, but the same program) - ours pictured here - dove sono as encore --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Hey there Ritchie333, I'd like to wish you a happy adminship anniversary! Congratulations on your special day, and thank you for all the contributions you've made.
𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC) On behalf of the Birthday Committee
I also want to thank you for putting that pro-Ukraine message on your user page. Most admins are strictly neutral, so it's nice to see one condemning the war. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, would you be interested in taking that to GA, it looks like a GA at first glance as it is?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- It does look particularly good; however, I'm generally reluctant to take articles to GA unless I have done a significant amount of work and research myself, otherwise I might be stumped by questions asked by the reviewer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not easy to feel confident on something you haven't checked. The editor hasn't been on here since March. Perhaps I can convince him to nominate it and one of us can review it. A very nice day in the UK today wasn't it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yes, so it is. I've been stuck at work all day and haven't noticed :-/ Anyway, yes, if you can persuade the main contributor(s) to put it up for GA, that would be okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Long time no see, Doc Blowers. p.s. saw him on tour with that masterpiece Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Very world dominating! Hope you're both well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Solid mate, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Very world dominating! Hope you're both well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not easy to feel confident on something you haven't checked. The editor hasn't been on here since March. Perhaps I can convince him to nominate it and one of us can review it. A very nice day in the UK today wasn't it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"You can't educate people with templates"
I'll bring this here to avoid sending that thread-from-hell even further off the rails, but I disagree with "You can't educate people with templates". Even though we all like to bitch about overenthusiastic templating, most of the templates actually work fine. The problem is that in general, we only see the instances where they haven't worked—there's no obvious way to track the number of people who e.g. get a {{uw-medrs}} template and think "Oh, I didn't realize medical articles have different sourcing requirements, I'll go look into that before I edit any further". ‑ Iridescent 14:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) "You can lead a horse to water, but it's no good trying to forcibly attach water wings" etc. And regarding WP:DTTR, the ones threatening a block are really the most inappropriate and counter-productive. There ought to be enough subtlety in the tool box to avoid unnecessrily just annoying people? I have no stats, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- In my experience, a lot of the scary level 4 "you will be blocked" templates are a box-ticking exercise; we know perfectly well that the user is going to be blocked, they know perfectly well that they're going to be blocked, but it means they can't use the "I was never warned!" argument. FWIW, the user warning templates do actually work surprisingly often. The bored kids and junior employees goofing off in their lunch break tend to back off quickly as soon as they understand that their teachers/employers might see the warning on the IP talkpage and start asking questions. The templates that are tailored for specific situations such as {{Uw-joke4im}}, rather than just the generic "you are being unconstructive" waffle, can also work quite well. Realistically, we have 4000 active editors and 400 active admins; we don't have the resources to handwrite a tailored response to every "poop!" vandal. ‑ Iridescent 15:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess. I can understand the need for consistency and the need to avoid appearing to give preferential treatment. But if an admin really doesn't seem to distinguish between an IP school-IP "poop!" vandal and a serious editor who's been around 15 years, perhaps they should think twice before leaving a template at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest I've never really understood DTTR. Surely 'the regulars' are the people who are aware that Wikipedia's templating setup is a mix of semiautomated processes and pro forma messaging and who know where to look if they do actually need to know more about specific policies, and thus are the people who wouldn't benefit from personalized messages? I might find it amusing when I get a message beginning "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia", but for me to find it offensive would be like complaining that the self-service checkout at Morrison's didn't ask me how I planned to cook the food I'd bought. ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- The cynic would probably say that there is a two-tier system of editors where some editors consider templated messages as beneath them. Practically speaking, sometimes you want a tailored conversation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Lol. Design flaw: the self-service checkout at Morrison's does not have a "mute" button. The regulars are also people who are totally offended when they get a template slapped on their Talk page, in the middle of a "disagreement", when what would be much more useful would be a little hand-written message saying "I disagree with you about this because of x, y and z"... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well yeah, it all depends on context. That said, nobody is seriously going to get upset at receiving a generic template for something routine like an article being AfD'd; nine times out of ten the template which provokes an angry "DTTR!" response is {{uw-npa4im}}, and when that gets wheeled out it's usually fairly self-evident why. If I really need to sit and manually type "User:Foo, please don't call User:Bar 'a worthless cuntbubble', it is uncivil" for them to understand it, then User:Foo is probably someone on whom it's not worth wasting the time it would take to type it. ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest I've never really understood DTTR. Surely 'the regulars' are the people who are aware that Wikipedia's templating setup is a mix of semiautomated processes and pro forma messaging and who know where to look if they do actually need to know more about specific policies, and thus are the people who wouldn't benefit from personalized messages? I might find it amusing when I get a message beginning "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia", but for me to find it offensive would be like complaining that the self-service checkout at Morrison's didn't ask me how I planned to cook the food I'd bought. ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess. I can understand the need for consistency and the need to avoid appearing to give preferential treatment. But if an admin really doesn't seem to distinguish between an IP school-IP "poop!" vandal and a serious editor who's been around 15 years, perhaps they should think twice before leaving a template at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- In my experience, a lot of the scary level 4 "you will be blocked" templates are a box-ticking exercise; we know perfectly well that the user is going to be blocked, they know perfectly well that they're going to be blocked, but it means they can't use the "I was never warned!" argument. FWIW, the user warning templates do actually work surprisingly often. The bored kids and junior employees goofing off in their lunch break tend to back off quickly as soon as they understand that their teachers/employers might see the warning on the IP talkpage and start asking questions. The templates that are tailored for specific situations such as {{Uw-joke4im}}, rather than just the generic "you are being unconstructive" waffle, can also work quite well. Realistically, we have 4000 active editors and 400 active admins; we don't have the resources to handwrite a tailored response to every "poop!" vandal. ‑ Iridescent 15:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The specific problem I've seen is roughly as follows - I see a report on WP:AN3 (or even, heaven forbid, WP:AIV) - where a reasonably experienced editor and newbie / IP are arguing with each other. The newbie isn't communicating, possibly because they don't know how to, while the experienced editor is communicating in templates only. Here is a classic example of that escalating to ANI where I said "If you aren't prepared to take responsibility for what Twinkle and Huggle writes on user talk pages, do not use it.". I'd be interested in some evidence from a study that shows how effective templates are - I use the odd one for AfD notifications when I'm feeling lazy, but I do avoid them when the more preferable thing is to draft a hand-written message. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- There almost certainly is a WMF study into the effectiveness of templates, but it probably dates back to when they were deciding whether to invest in Flagged Revisions and as such is out of date. (It may not feel like it sometimes but both the vandalism rate and the rate of inappropriate new page creation have dropped hugely over the past decade, as we've progressively squeezed what IPs and newly-created accounts can do. Watching Special:RecentChanges or Special:NewPages circa 2008 was like standing in front of a firehose.) It would be easy enough to measure—just track each use of "if you continue you will be blocked" templates with whether the editor went on to be blocked, continued editing and wasn't blocked, or disappeared.) Anecdotally, the generic warning templates do work surprisingly well as a scarecrow; once people notice their edits are being watched they either slink away or they flare out and get themselves blocked, and either way the disruption stops.
- Where the issues arise is when people use templates on long-term contributors that were intended for brand new accounts. Even then I can see an argument for using the templates, even though it sometimes means people interpret it as "you think I'm so unimportant you're not even going to waste your time writing a personalized message". That we don't have the resources to write personal messages to everyone every time is just straightforward fact; anyone who's enough of a regular to be aware of WP:DTTR already knows this. ‑ Iridescent 04:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, Iridescent, Martinevans123, and Jo-Jo Eumerus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at this load of old buggery bollocks. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are there new buggery bollocks? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but we're not telling you where! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, good! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but we're not telling you where! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are there new buggery bollocks? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Bollocks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Bollocks at the Reference desk. |
I can't afford a PB and J sandwich, so here's a toast sandwich for you!
|
This is a nice guide! AmerikanKoloniser (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello Ritchie333,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 810 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 861 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
DYK for Hey, Hey, Rise Up!
On 6 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hey, Hey, Rise Up!, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" is the first new Pink Floyd song in more than 25 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hey, Hey, Rise Up!. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hey, Hey, Rise Up!), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for the article which is also featured on my talk today! - a song for you: Glauben können wie du, sung by the person I have on DYK today, right below the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's really Andy who did the main work on this, I just pushed it in the right direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 15,714 views (654.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- team work is it - today performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK - and more May pics--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- today more pics, and should this woman have an article? - or only her sons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- today Melody (not by me), and more pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- a strong woman --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Page was indeffed protected due to BKFIP disruption, in December 2015. Since that time BKFIP has changed his MO, and gone on to create many autoconfirmed and even quite a few extended confirmed accounts without returning to disrupt this page. Hence unprotection might be worth a try here. Protection can always be restored if disruption resumes. Thanks for your consideration. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The last-but-one change on the article was from Hiralious (talk · contribs), subsequently blocked as a sock puppet of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. There hasn't been an edit request on the article for over a year. Based on that, I am not inclined to unprotect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Mentoring
Hi there, I noticed you are a good article mentor. I am dipping my toe in the water with the backlog, and have started a review of One Astor Plaza. I thought starting with an old nom, and one that is a non-controversial geographical feature would be a good idea. I have read, and continue to read the criteria against the article, but would love you to keep an eye on my review and let me know of any feedback or issues. Before I even finish the review, I have a good feeling this is a pass given it's good first impression and the past contributions of its author, but looking forward to formally applying criteria. Thanks!MaxnaCarter (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the review. I am aware of Epicgenius' contributions to Wikipedia, particularly New York City architecture, over many years, and am perfectly happy to believe that there won't be much to discuss in a GA review of his work. However, there are always comments or suggestions that can be made, and I would generally list anything you think is worthwhile that can make the article better. You could then defer back to the GA criteria if the nominator thinks such a task is difficult, time-consuming or otherwise complicated, but won't cause the review to fail if not done. For example, there is a citation to TheStreet which one of my scripts (probably User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js or User:Headbomb/unreliable.js - Atsme would know) flags up as "generally unreliable", so that's worth a bit of discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hey, Ritchie! I took a quick look at the questionable sources (Rolling Stone & Gothamist), and they do raise question. In the section SL Green ownership, if MTV vacated One Astor Plaza in 2009 as anticipated by those sources, where did they move? Looking at the MTV article, their address is still One Astor Plaza, 1515 Broadway. 🚩🚩🚩 Perhaps I overlooked something? Prose size (text only) 6539 words = approx 39kb so it's ok there. I might suggest condensing some of the details in the History section, but wouldn't push it. Flow matters more - the words should flow making the article easy to read – it just seems that the financial situations of previous owners, increased rents, etc. have little to do with architecture or history of the building itself, and more to do with the history of those companies. Hope that helps a little. Atsme 💬 📧 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Atsme, regarding
if MTV vacated One Astor Plaza in 2009...
, that was my bad. MTV did vacate the studios and retains an office presence there. However, the wording was extremely weird - I guess the phrasing "MTV moved out of the building's studios" may have given the impression that MTV moved out of the building altogether, which it didn't. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Atsme, regarding
- Hey, Ritchie! I took a quick look at the questionable sources (Rolling Stone & Gothamist), and they do raise question. In the section SL Green ownership, if MTV vacated One Astor Plaza in 2009 as anticipated by those sources, where did they move? Looking at the MTV article, their address is still One Astor Plaza, 1515 Broadway. 🚩🚩🚩 Perhaps I overlooked something? Prose size (text only) 6539 words = approx 39kb so it's ok there. I might suggest condensing some of the details in the History section, but wouldn't push it. Flow matters more - the words should flow making the article easy to read – it just seems that the financial situations of previous owners, increased rents, etc. have little to do with architecture or history of the building itself, and more to do with the history of those companies. Hope that helps a little. Atsme 💬 📧 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands (2nd nomination)
Yes, !votes aren't the only factor, but 12/4 is a clear consensus for a keep. I could go directly to Wikipedia:Deletion review but am giving you a chance to change the close to a "keep", or, as suggested at the AfD, a "snow keep". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote. Specifically, RandomCanadian gave strong arguments for deletion, while a number of "keep" arguments were procedural, suggesting the AfD shouldn't have been re-nominated as quickly. Those carry less weight as they said nothing about the suitability of having an article. I would also draw your attention to the above thread, which also shows the presence of these stamp list articles is contentious. As also stated above, I can relist the AfD if you like, and if you filed a review at DRV, I would suggest the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you didn't completely discount/strike all of RandomCanadians' disruptive bludgeoning and faulty arguments. If I had done that, I would have been warned and my !vote discounted. I've seen that happen. Restarting an AfD in this manner is disruptive, so an immediate close and a trout to Random would have been best. I really get tired of wikipedians who take pride in deleting as much as they can get away with. That goes against WP:PRESERVE, which is an important policy. We are supposed to try to improve imperfect content, IOW to build/keep rather than tear down/delete. Much deletion is laziness and an admission that we have failed, and not even seriously tried, to properly document the "sum total of human knowledge" as enjoined by Jimmy Wales. That is why we are here. It is our purpose. Maybe DGG can share some thoughts about this.
- The only legitimate question here (and pretty much all AfDs) was notability (all else can be fixed), and, with few exceptions, if someone is notable enough for a stamp, that's pretty notable. The nation is the only necessary source as their own culture and language will have plenty of RS that show what led to the notability of that person, and we don't have to perform the work/translations to find those sources. That a nation deems a person worthy of a stamp is prima facie evidence of notability. Period. WP:NOT is a BS argument in this connection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 09:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are arguing that the people on these stamps are notable, which is not the topic of discussion. "People who spoke at the parliamentary session of 25 May 1782" will include only ntable people (parlementarians) and will probably be verifiable (if there was a session that day), but that doesn't mean that it would be an acceptable article. The reason for deletion, which was ignored by most "keep" votes (and as you show still isn't understood by all of them), is that the "group", the "list of people", isn't a notable topic, despite the individual people being notable. Fram (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Valjean: (talk page stalker) you should count yourself lucky that the AFD wasn't closed as straight delete. Looking at the debate, There is a total absence of valid reasoning behind the keep votes, and nothing to counter the fact that this list violates WP:LISTN and WP:SYNTH, because there is no external source presented which lists the same information. No consensus is a very legitimate outcome, and absent further evidence that this topic is one that's notable for listing, it's likely the next one will be a delete. — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- "We are supposed to try to improve imperfect content, IOW to build/keep rather than tear down/delete" That's not strictly true all of the time; if I were to write "[politican] is a confirmed rapist and has sexually assaulted at least five girls under the age of 16" with no source, and argued that "we are supposed to try and improve imperfect content", I'd be lambasted for doing so. And on that issue, Jimbo agrees. Okay, that's an extreme example, but it does show that in contentious topics like this, it is perfectly reasonable to have a view that an article cannot be improved, and hence deletion might be a more appropriate organisation of the encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree on all points, except the implication that that "extreme example" cannot be improved by providing several impeccable RS and improving the wording. That would satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE's description of how we are supposed to present such matters and also satisfy Jimbo's goal for Wikipedia. I suspect you took your example too far in your desire to make a point (which I do appreciate), yet even this one can be resolved/saved/improved and then included in the appropriate spot in the appropriate article. We don't have to immediately reject and delete it. That's too lazy an approach. We should try to save it. That doesn't mean we have to do the work ourselves. Sometimes we don't have the time or background knowledge to immediately fix it ourselves, and since the burden for doing so is on the one who wants to include the content, they should be encouraged to do so. In the meantime, if it's unsourced, it should be fixed immediately or deleted, per BLP. If it wasn't a sensitive BLP matter, we'd just tag it with a "cn" and hope someone improved it, but that's a different type of situation.
- As far as "That's not strictly true all of the time," I suspect you could come up with a better hypothetical situation where we'd both agree that it was unfixable. Otherwise, I still believe our first priority should be to save content if at all possible, assuming it is from the good faith efforts of another normal editor, not some vandal.
- You and I may not fully agree on the AfD decision, but I do respect your opinion(s) and definitely AGF in your efforts. I also appreciate the comments from others and will consider them. I've been here since 2003 and am always learning. Carry on the good work. I think we are all fortunate to be able to contribute to this amazing project. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- "We are supposed to try to improve imperfect content, IOW to build/keep rather than tear down/delete" That's not strictly true all of the time; if I were to write "[politican] is a confirmed rapist and has sexually assaulted at least five girls under the age of 16" with no source, and argued that "we are supposed to try and improve imperfect content", I'd be lambasted for doing so. And on that issue, Jimbo agrees. Okay, that's an extreme example, but it does show that in contentious topics like this, it is perfectly reasonable to have a view that an article cannot be improved, and hence deletion might be a more appropriate organisation of the encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I would like the content of the "List of numbers in various languages" page moved to Wiktionary, please.
Hello, I was one of the regular contributors to the page "List of numbers in various languages", and I just found out that it's been removed. I am sorry to see it go, but I know it's for the best on a site like Wikipedia.
However, I did read that you said, "If anyone would like the content moved to userspace in order to move to Wiktionary, let me know." I would certainly wish to see the page on Wiktionary, because it would probably be more fitting there than on Wikipedia proper.
Please reply to this as soon as possible. --Abcormal (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm happy to move this to userspace, but there seems to be a technical problem in doing so. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unable to userfy List of numbers in various languages. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have the backup of the "List of Numbers in Various Language" page?
I was just surprised that the page has gone. :( Fortunamia (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's being restored now to User:Abcormal/List of numbers in various languages - see the above thread on AN. If you think the deletion was in error, you can appeal the decision at deletion review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, I doubt very much Wiktionary is going to want any part of this. (I'd have said so earlier, except that the move summary mentioned Wikidata instead. I couldn't figure out why Wikidata would want it, either, but I'm less familiar with the project.) They've indicated that they don't want transwikification from Wikipedia because the content is uniformly awful when considered as dictionary entries, and they handle translations totally differently - see for example wikt:1#Alternative forms and wikt:one#Translations. —Cryptic 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The "Wikidata" was a typo, I got the two mixed up - I don't participate in either project bar the odd contribution. The page looks like it might be useful somewhere and I don't think the content is awful per se, it's just a very large indiscriminate dump of information that has been added to without ever stopping to think whether it would be actually appropriate to have it in an encyclopedia (which was the point those at the AfD were making). I'm just not sure what to do with it. The important thing from my angle is because it's now visible to all editors (albeit now in an obscure tucked-away place), somebody more knowledgeable about these things can work on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, I doubt very much Wiktionary is going to want any part of this. (I'd have said so earlier, except that the move summary mentioned Wikidata instead. I couldn't figure out why Wikidata would want it, either, but I'm less familiar with the project.) They've indicated that they don't want transwikification from Wikipedia because the content is uniformly awful when considered as dictionary entries, and they handle translations totally differently - see for example wikt:1#Alternative forms and wikt:one#Translations. —Cryptic 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
You are aware that you just closed an AfD for a completely unsourced article, where none of the keep voters offered even a single source, as "no consensus", instead of delete? I would think that the basic requirement to give any "keep" vote any weight would be that either the article or the AfD offered anything resembling a source... Fram (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am, and to be honest I get annoyed when I see a contentious AfD like this, and discover that nobody has made any attempt to improve it. However, I also didn't see enough people agreeing with your deletion rationale, particularly DGG, who declined the original PROD. It's never been policy to delete articles simply because they're rubbish, and if you think there should be one, an RfC is probably the way to go. All that said, a "no consensus" close implies no prejudice against re-nomination when things have calmed down a bit - or if you prefer, I can relist the AfD instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Considering the number of similar articles DGG deprodded, but which then got deleted anyway, I wouldn't give too much weight to his remarks. And of course the deletion rationale was not "it'srbbish", but "fails WP:LISTN, which none of the keeps actually disproved (as seen, again, by e.g. the lack of any sources). Fram (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- So do you want the AfD relisted? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Considering the number of similar articles DGG deprodded, but which then got deleted anyway, I wouldn't give too much weight to his remarks. And of course the deletion rationale was not "it'srbbish", but "fails WP:LISTN, which none of the keeps actually disproved (as seen, again, by e.g. the lack of any sources). Fram (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose I should have been more active in following these up. (It was indeed my intention to deprod as many of these as I could find, and eventually go on to deal with the ones that had already been deleted. I think it is generally valuable to call attention to neglected corners here, and always valuable to determine consensus on an area which seems never to have been discussed.) They are all unsourced, but not unsourceable, as they are included in the standard philately handbooks. I had hoped someone active in that field would have added them, as my childhood amateur days in this field ended decades ago. Since they are sourceable, the main reasons for deletion seems to have been that "nobody was working on them or currently reading them", or that they were incomplete, all of which are completely irrelevant. WP is a work in progress perpetually, and has no time limits and no size limits. If further discussion is warranted, I see no reason why they have to be listed independently-, for the same arguments would apply to all. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, the main deletion reason is that they fail WP:LISTN, which neither you nor any other proponent of keeping them has actually been able to disprove. The claim that e.g. the topic of "people on the list of stamps of Fiji" (or Finland, or Gibraltar, or Netherlands New Guinea, or ...) is "included in the standard philately handbooks" seems very optimistic; what philately handbooks include, is the basic fact that many collectors collect by topic, and that typical topics are people, animals, sports, events, buildings, ... , just like there are collectors by country, by shape of stamp, by year, by special emission, ... All of which is hardly sufficient to have lists about these topics per country. The additional problems (unsourced, incomplete, wrong, ...) are only giving as indications of the state of these articles and the general interest them, as a counter to argulents in early AfDs about how these topics are clearly notable, of interest, ... and other similar false claims. So far, all your many Prods have achieved is cause a massive amount ofg extra work for many people, a massive amount of pointless discussions, and very little actual improvement to enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had a short break today, so I Googled around, and found a couple of RS to add as citations to a couple of the Nigerian stamps that have historical significance, especially now that we have email. Those same 2 sources also reference some of the other historically significant stamps in the list, and there are more RS out there for those with the time & ambition to find them, so happy editing to all the history buffs and philatelists! WP:NEXIST Atsme 💬 📧 18:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- External link. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had a short break today, so I Googled around, and found a couple of RS to add as citations to a couple of the Nigerian stamps that have historical significance, especially now that we have email. Those same 2 sources also reference some of the other historically significant stamps in the list, and there are more RS out there for those with the time & ambition to find them, so happy editing to all the history buffs and philatelists! WP:NEXIST Atsme 💬 📧 18:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, the main deletion reason is that they fail WP:LISTN, which neither you nor any other proponent of keeping them has actually been able to disprove. The claim that e.g. the topic of "people on the list of stamps of Fiji" (or Finland, or Gibraltar, or Netherlands New Guinea, or ...) is "included in the standard philately handbooks" seems very optimistic; what philately handbooks include, is the basic fact that many collectors collect by topic, and that typical topics are people, animals, sports, events, buildings, ... , just like there are collectors by country, by shape of stamp, by year, by special emission, ... All of which is hardly sufficient to have lists about these topics per country. The additional problems (unsourced, incomplete, wrong, ...) are only giving as indications of the state of these articles and the general interest them, as a counter to argulents in early AfDs about how these topics are clearly notable, of interest, ... and other similar false claims. So far, all your many Prods have achieved is cause a massive amount ofg extra work for many people, a massive amount of pointless discussions, and very little actual improvement to enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
deletion of page Pushpam Priya Choudhary
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pushpam Priya Choudhary (3rd nomination)
You wrongly deleted the page. There was no through discussion and there was no fair opportunity. Please relist the page for discussion. Dakshinamurti (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I deleted it because nobody except you wants to keep the page. You will need to find another article to improve. I strongly advise you not to open a thread at deletion review again, as you may be criticised for wasting other people's time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to be contrary, but unlike the Faroes case above I think you've made an error here Ritchie. The OP may not have gone about things the best way or won any friends thoughout the AFD saga, but they presented sourcing to show Notability and overall I think the Oppose votes were small in number in both the recent AFDs and also weak or failed to address the legitimacy of the three sources presented. I would probably !vote "keep" myself. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I've relisted the AfD. I'm still concerned about bludgeoning, but we'll see. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, having had done a Google News search myself, I can find a whole bunch of sources that can be potentially used, so on reflection I'd probably leaning towards !voting "keep" as well, provided I could improve the article a bit. I think the problems here were (a) nobody improved the article whatsoever during the third AfD, (b) when an article has been deleted at AfD twice and no established editors have come forward to at least play devil's advocate, then it's easy for confirmation bias to kick in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I've relisted the AfD. I'm still concerned about bludgeoning, but we'll see. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to be contrary, but unlike the Faroes case above I think you've made an error here Ritchie. The OP may not have gone about things the best way or won any friends thoughout the AFD saga, but they presented sourcing to show Notability and overall I think the Oppose votes were small in number in both the recent AFDs and also weak or failed to address the legitimacy of the three sources presented. I would probably !vote "keep" myself. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Shift clicking
_02.JPG)
.jpg)
Goes well with Rock Lobster. --Tryptolobster
.jpg)
I know, huh? I'm lucky I found out about it two months in to being an admin, although it didn't save me from clicking that small box 133 times when someone pasted the entire contents of a book into an article... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Martinevans123: Thanks to the wonders of YouTube (watch out for the copyvio police), I've found a clip of One Vision rehearsals where Freddie is indeed singing "One shrimp, one prawn, one clam, one chicken" .... and worse. I'll never hear that song in the same way again. :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Fookin' Prawns"! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abbey Road, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Let It Be and Something.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- You could have told me that when I made the edit (I was reverting to a stable lead from earlier following complaints elsewhere) and it tagged it as "dabs added" but I hadn't the foggiest what. Harrumph. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Recent aspersion
.jpg)
I just noticed this and felt you should be aware that you were recently accused of involved bad faith sanctioning by this user. Unfortunately, this is only the fourth or so NPP-aligned editor I've encountered since February that thinks it was okay for Onel5969 to edit war and ignore policy if you had "very little experience with the NPP process and the work required and the challenges faced." One of them even bludgeoned the first ANI report towards the end and argued unironically at one point that Onel doesn't have to engage in dispute resolution or abide by ATD-R because his time is too precious. Darkknight2149 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to work out the overall context as to what this is about, but if Kudpung (who is one of the most knowledgeable editors about the entire NPP process, second perhaps only to DGG if that) thought I had no experience with NPP, he wouldn't have nominated me for adminship. Onel's block (which was only a block on a single page for edit warring) was appealed and declined by another administrator, not overturned, so it can't have been that egregious. In any case, this block is in the past and is no longer important - in general I have found that Onel is a good editor who is willing to listen when we have disagreed on something (generally whether an article meets a particular CSD criteria such as A7 or G11). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words, Ritchie and yes, that nomination statement was one of the coolest I wrote and I never regretted it since. Giving credit where it's due, Darkknight2149, I handed Onel5969 a barnstar not so long ago for his work on NPP. Anyway, it just goes to prove what I have always contended: that the majority of NPPers are a lazy bunch of hat collectors and that never in the field of junk and spam has so much been owed by so many to so few; and now, without any semblance of coordination, NPP is in an even worse state than when I was holding it together for years and Ritchie was working there. That said, not being an aficionado of that dark and nauseating almost medieaval squalour of ANI with its leering, jeering peanut gallery on one side and a bunch of admin wannabe governance obsessives on the other, since 1 March 2020 I've not been very clued up on the quotidian crap that cackles there like witches round a caldron. Hence I wouldn't have been aware of any other of OneI's activities, and I'm not in a position to judge either way even if I wanted to, and I don't. I would be hard pressed however, to imagine that a block pronounced by Ritchie were inappropriate, especially where it was endorsed by another admin. Anyway, I see no reason for anyone to be hounding Ritchie or OneI and it's time for all those who can't let it go, to give it a rest now, otherwise if I were an admin (and I ain't) I'd start throwing my weight around. Now back in the land of living after 9 weeks in hospital with a COVID that nearly killed me, so forgive me for having waxed lyrical, but I'm going back to my pianner to bash out some more blues and boogie - and perhaps a bit of jazzed up Bach. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can't go wrong with a bit of music. Last night I was playing clarinet in a military band (seem to be doing a lot of that these days) running through the full, original, Elgar arrangement of "Pomp and Circumstance No 1", and then doing a few Rory Gallagher covers (the anniversary of his death has just passed) on guitar in a pub. How many people can do both? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Kudpung: thanks for the unintentional suggestion here, I hadn't played my piano for quite a few months but I also went and bashed out a few tunes on seeing your message. I hope you are on the mend, that sounds terrible. — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Am also sorry to hear that, Kudpung. Hope you will soon feel suitably switched on again. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. Pretty much recovered now but it will still take a while for all the side effects of the medication to clear up. My goodness, Martin, I still have the Carlos Switched On Bach album I bought in 1970. Having been taught on a church organ as a kid, that, the Moog, and The Nice and ELP were what fueled my passion for progrock which inevitably ended up in fusion and funk. This afternoon's session morphed from Bach into some Pachalbel and Telemann in odd time signatures (God bless Paul Desmond's influence when I was still in short trousers!). Pomp & Circumstance always brings tears to my eyes - no wonder when I grew up where I did. I guess that's why I contributed (in a very small way) to Tim's FA. Yes,
you can't go wrong with a bit of music
, the clarinet was one of my Dad's favourite instruments (he played a beautiful rendering of Summertime - remember Artie Shaw's 1945 version?), and of course Gallagher is challenging stuff. Shame he passed away so young. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)- I think Elgar might have agreed with you about the clarinet. Composers seem to have their particular pets among the wind instruments. Sullivan's blue-eyed boy was the oboe, and both Offenbach and Britten (of all unlikely bedfellows) seem to favour the flute. But Elgar could add just a single clarinet note to a chord and turn it into something heartrending. Very sorry to hear that Covid bit you so savagely, and glad to hear you're on the mend. Tim riley talk 20:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, when I heard the combination of what the 2nd and 3rd clarinets were doing in the first section before the trio (by playing one and hearing the other next to me) it seemed to be a perfect combination. I'm glad you're on the mend, Kudpung, so many people I know have had Covid but most cases have thankfully been minor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think Elgar might have agreed with you about the clarinet. Composers seem to have their particular pets among the wind instruments. Sullivan's blue-eyed boy was the oboe, and both Offenbach and Britten (of all unlikely bedfellows) seem to favour the flute. But Elgar could add just a single clarinet note to a chord and turn it into something heartrending. Very sorry to hear that Covid bit you so savagely, and glad to hear you're on the mend. Tim riley talk 20:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- After that random "fried chicken" remark above, I dug out my Queen at Wembley DVD and listened to both nights all the way through (in the background while doing other things), and some stuff just seems to get better and better with time. Particularly the simple but effective duet of "Love of My Life" which you can't really do justice without about 70,000 people singing along. Actually, when I first got hold of a few Queen LPs in the late 80s, they were completely unfashionable and unpopular (they'd stopped touring and doing interviews, some rumour that their singer wasn't well) and then soon as Freddie died they became the biggest band in the world. To the extent I never want to hear Bohemian sodding Rhapsody ever again - it's been done to death and I'm sick of it. Sorry. And bringing us full circle, it's well documented that Brian May got his tone (guitar -> Dallas Rangemaster -> Vox AC30) from Rory Gallagher. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Or even Nina. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Also... gotta love a bit of Dickie Strauss: [2]
- Thanks guys. Pretty much recovered now but it will still take a while for all the side effects of the medication to clear up. My goodness, Martin, I still have the Carlos Switched On Bach album I bought in 1970. Having been taught on a church organ as a kid, that, the Moog, and The Nice and ELP were what fueled my passion for progrock which inevitably ended up in fusion and funk. This afternoon's session morphed from Bach into some Pachalbel and Telemann in odd time signatures (God bless Paul Desmond's influence when I was still in short trousers!). Pomp & Circumstance always brings tears to my eyes - no wonder when I grew up where I did. I guess that's why I contributed (in a very small way) to Tim's FA. Yes,
- You can't go wrong with a bit of music. Last night I was playing clarinet in a military band (seem to be doing a lot of that these days) running through the full, original, Elgar arrangement of "Pomp and Circumstance No 1", and then doing a few Rory Gallagher covers (the anniversary of his death has just passed) on guitar in a pub. How many people can do both? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words, Ritchie and yes, that nomination statement was one of the coolest I wrote and I never regretted it since. Giving credit where it's due, Darkknight2149, I handed Onel5969 a barnstar not so long ago for his work on NPP. Anyway, it just goes to prove what I have always contended: that the majority of NPPers are a lazy bunch of hat collectors and that never in the field of junk and spam has so much been owed by so many to so few; and now, without any semblance of coordination, NPP is in an even worse state than when I was holding it together for years and Ritchie was working there. That said, not being an aficionado of that dark and nauseating almost medieaval squalour of ANI with its leering, jeering peanut gallery on one side and a bunch of admin wannabe governance obsessives on the other, since 1 March 2020 I've not been very clued up on the quotidian crap that cackles there like witches round a caldron. Hence I wouldn't have been aware of any other of OneI's activities, and I'm not in a position to judge either way even if I wanted to, and I don't. I would be hard pressed however, to imagine that a block pronounced by Ritchie were inappropriate, especially where it was endorsed by another admin. Anyway, I see no reason for anyone to be hounding Ritchie or OneI and it's time for all those who can't let it go, to give it a rest now, otherwise if I were an admin (and I ain't) I'd start throwing my weight around. Now back in the land of living after 9 weeks in hospital with a COVID that nearly killed me, so forgive me for having waxed lyrical, but I'm going back to my pianner to bash out some more blues and boogie - and perhaps a bit of jazzed up Bach. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the protection--a look at the page history indicates that this has been going on, intermittently, for months. Are the disruptive accounts related to this range block [3]? Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe not. But perhaps a new range block is in order [4]. This, too, quacks like a WP:LTA. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not really familiar with this user, and the history behind the range blocks. You're better asking somebody like zzuuzz who specialises in these things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is new to me, as well--I've only noticed the article in the last 24 hours. But comments under the page protection report suggest block evasion, not to mention the long term warring and disruptive edit summaries. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not really familiar with this user, and the history behind the range blocks. You're better asking somebody like zzuuzz who specialises in these things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Your not gonna get away with this 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869, I’ve seen your talk page and I saw the way you act. Calling us users wannabes and this and that, saying posts like that is literally a violation to the Wikipedia policy, which it’s called a personal attack. Besides, the only reason why you guys keep him around is because you let him snitch on users and you let him get away scold free, all you give him is a slap on the wrist, that’s it. Whenever we try to defend ourselves, you blame it on us. Again, I AM the victim of this. I already told you I didn’t do anything wrong and yet you still requested it to because protected over a completely stupid reason. Again, that’s the only reason why you guys keep this IP user around, you let him snitch on user and allow to get away with it scold free. Period. 2600:1000:B012:18AA:1C5A:E4C4:1AA7:2D4E (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, Mr 2600:1000, let's back up a minute and work out what's going on. Now, as far as I can tell:
The dispute started over whether Paris Themmen should be described as an actor, or also an entrepreneur, real estate broker, commercial casting director. There seems to be some mention of "vandalism", but removing that information certainly doesn't sound like vandalism, but a good-faith improvement to summarise why this person has a Wikipedia article. You then repeatedly reversed this deletion, calling people names, which let to a report on the requests for page protection board. I decided there was good grounds for a protection, and also blocked one of your IPs after you removed a report, which is generally not done except in cases of blatant vandalism or abusive language, which wasn't this.
The response I left at the noticeboard is what I would describe as "ha ha only serious". It's an obvious parody of the Oompa Loompa speeches from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (and to a lesser extent, the film adaptations that are similar but much shorter); however there is a serious message behind it - which is, if you disrupt articles, and administrators take action to stop that, the best advice is to do something else.
I think that's a reasonable summary of events. I'm also going to quote from a well-respected essay, which is : "When someone's first edit is reverted, and they are sufficiently angered by this that they leave several paragraphs of invective on the reverter's talk page, it is highly unlikely that that person is suited to become a Wikipedia editor. Hard as it is, we need to leave our egos at the door, or as much of those egos as it is possible to unload. Not only can anyone edit, but anyone does edit, and reversions of good-faith edits are all part of a day's action here.".
You might also be interested to know that there are a number of talk page stalkers here who are more than happy to let me know when I'm wrong and have screwed up (see the above thread where I deleted something that appeared to have consensus might not have been the right call, so I reversed the deletion to let discussion continue). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
As I explained it before and I’ll say it again, it all started because a previous IP address user deleted them back in April 2021. As you can see here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_Themmen&diff=1015745289&oldid=1007459871, because his career section LITERALLY says he worked into a business career after leaving acting. Plus, I will say this again for the third time, I was only putting it back just to prevent it from that previous IP user from removing it again. That’s all I was doing and yet you guys still won’t listen. Look, I don’t wanna sit here and argue with you about it. I wasn’t even stalking anyone, that is a complete lie. The reason why I left him that message on his talk page is because I wasn’t trying to be rude to him, all I wanted him to do is to just stop wrongfully accusing me of something I didn’t do. Here I am trying to explain myself for my actions and yet you guys are still making excuses just to make me look bad. I was only trying to prevent that section from being vandalized again. Is it that hard for me to explain that to you guys? 2600:1000:B01F:831E:A85D:B264:96EF:C932 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to put this in bold - that is not vandalism. You need to read WP:VANDAL (and to a lesser extent, MOS:LEAD). You are making a complete storm in a teacup over a minor and inconsequential issue, that would have been better spent improving the encyclopedia somewhere else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Look, if I was too hard on him, I’m sorry. I though I was preventing vandalism by restoring those edits. I know that starting an argument against users is the wrong thing to do and I’m trying my very hardiest to keep my cool now against him. Again, I apologize for yelling in my previous talk page posts, saying this and that and all other things. I really thought I was doing the right thing. 2600:1000:B02C:2D60:14C0:7A79:BCD3:939E (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)