User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 → Archive 65

I can't create an article

Hi Ritchie,

I'm a new user on Wiki, but not new to Wiki. I edit the Wiki forum for a company in SF, and was recently asked to create a page for a partner in a wealth management company, Greylock Capital Management, for the second partner, Diego Ferro. The first partner has one. So I did it, and felt good about all of it. Legitimate sources, no trivial information, etc., And as soon as I posted it, it said the article will be automatically deleted. I petitioned stating that his partner has the same sort of page, and that his name is already on a Wiki page. I can't find the HTML for any of my work, and NO explanation as to why this page cannot be posted. This probably seems like trivial blather to your expertise, but I don't know what to do.

PLEASE HELP! Sincerest Thanks, Meredith Kitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeredithKitz (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@MeredithKitz: It hasn't been deleted, it's just been changed to point to the article on Greylock. You can see your original work here. The basic idea is that it's probably easier to maintain one article and just mention Diego Ferro where appropriate in the Greylock article instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Michele Di Salvo

Yes, notable Italians can have articles on the English Wikipedia - you don't even need bribes!

Hello,

Just a quick question, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia. "English" Wikipedia designates language, not specifically English speaking countries. Notable Italians can still be under the English Wikipedia because it shouldn't be restricted, and isn't restricted to people from English speaking countries. Let me know what you think. Buddhabob (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • That is correct. We also include notable Italians, and thanks to Ritchie we even cover a few English (like, British) topics. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Aubrey Graham

I think that you need to go back and do something different. Looking at the history it is an article originally for Drake (musician), so it probably should become a disambiguation page rather than the redirect that you created. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I redirected there instead - it's obviously a duplicate article, but I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Boo Review Deletion

The page The Boo Review was deleted for being non-significant according to the speedy deletion guidelines. I was just wondering what constitutes a YouTube channel's significance? I know this is subjective but I'm wondering if there are any guidelines or history of lesser known channels that can be viewed as a guideline. I'm also aware the history portion has no way to be sourced because it came directly from me, the channel's owner and I realize that could be considered self-promotional. I'm new to wiki-editing and would like to know the best way forward from here and if I could get it restored as a draft. Thank you! (TBR Jerad (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)).

@TBR Jerad: The problem with YouTubers is that anyone can become one and say whatever they like about it. A further problem is that if the article's creator gets bored, nobody else can update it as there are no independent sources of information they can use to write it. So we delete articles that have no realistic chance that any neutral person in the world could update it. If you look at someone like Emma Blackery, they have reached the official UK charts and been written about specifically by BBC Newsbeat and The Guardian - that's the sort of coverage we'd need. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Well we at least beat Emma Blackery's views on her Vevo page with over 78,000 subscribers and 12 million views. I realize we haven't touched her main page. But still that's a little significant? Maybe?... no? Anyway, bottom line, we would need independent coverage to source in order for the page to remain neutral. Ok, understood. That makes sense. Still, did you restore the draft? If you did how do I access it? My apologies, I'm just a 100% new to this. Also "So we delete articles that have no realistic chance that any neutral person in the world could update it." Man, that stings haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.203.240.192 (talk)
@TBR Jerad: Please remember to log in when replying, otherwise I can't be sure who I'm talking to. The draft is restored to Draft:The Boo Review; please see instructions at the top of the draft for what to do to improve the article, and how to get it reviewed for submission into mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Graham Chapman Deletion

Hi, Ritchie--

Thank you for undoing my recent edits on Graham Chapman. I agree that most of them were unnecessary at best. But while as a whole they may not have been a substantive improvement, please allow me to defend one of them.

In the third paragraph, "quitting" seems to lack a definite antecedent. What did he quit? Alcoholism (the first possible antecedent from the text) doesn't make sense, as that's not something that people are said to quit. The other possibility is his time at Cambridge and the Python years. Did he quit his time there before working on "Life of Brian"? That doesn't quite seem to fit either. So in order to eliminate any ambiguity, I thought "drinking" (or a synonym thereof) was called for. But I can always be wrong, and so I'd appreciate your take on this. Meanwhile, I'll try to pay more attention to what I'm doing.

Have a good day. Grammarspellchecker (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grammarspellchecker: The best advice I can give you is "less is more" - there's no hard and fast rule to improve your writing, and I don't claim to be too great at it myself. Typically after a long writing session when I've greatly expanded an article (such as Euston that I'm beavering away on at the moment) there are a bunch of silly mistakes that somebody else will fix if I don't get round to them first. Anyway, I can recommend User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing as a starting point. Or, for example, see these sequence of recent copyedits by Eric Corbett on the Sinclair C5 article showing how removing a few words means the reader gets to the point of what the article is talking about more quickly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA candidate poll

Thanks for stopping by on the RfA candidate poll. I'm open to criticism and I'm not worried about it going badly, honestly the more brutal the better, I know what RfA is really like. From what I can see I need to be more selective and careful about CSDs, and keep a cooler head when edit wars are going on around me, (though I was actually the one to eventually find a compromise that both sides could be live with in the case that I was warned for and I learned a lot from that particular episode, so I feel like I would have a good answer for that if/when it comes up at RfA). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I ended up putting together User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 to try and address some of these issues - specifically the strong subjectivity by which "significance" and "notability" mean different things to different people, which is being discussed right now elsewhere. I think SoWhy and I basically have the same views that you shouldn't CSD anything unless it is blatantly obvious the article could never be rescued by anybody, but I don't agree with absolutely everything he says and some of the replies on ORCP are quite terse. For example, "A1 with clear context" could be better expressed as "Gudia (1947 film) was tagged as A1 but the context could be inferred from the title and the brief description that it is a film, and hence a google search could get the article expanded". "A10/A11 that shows lack of understanding what those criteria are for" didn't mention that the declining admin said "However, the article needs serious rewriting if it is to survive" and it's heading for a "delete" close at AfD right now. From experience at RfA, some of the voters there do not agree with our views on speedies at all and some of them are actively hostile, saying "Substitute "less-than-perfect" for "crock-of-shit" - which you full well know is more a more accurate description of just about anything near A7 - and the answer is an obvious "yes"" (this was in response to an RfA that SoWhy opposed due to a 15% error rate in CSD tagging, an opinion I would endorse).
All of that said, it is always better, all things being equal, to bounce speedies to PROD or AfD - or even improve them and not delete them at all - if you can, which is why I think if you can show a track record of getting better at this, and don't run before you're absolutely sure you can meet the standard, you should eventually get the tools. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I have found a better solution to the marginal articles that don't quite obviously fit into the CSD criteria. The ones that are obviously not ready or suitable, but might possibly make an acceptable article if someone bothers to put in the work.
This tool: User:Evad37/MoveToDraft to draftify the article with the click of a button (I have page mover rights so I can move without a redirect). I think it is better for all involved, as it also helps to not discourage new editors from continuing to work on the article (nothing is worse for that than a big tag saying it is going to get deleted). The other options are PROD and XfD, both of which discourage new editors, and XfD creates a big time sink for editors that could be doing something more useful. I help out at AfC anyway, so I don't mind shunting a bit of the work load their way.
For example, this was submitted today and I moved it to draft: Draft:UP_Yoddha. My options were wither to A) tag bomb the article, B) PROD it, but this is inappropriate as it probably meets automatic criteria for sports teams, C) XfD is a bad option, same reasons as PROD and will waste everyone's time, D) CSD: it doesn't meet any of the criteria here either, E) Fix it myself, (I don't have time or inclination for this for every article obviously), or F) Draftify. I think that draftifying is better than tag bombing and leaving it, and that is the only other optiion. This to me speaks volumes as to why we have loads of tag bombed messes coming out of NPP: our critera don't give good options for dealing with these kinds of articles, and I think that New Page Patrolers are largely uninformed about Draftifying articles and the tools that can make it a simple process. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 16:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
If it's not an obvious CSD, not an obvious PROD and you can't think of a good idea to take it to AfD, moving it to Draft is a good idea, and I think we should do more of this. As the header you see when you write on my talk page, I'll restore most things I deleted within reason to a draft, even if I haven't got a clue how to fix them myself or even if I don't think they're notable in the first place. WP:DRAFT is relatively new compared to everything else, so maybe it'll just take time for all the NPPers to notice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
What is the best way for me to deal with users like the one that just continually recreate articles such as Antonine de Mun, Duchess d'Ursel despite draftifying the article (recreate instead of working on the draft)? (I assume that you deleted the draft and draftified the article a second time?). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Tag it with {{db-g6|reason=has been moved to draft}} if the draft is absolutely identical to the mainspace version. If the user recreates again, tag the same and ask on WP:RFPP for salting. If the user is doing this to lots of articles en masse, run to WP:ANI and ask for a banhammer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Stewart House (Australia)

I am not quite sure why you thought my starter on Stewart House, a charity, was worthy of speedy deletion. I would have thought that the nature of the "business" ie. providing holidays and medical treatment to disadvantaged children for nearly 90 years was notable enough given that it is a widely supported charity here in NSW. The least you might have done was to discuss it with me with suggestions as to how the article might be developed to meet your no doubt exacting standards. You clearly did not read the initial text properly given that you thought it was an advert for a business - in this country NFPs are often registered as companies and have limited liability. Spite or too much real ale - you decide. Silent Billy (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Silent Billy: I felt it met the WP:CSD#G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" criteria because I would have to rewrite the article from scratch to turn it into something everyone can work with. Prose such as "The school comprises six multi aged classes with views of Curl Curl beach from each classroom. The school day commences at 9am and concludes at 3.30pm." tells us nothing as to why the organisation is important and worthy of a global encyclopedia.
I have now rewritten this article, primarily using a detailed news piece from the Daily Telegraph. I'm going to assume that an organisation founded in 1931 will have other news sources that can be cited to improve this, but I have no idea where to find them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My e-mail has been acting kind of funky so let me know if you didn't receive it. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I did, and it's in the queue of stuff to reply to, don't panic! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Cool beans! :D Happy Editing ! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Love this essay

I just found User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies, and it might be my second favourite user essay (after WP:ASTONISHME). Just thought I would pass on a word of praise :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Never seen that one before, but it sounds like the sort of thing EEng would write. See also WP:KABLAM. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) WP:ASTONISHME reminds me of User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing#Eliminating_redundancy and WP:REDEX. Adam9007 (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, the essay uses a no-no-word ;) - better listen to music to be enjoyed, - we are in a Telemann-year, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've said everything I want to about DYK here. Also see WT:DYK#Are you struggling to find people to help you review DYKs? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)
I'm not talking about DYK, but an 18-year-old creatively collaborating with a 80-year-old. A pictured DYK is one way of making that known. Telling you - as interested in both music and collaboration - another. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: DYK, I get your critiques of it, but I mainly use it as a way to get more eyes on articles that I have expanded before nominating them for GA. I'm quite the king of the typo or the convoluted sentence that is effed up because I went back and reworded part and forgot to reword the other. There isn't much interest in the 17th and 18th century papacy on en.wiki so DYK is the easiest way to get pre-GA eyes on an article for me. Peer review exists, but normally I sometimes have multiple rewrites going at a time and DYK is much easier. If it was gone, we'd need to find a replacement for a quick look over articles, and I think that would be tougher without the QPQ system, look at the GAN backlog. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
"He begins bombing DYK in five minutes"  ;) — fortunavelut luna 18:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hyde Park

Three things: 1) July 18 is not an important date for Hyde Park. It's the date of some concert, and there are apparently a lot of concerts there. This violates WP:OTDRULES #1. 2) With five items, the Main Page looks balanced, so there's no need for a sixth. 3) There's already a 1969 item in there AND a 1976 (and I wouldn't have chosen that, but it's fine), so throwing another item in between those two is weighted too heavily for 20th century items. If we really need a sixth, Edict of Expulsion would be the logical choice. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 03:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well The Rambling Man thought it was a good idea, as did I, as we were putting three high-quality articles in the main page in order to get people to notice them and improve them, so rules, schmules.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to make it seem like I'm unappreciative of the work you are doing to help OTD be the best it can be, and I'm not trying to come across as snarky, but if you want to cite IAR, then there's no reason to disallow articles with maintenance tags on them (if the goal is indeed to have people improve them). I'm fairly certain we can all agree that's a bad idea. —howcheng {chat} 20:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The circumstances I found myself in were, TRM was vexed that nobody was helping him clear up OTD issues due to go live in less than two hours, my understanding was that we were a hook down, and I quickly thought of one that would quickly get us out of a jam. It isn't a combination of events I expect to happen again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for the stroopwafels, and for your accompanying witty message - you gave me a good laugh. Both times.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ira Leviton: The original use of that was in a classic Two Ronnies sketch where Ronnie Barker would say everything twice, and then gradually reduce that, "sometimes only saying small bits of words urds". You just don't get comedy like that anymore. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Nor fork 'andles.... like in H. E. Harrington's up those broad stairs? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please do

Yes, please do save 2011 Gothenburg terrorism plot to draft space as suggested. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: - done, at User:E.M.Gregory/2011 Gothenburg terrorism plot Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

confused face icon Just curious...

How much of a spread between keep & delete do you require before closing an AfD as delete? I ask because you relisted this article and it appears to me that consensus shows it's blatant promotion, the organization is only 6 mos. old if that, and there's only 1 keep. Atsme📞📧 17:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: It's a judgement call, depending on what arguments people make, when they make them, and if it's likely they might have changed their mind had they noticed later developments. Had Steve Quinn lodged his "keep" !vote on day one and there had been no other comment, I would probably have closed as "delete". But because he came late in the day and gave me the impression he might be able to improve the article, I thought I might as well give him the benefit of the doubt, so he's got a week to tidy it up, otherwise assuming nothing else, it'll be deleted. I realise it's not great having things sat at AfD for ages with nothing happening, but in this case I don't think it'll hurt to just give it a bit longer. Again though, I'm doing this because Steve's an experienced Wikipedian who knows what's what, if an obvious sock !voted late in the day with exactly the same rationale, I'd close as delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Marc Soustrot

DYK? You should, just read the praise, help with translation appreciated: "Umsichtig und stilgenau differenzierten Gastdirigent Marc Soustrot und das Opernorchester zwischen der behutsam abgetönten Debussy-Klanglichkeit und dem breiten Pinsel einer auch gröbste Wirkung souverän einbeziehenden Interpretation der Honegger-Textur." (Prudently and precise in style, the guest conductor Marc Soustrot and the opera orchestra differentiated between the carefully toned Debussy sonority and an interpretation of the broader brush of the Honegger texture, including even crude effects souvereignly.). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

ps: pictured, - heard an excerpt yesterday as preparation for a talk with a priest and a prof on the topic of miracles. I'd like a small miracle: the absence of the perennial summer show this year. Thanks for improving music in Pompeji. The runtime should also be in the text, referenced, I'd say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, I apologise for a belated reply here but I wasn't quite sure what you were talking about - though hopefully Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii is in a better shape now. Unfortunately none of the major Pink Floyd sources give it much more than lip service, even I though I think it's got probably the best live version of "Echoes" on it (though the BBC Paris Studio session from a week earlier does come close). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I was too obscure? Sorry, and more plainly: Several operas were staged by David Hermann (DYK today), mentioned in his article are Ascanio in Alba, Rigoletto, Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher, Macbeth, Věc Makropulos, Les Troyens, Boris Godunov, Das Rheingold, Rusalka, La traviata, Der Diktator, Das geheime Königreich. One of them looks as if it is about a person ;) - I saw the last two, very entertaining! - Soustrot will go to DYK next, with the one looking like a person mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I added to the lead, what do you think? - Fond of Noye's Fludde today (whose author wanted it last year OTD but gave in to "my" Reger on a centenary)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you look at the Fludde? - RfA: Of course I can describe an invented situation (along the lines: editor I makes an edit, editor II who never edited the article before reverts (edit summary "ridiculous"), an IP reverts the revert, editor II who never edited the article before reverts, another IP reverts, Editor III who never edited the article before reverts, another IP reverts, gets blocked, article protected), - only then I would not find out how the candidate looks at a situation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Or read through Talk:Josephine_Butler#Infobox and explain why so many of the IB flashmob turned up at once to an article none of them had ever been to before, never made a single edit to (except to edit war on the idiotbox), and never returned after the question was settled. Time for you to step away from the obsessional references to IBs, gerda - it's like listening to a bloody broken record. And you can drop the stupid and pointy references to people who disagree with you - it's bordering on disruptive stalking. - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Put it this way, the next person who mentions infoboxes on this talk page will get an interview with Mr. Fuzzybottom and he does not mess around. The easiest way to see if somebody can cope with dramah at a RfA is to go ANI and type their username in, do a search for talk page contributions, or read through their user talk archives. You should be able to get enough of a feel to how they respond. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Soustrot is in the next set for DYK (only that - shortly before it should appear - it misses three hooks). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Delvin Lamar Hughley

Hi. I saw you declined a CSD nomination for the above article. At first glance he is listed as having played for two NFL teams and that would get him into the WP:NSPORTS bucket. However, he never actually played for those teams; he only played for two other teams in the Arena Football League, which is a much less well-known league with different rules. I don't think this counts as a "top-level professional league" in Gridiron, and thus I don't think the article actually makes any claim of significance. What do you think? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it does clear the bar for A7, since it gives you an idea of how to improve it, but if you can't verify any of the claims in it, take it to Articles for deletion and file a debate, and consensus will play out there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your edit

For the talk page stalkers playing along at home, this conversation arose after I spotted Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour and decided to "improve" it....

You are so funny! Thanks for the improvement.

Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS): There's plenty more where that came from - see User:Ritchie333/Euphemisms. Look at how many there are for ANI! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Always feel free to jump right into any of my conversations and edits. Go ahead and add more or change the Humour article and then put yourself in the by-line. I mean, shouldn't the world know that there might actually be as many as 12 w'pedians that smile?
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Aside from horrific British spelling, the article is great. Do you like the little flags? I needed some way to distinguish myself from you. I don't know what you look like, but I'm pretty sure you don't want to be mistaken for me. Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara (WVS) (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure who I could be mistaken for - any ideas, anyone? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I gotta couple :p— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Just listened to some old clips of Chuffer, there's never going to be anything like Wake up to Wogan ever again. It made senility something to look forward to. :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Dickie "Touch" Tingles sends his fondest. Melanie Frontage 123 (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I think thanks really has to go to Kudpung for doing something several of us couldn't, and get you to stand, and then out of all the editors who would be happy to co-nominate, I got the short straw. And then, of course, for you agreeing to it! This is a thoroughly deserved success, the level of conduct you bring to the Teahouse are something I've really got to start aiming towards myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I've really got to start aiming towards myself – Careful, Ritchie, that's how a lot of admins end up shooting themselves in the foot. EEng 17:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
We don't have the second amendment laws this side of the pond, so I have to make do with a supersoaker. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe just the admin equivalent of the bracing cold shower?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Greater Noida FC

I admittedly have little understanding of Footy however, can you please point out where in that article there was a claim of significance (or a claim to be a notable club?) Thanks! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The infobox says they play in a 10,000 capacity stadium on occasion; additionally, experience has told me that Indian clubs (and indeed, Indian topics in general) do not have the same level of online reliable source coverage as Europe and the US. In general, club articles like this one can be redirected to a general list of teams, which can be done by ordinary editing, and in that case you shouldn't A7 as you the need the debate to work out whether or not to redirect. @GiantSnowman: may be able to give a more authoritative answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
That is a ridiculous attempt to justify "CCS". This is a child's team and has no coverage anywhere, it's not a notable league. I don't need to know anything about footy to understand as much. That would be like creating an article for the christian soccer league I played for when I was 12 and redirecting it to Camden Yards because we played a game there once. But now we're going to waste everyone's time with an AfD that will get 0 turnout and be relisted half a dozen times because no one wants to bother with something that should have been deleted to begin with. ATD isn't the answer for a lack of notability or encyclopedic content and redirecting it would be worthless because there isn't even anything about this team that can be reliably sourced, so why would we redirect to an article that can't reasonably cover it? I mean unless you know something I don't. The issue with sourcing as it pertains to Indian footy leagues is irrelevant here.
I find it patently ridiculous to even suggest that a 10k capacity stadium (that's not even notable or significant itself) is somehow a CCS for a completely insignificant youth team that plays in an empty field. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh and to add, their "official" Facebook page is a spam page. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You need to stop being upset about topics you admit up-front you know nothing about. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't have to have deep intimate knowledge of a topic to understand how Wikipedia works or the policies and guidelines that govern it. Thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. I'm off to improve London Victoria railway station to GA now, will you help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with Chrissymad. I understand there's a debate about "claim of significance", but personally, I see it as a troublesome path. We're at the point of literally taking people's word for it. "Hi I'm famous. <ref>me</ref>". AfD's membership is already dwindling, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's, in part, because the exhaustion of these SNOW nominations. CSD is a powerful tool, and one that should be used with caution, agreeably, but we should embrace it, and keep AfD for things that truly warrant discussion. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen a problem with AfD myself - debates can certainly be lively and contentious as they've ever been; however the CSD policy is very narrowly defined and the general deletion policy advises administrators to err on the side of caution in all cases. In this instance, I don't think there's an argument for retention, but a possible one for redirect or merging to Greater Noida. Again, the systemic bias we have means that Indian topics do not have the available online coverage compared to the West, and that's something we need to keep in mind. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
So if no one on Wikipedia can be bothered to find sources and actually, I don't know source it, it's okay because you perceive something as systemic bias? Please explain to me how we could redirect this to Greater Noida when it can't be sourced and therefor cannot be covered in the target article. Do you know of any sources? Perhaps you could provide them at the discussion. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You need to stop getting angry at people who disagree with you or who have other priorities in life. If you can't do that, I'd suggest a short wikibreak. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Are they notable? Hell no. Was Ritchie correct to decline a CSD? Hell yes. A7 "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". A football club playing in a 10,000 seater stadium is entirely credible. It's at AFD now and heading for deletion, everybody needs to calm down and get on. GiantSnowman 07:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I work extensively with south Asian topics, and I concur completely with the concern about a lack of reliable coverage for topics that are otherwise notable. Under the circumstances, I'd have done the same thing, because I would want the article to have the higher level of scrutiny provided by AfD. Vanamonde (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I happened upon Bogoda Premaratne--amazing how difficult it is to find sources (and Wikipedia articles) for topics that must be of great interest, like London Matriculation Examination, or all the schools he attended and taught at. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Magefix

Not all coverage of companies on Wikipedia is positive....

Hello, I want to start a Wiki page related to my website / company - Magefix.com . Since my entry was recently deleted, I want to make sure I'll get it right next time. My security company has a real presence, which can be verified. How do I get it verified?

Here is the Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magefix

Thank you, Adrian Stoian

@Magefix: "Hello, I want to start a Wiki page related to my website / company - Magefix.com" - You really don't - I don't want to start a WP page about mine! READ THIS carefully. Anything negative about your company can be added by anybody else, and if you try and remove it, you'll be unsuccessful in doing so. Best not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

WT:RFA

I saw the edit summary and comment you made with this diff and couldn't help but think "But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you tweet what you need." (abject apologies to The Rolling Stones for associating them! ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm here all night *badum - tish* Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA/B box

This is probably some sort of caching issue, but the RfB doesn't seem to be included in the RfA/B box. Just FYI. TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Cyberpower fixed it. It was an extra space at the front of the template, which weirdly everything copes with except Cyberbot generating the RfX report page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I previewed the page multiple times but I didn't catch the space in front because the transclusion worked as expected. Regards SoWhy 13:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Transclusion is easy, we just tell everyone it's really, really, difficult to get obvious WP:NOTNOWs to think twice. The bots are a bit idiosyncratic though, and as you can see from the chat on Cyberpower's talk, he's looking at upgrading them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ...Well... this has been a sudden and disappointing shift in the weather. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully you're talking about the probable outcome on the RfB shifting downwards, and not me jumping on JamesBWatson's points and agreeing with them, which would imply I'm suddenly turning round and stabbing SoWhy in the back, which is not the impression I want to give at all. I'll wait until the debate actually finishes and have a word. I still think he would do a good job as a 'crat and in this case it's maybe just been an unfortunate clash in communication, and it's all due to events during the RfB, which I couldn't have predicted in advance. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
...The former. I'm following the discussion, but not in the finest detail possible. Nothing I've seen so far has made me reconsider my position in any case. Thus disappointment. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Query

How is a (not formerly established) political party not an organization?- MrX 22:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX The infobox says they've got a seat in the South Korean National Assembly, which implies they won an election somewhere. That's sufficient in my eyes - we're not talking about the Judean People's Front or the Tooting Popular Front here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
That is a very strained interpretation. Allowing that it's a claim at all, it's not a credible one since the party has not been established yet. In fact, there are only plans to create the party on August 8.[1]- MrX 12:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The article doesn't say that. If you want to pull out sources and refute it, claiming what's in the article is bogus, great - let's go to AfD and chat there. As two other editors have already !voted "redirect" over at the AfD (remembering that A7 is a shorthand for "obvious snow delete where discussion would be superfluous"), it would seem the tag was incorrect after all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The article does say that the organization is not formerly [sic] established. By your logic, no article is eligible for A7 because it could simply be redirected somewhere else. That's not in accord with the spirit of CSD, if for no other reason than bogus content would be preserved in history and can easily be restored while no one's looking.- MrX 12:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
No, just this instance. It wouldn't make sense to redirect Naomi's Nails to Eltham, for example, so somebody creating an article on that could probably expect an A7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Obviously we're not going to see eye to eye on this, so I'm just going to withdraw. Cheers.- MrX 13:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem, if we all agreed on everything, life would be incredibly dull and a milestone in British comedy would never have been written. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination)

It was clearly the full course. Come on, now, I paid my £8.

Also, you may want to skim the discussion again: most of it seems to be about policy and whether jps canvassed, and there's 6 deletes to 2 keeps. I can see where a no consensus close could come from give the way everybody got off-course and just kept running (and I'm personally just fine with it), but I can also see the potential for a few others to try to sic Inspector Fox (Flying Fox of the Yard?!) on you over the close. You may want to amend your closing remarks to something about how the discussion degenerated and no-one seemed to care. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The last week's discussion was just bickering about canvassing and the actual consensus went nowhere at all - since it was relisted as requiring more consensus, and pretty much none was given towards the article itself, it seems reasonable for a NC close. And I hope a bit of light humour will dampen the tempers a bit as things did start to get out of hand on that AfD with raised voices particularly towards the last 2 weeks or so. As you know, AfD is not a vote, and just saying "I've seen an assertion of notability, but nothing so far which backs it up." that is immediately counteracted with a comment on the same weight and then dissolving into some back and forth, does give the impression that nobody is going to agree one way on the other on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, I don't disagree with calling it a no consensus, because the discussion mostly wasn't even about the article. It's hard to describe something as a consensus when it's just a bunch of people giving their opinions, then arguing about something else. I wasn't suggesting you change the result to delete based on the !vote counts, I was just pointing out that the potential for others griping about it is there, and suggesting you might "cut them off at the pass" as it were by being a bit more verbose in the closing comments. Maybe I'm being overly cautious about the potential for drama, but I generally prefer to shoot drama in the face before it gets its gun out.
Do not take that to mean I think you should nix the MP reference. If you do, I will charge you under section 22 of the Strange Sketch Act, wherein you "...did willfully fail to include an appropriate reference to a relevant Monty Python Sketch without good cause and with intent to engender a grievous lack of due humor." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I have popped a more serious message on the closing rationale to the AfD. I'm afraid if you continue to complain on this talk page, I will be forced to ...... release the tiger!!!!! The great advantage of using the tiger in closing AfDs is that it not only disarms the bickering foe, but also deletes the article. Tigers, however, do not relish the edit-war. The AN3 debate should be closed by a crocodile. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
<drops the fruit and slinks away> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
...don't wan't to ask who closes the A7 debates... NORAD?! ;) — fortunavelut luna 18:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussing your close

Please see WP:FTN#Gary Renard. I am considering bringing your close to DRV, but would like to get your input. Probably should also @SoWhy:. jps (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You had a week to make your case for keeping or deleting the article, and failed utterly to do so. I predict if you go to DRV, you will be told to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Am I psychic or what? Sorry my advice didn't work better... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Lana Rhoades

Thanks for closing the discussion. However, I did ask that this was either a keep or redirect discussion as she seems at least notable enough to be redirected to the list mentioned. Would you consider re-creating the redirect and fully protecting it? Mjroots (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I know you did, and that the sources were discussed on a project page as being okay; however when put to a discussion in the AfD, there was substantial agreement from long-standing editors that they were not appropriate. Had I seen just one "keep" !vote that listed new sources in the mainstream media, that could well have sealed the deal for a non-delete outcome. The majority of "keep" !votes as I read them were just bare assertions of "she's won an award" without backing it up, or mentioning Mia Malkova (cf. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) and I just felt on merits, the "delete" !votes had more substance and had the best alignment with policy.
I've got no specific objection to creating the redirect, but before I do I think it would be best to just run it by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who I felt was the most ardent supporter of deleting the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, but let's be clear, a protected redirect would stop the article being recreated, which should satisfy Hullabaloo. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It should do, but I'll just wait to see if he's got anything to say, then I'll do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to this, because it reflects consensus practice in dealing with non-notable Penthouse Pets. However, I would say that, as a general principle, there's nothing wrong with an AFD consensus that goes further than the nominator had proposed or supported. I've seen cases, including at least one where I was the nom, where the outcome was delete-and-salt even though the nominator didn't ask for, and ended up opposing, salting. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've done the redirect. I haven't protected it because our general policy says we should't do so unless we need to stop disruption. If a bunch of editors try and resurrect the article, and we edit war over that vs the redirect, that would be an appropriate time to protect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gary Renard

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gary Renard. 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. jps (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Re: List of People from Sicily & concern re: Roger II of Sicily

Thank you Ritchie333 for clearing up the entry to this topic. Being Calabrian myself I was offended when Pro Regnum Siciliæ stated that Roger II of Sicily was Sicilian when clearly he was born in Melito Calabria. Now stating that the list can also contain people born elsewhere but lived in Sicily makes it more acceptable. Thank you for that. Though now I have found that Pro Regnum Siciliæ has put matters into his own hands and further edited the page of Roger II of Sicily. While it's ok to state that Calabria was part of the Kingdom of Sicily at that time, it wasn't part of the County of Sicily. Only Sicily and Malta were. He changed it to suit his own agenda. Plus he also put a link of "Sicilan People of Norman Descent" on the bottom of the page when clearly Roger II was not a native Sicilian. Pro Regnum Siciliæ is doing all of this for spite and clearly not following the rules of Wikipedia. I have therefore changed those edits to how they were prior. Plus added a video reference stating what I said. Pro Regnum Siciliæ clearly has an agenda to twist reality to suit himself. I hope you understand my concern for these matters. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.2.83 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the main point to take away from this is that because this is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", anyone indeed does. The best thing to do in this instance is to go to Talk:List of people from Sicily and politely state why you disagree with the other parties. If you just revert again and again with angry edit summaries, you'll just get blocked. Think of it like this - if you were having an argument in a pub, and it was getting really heated and getting in the way of the atmosphere of the other customers, the landlord would be within his rights to tell you to take it elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, point taken. Initially I did that but maybe the exclamation marks went a bit too far. Sometimes I get too passionate about things. Historical facts in point. Anyway he could've fixed up the intro then like it is now but didn't. Only after much dithering did he fix it. Anyway, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.2.83 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar)

Draft:European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WT:CSD discussion

Hi,

I've been re-reading the discussion at WT:CSD and my reply to you comes off as a bit sarcastic which wasn't my intention.

Just thought I'd ensure that you don't interpret it as such.

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 22:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrStrauss: Looks like it's closed now, but there was nothing wrong with stating your opinion and sounding out views. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_61&oldid=1144236487"