This page 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. |
Hey! I was wondering if you knew about this: User:Richie322? Can't be a coincidence, right? Well, I just came across this, and it amused me, so I thought I'd let you know about it, in case you already didn't... -- IJBall ( talk) 20:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. I see that you deleted Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter. Do you happen to know where the original XfD discussion is? I could only find this related discussion. I ask because this material has also been coat racked into the article Black Lives Matter in violation of WP:OR. Thank you.- Mr X 19:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. I see that you deleted Al Habtoor Motors LLC page.
With all the respect for Wiki and it moderators, i would like to mention that intention of adding this page was not to promote or advertise this company on Wiki. My intention was to add Al Habtoor Motors LLC company information, I may have added information like Awards won by the "AHM" company which made it sound like it is being marketed.
I have also came across several post where you have acted as rescuer and saved lot of pages from being deleted. Please advise how can we recreate the same with pure intention of adding company information about Al Habtoor Motors. So that Wiki is a trusted source and we want to put the correct information without breaking any Wiki protocol.
AHM is one of the leading distributors of several Automotive brands like Bentley, Bugatti, Mitsubishi, JAC Motors etc in United Arab Emirates and deserves to be there like other companies that are listed on wiki.
I would appreciate your help in this regarding or at least how i can try again to add information about same company on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubaiinfo ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
With regards to be adding an A7 tag to it, I was simply readding it. Another user had added the A7 tag, and the article creator had removed it, therefore I just readded it. I agree it's not an A7, but the article creator shouldn't have removed the tag previously. Joseph2302 ( talk) 12:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I AfD'd Brandon Presley as you suggested. This is a courtesy note in case you're interested in that page. It's not a canvass because I have no reason to think you'd agree with my nomination. Geogene ( talk) 16:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie, while reviewing new articles for creaton I came across Draft:Unicommerce. I've found out some reliable sources for the company like this and this. I'm including them in the draft also. The subject Unicommerce I believe has been salted by you. Please look into the matter. Thank you for your contribution. Mr RD ( talk) 19:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
For all the times I have checked in on your talk page, and found you keeping the wiki-peace, even when things get a little heated! Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 12:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) |
Hello. I am wondering why radio stations do not count as companies for the purpose of speedy deletion tags. In my mind, they are just companies that broadcast on the radio. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysquirrel ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for protecting Boone County Fire Protection District. Much appreciated. -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor. |
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Duke (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism ( talk) 09:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've just noticed that the Manohar hospital article is possibly a recreation of something deleted at AfD - see discussion. That would qualify it for speedy deletion now. I think I had better add it to my watchlist in case the thing reappears. - Sitush ( talk) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, - my question about the spirit of the restriction was not answered, well, I asked only the user who raised it. - I expressed my view that arbcom should apologize to Eric for the GGTF case caused by baiting him, - but who am I speaking about the spirit of restrictions ;) - Just don't say "honest", - everything should be honest without a label ;) - -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd intended to work on this a bit earlier, but had promised to help someone with something else just before you started this article. A shame that so many restaurants and clubs like this have closed their doors; it's good that we can create articles for them here so there can be some type of an idea what the restaurant was like and why it was important. Thanks again! We hope ( talk) 12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The article West Pier you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:West Pier for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. -- Biblio worm 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)The article West Pier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:West Pier for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Biblioworm -- Biblioworm ( talk) 15:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I just came across where you told me: " Now now, less of the personal attacks, young man."
I did not make any personal attacks. I said nothing personal at all. I said that a competent reviewer would have to do an actual review. That's always true of every nomination. I did not say that you were incompetent. Yes, there was an implication that your "review" was incompetently done, although I didn't explicitly say it. Well, let me say it explicitly now: your "review" was incompetently done. Please note: pointing out that an incompetently done review was done incompetently is not a personal attack.
Urgh. I really don't want to dredge this up again, but I'm afraid I'll have to rehash the whole thing, so I can refute the "personal attacks" claim.
There are many items which a DYK reviewer should check and mention in the review as having been checked, such as the article's age, size, neutrality, citations, and copyvio check. Your only notation: "Article is brand new". Other than erroneously dismissing the original hook, which I discuss below, that is the entirety of what you mention as being reviewed.
You did "review" the original hook (... that according to The Guardian, Ed Miliband's awkward eating of a bacon sandwich could have been because it was a bread roll and not sliced bread?), saying "the hook is misleading, all The Guardian actually says is Nigel Farage is better at eating sandwiches, with the roll / slice comment being ancillary. So let's go with ALT1 ... that The Guardian thinks Nigel Farage is better at eating a bacon sandwich than Ed Miliband?"
According to the article, " The Guardian said that the sliced bread which Farage ate was easier to eat than the bread roll which Miliband had." The source says: "Keen observers will notice the sliced bread of the Farage sandwich arguably makes it an easier handful than Miliband's roll." How is the original hook misleading? It restates what's in the article, which seems to fairly accurately restate what's in the source.
As for your proposed ALT1, there was absolutely nothing even slightly resembling that in the article, in violation of one of the most fundamental DYK rules. And perhaps the most important DYK rule of all is that a hook fact must be verifiable by the reliable source for which there's an inline citation. But this source (and I can only determine it's the source you intended from the context of your comments, since the "fact" doesn't appear in the article and thus has no inline citation), a four-sentence blog, only vaguely, sort of, obliquely, kind of, almost hinted at it. The only remotely relevant passage states that "Nigel Farage couldn't miss an opportunity to show him how it's done."
Then, to make matters much worse, you approved the nomination with your own faulty hook. This is precisely why reviewers should never approve their own hooks. It seemed as though you were so tickled at the prospect of getting your hook on the Main Page that you completely abandoned the idea of doing any sort of actual review.
After I posted to WT:DYK about the issue, you responded, "I'll go write 100 lines saying 'I must not be funny on the main page'." This is what really solidified my questioning of your competence in reviewing this. I had explained the specific problems with your hook, and you responded as though the problem was just that you were trying to get a funny hook on the Main Page.
There is a small but very vocal group of users who strongly disapprove of humorous hooks on the Main Page. I am not among them. Such hooks are fine with me, as long as all DYK rules are followed. Since there is opposition to such hooks, reviews for them should be done especially meticulously.
Rather than taking responsibility for your mistakes, you attempted to shift part of the blame to the set builder, and even to EEng for not offering a second opinion. Yes, ideally the set builder would have caught the problems, but the most important component in the DYK machine is the reviewer, and I can't fault the set builder too much for erroneously trusting that an adequate review had been done. And saying that you'd asked EEng for a second opinion seemed to be disingenuous; it certainly appears that you were not asking for a second opinion about your hook or your "review", but rather simply wanting him to come up with a funnier hook.
Can you honestly look at all of this objectively without realizing that your "review" and your response to the problems could, indeed, be seen as having been handled incompetently?
Sorry to have gone through this again, but I felt I had to defend myself regarding the alleged "personal attacks". I have absolutely nothing against you, and I'm sure you're an otherwise fine editor, but in this case, you really bungled. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Can live without that, and saw it on other users also, - help? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
On 30 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wickedly Welsh Chocolate, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Wickedly Welsh Chocolate held a Willy Wonka-themed "golden ticket" promotion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wickedly Welsh Chocolate. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I need some help and advice.
This really is a worthy addition to wiki.
You know my husband has been blocked by a certain user, for editing Lichfield CC's wiki page. I have seen hard copies of the claim he made about Australian Test Cricketer Keith Miller AM MBE playing in the Chauntry Cup. Please would you take the time to look at http://www.cricketworld.com/media/files/chauntrycup.pdf Column 6 Paragraph 6. My dear old husbands' edits were deleted immediately whenever he cited this document or made any claim about this article. Would you please read the whole piece and if you think anything is worthy of addition on Wiki, would you be kind enough to add it?. I know that if I do it, that certain user will have me blocked straight away as a sock puppet. I just want an experienced but impartial viewer to read this piece. Also, if you search for the Chauntry Cup on the "tube of You ness", you will see that Sky Sports believe my husband, in his claim that the Chauntry Cup, actually is the oldest 20/20 in the world. I don't want you to be accused of being a sock puppet as I have, so I fully understand if you don't want to get involved. I really appreciate your interest in the Cup and find it amazing that YOUR edits are not challenged by this individual but my husbands are. Thanking you in advance. Jo JoanneB123 ( talk) 21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I personally found "your blatant, constant telling me I'm wrong seems to be the exact same mentality as the users who created the article and got blocked, you're not a sockpuppet are you?" to be an unlikely piece of writing to lead to a peaceful conclusion of a debate. Now, I've really got to get The Nice copyedited in shape for a GA, so I'll duck out there and wish you happy editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I may have asked you this before, but would you like to collaborate to bring Pete Townshend to GA (possibly FA) sometime? ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 15:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I would have opposed if I was present here during your RfA :-p Just kidding! Congrats, Ritchie. Thanks for volunteering, however, don't ignore the content work, it is one of the fields in which you're an expert. Best, Jim Carter 14:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
They say (well I do actually) that for every seven admins who are elected through RFA, one is actually worthy of the tools. Well, I just counted and you were number eight, making you a living proof that my theory is indeed correct. At last, one of the good guys enters the grizzly and murky world of adminship. Cassianto Talk 11:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I need someone to close my AN/I, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 09:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Yunshui
雲
水 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Ritchie333 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My brother did it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Notes:
Ritchie333 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My brother did it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Friends and relatives of greengrocers should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Bencherlite Talk 10:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Look, if you're not going to unblock me I'm just going to get my socks out instead. And believe me, they smell awful today. Anyway, now we've calmed down, could any of you help me beef up Draft:Dewtron so it's acceptable for mainspace. There seems to be very little in the way of reliable sources out there, but unreliable sources confirm that Mike Rutherford and Jon Anderson used their bass pedal synth, so there's got to be something out there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Since when has an article citing the NYT been eligable for A7? What a fatuous (and needlessly sarky)question: the cite is to an article about a film produced by this company. Doesn't make the company notable. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
A Request for Comments about the use of album covers is currently on at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. It would be greatly appreciated to have more opinions on the matter. Lewismaster ( talk) 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Trying to get this over the line for GA with Sagacious. Can you see if you can find anything more on it? Lede could use expansion too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It is my understanding that as long as I observe 1RR, I am in compliance with the conditions of the sanctions. I don't like editors who attempt to intimidate with templating and invalid 3RR reports when I am editing to current standards when they are editing to a decision that has not been made yet and IMO has only about a 50% chance of changing the existing standard, despite the numbers. Skyerise ( talk) 19:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie,
I'm a little confused as to why Katie Hopkins' articles in a magazine are not considered a good enough source to prove that she contributes to that magazine. It seems to be a circular trap. Surely the proof of this is the magazine(?).
Can you suggest sources, other than the primary source, that would prove the primary source to be true?
Nial Slain ( talk) 20:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I had nominated few article for Speedy Deletion per A7 criterion because they did not have any sources on article and on net as well so they failed WP:N. Thanks PawanAhuja ( talk) 12:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Per your explanation, I have now listed few articles that might need an AFD. There are few problematic editors who wrote articles on themselves and upon tagging with DB they repetitively removed them. I need any admin support out here. Please help me out. I still remember those days where my teacher said some pieces of info on Wiki are not true and I believe these are the people responsible for them. Thanks PawanAhuja ( talk) 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you help, please? Likely sock getting worse. I can't see any other Admins around. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
As User:Weathereditor threatened, he's returned to evade your indefinite block and repeat the same disruptive edits, this time cleverly calling himself User:Weathereditor1. Thanks if you can take care of this. Maybe you can semi-protect each of the articles that he's trolling, too? — Patrug ( talk) 03:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I never wanted to see anyone blocked either, personal attacks aside, it was just a clash of egos. Big dog deal. Keep up the good work trying to force the DYK issues to be acknowledged and hopefully resolved. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Graham Chapman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Onel5969 -- Onel5969 ( talk) 02:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey. This is regarding your post at Talk:Babur where you mentioned about GA criteria 3. You said that one cannot review an article (i.e cannot verify criteria 3) if he doesn't know the article subject. I'm fairly new to reviewing myself and this has always bothered me. Is it really like that?
I've done articles where, not knowing the subject, I did a quick background search on the topic so that I could judge criteria 3. Honestly, I'm familiar with hardly any topic, if that was the case, there is very little I can review. Besides, aren't there so many noms out there about really niche and specific subjects? We can't really expect to always have a reviewer with background knowledge ready, right? - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 09:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Hey! I was wondering if you knew about this: User:Richie322? Can't be a coincidence, right? Well, I just came across this, and it amused me, so I thought I'd let you know about it, in case you already didn't... -- IJBall ( talk) 20:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. I see that you deleted Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter. Do you happen to know where the original XfD discussion is? I could only find this related discussion. I ask because this material has also been coat racked into the article Black Lives Matter in violation of WP:OR. Thank you.- Mr X 19:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. I see that you deleted Al Habtoor Motors LLC page.
With all the respect for Wiki and it moderators, i would like to mention that intention of adding this page was not to promote or advertise this company on Wiki. My intention was to add Al Habtoor Motors LLC company information, I may have added information like Awards won by the "AHM" company which made it sound like it is being marketed.
I have also came across several post where you have acted as rescuer and saved lot of pages from being deleted. Please advise how can we recreate the same with pure intention of adding company information about Al Habtoor Motors. So that Wiki is a trusted source and we want to put the correct information without breaking any Wiki protocol.
AHM is one of the leading distributors of several Automotive brands like Bentley, Bugatti, Mitsubishi, JAC Motors etc in United Arab Emirates and deserves to be there like other companies that are listed on wiki.
I would appreciate your help in this regarding or at least how i can try again to add information about same company on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubaiinfo ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
With regards to be adding an A7 tag to it, I was simply readding it. Another user had added the A7 tag, and the article creator had removed it, therefore I just readded it. I agree it's not an A7, but the article creator shouldn't have removed the tag previously. Joseph2302 ( talk) 12:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I AfD'd Brandon Presley as you suggested. This is a courtesy note in case you're interested in that page. It's not a canvass because I have no reason to think you'd agree with my nomination. Geogene ( talk) 16:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie, while reviewing new articles for creaton I came across Draft:Unicommerce. I've found out some reliable sources for the company like this and this. I'm including them in the draft also. The subject Unicommerce I believe has been salted by you. Please look into the matter. Thank you for your contribution. Mr RD ( talk) 19:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
For all the times I have checked in on your talk page, and found you keeping the wiki-peace, even when things get a little heated! Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 12:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) |
Hello. I am wondering why radio stations do not count as companies for the purpose of speedy deletion tags. In my mind, they are just companies that broadcast on the radio. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysquirrel ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for protecting Boone County Fire Protection District. Much appreciated. -- Zackmann08 ( talk) 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor. |
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Duke (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism ( talk) 09:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've just noticed that the Manohar hospital article is possibly a recreation of something deleted at AfD - see discussion. That would qualify it for speedy deletion now. I think I had better add it to my watchlist in case the thing reappears. - Sitush ( talk) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, - my question about the spirit of the restriction was not answered, well, I asked only the user who raised it. - I expressed my view that arbcom should apologize to Eric for the GGTF case caused by baiting him, - but who am I speaking about the spirit of restrictions ;) - Just don't say "honest", - everything should be honest without a label ;) - -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd intended to work on this a bit earlier, but had promised to help someone with something else just before you started this article. A shame that so many restaurants and clubs like this have closed their doors; it's good that we can create articles for them here so there can be some type of an idea what the restaurant was like and why it was important. Thanks again! We hope ( talk) 12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The article West Pier you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:West Pier for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. -- Biblio worm 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)The article West Pier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:West Pier for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Biblioworm -- Biblioworm ( talk) 15:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I just came across where you told me: " Now now, less of the personal attacks, young man."
I did not make any personal attacks. I said nothing personal at all. I said that a competent reviewer would have to do an actual review. That's always true of every nomination. I did not say that you were incompetent. Yes, there was an implication that your "review" was incompetently done, although I didn't explicitly say it. Well, let me say it explicitly now: your "review" was incompetently done. Please note: pointing out that an incompetently done review was done incompetently is not a personal attack.
Urgh. I really don't want to dredge this up again, but I'm afraid I'll have to rehash the whole thing, so I can refute the "personal attacks" claim.
There are many items which a DYK reviewer should check and mention in the review as having been checked, such as the article's age, size, neutrality, citations, and copyvio check. Your only notation: "Article is brand new". Other than erroneously dismissing the original hook, which I discuss below, that is the entirety of what you mention as being reviewed.
You did "review" the original hook (... that according to The Guardian, Ed Miliband's awkward eating of a bacon sandwich could have been because it was a bread roll and not sliced bread?), saying "the hook is misleading, all The Guardian actually says is Nigel Farage is better at eating sandwiches, with the roll / slice comment being ancillary. So let's go with ALT1 ... that The Guardian thinks Nigel Farage is better at eating a bacon sandwich than Ed Miliband?"
According to the article, " The Guardian said that the sliced bread which Farage ate was easier to eat than the bread roll which Miliband had." The source says: "Keen observers will notice the sliced bread of the Farage sandwich arguably makes it an easier handful than Miliband's roll." How is the original hook misleading? It restates what's in the article, which seems to fairly accurately restate what's in the source.
As for your proposed ALT1, there was absolutely nothing even slightly resembling that in the article, in violation of one of the most fundamental DYK rules. And perhaps the most important DYK rule of all is that a hook fact must be verifiable by the reliable source for which there's an inline citation. But this source (and I can only determine it's the source you intended from the context of your comments, since the "fact" doesn't appear in the article and thus has no inline citation), a four-sentence blog, only vaguely, sort of, obliquely, kind of, almost hinted at it. The only remotely relevant passage states that "Nigel Farage couldn't miss an opportunity to show him how it's done."
Then, to make matters much worse, you approved the nomination with your own faulty hook. This is precisely why reviewers should never approve their own hooks. It seemed as though you were so tickled at the prospect of getting your hook on the Main Page that you completely abandoned the idea of doing any sort of actual review.
After I posted to WT:DYK about the issue, you responded, "I'll go write 100 lines saying 'I must not be funny on the main page'." This is what really solidified my questioning of your competence in reviewing this. I had explained the specific problems with your hook, and you responded as though the problem was just that you were trying to get a funny hook on the Main Page.
There is a small but very vocal group of users who strongly disapprove of humorous hooks on the Main Page. I am not among them. Such hooks are fine with me, as long as all DYK rules are followed. Since there is opposition to such hooks, reviews for them should be done especially meticulously.
Rather than taking responsibility for your mistakes, you attempted to shift part of the blame to the set builder, and even to EEng for not offering a second opinion. Yes, ideally the set builder would have caught the problems, but the most important component in the DYK machine is the reviewer, and I can't fault the set builder too much for erroneously trusting that an adequate review had been done. And saying that you'd asked EEng for a second opinion seemed to be disingenuous; it certainly appears that you were not asking for a second opinion about your hook or your "review", but rather simply wanting him to come up with a funnier hook.
Can you honestly look at all of this objectively without realizing that your "review" and your response to the problems could, indeed, be seen as having been handled incompetently?
Sorry to have gone through this again, but I felt I had to defend myself regarding the alleged "personal attacks". I have absolutely nothing against you, and I'm sure you're an otherwise fine editor, but in this case, you really bungled. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Can live without that, and saw it on other users also, - help? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
On 30 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wickedly Welsh Chocolate, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Wickedly Welsh Chocolate held a Willy Wonka-themed "golden ticket" promotion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wickedly Welsh Chocolate. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I need some help and advice.
This really is a worthy addition to wiki.
You know my husband has been blocked by a certain user, for editing Lichfield CC's wiki page. I have seen hard copies of the claim he made about Australian Test Cricketer Keith Miller AM MBE playing in the Chauntry Cup. Please would you take the time to look at http://www.cricketworld.com/media/files/chauntrycup.pdf Column 6 Paragraph 6. My dear old husbands' edits were deleted immediately whenever he cited this document or made any claim about this article. Would you please read the whole piece and if you think anything is worthy of addition on Wiki, would you be kind enough to add it?. I know that if I do it, that certain user will have me blocked straight away as a sock puppet. I just want an experienced but impartial viewer to read this piece. Also, if you search for the Chauntry Cup on the "tube of You ness", you will see that Sky Sports believe my husband, in his claim that the Chauntry Cup, actually is the oldest 20/20 in the world. I don't want you to be accused of being a sock puppet as I have, so I fully understand if you don't want to get involved. I really appreciate your interest in the Cup and find it amazing that YOUR edits are not challenged by this individual but my husbands are. Thanking you in advance. Jo JoanneB123 ( talk) 21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I personally found "your blatant, constant telling me I'm wrong seems to be the exact same mentality as the users who created the article and got blocked, you're not a sockpuppet are you?" to be an unlikely piece of writing to lead to a peaceful conclusion of a debate. Now, I've really got to get The Nice copyedited in shape for a GA, so I'll duck out there and wish you happy editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I may have asked you this before, but would you like to collaborate to bring Pete Townshend to GA (possibly FA) sometime? ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 15:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I would have opposed if I was present here during your RfA :-p Just kidding! Congrats, Ritchie. Thanks for volunteering, however, don't ignore the content work, it is one of the fields in which you're an expert. Best, Jim Carter 14:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
They say (well I do actually) that for every seven admins who are elected through RFA, one is actually worthy of the tools. Well, I just counted and you were number eight, making you a living proof that my theory is indeed correct. At last, one of the good guys enters the grizzly and murky world of adminship. Cassianto Talk 11:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I need someone to close my AN/I, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 09:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Yunshui
雲
水 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Ritchie333 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My brother did it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Notes:
Ritchie333 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My brother did it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Friends and relatives of greengrocers should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Bencherlite Talk 10:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Look, if you're not going to unblock me I'm just going to get my socks out instead. And believe me, they smell awful today. Anyway, now we've calmed down, could any of you help me beef up Draft:Dewtron so it's acceptable for mainspace. There seems to be very little in the way of reliable sources out there, but unreliable sources confirm that Mike Rutherford and Jon Anderson used their bass pedal synth, so there's got to be something out there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Since when has an article citing the NYT been eligable for A7? What a fatuous (and needlessly sarky)question: the cite is to an article about a film produced by this company. Doesn't make the company notable. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
A Request for Comments about the use of album covers is currently on at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. It would be greatly appreciated to have more opinions on the matter. Lewismaster ( talk) 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Trying to get this over the line for GA with Sagacious. Can you see if you can find anything more on it? Lede could use expansion too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It is my understanding that as long as I observe 1RR, I am in compliance with the conditions of the sanctions. I don't like editors who attempt to intimidate with templating and invalid 3RR reports when I am editing to current standards when they are editing to a decision that has not been made yet and IMO has only about a 50% chance of changing the existing standard, despite the numbers. Skyerise ( talk) 19:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie,
I'm a little confused as to why Katie Hopkins' articles in a magazine are not considered a good enough source to prove that she contributes to that magazine. It seems to be a circular trap. Surely the proof of this is the magazine(?).
Can you suggest sources, other than the primary source, that would prove the primary source to be true?
Nial Slain ( talk) 20:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I had nominated few article for Speedy Deletion per A7 criterion because they did not have any sources on article and on net as well so they failed WP:N. Thanks PawanAhuja ( talk) 12:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Per your explanation, I have now listed few articles that might need an AFD. There are few problematic editors who wrote articles on themselves and upon tagging with DB they repetitively removed them. I need any admin support out here. Please help me out. I still remember those days where my teacher said some pieces of info on Wiki are not true and I believe these are the people responsible for them. Thanks PawanAhuja ( talk) 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you help, please? Likely sock getting worse. I can't see any other Admins around. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
As User:Weathereditor threatened, he's returned to evade your indefinite block and repeat the same disruptive edits, this time cleverly calling himself User:Weathereditor1. Thanks if you can take care of this. Maybe you can semi-protect each of the articles that he's trolling, too? — Patrug ( talk) 03:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I never wanted to see anyone blocked either, personal attacks aside, it was just a clash of egos. Big dog deal. Keep up the good work trying to force the DYK issues to be acknowledged and hopefully resolved. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Graham Chapman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Onel5969 -- Onel5969 ( talk) 02:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey. This is regarding your post at Talk:Babur where you mentioned about GA criteria 3. You said that one cannot review an article (i.e cannot verify criteria 3) if he doesn't know the article subject. I'm fairly new to reviewing myself and this has always bothered me. Is it really like that?
I've done articles where, not knowing the subject, I did a quick background search on the topic so that I could judge criteria 3. Honestly, I'm familiar with hardly any topic, if that was the case, there is very little I can review. Besides, aren't there so many noms out there about really niche and specific subjects? We can't really expect to always have a reviewer with background knowledge ready, right? - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 09:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)