![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
I see you aren't buying the assertion at Talk:Bond Street that the IP editor there is not the IP editor you think he is. I haven't been keeping up with developments since "best known for" was banned, and I note the LTA page is out of date, but on the surface of things, the responses at the Bond Street talk page don't look like the same person, and the last time I checked, "best known for" was editing from IPs explicitly labeled as London University. How sure are we that this is the same person? Yngvadottir ( talk) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Well done. Muffled Pocketed 13:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC) |
The effort you put in into such reviews is fascinating. Thank you. Lourdes 14:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Declined? Could you check the edit filter log and note the edit from earlier today to Cinnamon Toast Crunch, moments after a nearby IP was reported for vandalizing the same page? I'm sorry if I've made a mistake, but... Joel.Miles925 ( talk) 16:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie333. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
A dedicated venue where a work group is also proposed has been created for combined discussion about the future of NPP & AfC See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Now CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
We hope (
talk)
20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User talk:195.194.187.132#September_2016
Well I've never managed to completely fail to improve an article because of a block before, but today was that day. Ho hum :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Can I have my user page write-protected as it's more than time to get the hell out of here. Thanks, We hope ( talk) 19:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I've got a pile of unread emails to sort through, in the meantime I optimistically hope this has all blown over and we can finish Burke & Hare's FAC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie, can you close the RFC at Ride the Lightning since it's been more than a month?-- Retrohead ( talk) 06:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Good luck mate for later ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC) |
Anyway, Dr. Blofeld knows what I was really doing ... suffice to say the PreSonus analog-digital boxes I got for next to nowt are in better shape than the company's article before I hit it with the spamhammer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. 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, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
So, I have been working off and on contributing to the article Mandolin. I am very happy with the completeness, but I think I need advice as to improving it. It needs to become a good article. The problem for me is I need a quick and harsh overview. Is it too detailed? What should I spin off into other articles? I have been building it, but I am convinced it may need pruning. For several years, the community has let me do as I will to the article. Any advice as to how I should start this process? Jacqke ( talk) 16:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
tags. This all needs resolving for GA.Anyway, there's some basic thoughts. You're progressing in the right direction, but I think there's quite a bit of work left before I'd go for a GA review. As a first action point, I'd get everything sourced to the books; if nothing else, that will mean anyone reading the article will be reading something that's true and accurate, which is probably more important than having brilliantly elegant prose! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. I just need to get some clarification from you about your closing of Talk:Ride_the_Lightning#Should_the_year_of_publication_of_Hemingway.27s_novel_be_mentioned as being without consensus. What made you reach this conclusion? Just worried you might have rushed it.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 12:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie, absolutely nothing in your previous post needed saying. According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure: "All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure...". In case it was somehow unclear before, I am seeking reassurance that you didn't just have "a quick look", count the votes and close it, as opposed to actually reading the discussion (of which there was in fact plenty, by the way) and weighing the quality of the arguments presented. If you're too disinterested to do any of this, I'm not sure you should be the one closing.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 23:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
And the silence continues. Mind-boggling. After repeatedly asking for it I am still seeing no evidence whatsoever that you read the discussion and weighed the arguments. So again, please tell me why the arguments of the three voters for inclusion (more informative, clearer context and in line with apparent wider Wikipedia consensus) are less compelling than the arguments of the two voters for exclusion (non-sequiturs, personal attacks and possible sock-puppetry), or admit that the close was rushed and was based solely on the closeness of the numbers 3 and 2.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 12:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Wwoooahh, easy there. I don't think you're being an abusive asshole or intentionally trying to annoy me, and I don't think I ever even implied it. People are busy. I get it. You clearly have a lot of other important work to do here. So rushing a small close like this as requested by an editor you've presumably worked with fruitfully in the past is perfectly understandable. When I read
I thought querying it here would be perfectly acceptable. And when I looked at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive and saw that closures were reviewed and overturned all the time, often by the closers themselves, I figured this might be just another case. No big deal. But instead I get this? I'm trying to figure out if you've got me confused with some other editor. I don't remember any past interactions with you. I didn't even know you were an admin till you said so, and I have no idea what "desysop" means. Your responses here seem to be more for the other editors who watch the page than for me. 100% of what you've said here so far ("there doesn't seem to be much discussion", "Somebody wasn't going to get their way with this RfC (that's consensus for you)", "That's not plenty of discussion, that's a bunch of people not agreeing with each other and lobbing in a few mild personal attacks for good measure") could have been said by someone who never actually read and weighed the arguments presented. I'm hoping your curiosity has been piqued enough to have read them by now, but I've still yet to see any sign of this. As I'm sure you already know, Wikipedia:Consensus tells us: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." -- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 02:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ritchie. A brother of the CrazyAces IP you blocked showed up, namely 2607:FB90:76F:6093:8D2B:316D:CC35:7ECB, acting in a characteristic way, so I've blocked the 2607:FB90:76F:6093::/64 range for a week. It's mobile, but still. Blocking these ranges (I keep a list of the ones he has used so far) has done some good in the past. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
Hi. Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnabella Mortel, I am curious how you reached the conclusion of "no consensus". Not only did 3 participants (the nominator and 2 other editors) share a consensus for deletion, but the only "keep" wasn't based on any policy or guideline, and not defended when challenged. Considering the fact that Ms. Mortel has even less notability than her associate Kevin L. Walker (created by the same COI author) whose article was deleted twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin L. Walker (2nd nomination)), I wonder if you would reconsider your decision, or at least describe your reasoning. Thanks. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 04:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, wanted to ask for some advice from a non-involved admin. I wish to start a ban proposal for RoverTheBendInSussex. This is the first time I am making one, and I want to know if there is anything to read specifically other than WP:BAN, and things I should take note regarding the process of starting one. I have read the entire discussion, including the article talkpage in question. Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 12:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Re: [1], I was about to ECP it until I refreshed and saw you'd already stopped by. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 18:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Routine maintenance, but appreciated nonetheless. LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 12:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Edit. Meant "Thanks, not 'Gratz'. Got anything you want me to congratulate you over, though??? LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 12:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
wrote a truly awful "article" called North American Drought. Since the table that was in the article had references I felt a CSD was inappropriate and so I put it up for PROD. The user has since de-PROD'ed the article and put it up for AFD... It's garbage and should be deleted, but I am not sure about how to proceed. Would appreciate you looking into the situation. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 17:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the courage to summarize the Coward discussion. In case I a made an edit there with rhetoric diminishing hope, please let me know, to improve. Perhaps you could even - without naming editors - make a list of unwanted rhetoric? I suggested something a while ago, DYK? Let's stop group names, for a start. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Gerda, now for the serious message. I have no doubt you really are a calm, peaceful and careful person - you would obviously need to be in order to be a successful group choral singer. The problem is not with your opinions, or your words, it's just that sometimes you are a little too obsessed with discussions that everyone else is tired of. As you saw at the close of the Noel Coward feud (and "feud" is the right word to use), I saw there were valid arguments both for and against the infobox, but more importantly the debate has become so entrenched and caused so many people to be fed up with it, that you're encountering incivility such as what you saw in this thread. Superficially, you're not really vandalising articles or deliberately being tendentious, I think everyone understands that, but turning up to a conversation involving other people where you weren't invited in the first place was ill advised.
This is what I meant when I said to ignore things and work on the content. Write about Bach cantatas, nobody has any problems with those and we're all grateful. But please, for your own sake, just completely and utterly refrain from talking about infoboxes anywhere on Wikipedia. Full stop. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with me or anyone else, if somebody else doesn't want an infobox on an article, ignore it - it's not life or death. We understand what your views are, you do not need to say them anymore, and doing so is just an extension of Parkinson's Bicycle Shed Effect.
Things need to change, I'm happy to defend you to a point (seriously, blocking you is like kicking a kitten that's just peed on the carpet, a severe and cruel over-reaction), but we need to resolve this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey there, sounds like you are pretty experienced in album GA reviews. I have been doing artists and albums. Talk:Bleed American and Talk:California (Blink-182 album) are my current reviews. Feel free to take a look and let me know if I missed anything, or am otherwise doing a poor job on GA reviews. I am done reviewing Bleed American, just waiting for comments to be addressed, and the California review I just started. If you don't have time, no worries. Thanks! Kees08 ( talk) 18:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for being a stand up person and treating me with respect. Calling a Wikipedia administrator a 'fuckwit' sure sounds tempting as well but... i guess one shouldnt call people out who dont deserve it and just for the fun of it. But it is tempting! Anyway, i just thought i would pop by and say thank you because behaviour like that is sadly far from the norm on Wikipedia from what i have seen, as perfectly demonstrated on TRM's talkpage. Obviously not everyone is 'bad' but i think you get what i am trying to say. In general i will probably just go back to reading some articles now and lurking like i did before. Those arbcom 'civility cases' just upset me and made me speak up to a tiny degree because other than the generic mantras they use, it seems like too many people(regular editor, admin and arbcom) lost perspective about what Wikipedia is. So again, thank you and i wish more people here were like you. 91.49.66.153 ( talk) 18:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
[3] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Replying here rather than adding yet more fuel to the fire elsewhere, but regarding this there are precedents for football chants based on religious songs—"Bread of Heaven"/"We'll support you evermore"/"You're not singing any more" is an obvious one that springs to mind, and I've heard plenty of chants based on "Lord of the Dance" and "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands". Per my comments over there, I think it's vanishingly unlikely that "You're shit and you know you are"/"Posh Spice takes it up the arse"/"One nil to the Arsenal" was based on anything other than "Go West", given that it appeared right when the PSB's version was in the charts. (I'm sure Britannica doesn't have discussions like this.) ‑ Iridescent 10:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Horsey Island at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and an issue with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
By the way, I was hoping to meet you at the London Wikimeet yesterday but you'd left before I arrived. I hope to catch you on another occasion. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Now that the DYK is referencing Arthur Ransome, you should look in at Arthur Beale, when you're next in Denmark Street. It's just around the corner and is full of things which Ransome would have appreciated. Going there often gets me started on some new article such as the Butt and Oyster. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this although the decline reason seems rather odd. Especially when the official title for the contest is still unknown and only fanbased websites are speculating the title as "Eurovision Asia Song Contest" along with Asiavision and Asia-Eurovision Song Contest. That was why I nominated for speedy, because the creator has shown evident eagerness in creating articles too soon without paying attention to sources and facts that show titles are still at the planning stage. A similar case was done for Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits, when it was reported that an anniversary show was "in the piepline". Sources where published in that circumstance, but nothing to verify the shows title, which is why the article for that show was kept in draft mode within a sandbox until a reliable publish source was released to verify a show title so that the article could "go live" so to speak. Anyway, I've put taken it to AfD, as it is very clear the article is WP:TOOSOON, especially with multiple sources stating various different titles for the contest. Wes Mouse T@lk 14:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Your short-fiction format RFA question for Rehman made me smile. Appropriate and also amusing. I hope this cookie brightens your day in return! stillnotelf is invisible 17:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC) |
I look forward to Rehman's answer with interest - I haven't decided which way to vote yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
I seem to see you around a lot, doing good work quietly, always with loads of cluefulness. Keep up the good work. John ( talk) 19:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
I see you aren't buying the assertion at Talk:Bond Street that the IP editor there is not the IP editor you think he is. I haven't been keeping up with developments since "best known for" was banned, and I note the LTA page is out of date, but on the surface of things, the responses at the Bond Street talk page don't look like the same person, and the last time I checked, "best known for" was editing from IPs explicitly labeled as London University. How sure are we that this is the same person? Yngvadottir ( talk) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Well done. Muffled Pocketed 13:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC) |
The effort you put in into such reviews is fascinating. Thank you. Lourdes 14:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Declined? Could you check the edit filter log and note the edit from earlier today to Cinnamon Toast Crunch, moments after a nearby IP was reported for vandalizing the same page? I'm sorry if I've made a mistake, but... Joel.Miles925 ( talk) 16:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie333. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
A dedicated venue where a work group is also proposed has been created for combined discussion about the future of NPP & AfC See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Now CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
We hope (
talk)
20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User talk:195.194.187.132#September_2016
Well I've never managed to completely fail to improve an article because of a block before, but today was that day. Ho hum :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Can I have my user page write-protected as it's more than time to get the hell out of here. Thanks, We hope ( talk) 19:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I've got a pile of unread emails to sort through, in the meantime I optimistically hope this has all blown over and we can finish Burke & Hare's FAC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie, can you close the RFC at Ride the Lightning since it's been more than a month?-- Retrohead ( talk) 06:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Good luck mate for later ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC) |
Anyway, Dr. Blofeld knows what I was really doing ... suffice to say the PreSonus analog-digital boxes I got for next to nowt are in better shape than the company's article before I hit it with the spamhammer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. 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, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
So, I have been working off and on contributing to the article Mandolin. I am very happy with the completeness, but I think I need advice as to improving it. It needs to become a good article. The problem for me is I need a quick and harsh overview. Is it too detailed? What should I spin off into other articles? I have been building it, but I am convinced it may need pruning. For several years, the community has let me do as I will to the article. Any advice as to how I should start this process? Jacqke ( talk) 16:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
tags. This all needs resolving for GA.Anyway, there's some basic thoughts. You're progressing in the right direction, but I think there's quite a bit of work left before I'd go for a GA review. As a first action point, I'd get everything sourced to the books; if nothing else, that will mean anyone reading the article will be reading something that's true and accurate, which is probably more important than having brilliantly elegant prose! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. I just need to get some clarification from you about your closing of Talk:Ride_the_Lightning#Should_the_year_of_publication_of_Hemingway.27s_novel_be_mentioned as being without consensus. What made you reach this conclusion? Just worried you might have rushed it.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 12:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie, absolutely nothing in your previous post needed saying. According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure: "All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure...". In case it was somehow unclear before, I am seeking reassurance that you didn't just have "a quick look", count the votes and close it, as opposed to actually reading the discussion (of which there was in fact plenty, by the way) and weighing the quality of the arguments presented. If you're too disinterested to do any of this, I'm not sure you should be the one closing.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 23:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
And the silence continues. Mind-boggling. After repeatedly asking for it I am still seeing no evidence whatsoever that you read the discussion and weighed the arguments. So again, please tell me why the arguments of the three voters for inclusion (more informative, clearer context and in line with apparent wider Wikipedia consensus) are less compelling than the arguments of the two voters for exclusion (non-sequiturs, personal attacks and possible sock-puppetry), or admit that the close was rushed and was based solely on the closeness of the numbers 3 and 2.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 12:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Wwoooahh, easy there. I don't think you're being an abusive asshole or intentionally trying to annoy me, and I don't think I ever even implied it. People are busy. I get it. You clearly have a lot of other important work to do here. So rushing a small close like this as requested by an editor you've presumably worked with fruitfully in the past is perfectly understandable. When I read
I thought querying it here would be perfectly acceptable. And when I looked at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive and saw that closures were reviewed and overturned all the time, often by the closers themselves, I figured this might be just another case. No big deal. But instead I get this? I'm trying to figure out if you've got me confused with some other editor. I don't remember any past interactions with you. I didn't even know you were an admin till you said so, and I have no idea what "desysop" means. Your responses here seem to be more for the other editors who watch the page than for me. 100% of what you've said here so far ("there doesn't seem to be much discussion", "Somebody wasn't going to get their way with this RfC (that's consensus for you)", "That's not plenty of discussion, that's a bunch of people not agreeing with each other and lobbing in a few mild personal attacks for good measure") could have been said by someone who never actually read and weighed the arguments presented. I'm hoping your curiosity has been piqued enough to have read them by now, but I've still yet to see any sign of this. As I'm sure you already know, Wikipedia:Consensus tells us: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." -- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 02:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ritchie. A brother of the CrazyAces IP you blocked showed up, namely 2607:FB90:76F:6093:8D2B:316D:CC35:7ECB, acting in a characteristic way, so I've blocked the 2607:FB90:76F:6093::/64 range for a week. It's mobile, but still. Blocking these ranges (I keep a list of the ones he has used so far) has done some good in the past. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
Hi. Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnabella Mortel, I am curious how you reached the conclusion of "no consensus". Not only did 3 participants (the nominator and 2 other editors) share a consensus for deletion, but the only "keep" wasn't based on any policy or guideline, and not defended when challenged. Considering the fact that Ms. Mortel has even less notability than her associate Kevin L. Walker (created by the same COI author) whose article was deleted twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin L. Walker (2nd nomination)), I wonder if you would reconsider your decision, or at least describe your reasoning. Thanks. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 04:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, wanted to ask for some advice from a non-involved admin. I wish to start a ban proposal for RoverTheBendInSussex. This is the first time I am making one, and I want to know if there is anything to read specifically other than WP:BAN, and things I should take note regarding the process of starting one. I have read the entire discussion, including the article talkpage in question. Optakeover (U) (T) (C) 12:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Re: [1], I was about to ECP it until I refreshed and saw you'd already stopped by. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 18:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Routine maintenance, but appreciated nonetheless. LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 12:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Edit. Meant "Thanks, not 'Gratz'. Got anything you want me to congratulate you over, though??? LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 12:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
wrote a truly awful "article" called North American Drought. Since the table that was in the article had references I felt a CSD was inappropriate and so I put it up for PROD. The user has since de-PROD'ed the article and put it up for AFD... It's garbage and should be deleted, but I am not sure about how to proceed. Would appreciate you looking into the situation. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 17:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the courage to summarize the Coward discussion. In case I a made an edit there with rhetoric diminishing hope, please let me know, to improve. Perhaps you could even - without naming editors - make a list of unwanted rhetoric? I suggested something a while ago, DYK? Let's stop group names, for a start. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Gerda, now for the serious message. I have no doubt you really are a calm, peaceful and careful person - you would obviously need to be in order to be a successful group choral singer. The problem is not with your opinions, or your words, it's just that sometimes you are a little too obsessed with discussions that everyone else is tired of. As you saw at the close of the Noel Coward feud (and "feud" is the right word to use), I saw there were valid arguments both for and against the infobox, but more importantly the debate has become so entrenched and caused so many people to be fed up with it, that you're encountering incivility such as what you saw in this thread. Superficially, you're not really vandalising articles or deliberately being tendentious, I think everyone understands that, but turning up to a conversation involving other people where you weren't invited in the first place was ill advised.
This is what I meant when I said to ignore things and work on the content. Write about Bach cantatas, nobody has any problems with those and we're all grateful. But please, for your own sake, just completely and utterly refrain from talking about infoboxes anywhere on Wikipedia. Full stop. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with me or anyone else, if somebody else doesn't want an infobox on an article, ignore it - it's not life or death. We understand what your views are, you do not need to say them anymore, and doing so is just an extension of Parkinson's Bicycle Shed Effect.
Things need to change, I'm happy to defend you to a point (seriously, blocking you is like kicking a kitten that's just peed on the carpet, a severe and cruel over-reaction), but we need to resolve this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey there, sounds like you are pretty experienced in album GA reviews. I have been doing artists and albums. Talk:Bleed American and Talk:California (Blink-182 album) are my current reviews. Feel free to take a look and let me know if I missed anything, or am otherwise doing a poor job on GA reviews. I am done reviewing Bleed American, just waiting for comments to be addressed, and the California review I just started. If you don't have time, no worries. Thanks! Kees08 ( talk) 18:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for being a stand up person and treating me with respect. Calling a Wikipedia administrator a 'fuckwit' sure sounds tempting as well but... i guess one shouldnt call people out who dont deserve it and just for the fun of it. But it is tempting! Anyway, i just thought i would pop by and say thank you because behaviour like that is sadly far from the norm on Wikipedia from what i have seen, as perfectly demonstrated on TRM's talkpage. Obviously not everyone is 'bad' but i think you get what i am trying to say. In general i will probably just go back to reading some articles now and lurking like i did before. Those arbcom 'civility cases' just upset me and made me speak up to a tiny degree because other than the generic mantras they use, it seems like too many people(regular editor, admin and arbcom) lost perspective about what Wikipedia is. So again, thank you and i wish more people here were like you. 91.49.66.153 ( talk) 18:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
[3] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Replying here rather than adding yet more fuel to the fire elsewhere, but regarding this there are precedents for football chants based on religious songs—"Bread of Heaven"/"We'll support you evermore"/"You're not singing any more" is an obvious one that springs to mind, and I've heard plenty of chants based on "Lord of the Dance" and "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands". Per my comments over there, I think it's vanishingly unlikely that "You're shit and you know you are"/"Posh Spice takes it up the arse"/"One nil to the Arsenal" was based on anything other than "Go West", given that it appeared right when the PSB's version was in the charts. (I'm sure Britannica doesn't have discussions like this.) ‑ Iridescent 10:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Horsey Island at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and an issue with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
By the way, I was hoping to meet you at the London Wikimeet yesterday but you'd left before I arrived. I hope to catch you on another occasion. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Now that the DYK is referencing Arthur Ransome, you should look in at Arthur Beale, when you're next in Denmark Street. It's just around the corner and is full of things which Ransome would have appreciated. Going there often gets me started on some new article such as the Butt and Oyster. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this although the decline reason seems rather odd. Especially when the official title for the contest is still unknown and only fanbased websites are speculating the title as "Eurovision Asia Song Contest" along with Asiavision and Asia-Eurovision Song Contest. That was why I nominated for speedy, because the creator has shown evident eagerness in creating articles too soon without paying attention to sources and facts that show titles are still at the planning stage. A similar case was done for Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits, when it was reported that an anniversary show was "in the piepline". Sources where published in that circumstance, but nothing to verify the shows title, which is why the article for that show was kept in draft mode within a sandbox until a reliable publish source was released to verify a show title so that the article could "go live" so to speak. Anyway, I've put taken it to AfD, as it is very clear the article is WP:TOOSOON, especially with multiple sources stating various different titles for the contest. Wes Mouse T@lk 14:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Your short-fiction format RFA question for Rehman made me smile. Appropriate and also amusing. I hope this cookie brightens your day in return! stillnotelf is invisible 17:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC) |
I look forward to Rehman's answer with interest - I haven't decided which way to vote yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
I seem to see you around a lot, doing good work quietly, always with loads of cluefulness. Keep up the good work. John ( talk) 19:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC) |