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 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | → | Archive 85 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Richie,
I'm concerned about the handling of the Dream situation, so I hope it's okay if we discuss?
Here's a brief summary of how the Dream Hijiri situation developed: Hijiri took an interest in Dream's editing areas back in Feb. Hijiri's initial concerns were reasonable, and even as a big admirer of Dream, I'll admit Dream responded poorly. Both seem to be generally good editors who just bring out the worst in each other. Yet there was perhaps no fault on H's part for how their relationship got off to a bad start. Still, after a while Dream made it very clear to H that he wanted them to disengage (granted Dream expressed this in an impolite way.) Dream then started doing his best to avoid H, and wanted H to do the same. Even before the first ANI Admin Tony Ballioni suggested to H that he should avoid Dream's contributions and "shouldn't seek them out." We had the first ANI that ended with with sympathy for H & censure for Dream, though many saw fault on both sides, with some wanting a 2 way iban.
H continued to talk about Dream after the ANI closed - Dream objected, and got a short block. That was one sided on the face of it, but at that point there did seem to be an IAR rules case that it was justified. H contined to take an interest in Dream even after the block, leading to the second ANI , where this time commnity concensus was mostly against H. BlackKite's excellent close suggested a voluntary interaction ban - an attempt to end the drama without needing a sanction (a iban would have risk demotivating H, which would be a shame as he does some outstanding work plus collaborates well with his fellow experts.) Following this, H yet again starts talking about Dream, yet somehow Dream's the one you saw fit to give a one way iban too.
Please correct me if Im wrong, but isn't it unprecedented for an admin to impose a de facto one way interaction ban onto an established editor? Especially onto the editor who was on the receiving end of unwanted attention?
And even if an admin has imposed such an unusual unblock condition before, surely it would have been better to wait for the blocked editor to respond and agree before acting as though it's a binding condition? FeydHuxtable ( talk) 16:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Richie. It's your talk page, but it would probably help conclude this more swiftly if we could stick to specifics, rather than divert into generalities. Except we are indeed 'here first and foremost to write an encyclopaedia' - which is exactly why the experienced editors who contribute to that task should not be treated by Admins in a cavalier way.
( The lessons about life, Soho, or the need to mostly let things go are not really needed. If we ever get chatting at a London wiki meet up or similar, you might be suprised about the secrets I could share. Things from both the heights and depths, which you won't find in any book. National & even international issues being settled at the dinner tables of Gay Hussar and L 'Escargot . Secrets discussed in Soho Zobanno that would possibly make even you blush, and I don't mean the sort of common sleaze you'd find at 8 Greek Street, 34 Romilly Stree or 70A Berwick Street. You probably know more about the strictly showbiz side of Soho, but you might find I know just about life in general as yourself. As for having to accept things not going your way here on Wiki - I've been here for 10 years and have seen hundreds of things go against my preference, and over 99% of the time I just silently accept it, or even complement the instiagor while saying words I hope might be soothing to the losing side. Only very rarely in cases that seem excessively OTT do I make an issue of things.)
The specifics are: Dream was continually on the receiving end of unwanted attention, and was already doing everything he could to disengage, except for reporting it when the other editor again started talking about him.
At the second ANI editors were generally of the view H was now at fault, and the closer requested they avoid each other, one of 5 admins to make similar suggestions to H. Yet when H once again starts talking about Dream, and Dream responds, Dream's the one who get's a one way ban.
Again Richie, why did you decide to take unprecedented(?) step of unilaterally applying a one way interaction ban to Dream?
Why did you take it upon yourself to unblock and apply the condition without taking the time to ensure Dream understood and accepted it?
Even the way you wrote the ANI was near unpresented - you suggested a two way IBAN - exactly what Dream wants (& what H objects to.) - yet framed it in such a way as to show Dream be totally at fault. You then posted '...I want solid consensus before indeffing a long-standing contributor.' which could have easily influence the ANI towards a permaban.
Would it not have been better to either leave Dream alone, or if you had to get involved, follow standard practice and give Dream a chance to agree to the unblock condition before it applying it? FeydHuxtable ( talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
In case you missed it, Winkelvi is continuing to follow me around like a bad smell both here and on the Commons. Not a day has gone by where I haven't switched my laptop on to discover more of his bullshit directed at me. I've been quietly (and sometimes not-so-quietly) building a case against him, collecting diffs with the intention of going to ANI and asking that he be hanged. However, I think the two of you have some history, you may have some sympathy for him and I respect your judgement, so I'd like to give you the opportunity to have a word with him before I take him to task. It's entirely up to you of course, and I'd be more than happy to deal with him myself. Regards, nagual design 03:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trespass (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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 09:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
For that ANI post on the 11th. Just don't let Dr Fry cut it or she will figure out a way to get the majority for herself. I watched that video twice and unconvinced it was a fair cutting. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC) |
For those playing at home, the post LX31 enjoyed is this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I've had your SPI considered harmful essay on my watchlist for awhile, but forgot about it until you edited it just now. There are a number of SPIs I'm aware of where I believe somebody was misidentified as a sock (also cases where two different sock puppeteers have been mistakenly conflated).
To start with, User:Couiros22 is requesting an unblock. While I don't mind seeing this editor blocked for disruptive editing, it really disturbs me that they are blocked as a sock puppet. There are some major differences in behavior between this account and the accounts that they are accused of being a sock for. Couiros22 doesn't use edit summaries. The other accounts consistently used edit summaries (frequently the vague summary "cleanup"). Couiros22 responds to comments on their talk page. The other accounts are extremely unresponsive. Couiros22 created a redirect Emblema (genus). The other accounts have a long history of moving articles with "(genus)" as a disambiguator to a more specific term ( see move long). To me, it's utterly inconceivable that an editor with a clear dislike of "(genus)" as a dab term would then go and create a redirect with "(genus)" and fail to create a redirect with a more specific dab term. These have to be different people. I was hoping you could review Couiros22's unblock request and at least change the reason for the block to disruptive editing rather than sock puppetry. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, should I report blatant disruptive editing (and the editor refuse to communicate) to AIV? I sometimes do that with the reason clearly stated and they're being blocked, is this really the correct way to do that? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 11:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Self admitting block evasion [1]. I think that User talk:Tootifrooti11 needs to be semi-protected now. ML talk 17:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The article Trespass (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trespass (album) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 01:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey dipshit, you forgot to tag File:Trump Protester in Parliament Square.jpg with a free license tag, you stupid pillock. Do it now.
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Could you stop by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help needed at Trinity, assess the consensus in the subsection Proposal: Ctmv should be indefinitely blocked from editing and institute a course of action based on that? I don't see any benefit to dragging things outs any further. Thanks. Note: I have sent this same message to all currently active administrators who talk pages I watch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a good one. I don't think Dawkins is intolerant really (but I don't follow him like a favorite celebrity, so I may be wrong), I think he -like many people with an abundance of natural charisma - doesn't think through emotional/personal/social ideas and comments before airing them. And then, once he's publicly staked out a position, he must defend it of course. Admitting you were wrong is a grand quality in science, but in the public sphere and the instincts of those with good social instincts, not so much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The article Led Zeppelin IV you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin IV 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo ( talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The article Europe '72 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Europe '72 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 MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 12:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
... and just in time, the Bickershaw Festival weather has arrived! Cue the mud pies! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garrod and Lofthouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
In your edit at the article you claim "no reason to remove this." On the contrary. I'm a little confused as to how you're not familiar with some of the policies on external links, being an admin and all, etc; but here is the WP:ELNO section stating no social media links:
"Links normally to be avoided=... Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists."
Also noted is the caveat of "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5]." For this, see also WP:ELMIN:
"Normally, only one official link is included... "
and
"...For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation."
As seen on the article page, there is already a link to it's official page, and also, that page itself has links to social media accounts. These social media links should not be re-added. There's also the issue of both social media pages not being used for the past 3 years, since 2015. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 16:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
After your evasiveness in the Dream thread, I checked your contribs and found you saying :I can't emphasise this enough, the reason to start the ANI thread was to get a consensus instead of just unilaterally indef blocking DF ... I just have to be seen to be fair."
Together with comments like ...I want solid consensus before indeffing a long-standing contributor. and other irregularities with your actions mentioned in the thread above, it's impossible to AGF that your claim to have made a "valiant" attempt at stopping Dream from being blocked was anything other than an audacious lie.
You saw Dream in a vulnerable position, and used deceptive manipulation to try to set him up for an indeff. Thankfully no one supported more than a month. Dream is a good editor and a light spirit who inspires other wikipedians. Your dishonourable attempts to get him permanbaned are despicable. In certain cultures H could tell you about, those who shame themselves so thoroughly would sometimes
fall on their sword. It depends on what motivated you. If you had positive reasons, like wanting to reduce a tiny but still real risk to another excellent editor, then perhaps you can redeem yourself without handing in your tools. Just try to act with more humility, and put in the hard work to actually be fair, not just to seem it.
FeydHuxtable (
talk)
07:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Ritchie333: We (you and I) don't know each other at all, but I have very recently encountered FeydHuxtable in an Afd (
this AfD). Should this "Dishonourable and manipulative adminship"-thingy go to "court", then feel free to ping me, in case an outside opinion is wanted. --
DexterPointy (
talk)
@
Nagualdesign: Only within past two days have I seen the handle "Ritchie333" ever mentioned (I read the/your ANI against Winkelvi). I, like you, am at the doorstep of exiting WP, and am currently contemplating if knowing some admins could provide a path to stay. Hence, may have some input on that from you? (Not here, that'd be like spamming Ritchie333's talk-page; I'm only pinging you here, in case you got something related to "Dishonourable and manipulative adminship".) --
DexterPointy (
talk)
13:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Every now and again, somebody takes exception to something I do (even if has been backed up by consensus) and drags me off to ANI for it (examples
here,
here,
here and
here). The best option (unless there really is a case to answer for removing the tools, in which case people who are looking out for you will tell you, and one ought to have a sense of remorse about it) is to ignore it and concentrate on content work instead. And to that end, I have done a bit of copyediting on
List of breakfast drinks and suggested one obvious way of cementing the article's notability, with a source. If an article you have worked on goes to AfD, the best thing you can do is improve it, and I note that the
sole activity during the AfD's nomination was to remove a <br/>
tag, which makes the "keep" votes something of a
Pyrrhic victory. As I hinted above in the (now closed) discussion, if you concentrate on mainspace activity and improving content, you'll get respect; whereas if you just whine about admins doing stuff you don't like without much mainspace activity, you'll get labelled as a whiner and treated accordingly. This, by extension, is why we tolerate some editors who are known to "not play well with others" but contribute enormously to
featured articles, so they should be kept around for the greater good of the project.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
13:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: Ref. : >>...we tolerate some editors who are known to "not play well with others" but contribute enormously to featured articles, so they should be kept around for the greater good of the project.<< : Where can I find more information (e.g. WP guideline, essay, or whatever) elaborating on this stance towards the editorial body of WP? -- DexterPointy ( talk) 08:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333,
I am just starting out on Wikipedia and wanted to give publishing a page a try. I've come across Cliff's name a few times being in the finance industry and thought it may be an easy start. I would like to try editing the page to get rid of any information that you think is a COI or irrelevant, and then I'd like to try reposting with your comments in mind. Thanks for your time. Jumperfan ( talk) 16:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice template, sir! |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Guan aco 21:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC) |
You have participated at Discussion for List of breakfast drinks Therefore, you might be interested in the deletion nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I've drafted a co-nom statement, if you could take a look that would be great. If you are fine with it, then the rest is just waiting for your main statement. Cheers, Alex Shih ( talk) 04:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie. I recently created an article that—without discussion—was blanked and redirected. Because of 1RR in ARBPIA, I cannot revert. Can an editor simply blank a whole article with discussion or an AFD. Any insight is appreciated. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 10:08, 26 July 2018 (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 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | → | Archive 85 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Richie,
I'm concerned about the handling of the Dream situation, so I hope it's okay if we discuss?
Here's a brief summary of how the Dream Hijiri situation developed: Hijiri took an interest in Dream's editing areas back in Feb. Hijiri's initial concerns were reasonable, and even as a big admirer of Dream, I'll admit Dream responded poorly. Both seem to be generally good editors who just bring out the worst in each other. Yet there was perhaps no fault on H's part for how their relationship got off to a bad start. Still, after a while Dream made it very clear to H that he wanted them to disengage (granted Dream expressed this in an impolite way.) Dream then started doing his best to avoid H, and wanted H to do the same. Even before the first ANI Admin Tony Ballioni suggested to H that he should avoid Dream's contributions and "shouldn't seek them out." We had the first ANI that ended with with sympathy for H & censure for Dream, though many saw fault on both sides, with some wanting a 2 way iban.
H continued to talk about Dream after the ANI closed - Dream objected, and got a short block. That was one sided on the face of it, but at that point there did seem to be an IAR rules case that it was justified. H contined to take an interest in Dream even after the block, leading to the second ANI , where this time commnity concensus was mostly against H. BlackKite's excellent close suggested a voluntary interaction ban - an attempt to end the drama without needing a sanction (a iban would have risk demotivating H, which would be a shame as he does some outstanding work plus collaborates well with his fellow experts.) Following this, H yet again starts talking about Dream, yet somehow Dream's the one you saw fit to give a one way iban too.
Please correct me if Im wrong, but isn't it unprecedented for an admin to impose a de facto one way interaction ban onto an established editor? Especially onto the editor who was on the receiving end of unwanted attention?
And even if an admin has imposed such an unusual unblock condition before, surely it would have been better to wait for the blocked editor to respond and agree before acting as though it's a binding condition? FeydHuxtable ( talk) 16:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Richie. It's your talk page, but it would probably help conclude this more swiftly if we could stick to specifics, rather than divert into generalities. Except we are indeed 'here first and foremost to write an encyclopaedia' - which is exactly why the experienced editors who contribute to that task should not be treated by Admins in a cavalier way.
( The lessons about life, Soho, or the need to mostly let things go are not really needed. If we ever get chatting at a London wiki meet up or similar, you might be suprised about the secrets I could share. Things from both the heights and depths, which you won't find in any book. National & even international issues being settled at the dinner tables of Gay Hussar and L 'Escargot . Secrets discussed in Soho Zobanno that would possibly make even you blush, and I don't mean the sort of common sleaze you'd find at 8 Greek Street, 34 Romilly Stree or 70A Berwick Street. You probably know more about the strictly showbiz side of Soho, but you might find I know just about life in general as yourself. As for having to accept things not going your way here on Wiki - I've been here for 10 years and have seen hundreds of things go against my preference, and over 99% of the time I just silently accept it, or even complement the instiagor while saying words I hope might be soothing to the losing side. Only very rarely in cases that seem excessively OTT do I make an issue of things.)
The specifics are: Dream was continually on the receiving end of unwanted attention, and was already doing everything he could to disengage, except for reporting it when the other editor again started talking about him.
At the second ANI editors were generally of the view H was now at fault, and the closer requested they avoid each other, one of 5 admins to make similar suggestions to H. Yet when H once again starts talking about Dream, and Dream responds, Dream's the one who get's a one way ban.
Again Richie, why did you decide to take unprecedented(?) step of unilaterally applying a one way interaction ban to Dream?
Why did you take it upon yourself to unblock and apply the condition without taking the time to ensure Dream understood and accepted it?
Even the way you wrote the ANI was near unpresented - you suggested a two way IBAN - exactly what Dream wants (& what H objects to.) - yet framed it in such a way as to show Dream be totally at fault. You then posted '...I want solid consensus before indeffing a long-standing contributor.' which could have easily influence the ANI towards a permaban.
Would it not have been better to either leave Dream alone, or if you had to get involved, follow standard practice and give Dream a chance to agree to the unblock condition before it applying it? FeydHuxtable ( talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
In case you missed it, Winkelvi is continuing to follow me around like a bad smell both here and on the Commons. Not a day has gone by where I haven't switched my laptop on to discover more of his bullshit directed at me. I've been quietly (and sometimes not-so-quietly) building a case against him, collecting diffs with the intention of going to ANI and asking that he be hanged. However, I think the two of you have some history, you may have some sympathy for him and I respect your judgement, so I'd like to give you the opportunity to have a word with him before I take him to task. It's entirely up to you of course, and I'd be more than happy to deal with him myself. Regards, nagual design 03:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trespass (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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 09:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
For that ANI post on the 11th. Just don't let Dr Fry cut it or she will figure out a way to get the majority for herself. I watched that video twice and unconvinced it was a fair cutting. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC) |
For those playing at home, the post LX31 enjoyed is this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I've had your SPI considered harmful essay on my watchlist for awhile, but forgot about it until you edited it just now. There are a number of SPIs I'm aware of where I believe somebody was misidentified as a sock (also cases where two different sock puppeteers have been mistakenly conflated).
To start with, User:Couiros22 is requesting an unblock. While I don't mind seeing this editor blocked for disruptive editing, it really disturbs me that they are blocked as a sock puppet. There are some major differences in behavior between this account and the accounts that they are accused of being a sock for. Couiros22 doesn't use edit summaries. The other accounts consistently used edit summaries (frequently the vague summary "cleanup"). Couiros22 responds to comments on their talk page. The other accounts are extremely unresponsive. Couiros22 created a redirect Emblema (genus). The other accounts have a long history of moving articles with "(genus)" as a disambiguator to a more specific term ( see move long). To me, it's utterly inconceivable that an editor with a clear dislike of "(genus)" as a dab term would then go and create a redirect with "(genus)" and fail to create a redirect with a more specific dab term. These have to be different people. I was hoping you could review Couiros22's unblock request and at least change the reason for the block to disruptive editing rather than sock puppetry. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, should I report blatant disruptive editing (and the editor refuse to communicate) to AIV? I sometimes do that with the reason clearly stated and they're being blocked, is this really the correct way to do that? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 11:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Self admitting block evasion [1]. I think that User talk:Tootifrooti11 needs to be semi-protected now. ML talk 17:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The article Trespass (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trespass (album) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 01:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey dipshit, you forgot to tag File:Trump Protester in Parliament Square.jpg with a free license tag, you stupid pillock. Do it now.
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Could you stop by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help needed at Trinity, assess the consensus in the subsection Proposal: Ctmv should be indefinitely blocked from editing and institute a course of action based on that? I don't see any benefit to dragging things outs any further. Thanks. Note: I have sent this same message to all currently active administrators who talk pages I watch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a good one. I don't think Dawkins is intolerant really (but I don't follow him like a favorite celebrity, so I may be wrong), I think he -like many people with an abundance of natural charisma - doesn't think through emotional/personal/social ideas and comments before airing them. And then, once he's publicly staked out a position, he must defend it of course. Admitting you were wrong is a grand quality in science, but in the public sphere and the instincts of those with good social instincts, not so much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The article Led Zeppelin IV you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin IV 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo ( talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The article Europe '72 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Europe '72 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 MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 12:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
... and just in time, the Bickershaw Festival weather has arrived! Cue the mud pies! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garrod and Lofthouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
In your edit at the article you claim "no reason to remove this." On the contrary. I'm a little confused as to how you're not familiar with some of the policies on external links, being an admin and all, etc; but here is the WP:ELNO section stating no social media links:
"Links normally to be avoided=... Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists."
Also noted is the caveat of "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5]." For this, see also WP:ELMIN:
"Normally, only one official link is included... "
and
"...For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation."
As seen on the article page, there is already a link to it's official page, and also, that page itself has links to social media accounts. These social media links should not be re-added. There's also the issue of both social media pages not being used for the past 3 years, since 2015. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 16:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
After your evasiveness in the Dream thread, I checked your contribs and found you saying :I can't emphasise this enough, the reason to start the ANI thread was to get a consensus instead of just unilaterally indef blocking DF ... I just have to be seen to be fair."
Together with comments like ...I want solid consensus before indeffing a long-standing contributor. and other irregularities with your actions mentioned in the thread above, it's impossible to AGF that your claim to have made a "valiant" attempt at stopping Dream from being blocked was anything other than an audacious lie.
You saw Dream in a vulnerable position, and used deceptive manipulation to try to set him up for an indeff. Thankfully no one supported more than a month. Dream is a good editor and a light spirit who inspires other wikipedians. Your dishonourable attempts to get him permanbaned are despicable. In certain cultures H could tell you about, those who shame themselves so thoroughly would sometimes
fall on their sword. It depends on what motivated you. If you had positive reasons, like wanting to reduce a tiny but still real risk to another excellent editor, then perhaps you can redeem yourself without handing in your tools. Just try to act with more humility, and put in the hard work to actually be fair, not just to seem it.
FeydHuxtable (
talk)
07:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Ritchie333: We (you and I) don't know each other at all, but I have very recently encountered FeydHuxtable in an Afd (
this AfD). Should this "Dishonourable and manipulative adminship"-thingy go to "court", then feel free to ping me, in case an outside opinion is wanted. --
DexterPointy (
talk)
@
Nagualdesign: Only within past two days have I seen the handle "Ritchie333" ever mentioned (I read the/your ANI against Winkelvi). I, like you, am at the doorstep of exiting WP, and am currently contemplating if knowing some admins could provide a path to stay. Hence, may have some input on that from you? (Not here, that'd be like spamming Ritchie333's talk-page; I'm only pinging you here, in case you got something related to "Dishonourable and manipulative adminship".) --
DexterPointy (
talk)
13:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Every now and again, somebody takes exception to something I do (even if has been backed up by consensus) and drags me off to ANI for it (examples
here,
here,
here and
here). The best option (unless there really is a case to answer for removing the tools, in which case people who are looking out for you will tell you, and one ought to have a sense of remorse about it) is to ignore it and concentrate on content work instead. And to that end, I have done a bit of copyediting on
List of breakfast drinks and suggested one obvious way of cementing the article's notability, with a source. If an article you have worked on goes to AfD, the best thing you can do is improve it, and I note that the
sole activity during the AfD's nomination was to remove a <br/>
tag, which makes the "keep" votes something of a
Pyrrhic victory. As I hinted above in the (now closed) discussion, if you concentrate on mainspace activity and improving content, you'll get respect; whereas if you just whine about admins doing stuff you don't like without much mainspace activity, you'll get labelled as a whiner and treated accordingly. This, by extension, is why we tolerate some editors who are known to "not play well with others" but contribute enormously to
featured articles, so they should be kept around for the greater good of the project.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
13:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: Ref. : >>...we tolerate some editors who are known to "not play well with others" but contribute enormously to featured articles, so they should be kept around for the greater good of the project.<< : Where can I find more information (e.g. WP guideline, essay, or whatever) elaborating on this stance towards the editorial body of WP? -- DexterPointy ( talk) 08:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333,
I am just starting out on Wikipedia and wanted to give publishing a page a try. I've come across Cliff's name a few times being in the finance industry and thought it may be an easy start. I would like to try editing the page to get rid of any information that you think is a COI or irrelevant, and then I'd like to try reposting with your comments in mind. Thanks for your time. Jumperfan ( talk) 16:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice template, sir! |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Guan aco 21:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC) |
You have participated at Discussion for List of breakfast drinks Therefore, you might be interested in the deletion nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I've drafted a co-nom statement, if you could take a look that would be great. If you are fine with it, then the rest is just waiting for your main statement. Cheers, Alex Shih ( talk) 04:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie. I recently created an article that—without discussion—was blanked and redirected. Because of 1RR in ARBPIA, I cannot revert. Can an editor simply blank a whole article with discussion or an AFD. Any insight is appreciated. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 10:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)