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 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
Just curious why you declined this as "sourced", when A7 has nothing to do with sourcing. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, as the admin who closed the AfD for List of Polish supercentenarians, would you mind weighing in on developments since then? Newshunter12 has removed a large section of the article saying consensus exists that it violates BLP, V and OR. I have disputed this because I think the AfD supercedes the previous talk page conversation. They have since re-reverted and commented to reinforce their position. I'm not sure how best to proceed, and thought you might have a view on what the current consensus actually is. › Mortee talk 01:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Further to Sunday's discussion, just read the whole article, and it is fascinating stuff. Perhaps you should be Ritchie303. Did not even know we had an A333. Edwardx ( talk) 09:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
On 16 August 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aretha Franklin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Strikerforce Talk 16:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey man! I had written an article for a rapper, Big Les and you had deleted it. I was wondering if it was possible for you to restore the article and move it to the Draft stage and help me in getting the article improved and approved, if possible. Thank you!
Thekiddl ( talk) 19:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)thekiddl 8/16/18
I decided to remove The Who/Tommy from the August 17 OTD. One of the rules is that the date in question should be especially relevant to the bold article(s), and it doesn't seem to be the case for either one. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable in the realm of content creation and I wanted to run an idea by you for an article. I was thinking of starting an article for the California Peace Officers' Memorial. From what I can see there appears to be quite a bit of information on the memorial, but I was hoping to get your opinion first? -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The article Houses of the Holy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Houses of the Holy 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk ( talk) 00:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This is amusing. 81.2%, that's reasonable. 81.3%, oh now that's just too far. I know, I know, 17.4% vs 8% in the other department (or whatever), but still... are you serious? Where's da consistency? Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin III 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo ( talk) 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. When you've a moment, could you take a look at the recent edit history of Dave Rubin, and consider whether it's appropriate to redact the series of edit summaries made on 21st August by an IP user? The repeated edits and reverts themselves don't need to be removed, but I'm of the view that the very visible edit summaries are akin to shouting "Jew! Jew! Jew!" in a grossly offensive and highly visible manner on the View History page, and should be removed. I've reverted the edits, of course, and have warned the editor at User talk:67.1.130.20. Many thanks, Nick Moyes ( talk) 12:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
How is tagging unsourced information " not constructive"? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333 - just as information:
citation needed it is funny if a BOT now asking for citation in this way. I am interested in this article, but never adding any citation - no use for this. just my point. Best. -- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 17:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
tags when I'm busy improving an article, something I've just added a source for isn't in that source, and I need to break it up into what is verifiable and what's not. It's always my intention to come back to tags I've added and fixed them. If you just want to tag an article and move on from it, forgetting about it, what's the point?
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
13:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)I have no idea how this Thank you for supporting our RfA system. Please read
WP:RFAV before you vote on another RfA
could be remotely interpreted as a criticism. It's a perfectly neutral link to an advice page for a beginner. Secondly, nowhere on Wikipedia have I hinted, inferred, or otherwise, that I have, or my be retiring. I will thank you for sticking to facts rather than making assumptions and publishing them, especially where it inappropriate. All you do is fan the flames yourself. More on this when my health improves.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
07:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi All,
I'm sorry I've taken a while to get back to you but I had to do my own research besides one or two unconnected commitments.
I concur fully with Ritchie's findings. There is a need for the tools here, but the voters want to see some creations and content despite the very high number of minor maintenance edits to mainspace.There is also the fact that the JBH RfA has left things in a bit of a turmoil among the entire regular RfA voting community and feedback is still drifting in. The dust needs to settle and this is not the time for anyone to be considering an RfA that does not have an extremely high chance of passing. When I say 'extremely high' I mean being almost a dead cert. That's not something that Ritchie or I or any other prominent admins can guarantee as nominators right now.
Regards,
Kudpung
Beyond the reference to a recently closed RfA, no mention of any other candidate name was made, but the caveat was clear whoever was to be next in line for one of your nominations. There was absolutely no indication whatsoever that I have any intention of retiring. All I have signaled, and on-Wiki, is my desire to withdraw from NPP after mollycoddling it for years, and the fact that this will be my last month as E-in-C of The Signpost. - which is what I intended from the moment I took over the temporary editorship. I have slowed down in the last week or so due to some personal circumstances which are no one's business but my own. There is also the fact that joe job or not, anything I might have imparted in an email to a Wikipedia colleague, should be accorded the respect of confidence and not used in a PA on an RfA of all places. Suffice it to say, your comments have caused quite a flurry of genuine emails to me, all in a very positive nature about my work and engagement to Wikipedia. You need to start looking around you for who you can trust - aye, there be trolls... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 19:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
On 27 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Carpenters, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Carpenters received hate mail because they combined a soft ballad with a loud electric guitar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Carpenters. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, The Carpenters), 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) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Global IME Bank is a major bank in Nepal, thus I'd prefer adding reliable sources instead of deleting it. Germartin1 ( talk) 20:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. I don't know that we've ever bumped into each other, though i have seen your name on a large number of occasions; anyway, i just wanted to say that i, at least, appreciated your comments/clarification in the general comments section, even if another editor (whom i also respect) did not. I've come here, in line with his suggestion, because i want you to know that your addition was not, in mine opinion, "an out-of-the-blue comment about your reasons to nominate" the candidate. I found it useful, though i didn't see it till after i had !voted.
I will confess i have, in the past, thought, "Good grief, another nominated by Ritchie333; how he does churn them out!" but, you know what, i'm glad you do, and glad you clearly give them the thought they deserve. Happy days,
Lindsay
Hello
17:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Sad that you want to stop. You're rather good at it. And you do Wikipedia (and Wikipedians) a huge service in your informal role. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The admins' admin and admin of making admins award | |
For successful and valuable efforts to find new admins for Wikipedia over a long period of time, I award this big stick with a floppy head thingy to Richie333. You're the best admin of adminning admins. Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC) |
Hi, Ritchie, thanks for closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Extended-confirmed protection doesn't need to invoke any ArbCom case any more; as of 2016, it can be applied as needed, see WP:ECP. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC).
I saw this and I thought of you. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the weakness of policy-based arguments to keep this, and the very clear arguments against the article - the creator and several supporters explicitly wrote it was a memorial, and the obvious canvassing, this should not have been closed this way. The “additional sources supplied” included Revolvy and Reddit. Qwirkle ( talk) 11:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I disagree with your close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Portland Historic District. I think there was enough of a consensus there to conclude "Merge" or "Redirect" rather than "Keep" or "no consensus". Did you see my note within the AFD, asking for any closer not to just "kick the can down the road" (which linked to a deletion review about that issue)? Your closing did exactly that. Would you mind reversing yourself and reopening for further discussion? sincerely, -- Doncram ( talk) 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. I am contacting you as you are an admin I trust and respect and are upon a review of your talk page on good terms with Serial Number 54129 ( talk · contribs). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cominar, Serial Number 54129 repeatedly collapsed my "keep" rationale over my objections.
The first collapse, I uncollapsed and added a comment about this breaking the page's formatting, the second collapse, and I uncollapsed and added a comment about Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments saying "normally you should stop if there is any objection".
Serial Number 54129 collapsed my "keep" rationale a third time and then closed the AfD the same minute after several editors who supported deletion no longer supported deletion. The collapsing has broken the formatting of the page again in that all subsequent comments are now indented under mine. My signature is collapsed while Serial Number 54129's signature appears below the first sentence of my "keep" rationale. My comment about the analyst reports that establish notability and my objections to the collapsing are also collapsed. In addition to collapsing my comment, Serial Number 54129 also collapsed part of another editor's "keep" rationale which is unnecessary.
Serial Number 54129 communicated only through edit summaries and did not respond in the AfD to my objections to collapsing so I have not contacted them first. Given Serial Number 54129 was involved in a dispute at the AfD, I consider the collapsing of my "keep" rationale and in the next edit the closing of the AfD to be improper. It violates the "lack of impartiality" clause of WP:BADNAC. The close also was done a day early with two outstanding delete votes. Would you review this? Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 04:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
My main concern is that Serial Number 54129 collapsed my comments a third time and immediately closed the AfD a day early to ensure their view prevails. I find it alarming that an editor used the closer's position to "win" a dispute. I am disappointed you do not view this the same way. The collapsing is a very minor issue that is not worth spending more time on now that the AfD is closed. I accept your advice and will not pursue any further modifications to the AfD. Thank you for taking the time to review the situation.
Cunard ( talk) 16:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
I guess you have never experienced the scenario where you are happily typing away and composing something on the keyboard, when suddenly ... *whumph* .... you get a very bad case of what is technically described as "tail in face" and "cat on keybodfg34t09t89u6y98u5t98u5t094t90utr09tu09t" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if you had time to look over my first GA review. I saw you specialize in music articles as per the GA mentor section. The review is at Talk:The High Llamas/GA1 if you are interested. Thanks :) -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The article Led Zeppelin III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin III 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) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just created the GA nomination review for USCO ( here). It is my first GA review, perhaps you could take a look at it. My main concern is that I have not included a lot of positives: the article is good, but I thought writing "I like this part" a lot was redundant and didn't find a lot of places to specifically highlight where a certain criteria had been met well (i.e. to say "this sentence is written well, it hits criteria X well") - are there other ways of showing where you think an article is good? Kingsif ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your details reply. May I humbly request you to adopt the first option? Will really appreciate it if you can do it. Also, I apologise for sending the email, and I will not do so going forward — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wikiasian2408 (
talk •
contribs)
11:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, can I please get an update on this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 ( talk • contribs)
Hello, thank you for restoring the page. I understand that you have moved it to drafts due to copyright issues. I have addressed the issue, and have additionally added 55 references - I request you to go through it and restore it to a normal page. Thank you so much. Link - /info/en/?search=Draft_talk:K._Hari_Prasad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin (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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk ( talk) 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Grateful if you could give me a copy of this deleted page - the information in it may be usable in an article on e.g. minor political parties or within those articles in which it is mentioned (or even for re-creation if they contest 600 seats at the next election|) Emeraude ( talk) 10:09, 4 September 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 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
Just curious why you declined this as "sourced", when A7 has nothing to do with sourcing. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, as the admin who closed the AfD for List of Polish supercentenarians, would you mind weighing in on developments since then? Newshunter12 has removed a large section of the article saying consensus exists that it violates BLP, V and OR. I have disputed this because I think the AfD supercedes the previous talk page conversation. They have since re-reverted and commented to reinforce their position. I'm not sure how best to proceed, and thought you might have a view on what the current consensus actually is. › Mortee talk 01:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Further to Sunday's discussion, just read the whole article, and it is fascinating stuff. Perhaps you should be Ritchie303. Did not even know we had an A333. Edwardx ( talk) 09:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
On 16 August 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aretha Franklin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Strikerforce Talk 16:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey man! I had written an article for a rapper, Big Les and you had deleted it. I was wondering if it was possible for you to restore the article and move it to the Draft stage and help me in getting the article improved and approved, if possible. Thank you!
Thekiddl ( talk) 19:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)thekiddl 8/16/18
I decided to remove The Who/Tommy from the August 17 OTD. One of the rules is that the date in question should be especially relevant to the bold article(s), and it doesn't seem to be the case for either one. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable in the realm of content creation and I wanted to run an idea by you for an article. I was thinking of starting an article for the California Peace Officers' Memorial. From what I can see there appears to be quite a bit of information on the memorial, but I was hoping to get your opinion first? -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The article Houses of the Holy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Houses of the Holy 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk ( talk) 00:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This is amusing. 81.2%, that's reasonable. 81.3%, oh now that's just too far. I know, I know, 17.4% vs 8% in the other department (or whatever), but still... are you serious? Where's da consistency? Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin III 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo ( talk) 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. When you've a moment, could you take a look at the recent edit history of Dave Rubin, and consider whether it's appropriate to redact the series of edit summaries made on 21st August by an IP user? The repeated edits and reverts themselves don't need to be removed, but I'm of the view that the very visible edit summaries are akin to shouting "Jew! Jew! Jew!" in a grossly offensive and highly visible manner on the View History page, and should be removed. I've reverted the edits, of course, and have warned the editor at User talk:67.1.130.20. Many thanks, Nick Moyes ( talk) 12:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
How is tagging unsourced information " not constructive"? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333 - just as information:
citation needed it is funny if a BOT now asking for citation in this way. I am interested in this article, but never adding any citation - no use for this. just my point. Best. -- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 17:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
tags when I'm busy improving an article, something I've just added a source for isn't in that source, and I need to break it up into what is verifiable and what's not. It's always my intention to come back to tags I've added and fixed them. If you just want to tag an article and move on from it, forgetting about it, what's the point?
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
13:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)I have no idea how this Thank you for supporting our RfA system. Please read
WP:RFAV before you vote on another RfA
could be remotely interpreted as a criticism. It's a perfectly neutral link to an advice page for a beginner. Secondly, nowhere on Wikipedia have I hinted, inferred, or otherwise, that I have, or my be retiring. I will thank you for sticking to facts rather than making assumptions and publishing them, especially where it inappropriate. All you do is fan the flames yourself. More on this when my health improves.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
07:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi All,
I'm sorry I've taken a while to get back to you but I had to do my own research besides one or two unconnected commitments.
I concur fully with Ritchie's findings. There is a need for the tools here, but the voters want to see some creations and content despite the very high number of minor maintenance edits to mainspace.There is also the fact that the JBH RfA has left things in a bit of a turmoil among the entire regular RfA voting community and feedback is still drifting in. The dust needs to settle and this is not the time for anyone to be considering an RfA that does not have an extremely high chance of passing. When I say 'extremely high' I mean being almost a dead cert. That's not something that Ritchie or I or any other prominent admins can guarantee as nominators right now.
Regards,
Kudpung
Beyond the reference to a recently closed RfA, no mention of any other candidate name was made, but the caveat was clear whoever was to be next in line for one of your nominations. There was absolutely no indication whatsoever that I have any intention of retiring. All I have signaled, and on-Wiki, is my desire to withdraw from NPP after mollycoddling it for years, and the fact that this will be my last month as E-in-C of The Signpost. - which is what I intended from the moment I took over the temporary editorship. I have slowed down in the last week or so due to some personal circumstances which are no one's business but my own. There is also the fact that joe job or not, anything I might have imparted in an email to a Wikipedia colleague, should be accorded the respect of confidence and not used in a PA on an RfA of all places. Suffice it to say, your comments have caused quite a flurry of genuine emails to me, all in a very positive nature about my work and engagement to Wikipedia. You need to start looking around you for who you can trust - aye, there be trolls... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 19:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
On 27 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Carpenters, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Carpenters received hate mail because they combined a soft ballad with a loud electric guitar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Carpenters. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, The Carpenters), 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) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Global IME Bank is a major bank in Nepal, thus I'd prefer adding reliable sources instead of deleting it. Germartin1 ( talk) 20:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. I don't know that we've ever bumped into each other, though i have seen your name on a large number of occasions; anyway, i just wanted to say that i, at least, appreciated your comments/clarification in the general comments section, even if another editor (whom i also respect) did not. I've come here, in line with his suggestion, because i want you to know that your addition was not, in mine opinion, "an out-of-the-blue comment about your reasons to nominate" the candidate. I found it useful, though i didn't see it till after i had !voted.
I will confess i have, in the past, thought, "Good grief, another nominated by Ritchie333; how he does churn them out!" but, you know what, i'm glad you do, and glad you clearly give them the thought they deserve. Happy days,
Lindsay
Hello
17:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Sad that you want to stop. You're rather good at it. And you do Wikipedia (and Wikipedians) a huge service in your informal role. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The admins' admin and admin of making admins award | |
For successful and valuable efforts to find new admins for Wikipedia over a long period of time, I award this big stick with a floppy head thingy to Richie333. You're the best admin of adminning admins. Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC) |
Hi, Ritchie, thanks for closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Extended-confirmed protection doesn't need to invoke any ArbCom case any more; as of 2016, it can be applied as needed, see WP:ECP. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC).
I saw this and I thought of you. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the weakness of policy-based arguments to keep this, and the very clear arguments against the article - the creator and several supporters explicitly wrote it was a memorial, and the obvious canvassing, this should not have been closed this way. The “additional sources supplied” included Revolvy and Reddit. Qwirkle ( talk) 11:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I disagree with your close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Portland Historic District. I think there was enough of a consensus there to conclude "Merge" or "Redirect" rather than "Keep" or "no consensus". Did you see my note within the AFD, asking for any closer not to just "kick the can down the road" (which linked to a deletion review about that issue)? Your closing did exactly that. Would you mind reversing yourself and reopening for further discussion? sincerely, -- Doncram ( talk) 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. I am contacting you as you are an admin I trust and respect and are upon a review of your talk page on good terms with Serial Number 54129 ( talk · contribs). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cominar, Serial Number 54129 repeatedly collapsed my "keep" rationale over my objections.
The first collapse, I uncollapsed and added a comment about this breaking the page's formatting, the second collapse, and I uncollapsed and added a comment about Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments saying "normally you should stop if there is any objection".
Serial Number 54129 collapsed my "keep" rationale a third time and then closed the AfD the same minute after several editors who supported deletion no longer supported deletion. The collapsing has broken the formatting of the page again in that all subsequent comments are now indented under mine. My signature is collapsed while Serial Number 54129's signature appears below the first sentence of my "keep" rationale. My comment about the analyst reports that establish notability and my objections to the collapsing are also collapsed. In addition to collapsing my comment, Serial Number 54129 also collapsed part of another editor's "keep" rationale which is unnecessary.
Serial Number 54129 communicated only through edit summaries and did not respond in the AfD to my objections to collapsing so I have not contacted them first. Given Serial Number 54129 was involved in a dispute at the AfD, I consider the collapsing of my "keep" rationale and in the next edit the closing of the AfD to be improper. It violates the "lack of impartiality" clause of WP:BADNAC. The close also was done a day early with two outstanding delete votes. Would you review this? Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 04:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
My main concern is that Serial Number 54129 collapsed my comments a third time and immediately closed the AfD a day early to ensure their view prevails. I find it alarming that an editor used the closer's position to "win" a dispute. I am disappointed you do not view this the same way. The collapsing is a very minor issue that is not worth spending more time on now that the AfD is closed. I accept your advice and will not pursue any further modifications to the AfD. Thank you for taking the time to review the situation.
Cunard ( talk) 16:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
I guess you have never experienced the scenario where you are happily typing away and composing something on the keyboard, when suddenly ... *whumph* .... you get a very bad case of what is technically described as "tail in face" and "cat on keybodfg34t09t89u6y98u5t98u5t094t90utr09tu09t" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if you had time to look over my first GA review. I saw you specialize in music articles as per the GA mentor section. The review is at Talk:The High Llamas/GA1 if you are interested. Thanks :) -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The article Led Zeppelin III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin III 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) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just created the GA nomination review for USCO ( here). It is my first GA review, perhaps you could take a look at it. My main concern is that I have not included a lot of positives: the article is good, but I thought writing "I like this part" a lot was redundant and didn't find a lot of places to specifically highlight where a certain criteria had been met well (i.e. to say "this sentence is written well, it hits criteria X well") - are there other ways of showing where you think an article is good? Kingsif ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your details reply. May I humbly request you to adopt the first option? Will really appreciate it if you can do it. Also, I apologise for sending the email, and I will not do so going forward — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wikiasian2408 (
talk •
contribs)
11:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, can I please get an update on this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 ( talk • contribs)
Hello, thank you for restoring the page. I understand that you have moved it to drafts due to copyright issues. I have addressed the issue, and have additionally added 55 references - I request you to go through it and restore it to a normal page. Thank you so much. Link - /info/en/?search=Draft_talk:K._Hari_Prasad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin (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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk ( talk) 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Grateful if you could give me a copy of this deleted page - the information in it may be usable in an article on e.g. minor political parties or within those articles in which it is mentioned (or even for re-creation if they contest 600 seats at the next election|) Emeraude ( talk) 10:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)