Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:11, 2 December 2016

This is Ritchie333's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138Auto-archiving period: 28 days

If you leave a message on this talk page, I'll respond here. You may want to watch this page to catch the response. Click here for a tutorial in watching pages. Please avoid using talkback messages if you can - if I've messaged you recently I'll either be watching your page or otherwise keeping an eye on it.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

• This cock
• and this womble do NOT go together. Play nice.

Can I get a deleted article put back up?

Hi,

You moved/deleted an article we wanted to edit and resubmit. The article can be seen here - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft:Nate_Paul&action=edit&redlink=1

Would you be able to undelete/move the article so that we could make edits and resubmit?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chavous2 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Who is "we", Chavous? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chavous2: The article had already been reviewed and rejected twice as a draft. Can you please read advice on biographies for living people, which explains some of the pitfalls you can encounter when writing biographies. If, heaven forbid, Nate Paul is arrested for fraud or embezzlement, and reported by the New York Times, it will go in his article and attempts to remove it will not end well (this isn't a contrived example; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (2nd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (3rd nomination) for how these things can blow up in your face). Once you've read that, then tell me why you feel it is important for Nate Paul to have an article on Misplaced Pages? Ritchie333 10:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I also?

Hey,

I was wondering if a page that I created and you deleted could get put back up as there was no reason for it to be taken down. It took me quite the amount of time to create it and I was wondering if there was anyway I could

either get the page put back up, or get the information from the page and get information as to what I could do to make my page "okay" to get uploaded to Misplaced Pages.

Thanks, SekaiHelper (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Draft:Denpasoft - done Ritchie333 08:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ani

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Okay, great calico and fruit, but...

• Damned if you do
• Damned if you don't

Per your post at User talk:80.6.235.179, they've disappeared. Personally I really appreciated the fact that this masked man/lady was cleaning up those long-ignored reqinfobox tags. Being the trademark owner of heavy-handedness around here, I read your post as bitey though trying not to be. That's a lot of blame to dump in one Wikignome IP's lap; certainly they could not have been responsible for that wall of TLDR on the Coward talkpage.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: As I said, I was responding to a complaint. If I hadn't left the message, the complainant would have probably become disgruntled, so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'm neutral on infoboxes except the discussion that follows them around really drains me :-( Ritchie333 09:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

(Offtopic, I could not resist) Is it "Damned if you do (vote Trump), damned if you don't (vote Hillary)" in the gallery? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Msg

Hello. thanks send message for me. Jkouhyar (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

I would just like to thank you for helping me with the Maurice Gaffney article. Sadly when I created it I had to go soon after it so I had no time to work on it. I didn't want to leave it blank like I did because it was a important topic for me as a person but thank you very much for expanding it and I am very grateful CnocBride (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@CnocBride: No problem, he seems like a well-respected person in the field of law, presiding over several landmark cases, so I don't see any reason why he shouldn't have an article here. Ritchie333 17:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Bad a7s

Fair call that I should have googled Maurice Gaffney (I hadn't heard of him, and as a bare-bones photo-and-age article I assumed it was someone writing about a family member), but is it really a "bad" nomination to speedy an article with no research, to the point where I shouldn't flag any a7s in future without taking the time to check for reliable sources? I thought that was just for AfDs. --McGeddon (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: WP:BEFORE is just part of a guideline, but the deletion policy says "if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". It's also mentioned explicitly in the administrator instructions on an A7 template (I think it's hidden for "normal" users) to explicitly to do a search before hitting the delete button. Ultimately, it's a question of judgement and common sense, but if the subject looks like it ought to have something in reliable sources, I won't hurt to take 15 or so seconds to just drop the name into Google and see what you get. The page creator will thank you for it too (as you can see above!) Having said all of that, cases like this are rare (I've just done a quick tot up of stats and I reckon I delete about 100 times as many A7s as I rescue) and making a one-off mistake is allowed. Ritchie333 18:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol

The article John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol 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 Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Lord Bristol is the DYK gift that keeps on giving. I have put in "140mph up the M11 hard shoulder" and "fun ways to open fridge doors to get champagne". Then we've got ditching the helicopter in a field, "f***ing peasants, f***ing National Trust", sending some poor woman out into a lake and then sinking the dinghy she was on by firing a shotgun at it .... I could go on.... Ritchie333 19:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Horsey Island

On 5 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Horsey Island, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Horsey Island in Essex was the basis for Swallow Island in Arthur Ransome's Secret Water? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Horsey Island. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Horsey Island), 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, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Creating an article

Hello, You have deleted an article I was still working on called 'Lucas Nott'. I was going to add references and more information. I was wondering would it be possible for you to restore it to a draft? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M0123456the (talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article needs to say something about why the topic is important or significant. "Member of a band that doesn't have a Misplaced Pages article" is not usually enough (and the deleted article on the band doesn't look very good, either). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@M0123456the: Indeed. I can restore Work being done as a draft, but a search for sources shows no reasonable hits, so it will be difficult to get a draft accepted. What sources do you have? Ritchie333 10:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

One for you and Rhonda

♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you fixed that typo, I was getting royally confused with a Wikipedian I know with that name (not sure if she's publicly declared her real name on-wiki, and I don't fancy being being indeffed for outing right now) Ritchie333 10:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know who it is though so no need to worry on that one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

This is not only about the specific, just ended RfA, but about the style in more or less all discussions I've seen, in which the obvious hierarchy in Misplaced Pages, and really especially(!) in Wikimedia with their (WMF)-agents, is involved. Triggered by your and Kudpung's (on my talk page) remarks, I'm leaving this rant on your talk page. Please, let me assure you that I do not intend any offense, and that I do feel myself bound by "civility", as founded in my upbringing, but not by flooding concepts, bread by PC, cultivated by WMF, described in more and more rules, principles, guides, ... like e.g. "urbanity", falsly, but without any hesitation, called as "belonging to consensus", or even to "the pillars". Just ignore me, if you feel bothered, but I felt urged to tell you, now that your supportee has passed with flagrant success. Congrats! (I never had any reason to disagree on RickinBaltimore getting an admin.)

Even the discussion you pointed me to contained far more "repression" on !votes then on the supports. To use one of Kudpung's pet words, the evenly "silly" up-votes are far less scrutinized than the !votes. I easily can agree to the process that some bureaucrats are weighing arguments, and of course, do so to their measure, but I strongly oppose to strategies applied to voters at the level of voting, which are easily recognized as "discouragement" of opposition. I do claim that "pile on" can happen, and does so(!), on both sides, but nowadays, imho, overwhelmingly happens on the "positive" side. The "accentuate the positive"-wave did not pass by without leaving partially deasastrous traces ("too much negativity"). In a heap of good things with bad spots, it is by far more instructive, and appropriate, imho, to point (even acerbatingly, if necessary) to these spots in the process of development. Celebrating the heap should be left to the anniversaries, and should not feed "silly" (it's me this time, take it as "unwarranted") requests to the contrasting reality, hindering the denomination of the sh*t in the gold.

I want to say thanks for both your and Kudpung's reply, I take them as acknowledgement to a certain degree, but while I took yours as a friendly illustration of the problem I wanted to address, I had to answer Kudpung on quite weakly reflected ("unsourced"?!) semantics and on a link leading to some -say- gag order, some formulations in which I consider questionable, and so doubt the justification of its standing as an "essay". It's my problem that I consider this as "inherent to some admins", and one of the last successful RfAs of a fast gun is evidence to me that !votes are taken perhaps too lightly. Luckily, I simply don't care that I might reach a noticeable "level of endangerment" for any carriere within Misplaced Pages, I don't plan any, while still considering it venerable.

I do not disagree that the RfA-process could be improved, and a dictum to finish: First class people hire first class people, second class hires fourth class, to avoid rivals. Regards, Purgy (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I've been hearing that maxim "If you hire A people, they'll hire A people. But if you hire B people, they'll hire C people" for a long time myself. I think Bill Gates said it, and I don't think he was the first. I am pleased that User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content is being picked up and cited as a "standard" text by other people, and also that we have the optional poll to vet candidates. There are a number of people I think should be admins and run for RfA right now, but the only one who I've successfully persuaded to stand is Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Jo-Jo Eumerus; there are also editors like Dr. Blofeld and Sagaciousphil who I think would make great admins but to be blunt they haven't got a chance in hell of passing due to past "baggage" and reputation. I don't have much to do with the WMF except I don't think Jimbo Wales is a particularly sociable person, and has used Misplaced Pages as a springboard for his own reputation. (Mind you, having written about Angus Montagu, 12th Duke of Manchester and John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol recently, he's hardly the first person to use past glories as a springboard to boost their own social standing).

What I particularly dislike is the scenario in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2, where I couldn't support, but was prepared to change my mind if I saw a suitable counter-argument. I saw a lot of comments along the lines of "support - Oshwah is cool, he's my best friend, he reverts vandalism brilliantly" which doesn't really tell me anything on whether he's going to be a responsible admin or not. As someone who's spent time at WP:FAC and WP:AIV, I can assure you the former is far more work and effort than the latter, so I don't take reverting vandalism as a particularly high indicator of skill (particularly when read in conjunction with List of hoaxes on Misplaced Pages). I don't oppose RfA candidates to be mean or cliquey, I just don't want the tools going to people who haven't got a good amount of trust and empathy towards the people they inflict the tools on. It was reasonably predictable I had to reverse a bad block of his not too longer after the RfA passed.

I wonder what Kudpung thinks about Oshwah getting the tools? He's been vocal about how RfA has declined in the past year, but that's one example where a user was made an admin, who probably wouldn't have made the grade 12 months ago. Ritchie333 10:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think my neutral and then oppose comments on that RfA pretty much speak for themselves. It's important to note that in what was probably unprecedented in my long history of RfA, I changed not only my vote, which is very rare, but that I clearly mentioned that the change was influenced by the comments of some other very experienced users who had not actually voted 'oppose' but who left no doubt as to what was in their minds at the time of casting their neutral votes. I did not realise that the number of opposes would double by the time of closure. I don't regret him his promotion, but I think I expressed the correct grade of caution while already being aware at the time that under the pre-December reform the RfA wouldn't have had a chance of passing, but that another RfA some time in the future may have had a larger consesus for a pass.

That said, whatever the motivation was for the Dec 2015 reforms, I don't think they have served us particularly well. RfAs are now noticeably more verbose, some of the old issues with it are now actually intensified; and they certainly have not encouraged more candidates of the right calibre to come forward (if that was ever the purpose), which was nevertheless the purpose of the project I spearheaded at WP:RFA2011. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Took it to AFD

As you have declined the speedy deletion of Uncial reparto corse, I have taken the article to AFD. Please feel to comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uncial reparto corse. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: That's fine. Not sure whether to go for "delete" or "redirect" but I'm sure consensus will play out properly, as it usually does. Ritchie333 16:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Many people are still convinced that such articles are valid A7s per WP:NOTINHERITED or WP:INHERITORG. Never mind if the statement can provide an alternative to deletion should the subject not be notable (which is not even a certainty). Looks like I have some work to do on my essay... Adam9007 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, currenly working on Katy Katopodis which today has been A7ed, G11ed twice and now AfDed. I should be able to wangle something other than "delete" out of it, though I don't want to spend hours on pulling sources together for a biography nobody else wants. Ritchie333 17:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say there was a claim of significance when you declined it. But here, the evidence suggests the other person wasn't even listening to me (He just kept banging on about notability not being inherited and that I don't understand Misplaced Pages:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability if I remove an A7 tag. Never mind that A7 is not about notability.), rather than merely disagreeing. Adam9007 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Y'all should try being an admin - you get a lot of attention when you delete stuff that other people disagree with! Ritchie333 17:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think my chances of passing an RfA are all that great (mainly because of all the hoo-ha about A7), would would be happy to be proven wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll be honest - you are future admin material IMHO. From a cursory check, you appear to meet most, if not all the bullet points on User:Kudpung/RfA criteria including the content (I appreciate there were extenuating circumstances behind Theme Hospital's GA review). The main stumbling block for you is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#Concerns about Adam9007 declining speedy deletion nominations, and even then I see Peridon saying "There's quite some way to go, but I think some day he would make a good admin". Seriously, I'm trying to work out what exactly is the difference between what you've accomplished now and what I had got when Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ritchie333 ran - it seems to be mainly I'd just done more of it. Pop over to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll and start a poll to see what other people think. Ritchie333 17:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just to poke my nose in where it's not needed- I'd say that RFA seems more forgving nowadays of small lapses in the past if they can be outweighed by the greater good: last year (say?) ancient deeds could be sinkable couldn't they? _Muffled 17:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Who knows? Unless you have never put a foot wrong, create perfect GAs and have outstanding CSD and AfD logs, there are always going to be skellies. Everybody has skellies, the question is will they create enough of a "pile on" oppose at the RfA? Adam's basic stats and AfD score checks out from a cursory glance. Ritchie333 18:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Not sure what you mean by "extenuating circumstances" about Theme Hospital though? If I run for adminship soon, I think the skellies will create a pile on oppose, but I could be wrong. My ANI isn't exactly ancient yet is it? Adam9007 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Extenuating circumstances" here were about the article not passing GAN straightaway. Ritchie333 16:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Small email

I have sent you an email -- samtar 12:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Ritchie333 12:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hammond organ

Thought of you when I added hammond organ to Tamar Halperin, yesterday's article. I wrote one every day since you demanded content, all but on Sunday when I was a choir singer in the premiere of Laudato si‘ ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I'd go as far as demanding content, that's not nice. Asking nicely to produce content is better. More content, less drama. I'm a bit caught up in RfA chat at the moment. Also hoping beyond hope I don't have to change an infobox on my userpage to "This user despises President Trump" tomorrow.... :-/ Ritchie333 16:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why wait? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just seen in the news that two topless women were ejected from the polling station because they wanted to have a go at Trump. That was probably for their own good, knowing Trump he'd probably think Christmas had come early or something.... Ritchie333 16:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Could be worse. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC) .... oh dear, it is worse

Sorry if I misunderstood the tone (and was too lazy to look at your archive, but I will now have to look for the link to the flashmob image). It came across as: the only remedy against drama is content, and I vaguely remember having mentioned 3 TFAs and GAs that I didn't count, so thought I had given enough already. - Your infobox is concise so far, and should not be changed, imho. Mine is a little more informative. Did you notice that every "singen" has a different link"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ja, du kann mir (und auch Rhonda) singen singen singen singen. (Sorry, my German's rusty). I have a potential RfA candidate in mind who you think is Precious and thinks if you're going to have an infobox, have a good infobox. Ritchie333 17:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your candidate, - many qualify for that statement, - is there anybody who wants a bad one? Wish I had an image of Tamar. I actually took one here, but you can imagine how much you saw of her from that view point. The strange looking thing at the bottom is the open cover of her harpsichord. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ps: I stood in line with her for the ladies after that concert, and could tell her about her (then future) husband singing Messiah for us: He was despised. When he sang we held our breath. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Chavster01 (he's not on WP much but I know him from elsewhere on the net) is passionate about organ music c. 1830 and has a particular interest in the 32' stop at the Grote Kerk, Haarlem. Ritchie333 17:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• (light relief) I made my Dead-hating friend a Bob Dylan cd- Dylan at Club Front. She hasn't twigged yet… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've always thought Dylan's songs were better sung by other people, and his own work is best when viewed on paper, but that's a bit of a sacrilegious view. Ritchie333 15:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

AffeL block

Not entirely sure this block is really 100% preventative or necessary. User seems to have been working with a...less than accurate...understanding of what constitutes vandalism, as they indicated when given the 3RR template by AlexTheWhovian. This misconception was explained to them, which they seemed to be receptive to, and the content dispute was then quickly resolved on the article talk to the apparent satisfaction of both parties, and done prior to the block. TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I just unblocked anyway as I am satisfied neither is going to violate 3RR any more - the last revert was just very recent which gave me pause, and there were too many other editors affected by a full protect. Ritchie333 15:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. And here is the perfect example of how it's completely acceptable to blindly violate 3RR. Alex|The|Whovian 16:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I think what happened here is that AffeL incorrectly filed two AIV reports as part of the content dispute without any other context, which immediately raises a red flag to me as "disruptive", especially when there seemed to be no obvious vandalism in the article history at all. It took me a while to backtrack through all the threads. In the meantime, I thought I'd have to block until I can work out exactly what's going on to stop even more reverts happening on the article. If I'd seen the protection request first, I'd have probably done things in a different order and just declined everything as stale. What I'd recommend going forward is when you file a report against another party, be like Pompeia and completely above suspicion - say what the issue is and point directly at a talk page conversation that shows you have sorted this out. (I appreciate TJW did do this, but it wasn't obvious from first parse without a direct link). Ritchie333 16:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

But...Pompeia... oh nevermind. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think he means, if you're going to party at WP:ANEW, put on a woman's toga first... ;) _Muffled 16:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh my god. Does no one here history? TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

History? That's classics. Or elementary dress-making. Or to put it another way, moon ≠ spacestation. _Muffled 16:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA, Hi Ritchie!

Dear Ritchie,

Thank you for your previous help on the Symphony of the New World page. I received this message from a bot: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Barbara.steinberg#File_permission_problem_with_File%3APhotograph_of_premiere_concert_of_the_Symphony_of_the_New_World_at_Carnegie_Hall.jpg

I added that I gave permission under the CC-BY-SA to the Evidence section of this photograph's information page. I also added this sentence to the web page that gives permission. Then I wrote to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. My ticket # is Ticket#: 2016111010005211.

Did I follow the instructions correctly? I own the original photograph. I couldn't part with it. It's in my house. I am the sole copyright owner. But instructions from a bot confuse me. I just want to check that I followed the rules.

Thank you for your kindness and help,

Best,

Barbara.steinberg (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Barbara Steinberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara.steinberg (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Barbara.steinberg: Your license looks fine and the bot seems to be in error, so I have removed the tag. @Fastily: Looks like your bot has a bug, can you fix it, cheers! Ritchie333 09:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions about the 12:18, 7 November 2016 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) deleted page Lepar Messiah (A7: Article about a real person, ...

I have a few questions about the reason this page was deleted. I believe that I am being lied to, and I have a feeling this page will be at the bottom of it.

Thanks, TheRandomOwl (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC) The Random Owl

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What has TOTP got to do with this? Are you a closet Noel Edmonds fan? And please don't use "utilize", it's such a stupid word to use in articles; you'll be dropping in comprised of next. Ritchie333 07:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, both TOTP and TOTP share the theme of people penetrating things they shouldn't. (Programmers tend to use "utilise" a lot, probably because "user" so often has a different meaning to them that they do so out of habit.) ‑ Iridescent 09:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess the moral here is : don't use 01 811 8055 as your password. Ritchie333 10:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: I cannot believe I have dropped two references to Multi-Coloured Swap Shop in this thread and Martin hasn't turned up. Is Wales on strike? Ritchie333 11:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Just leave me out of your multiracial swapping parties, if you don't mind. Am already in enough trouble for being part of "gay-bashing lynch mob", thanks to "LavaBaron Vs EEng." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not only part of the same lynch mob, I'm "an excitable person of many assumptions". I am not entirely sure if that is a compliment or an insult. ‑ Iridescent 12:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like typical politician speak if you ask me - insult somebody without them actually realising you're doing it. Ritchie333 12:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

But if you really want to get the party started, maybe can you get your hands on a couple of sporty escorts?? K. Vaz 123 (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Rather proud to be part of such an exclusive lynch mob but gay-bashing? --Hillbillyholiday 17:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

There are worse lynch mobs, I bet. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bishop

you deleted a page that I was given 7 days by one of the editors to find source materials or the page would be deleted. Can I get the page restored please.Tom27jr (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tom27jr: Done - restored at Draft:Thomas Henry (bishop) Ritchie333 12:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

John Deacon GAN?

Hi, any chance you'll ever return to the John Deacon article? If it ever happens, give me a ping! FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I was never quite sure whether it was a good idea or not to take the article to GAN in the first place, but yeah, I can give it a go now I'm "off break". Shall we just revert the "not listed" tag on the talk page and re-open the review where we left off? Ritchie333 12:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what happens under such circumstances, if it's allowed, why not... FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we're back on. I need to see what's changed in the article since I last looked at it (I don't put articles on my watchlist usually until they've passed GA), and work out where my sources have gone, but I should have this wrapped up in the next day or two. Ritchie333 13:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, no rush! FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, it seems the main changes have been edit-warring over the infobox and adding unsourced trivia which other editors then reverted. Doesn't look like it's in too much of a different shape to when it was reviewed earlier in the year. Ritchie333 13:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Ritchie333.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Ritchie333,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Evan Daniel Collett 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't like WP:COMPETENCE-related blocks, but sometimes you've just got to do something and eat humble pie when the affected party complains. Ritchie333 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

BlaccCrab continuing to edit war on my talk page

Hello Ritchie, but BlaccCrab is still edit warring on my talk page, claiming it his right to remove his own past comments from it, even after you warned him. I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid if this goes to WP:ANI nothing will come of a warning again. I have not broken/will not break 3RR. Just see the history here: . Ss112 05:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I've notified ANI, but he has also attacked me on his own talk page, blanking a section with the edit summary "Power Hungry Pseudo Intellect Sydrome". Can his own edit summaries on my talk and this on his own page be RevDeled? Sorry, I'm only notifying you because you warned him. Ss112 05:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I blocked. In the meantime, everyone else has a very legitimate point that you need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 16:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Simple 2FA

Thanks for helping de-tech the page - hopefully it'll improve the uptake -- samtar 16:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol

On 17 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol), 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought "we'll never see the likes of him again", but if we get Nigel Farage, 1st Marquess of Rochester, you never know.... Ritchie333 10:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

In popular culture

"In popular culture" is a.. what? It got cut off? I'm wonder how you thought my edit was incorrect? --Jennica✿ 06:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: So it did; what I meant to say was : "In popular culture" is a controversial term and best avoided. Firstly, what you think is "popular" may not match with mine, so it's a bit of a loaded word. The other problem is that some Wikipedians dislike "in popular culture" as a section name as it tends to end up as a bin for lots of unsourced or poorly sourced trivia, which then needs to be weeded out. Easier to nip the problem in the bud and avoid it. Ritchie333 08:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: So are you saying that I shouldn't be converting them from "Cultural references" to "In popular culture" then? For example, if there is a "Cultural references" on the Beatles page, it doesn't make sense, "In popular culture" would. However, if it was the Simpsons page with "Cultural references" on it, it would make sense because that show references a lot of pop culture. I'm only going by the manual of style guide.. and I am working my way through many pages trying to clean it up. --Jennica✿ 09:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a really bad idea. Effectively you are going through a bunch of articles and changing them without really understanding why the change is needed on that article, or even if it is needed. Stop, read WP:HITANDRUN and find something else to do. For additional reading, I can recommend User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts; a long but thought-provoking read that's well worth the time to digest. Ritchie333 09:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe talkpage

I've filed an ANI in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TeeTylerToe is abusing the help templates after indefinite block. The responding admin suggested messaging you instead. The issue is that TeeTylerToe has been using {{help}} and {{help admin}} (and also {{to|Jimbo Wales}}), as detailed in the ANI. Could you remove talkpage access, and close the ANI? —Hexafluoride 08:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: report at AIV of 2600 IP(s)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Azzura Birleanu A7 decline

I'm curious about your A7 decline on this article. None of the sources mention the subject, the article was written in a promotional tone that makes it a G11 candidate as well in my view, and while I generally support redirecting new articles over deletion if they are plausible search terms, I don't really think your redirect to the parent makes much sense here. If you're fine with it, I'd like to restore the A7/G11 tags. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I was a hair's breadth away from deleting it per G11, but as the user has only just started writing it and is new, there is a chance they may just rewrite the article again. I have told the creator I have reduced the article to a redirect and given them some advice on creating articles about children; specifically unless this subject is as significant as Madeleine McCann, they should avoid doing so - it's a really bad idea. PS: If you are certain that Azzura Birleanu does not exist, period, the redirect can also be deleted per WP:CSD#G3. Ritchie333 17:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I think we probably still disagree here, but I understand your reasoning on wanting to prevent recreation. I might list the redirect at WP:RFD if the editor doesn't try to recreate it from your redirect. Redirecting children to their famous parents doesn't seem like the right move here for me as it could cause confusion (on the off chance someone was actually searching for the child because they saw the name somewhere, and they now are at the parents page). I'd still like you to reconsider the G11 because of this, but like I said, understand the reasoning against repeat recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The canonical guidelines are at WP:INVALIDBIO and suggests turning non-notable children of notable parents into redirects, citing Brooklyn Beckham as an example. Another related example is Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester, which is a complete can of worms but in short consensus is he's non-notable and gets a redirect. You can't generally G11 a redirect (since all of the promotional content, if there was any, has been nuked); you can G3 if you sincerely believe it is made-up nonsense, and you can G10 if you think it's offensive (eg: Hang Hillary Clinton). Other than that, I think RfD is your best bet. Ritchie333 17:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for the response. Still think this was the wrong call, but respect the disagreement of opinions :) I'll take it to RfD in a bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just listed on today's RfD log as an FYI. (Promise this will be the last notification on this!) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure Martinevans123 will be along with his witty puns to keep the conversation running. Or perhaps Gerda Arendt will put up a nice picture or an extract of some Bach to lighten the mood. Ritchie333 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm doing this right. TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Bingo TimboJo! Ooh, thank you dear Threesie. I must go and have a good rummage around in my new bottom draw. Yes, it was Bach obviously, but with a "bit of touching up" by his close friend August. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Take the pic of the day (and new article), perhaps, or the one I took at the same location, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't even know how to contain myself at this moment ... He child isn't a can of worms and it's a shadow of her father ... That child has been featured in her own right in those campaigns with supermodels and top actresses .. In Elle link you can clearly se , if you bother to look, her name credited.. Alao in the other public links .. credited just as azzura .. Was not that they didn't want was simply because they didn't have the right on paper to publish the name .. I amcompletely astounded on the language you use which aside that is profane and insulting it is Los bass in absolutely nothing valid. She is a star child .. Somethingspecial2014 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

forgive missspeling .. I honestly forgot to look and just sent it .. Wow.. The way you talk it is a serious eye opener .. Please reinstate or help reinstate properly Azzura Birleanu page Somethingspecial2014 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Azzura Birleanu exists are you serious ?! It's in the Elle link her credited name .. As well as the other Ines.. You want me to send the dolce Gabbana contract ?? I will .. Reinstate the page for Christ sake .. where I can send the contract ?? Somethingspecial2014 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Something, but what's a "Los bass"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a mistake you imbecile Somethingspecial2014 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just like you being editor of a subject you know nothing about but hey.. someone has to be there to be the winning loser . Don't make me explain .. you're the imbecile that said "no sources mention the subject"? .. Did you look ELLE link ?? You smart editor you Somethingspecial2014 (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making that so clear, Something. That really is special. I've not actually edited Azzura Birleanu. But I can easily undo all my edits to Andre Birleanu if you really want. Whoever he is. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC) I said, "no sources mention the subject", did I?

@Somethingspecial2014: I think you've misunderstood what I've said. "Can of worms" is a British English idiom that means something is complicated or difficult to resolve, and describes the question of whether or not there is a 13th Duke of Manchester. Simply having a link to a source does not mean writing an article about somebody is a good idea; my kids have appeared in the local news once or twice, which can be considered a reliable source, but I would be upset if somebody created an article about them as I do not want that attention fostered on them. Ritchie333 10:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Oxford Circus tube station

Hey there! I've bet this article has the potential to go further. Do you want to help out to bring it to Featured status? I'm still working on it. VKZY (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: By extraordinary co-incidence, I have a tube history book open on my desk right now (for sourcing dates in Marylebone Station, the next one to improve in the User:Ritchie333/Monopoly miniproject), and I found a couple of really good tube book sources yesterday in the library, but I couldn't take them out as they're reference only. Remember that FA criteria 1c says you pretty much have to have considered every available source going, so we have to look at this, before we even think about copyediting. Sentences such as "Station reconstruction to accommodate the Victoria line was described as the most time-consuming for the Victoria line project" won't pass muster for FAC and can be trimmed to something like "The Oxford Circus interchange was the most time-consuming reconstruction project for the Victoria line". I'll hunt through my book sources when I'm next near them but I would say there's a lot of work needed to be done before we'd be in a position to go to FAC. Aldwych tube station might give you some idea of the direction to go in. Ritchie333 13:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I see. Thanks for the info. It indeed needs a lot of work. I'm already having a hard time expanding about the "umbrella" HAHAH. VKZY (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi Ritchie333,

I've made a few nominations at WP:GAN and thought it was time I helped out with the reviewing. I had a look at the list of mentors but couldn't find anyone with a strong common interest; then I remembered that you reviewed the Bournemouth article for me. If I picked a similar article, would you be prepared to oversee my review? I've commented at WP:PR and WP:FAC in the past but haven't always felt that my feedback was well received. I am hoping this won't be hard work for you; just checking that I haven't missed anything obvious and that my remarks aren't overly harsh. I have a lot of work and family commitments so I hope that my sporadic editing won't be an issue.

Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Oh yes, I remember doing Bournemouth, that was a good review, lots of work done. I see you've picked Pembrokeshire, that's a bit of a long slog but should be worth it. Immediately I see problems with a lack of sourcing, plus I don't really like "notable people" sections as most of the time they can be worked into the narrative. The history section is probably too short, as Pembrokeshire is a melting-pot of communities over the last 1,000 years, there is a lot of ground to cover. I personally think General Sir Thomas Picton needs a bit more than a cursory mention, as I believe he is one of the most famous and historically important people from Pembroke, and his namesake castle is not in the article. I'm not sure if the article could pass GA, maybe it could with some substantial work; but leave some comments and I'll keep an eye on the review and see what else I can suggest.

One of the problems I see with GA reviews is too little attention is paid towards an article's factual accuracy and scope; I'm pretty sure I have failed at least one GA review whose prose was acceptable and everything was cited to a reliable source, simply because it missed out too much important detail. Ritchie333 10:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

My first thought was that it was a quick fail but if the nominator is prepared to do the work, I'm quite happy to keep it open for longer than usual. I immediately saw the lack of references and quite a few issues with MOS Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. I don't like notable people sections either as they are prone to vandalism and much prefer them in the "Culture" section. Anyway, thanks for agreeing to keep an eye on things, it looks like are ideas are similar so hopefully things will go smoothly. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I think you'd be well within your rights to fail the review with the feedback presented, particularly since the nominator only put it there to see how close it was. That's an abuse of the process - don't put an article up to GAN if at least you don't think it meets all the criteria! Ritchie333 00:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I've given the nominator plenty to be getting on with. He's yet to make a start, which makes me think I'm wasting my time, so I've called a halt to the review until I see significant efforts to improve the article. If that happens, I will continue, otherwise I will fail the nomination after 7 days. I've pinged User:Tony Holkham and explained this on the review page. Could you quickly check to see that my comments are acceptable? If not, feel free to remove or edit my post. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That all looks fine, you've done a thorough critique of the article and pointed out major areas for improvement, which are always worth keeping around for reference, regardless of which way the review goes. Ritchie333 21:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Re Pembrokeshire I see I may have been premature in putting the article up for review for GA. I have left a note at the GA talk page. I do want to process this, but perhaps I should have read Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties more closely. You haven't wasted your time, though, as I will be tackling your comments; the article is important to me. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that's all for the best; you can always ask me or someone else to take a look at it later on.--Ykraps(talk) 06:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Tony Holkham, To answer your questions at Talk:Pembrokeshire/GA1:

• a) I’ve closed according to instructions here ]
• b) You can re-nominate. In fact it ought to be the main contributor so if you are doing the work, it’s best that you re-nominate.
• c) I thought it was a two week wait but ] suggests that there isn’t a time limit.
• d) Yes

Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Advice please?

Hi, Ritchie! I need advice about a music article I userfied recently. It's here: User:TheMagnificentist/Said the Sky. The author has expanded it enough that it would not meet G4, but I don't know about notability. Basically I am not familiar enough with the music criteria to judge if it qualifies for an article. Could you take a look and advise? (You will note that the author initially got into considerable trouble for edit warring and socking, but that seems to be behind them.) Thanks a bunch! --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm generally not too familiar with youngsters these days, but the sourced claim for a hit means it should meet WP:NMUSIC, however consensus seems to be that's not enough to sustain an article. All the other sources are minor, so I think the best I could hope for is to put it in mainspace and file another AfD. Ritchie333 21:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I value your opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ritchie333. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, where's Trump and Clinton? Ritchie333 09:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not for arbitration ;) - I asked one candidate the groupname question, so nicely illustrated on this page by Eeng, but got something I understood as a warning, so didn't dare to ask again. I knew the candidates by Precious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Gerda Arendt... I illustrated what, on what page, by what? EEng 12:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You illustrated me and my flashmob, on this page. If you follow my arb cand question (link above), you'll find the link easily. At that time, I didn't like I it but tried hard to take it with humour ;) - I lost the humour over being blamed for FA writers leaving, without evidence of flashmobbing, but it's always easy to blame me ;) - Seriously: I have no flashmob and no gang. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

But as I recall, you specifically asked me to find a flashmob image for you. Sorry for any offense. I knew nothing about this political brouhaha. EEng 16:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I hoped to be clear: I wanted it pictured, in the attempt to add some humour, - you did well, I thanked you, didn't I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ps: I can't handle my watchlist today, with thousands of notifications which take minutes to be assembled, so don't look often, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I got about 35 notifications yesterday, all from List of Hammond organs being linked into a template. Ritchie333 10:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That's about one percent, and not notifications but items on the watch list, + not only that every time you click watchlist it takes minutes (and sometimes ends with an "unresponsive script" error) but also every time you return from using it for what it is meant to do (look at things) it takes those "ages", - Mdann, do you hear me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

How many items do you have on your watchlist Gerda? o_O -- samtar 11:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The number is high but not relevant. I normally get a response within seconds, resulting in an average of 1k changes in 24 hours. What's a problem is the number of recent changes today, resulting in three times that number, but taking much much longer than three times the time. I'd love to have a watchlist option for just the last hour! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! Not sure if I've understood you correctly, but this will show the changes on your watchlist only in the last hour -- samtar 13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, I'll try but am on my way out right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That IS nice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The next station is Marylebone....

....please mind the gap between the article's state a few days ago and an up to date article. Change here (well, the edit button) for a much better article. This is a Bakerloo line train to Good Article status. In all seriousness - hope my edits have been helpful, and please feel free to revert anything you think isn't (or tell me to leave it alone entirely)! Just thought I'd jump on board a bit (pun not intended) with your Monopoly challenge, which I think is a great concept! Mike1901 (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(Also, just noticed in Wikilinking the header: it doesn't follow the usual formatting for UK stations of "X railway station". presume there's a particular reason for this? Not that it's a big issue...) Mike1901 (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mike1901: That all looks great, as far as I can tell. I'd personally move unsourced but possibly true and verifiable content to the talk page as well as taking the scythe to it, but that's not a major issue. The original plan of the Monopoly mini-project was to get everybody on board and complete the good topic in a few weeks, but nobody else volunteered so I've done all of them up until now. I don't have a book source beyond the mid-1980s at the moment, so I'm not particularly focusing on anything below the station's nadir at that point, where it seemed almost certain it would become little more than a glorified car park. Would have been the first Monopoly square to cease existence too. A couple of the streets still need a GA review, and then we've still got King's Cross and Mayfair which are probably the two hardest squares to improve to GA status.

PS: For basic formatting and consistency stuff across railway articles, you're best speaking to Redrose64 (or indeed the whole of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Railways and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject London Transport), I just deal with the broad detail and sources. Ritchie333 10:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's Marylebone station not Marylebone railway station because there are two systems ("mainline" rail and London Underground) in one station, see WP:NCUKSTATIONS, last row of table (Any two or more of the above). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"there's no puffery without copyvio"

Good one. I am currently mostly active as an article expander, but back when I was working on new pages I did notice that a very large proportion of promotional or resume articles are copyright violations. And not just articles, also userspace pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It fits the proverb well; if a brand new editor creates something that looks like a bad cut and paste job, it probably is. I wonder what other wiki-proverbs people can come up with? Ritchie333 23:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Many of the best ones are here User:Antandrus/observations on Misplaced Pages behavior. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 23:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Coats of Arms Galleries

So, I saw that several of the Coats of Arms Galleries I created about a decade ago have been deleted (e.g.Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Coats_of_arms_of_U.S._Artillery_Regiments) since Commons has been designated the property place for galleries. I was hoping you could restore the one(s) you deleted to draft so I can get them in the right place. Thanks! Hammon27 (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hammon27: The images haven't been deleted; only the placeholder article. I can restore the article in your userspace so you can keep cross-referencing it when setting up the categories in Commons - would you like me to do this? Ritchie333 11:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Yes, please! Hammon27 (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Done - User:Hammon27/Coats of arms of U.S. Artillery Regiments Ritchie333 13:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Hammon27 (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

IP vandal

Ritchie333, thank you for protecting the page again. I want to raise a concern about the IP address in question. This isn't a case of edit warring with an IP. First, if you look at the Ruger Mini-14 page history you can see a series of UK based IPs edit warring over content. ], ] (blocked 86.153.166.89, ], ], ] The IP didn't participate in the related content talk page discussions but did result in at least one block ]. All of those IPs are UK based. I recently reverted the same edits by IP 86.150.50.24. After requesting page protection that IP followed me to the Eddie Eagle page in what I see as wp:hounding. Today we again see a new, UK based IP ] , continuing the edit warring with no input to the discussion page. I understand not every revert is vandalism but in this case I think we have an anonymous editor using several IP addresses and now hounding my edits because I stopped his edit warring on another page. Again, thank you for protecting the page, would it be possible to change it to semi-protected for a month or two? Springee (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: The principal problem is that you called the IP's edits "vandalism", but looking at this diff in particular, it just seems to be reorganising content, and I certainly don't see any unanimous agreement on the talk page as to which direction we should proceed. Therefore, were I to take any action, I'd have to take it fairly across the board on all editors to avoid any bias. In general, unless you are absolutely certain any reasonable editor would conclude the IP was unambiguously making Misplaced Pages worse, you should avoid calling them "vandals". In the meantime, I'll leave the full-protection in place and hopefully a consensus will form out of it. Ritchie333 11:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor has again reversed my edit without any talk page discussion ] and with a "rv v" edit summary. Editorial dispute or not my edits clearly aren't vandalism and the IP editor has certainly crossed over from content disagreement to simply edit warring. The talk page discussion is both civil and involves several editors yet the IP has not joined in ]. Since it is impractical to block a constantly changing IP editor please semi-protect the page. Springee (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Samsara got to this. Sorry, the conversation got a bit buried. :-/ Ritchie333 18:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, straight off RfPP. It's always good when the report mentions, as I think it did in this case, that there was discussion that one side is ignoring. Cheers, Samsara 20:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

re: Grammar editing on Hatfield rail crash

I see that my version is "clunky" as you put it. However, it is also grammatically correct, unlike the current version. The sentence begins with "partly caused by" which needs to be followed by noun(s) phrases serving in such a role. The first part which follows, "a lack of good communication", is a noun phrase, but "some staff were aware of maintenance procedures" is instead an independent clause which must either take a noun form (possibilities include "the fact that ", "some staff being unaware", etc.), or simply be separated from the preceding clause be either use of a semicolon or placement in a separate sentence. Thanks! Person man345 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Person man345: All I can say is from a gut feeling it just doesn't scan correctly as I read it, or at least not as well as the previous text, regardless of its technical merits. Also, don't forget to put in an edit summary that explains why you do something, it means everyone can understand what's going on. You're better off asking a third opinion on the talk page - but if I can persuade Iridescent to have a look, maybe he can decide what's best for the article. Ritchie333 22:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The grammar of this latest compromise is reasonable, but I'm more concerned with It was partly caused by a lack of good communication and some staff unawareness of maintenance procedures being stated as fact in the lead, when it doesn't appear be be backed up by anything in the body. That there were training issues and gaps in staff knowledge is cited, but it's a huge leap from "there was a lack of training, and there was a crash" to "lack of training caused the crash" which certainly shouldn't be being made in Misplaced Pages's voice, particularly on a page like this which deals with an issue with serious legal implications. (It needs to be reiterated that while Balfour Beatty owned up to breaches of health & safety law with regards to their work on the railways, both Railtrack and Balfour Beatty were acquitted of the corporate manslaughter charges; it's very easy to slip into "retrial by Misplaced Pages" on articles like this.) ‑ Iridescent 23:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tweaked per the above advice. Also, I've noticed the opening sentence says the crash was "caused by a metal fatigue induced derailment" so giving two different causes in the lead doesn't make sense - they can't both be right! While it's true that all the track replacements should have gone out when they should have done and everything should have been checked properly, it's not directly responsible for the accident itself. In another universe, the rail might have snapped of its own accord with no train nearby and the accident would never have occurred; on the other hand, the rail industry might not have had the investment it badly needed. The article does say all of the manslaughter charges were dropped, right at the end of the body though - are you saying this should be put in the lead for balance? Ritchie333 23:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's worth putting that the charges were all dropped in the lead, provided that the lead doesn't imply guilt with some variation of "charges were brought" without including a corresponding "charges were dropped". My concern is that the wording as-was, which implied cause-and-effect between "lack of training" and the crash, was effectively declaring NWR and BB guilty of offences they'd been found not guilty of in court. (Railtrack could have had the best training ever and it wouldn't necessarily have prevented the crash if the cracks had been hairline fractures that didn't show up on inspection, or if the workman conducting the inspection had something else on his mind at the time.) The whole article does give the impression of having a bit of a "privatisation makes things less safe" agenda. Admittedly, in doing so it's to some extent reflecting sources, as rail privatisation was so unpopular and the media jumped on the bandwagon,* but in the case of railways it doesn't reflect reality. The non-suicide railway fatality rate is consistently lower post-privatisation, despite a significant rise in passenger numbers over the same period—discounting people falling or driving onto the track (for which Railtrack/NWR can't reasonably be blamed), there's only been one passenger fatality (Margaret Masson at Grayrigg) on the British railway network since Potters Bar in 2002. Paging Redrose64 who might have some thoughts on it. ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
*IMO a lot of the sourcing here could politely be described as 'questionable'. Why is a civil engineering article, on a topic which is heavily oversupplied with specialist journals, cited almost exclusively to primary sources, news websites, Tony Benn's diary (!) and Off the Rails, a political tract by the Stalinist activist Andrew Murray who can hardly be considered a neutral source on the impact of privatisation?

Interesting thoughts - for me, Hatfield was the trigger that started improvements in the privatised rail network and saw investment being poured in with better services and reopened lines, and stuff generally getting done (eg: Ufton Nervet is currently being fixed). In the years that followed, I heard friends complaining about all the works on the WCML in particular, but the job was done and things are better. The problem is, as you suggested, finding a specific source that pinpoints all of that to Hatfield, and not the general feeling I got at the time that roads were "out" (eg: John Prescott cancelling the A27 Polegate Bypass mid-project so only half got built, the A259 along the Kent & Sussex coast receiving no improvements whatsoever and still being generally rubbish ) and rail was "in" (I live near the Hitachi rail depot in Ashford and use High Speed 1 and the Marshlink all the time). I certainly didn't give (or mean to give) the impression that privatisation was less safe per se, it was just the specific circumstances. Our article on the Impact of the privatisation of British Rail has a {{npov}} tag right at the top, which suggests this is still a contentious topic among editors. Ritchie333 10:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

IIRC Impact of the privatisation of British Rail started off a WP:POVFORK of Privatisation of British Rail. More than one of its contributors are not noted for their adherance to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. On the original matter, I don't like that word "unawareness". Smacks too much of buzzword bingo. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I know, I was there. The problem as I see it (with both the impact page and Hatfield) is that it's such a politically polarising issue, people feel there ought to have been a significant impact (either "ushered in a new golden age" or "led to a major decline in service"), and the reality of "fares continued to rise at about the rate they were rising previously, the accident rates and general service levels remained fairly constant, and the only really visible change was that the trains were painted different colours and no longer sold Travellers Fare" is unsatisfactory to both sides. ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Ritchie333. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Maurice Gaffney

On 24 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maurice Gaffney, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Maurice Gaffney was the oldest practising barrister in Ireland when he died aged 100? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maurice Gaffney. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Maurice Gaffney), 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) 00:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD outcome

Hi Ritchie. Following the outcome of this AfD, does this sandbox copy by the page's creator come under any deletion criteria? Thanks. Lugnuts 08:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's not edited for six months, it can (but not must) be speedied per WP:G13. All of the "G" criteria apply to sandboxes, but I don't think any are appropriate in this case. Ritchie333 08:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Cafe Royal Cocktail Book has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Ritchie333. Cafe Royal Cocktail Book, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Marshlink line

Wasn't there once an "Accidents and incidents" section in the article? Seems to be missing now. This could be a barrier to achieving GA status. Mjroots (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Neither this version from 2014 nor this version from 2009 contain anything about accidents. The only significant one I found in sources were the pre-opening problems with trains tipping over on the straight sections along Romney Marsh. Given the (lack of) speed and importance of the line, I can't see much cause for any accidents to occur; the line would never have been single-tracked c. 1979 if there was any possibility of a collision through bad signals or excessive multi-tasking by staff. Ritchie333 12:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a very serious accident at Appledore not long after the line had been singled. Will have a look and see what else I can find. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ashford Library has a lot of back issues of Railway Magazine and specialist publications, and I am certain there will be information in there if anywhere. Aside from the Marshlink Action Group's personal archives, I'd be surprised if there was anywhere better to look for sources. The tricky part is being able to spare an hour or two there. Ritchie333 17:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As you've got a Kent library card, you've got access to the Gale News Vault - loads of C19th newspapers online. Link on my user page. Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic so moving to your talk page. Don't want to distract from the poignant part of the discussion.

I agree with all of those things myself - what's wrong with the last one? yeh, believe it or not, some people still care about building a relationship, not a daily rostered fuck buddy system (intentionally super-exaggerated just so we're clear). I don't disallow others to do it - that's your choice - but I think none of it is good for you - again the last one is just a plain personal choice neither good nor bad. I didn't say that this specific user (Sk8terPrince) didn't hold some negative views. I expressed dismay at their battleground mentality, their inability to collaborate with others, and their tendency to dismiss genuine criticism - and guess what, that has nothing to do with your political stance. I said your clumping of all right-wing leaning people under a monolith is just plain wrong. Take a look at right-wing libertarians, they're opposed to being commanded over by governments first and foremost. I'm left leaning for the record. For that matter your example of a right-wing view isn't accurate either, that's a personal view of random people strung all across the political spectrum. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As you can see from my userpage, I love a nice pint of beer, and the last time I smoked is when a pack of Marlboro cost you about £3.50 (which IIRC was about 20 years ago), but anyway.... The point I was trying (and seemingly failing) to make is simply that Misplaced Pages is a pretty diverse place with all sorts of opinions, viewpoints and cultures, and some of your (and my) viewpoints may be viewed as offensive by other groups. It's pretty obvious I'm not going to warm to The Sun, the Daily Mail and Nigel Farage simply because their views fly in the face of what I believe. What I really think from the userboxes is that the user is quite young and naive, and it reflects on how he operates on Misplaced Pages - I suspect he's young enough to be able to mature over time and become a bit more tolerant. I'm not honestly expecting him to read Alan Turing's article in depth and come out the other side thinking that government prosecution against gays is really wrong; rather it might just prod something that makes him wonder if all his views are accurate and whether he should keep a bit more of an open mind instead.

I really don't want to talk about my personal life here as it's off-topic and (to paraphrase Facebook), "it's complicated", suffice to say I strongly identify with asexuality as a sexual preference despite being in a healthy and stable relationship with kids (and now stepkids), and none of it really has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 14:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

None of the things you listed above are wrong in any way shape or form. I have nothing against you or your personal views. I just find that taking a diverse range of views that encompass both good and bad things (small government a normal view, alongside homophobia and religious conservatism as more extreme views), and choosing to label them all of them as bad because they belong to the same subset (right-wing), is the wrong thing to do. In any case, you're right about this discussion not having anything to do with building an encyclopaedia. Cheers for this off-topic semi-discussion, happy editing, and byeee :) Mr rnddude (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:The 1000 Challenge (Germany)

Hi, can you delete this, Nabla obviously doesn't realize I created all of the challenges and that it is agreed on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge not to split Germany.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If @JJBers: tells me he does not want the page, it can be deleted per WP:CSD#G7. Update : I assume this is an assertion to delete, so I have done so. Ritchie333 17:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, you asked to speedy delete without giving any explanation. You certainly know that you can not assume every administrator is aware of whatever you have done or written in whatever corner of the wikipedia. So please help others helping you. Thank you. - Nabla (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Quality band or what?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Derek Trucks is without doubt a musical genius, although he seems to have started to look like Andy Mabbett..... ;-) Ritchie333 15:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: If you like Tedeschi / Trucks, check out Kat Wright and the Indomitable Soul Band which is similar. Ritchie333 16:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Unblock requests

I don't think it's appropriate to turn down unblock requests because they happen to be checkuser blocks; there are several checkusers, myself included, who monitor WP:RFU, and we're quite capable of accepting or declining such requests. --jpgordon 15:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: I'm just going off what policy says (or at least what I interpret it to say) : "If an administrator believes that a checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee. (emphasis mine) A reversal or alteration of such a block without prior consultation may result in removal of permissions." If the policy is wrong or misleading, perhaps we should change it? Ritchie333 15:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in that quote says that you should therefor deny unblock requests. If you would be inclined to unblock if it hadn't been for the CU, you can ping the CU or email ArbCom; if you would not unblock on the basis of the unblock request, even if it hadn't been a CU block, then you can simply deny the unblock like you would always do. If you see the unblock request and believe the CU block to be correct (with reasons, not blindly believe), you can of course also deny the unblock request. But the two things you shouldn't do is unblock the editor, or deny the unblock request only because it is a CU block. Fram (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this block (other than assuming good faith that Bbb23 placed it for a legitimate reason); I simply closed it in a procedural manner, suggesting a more effective avenue for the user's complaint to be heard. Ritchie333 15:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand that, but it was inappropriate to do so. --jpgordon 16:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this is far more inappropriate, and technically indistinguishable from vandalism. I realise the article's subject has done things that modern society would find unpalatable, but that is no reason to cut vast swathes out from it. Ritchie333 16:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

What's that have to do with anything? The vast majority of the accounts requesting unblock have behaved inappropriately, and will not be unblocked. Those of us with checkuser privileges generally double-check each other; I do so pretty much automatically every time a checkuser blocked account requests unblock. But please, allow the checkusers that patrol RFU to do our jobs. --jpgordon 18:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The blocking administrator reverted a bunch of writing for no real reason whatsoever, thus making Misplaced Pages worse, thus being functionally equivalent to vandalism. This is bad. It's easy to avoid checkusers, just edit logged out as an IP using an ISP with a dynamic IP address, which most of them are. How many sockpuppets of Russavia have we blocked now? In any case, I think our conversation is done, so I'll leave you with the soothing sounds of the Tedeschi Trucks Band ..... Ritchie333 19:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. You entirely miss the point, but whatever. --jpgordon 19:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Block request

The Ip address that harassed me had had a username before which I had tried to speak and explain things to here. User talk:Bronwyne Jewel, <- This is the same person as the Ip.

After I was civil on their talk page they start harassing me. I was the one who reacted in anger and frustration when I unidid their unsourced edits and not them. I only called them a harasser after they had harassed me and they had already recived their final warning from another editor. I was not uncivil at all before they attacked me.*Trekker (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker: Look at it from the other editor's point of view just for a minute. They have stumbled across an article with information about themselves that they know is wrong, and when they tried to correct it, somebody put it back. That made them angry and upset, and they reacted accordingly when you insulted them. I don't think the anger was acceptable, but I can understand the provocation for it.

The best thing to do in this situation is to assess whether the information is important for a reader to understand the topic and would violate the neutral point of view policies if it wasn't there; and if not, remove it entirely. (This is why we can't delete Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations as WP:CSD#G10, for example) I have read the information that Bronwyne removed on Dynamite Kid, and believe it is sufficiently contentious and potentially upsetting enough and inappropriately sourced to blogs and other unacceptable sources, that it must be removed immediately per the biographies of living persons policy, which I have now done. The IP has not made any edits for 12 hours, so it's probably stale, and I think now I've removed that information, they won't be coming back.

I'm certain you have done everything here in good faith, but you need to remember that Misplaced Pages is in the real world and anything you write can be read by anyone in the world, including famous people, and you should always keep that in the back of your mind when dealing with articles on living people and their relatives and friends. Ritchie333 17:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

They insulted me before I did anything insulting towards them. All I did was pointed out that they removed sources and added new information about their career which wasn't sourced at all. I pointed out to her that if she wanted new infomation there she would need a new source and that it isn't adviced to edit about yourself.

I also removed the part where it said that her fiance was the father which was the only part she originaly seemed to have wanted gone. Everything else was just adding unsourced information about her valet career and that another man apparently bought her a ticket to England to see her father or something.

In hindsight it was definitely for the best to remove the whole section since the sources were debious but no I don't feel sympathy for someone who attacks someone else when all they tried to do was help. I'm really not sure what else I could have done to try to make them understand. I was the one who reacted accordingly when I called them a harasser. I was not uncivil until after they were, which of course is not an excuse but it is the truth.*Trekker (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's acceptable for anyone to insult anyone else - it isn't, but aside from preventing imminent damage to the project there generally isn't much admins can do (or at least not much that won't involve in a dramah explosion on ANI) Ritchie333 19:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Why would you delete my page I'm only 9 it's my first time idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eueueukkl (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

My kids (two of which are older than you) like Roblox - why not play that instead? I don't mean to be belittling, but Misplaced Pages is a project for grown-ups and while there's no official age restriction, you're likely to run in trouble until you have the understanding and maturity of an adult. Ritchie333 23:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The WP:UNPUTDOWNABLES

(Probably there should be an essay by that name -- I just don't know what it would be about...) I have to disagree with your assertion that Moors Murders is u.p.d.-able -- see the thread I opened on its talk page. (I've got a talk to give on Monday, so I'll have to get back to it then, maybe.) I think it's a prime example of an overwrought article needing a severe copyedit. EEng 23:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but the Moors Murders (more specifically, any suggestion that Myra Hindley was not guilty as hell and might ever be released from prison) were a regular feature of British news for decades, to the extent that I first thought Hindley was some sort of political activist when I was growing up. It's probably the most notorious 20th century British crime and many Brits have a significant knowledge of the case anyway. So I think it does deserve the full extent of coverage that's present in the article. Ritchie333 14:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Gammadyne Mailer

You deleted the article for Gammadyne Mailer a single day after it was nominated for deletion, with no time at all for discussion. This article contained no marketing jargon, no opinion, no inaccuracies. It contained facts that would be otherwise difficult to obtain. It was referenced by two other articles, and had been edited by a number of authors. It very clearly does not qualify as a G11. If it has problems, give me time to fix them. Please restore this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grozo (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Grozo: The article was tagged for speedy deletion (specifically WP:A7 - "no indication of importance" and WP:G11 - "blatant advertising") by FockeWulf FW 190. It does not meet the criteria for A7 as it is not one of the appropriate topics (real people, animals, bands, companies, web content and events) but I agreed it met the criteria for G11 as it looked like a typical press release, showing who wrote the software and its various version numbers, but without any real substance to it. What makes this software product as important as, say, Microsoft Outlook? The best option I think is to restore the article and send it to a full deletion debate at WP:AfD - do you wish to do this? Ritchie333 19:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: How is Outlook the measuring stick for worthiness? That would exclude 99.9% of all programs. Yes, please set it up for a deletion debate. Grozo (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Grozo: All done - article restored and discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gammadyne Mailer. I do try and save software articles (or, indeed, any articles) if I possibly can, but the community seems to have quite high acceptance standards (eg: see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hinge (app)). Ritchie333 11:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you. I will work to improve the article. Can you also restore the talk page? Grozo (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops, should have done that as well - there you go. Ritchie333 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Your prompt help HELPED. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, often! Look. The long edit summary alone made me suspicious, but especially with the article getting shorter. Not there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Banhammers deployed. Film at eleven. Ritchie333 22:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Tut tut. You admins are actually filming editor blocks these days?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Haven't you heard that Arbitration Enforcement III - The Search for Cluebats has been stuck in development hell for a year? Ritchie333 10:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This time it's personal. -- samtar 10:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well that's cemented my "support" vote on your RfA, there are just not enough admins with a sense of humour around here.... Ritchie333 16:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You're probably more sympathetic than me

Do you want to take a stab at tackling this guy before he crashes and burns? (I was asked to take a look, but my instinct is that it's going to require a mass rollback of his entire contribution history, which is inevitably going to look rather bite-y. I've already reverted quite a few of his changes—and speedy-deleted a particularly sorry article he wrote—so I doubt he's going to listen kindly to anything I have to say.) ‑ Iridescent 15:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I've had a word, trying to explain that some (but not all) of his edits do kind of make sense but just aren't consensus. I don't know if referencing Indyref will get the message home that you can't always get what you want, but we'll see. I think they've slinked off for the day now, so that might be the end of it. PS: Cowal Golf Club held the first Scottish Footgolf Open so I don't think it's an A7 as you can redirect to footgolf. Ritchie333 16:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah well, I've already exceeded my newbie-upsetting quota for the day. (I don't know if there's something in the tea today or something, but Special:NewPages is a particularly strong stream of garbage at the moment. Have the school holidays started early?) ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

CAT:CSD has been particularly busy over the last few days - I was particularly crestfallen to look at about 5 different biographies of women (quick wave to Montanabw) in the hope one might be salvageable, only to find they were all junk. Ritchie333 16:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What I'm noticing is that the number of inappropriate CSD tags seems to have rocketed. I usually decline about one in ten, and today am declining about half. I don't know if that's because someone else is cherry-picking the obvious cases and leaving the marginal ones for a second opinion, or if there's actually a lot more mis-tagging going on. ‑ Iridescent 17:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

One in ten sounds about right, I did a vague "finger the air" calculation a while back and think I've deleted about 100 times as many speedies as I've saved (where "saved" means the article still exists today, bearing in mind a lot of speedy declines go on to PROD or AfD and get deleted there). A quick look at my contributions shows I've declined 10 today, but I don't tend to "keep score" on them so much. Occasionally I'll notice one person doing a bunch of bad tagging and call them out for it, but I haven't done that for a few weeks now. I'm surprised the tagging's getting worse now, I thought the whole point of this new patroller user right was to stop that? Ritchie333 17:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Going into the realms of pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if all the "sky is falling" fearmongering whipped up (albeit for the best of intentions) by those who agitated for the new userright, have led to patrollers now understandably feeling that Misplaced Pages is under siege from an army of spammers and that they're the last line of defence, so are machine-gunning through the list rather than paying close attention to what they're reading. ‑ Iridescent 17:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This new user right was just another one of Kudpung's half-baked ideas. Eric Corbett 20:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The idea made sense—nobody disputes that when a good-faith newcomer who doesn't understand the intricacies of wikitext tries to write something, they're better served if their first encounter is with someone who's experienced enough to explain to them what they should be doing, rather than with an arrogant child who thinks reverting edits and spewing templates wins them Misplaced Pages Points. The problem is that so many people talk about the backlog like an incoming tide that needs to be held back at all costs, it leads to people rushing and making sloppy mistakes. ‑ Iridescent 08:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung wouldn't have got the idea passed if he couldn't convince the community it was worth going for. I think I opposed it as it doesn't seem to be attacking the real issue - I can (and do!) warn and block bad NPP taggers, sometimes while coming down like a ton of bricks. () However, while articles turn up every day that just cannot possibly meet the inclusion policies, they were created in good faith, so referring to them as "junk" (which I admit I did earlier) isn't really in the spirit of AGF. Ritchie333 10:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Going back to the original topic, it appears my attempt at diplomacy fell on deaf ears, so I have advised them to read our edit warring policy and ducked out. Ritchie333 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• When I was a student, I earned some pocket money by volunteering to be a test subject in the experimental psychology lab. One experiment was to test vigilance – the sort of issue you get with radar operators who have to look out for unusual blips such as enemy intruders. Lights would flash and then you'd have to push a corresponding button and they were measuring reaction time and accuracy. They made the mistake of showing me the table of high scores and this triggered a competitive impulse. My score in the trial then had the fastest reaction time but the lowest accuracy.

My impression is that you get similar issues with NPP, which involves sifting through dross looking for the occasional rough diamond. Accuracy soon drops in this situation and I recall DGG saying that he can only patrol a few articles at a stretch before burning out in this way. Ironholds did a marathon stretch once to clear a backlog of thousands. I checked this and found that he had passed crab collars as patrolled even though it was an obvious hoax. We have an even larger backlog now and this may be inspiring similar heroic efforts.

What they sometimes do with radar operators to keep them alert is introduce dummy blips into the signal so that they get frequent cases to respond to. By checking that the dummies are correctly handled, you can check the accuracy of the operator and make sure that he hasn't fallen asleep. There is a similar concept in programming of bebugging – introducing dummy bugs to see whether the testers pick them up. By measuring the number of known dummies that are found, you can estimate the proportion of unknown cases that you're catching. Another common approach to humdrum work is double-keying – get it done twice and compare the results. Language translators are kept on their toes by such double-checks, for example. We should be using such well-proven techniques in our work but the trouble is that you get what you pay for. We don't even get pocket-money here...

Andrew D. (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but I can't see how one would put it into practice on Misplaced Pages, since there's no real mechanism for either a quiet word in the back office, or for punishments/rewards. (Everyone makes mistakes; I'm certain that over the years I've approved and copy-edited something that turned out to be a hoax, and marked something as a hoax which turned out to be genuine.) The only real way to test new page patrol would be to create a stack of hoax articles and see who marked them as "patrolled" without tagging them for deletion, but not only would intentionally introducing errors into Misplaced Pages cause a storm of protest, but naming-and-shaming would almost certainly drive quite a lot of editors away. Part of the reason the NPP backlog exists in the first place is that so many of the experienced patrollers (including me) have refused to touch it ever since the WP:NEWT fiasco, which whatever the intentions certainly appeared to be an attempt to trick patrolling editors and deleting admins into technically breaching policies so the organisers could sneer at them. ‑ Iridescent 15:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the idea behind NEWT was solid (bear in mind I only found out about it second-hand years after it finished); though I'm not sure how on earth you would conduct such an activity without those being "caught" to possibly get upset. I've edited logged out as an IP without using edit summaries (while otherwise making identical edits on the merits of content) just to get some idea of what was going on. I think a more likely explanation is that doing NPP day-in, day-out is a bit soul destroying, continually looking at the bottom rung of article quality (occasionally someone like Whewalt will pull a nearly GA-class article out of nowhere having privately worked on it, but these are rare). Ritchie333 15:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The best article on these sorts of discussions is the Milgram experiment (one of those that is a good article without being a good article and is a fascinating read if you've never heard of the experiment before) - you just need a little bit of bias in one direction or another to make a huge difference. From my own experience, I took part in the first GA Cup as it was a new idea, there was a clear need to clear a backlog, and I felt I had the skill to do it. I dropped out before the end in that I was just sick of GA reviewing and wanted to go back to reading articles for personal pleasure, rather than bean-counting inline citations and questioning the factual accuracy of every single sentence. Similarly, I remember numerous AfC backlog drives that reduced the queue of submissions down to 0 but caused so much disruption we had to indef a couple of users for making a ridiculous amount of mistakes, as DGG will be able to attest to.

I think your summary statement hits the nail on the head - we aren't getting paid for this. And that is why the stigma around paid editing is a problem, as it's paid advocacy that's the real issue. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with taking an experienced Wikipedian and saying, "right, for £50 / hour we are putting you on NPP today, if we like the results we'll get you in for a week, and if we think that's great we'll do it again next month - however, any complaints and deal's off". Ritchie333 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The aspect of Milgram most relevant to WP is, of course, the remote administration of painful electric shocks. Once we get the Foundation to implement that capability in Wikimedia, ANI threads will be resolved much more quickly. EEng 16:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thank you EEng for my first laugh of the day! :o) That was before I even clicked on the link! Nortonius (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

<Bzzzzzzzzzzzt!> EEng 18:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ow! Ow! Ow! Nortonius (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Ritchie, thank you very much for your admin action at .

Multiple incoming accounts likely from at . Can you get eyes on this? Anything else to help? Any advice? Sagecandor (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Emily has made good faith edits, so this just looks odd, possibly a compromised account? In any case, putting a lock on it and getting an explanation is necessary; if that means the block lasts all of 20 minutes that's brilliant. If there looks like a co-ordinated attack, I think WP:ANI is a better destination. Ritchie333 14:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'll let you handle the "admin noticeboard" as an admin reporting there might get better results. Glad to have your eyes on the issue. Highly recommend you read this article to understand what is going on here with incoming edits. Let me know what you think. Sagecandor (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

A short rant about article quality

Take a look at this edit. I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but the text survived pretty much unscathed for three years until I looked at it, and wondered what on earth it was talking about. Meanwhile, people have fiddled with formatting, fixed typos, corrected disambiguation links and made fundamentally important changes like this one. One or two even had a go at correcting a little bit of prose. Nobody, however, addressed the elephant in the room, which was that the prose was, well, rubbish (not to mention completely unreferenced). How many more articles like this are sitting out there, feeling unloved? Ritchie333 18:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please restore (SJW marked for speedy deletion)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Paul_Denino

Is a Twitch streamer who reaches 12000 concurrent viewers and is within the top 10 of Twitch when he streams. I cannot believe we can have articles about extremely small streamers with 3000 concurrent viewers (https://en.wikipedia.org/Trihex), yet the big ones cannot have wiki articles.

The page was marked for speedy deletion by a troll and SJW who dislikes his streams. The basis for Misplaced Pages is articles written through an objective lens, and I was writing the article while the troll marked the page for speedy deletion. I consider this censorship unless the article is restored.

If someone dislikes a person it is not ground to abuse their privileges.

I hope you do the right thing. I have nothing against you since you are just trying to be a great volunteer.

Sincerely,

WiveLife (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The article was marked for speedy deletion by Theroadislong, an experienced editor who has done a lot of work assessing Misplaced Pages articles. I don't know what a "Twitch streamer" is, and why it is important for one to appear in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Will this person be remembered in 100 years; if not, it may not be a suitable topic. Also, articles about living people are risky as anyone can edit them. Does this person have any coverage in national newspapers or magazines? Ritchie333 22:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Also, Misplaced Pages doesn't judge notability by how many views a person gets. clpo13_(talk) 22:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That'll be why Jimbo Wales' talk page is a redlink then! Ritchie333 22:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

He was a co-host at Twitchcon 2016 during a $10,000 tournament by Jagex , and he is a professional eSports player signed with NRG eSports. Pretty notable if you ask me. He also appeared on Fox news as a part of a segment on Twitch (could probably find the link if you need it). WiveLife (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the article to Draft:Paul Denino where it can be worked on further. When you are happy with the draft's improvements, click on the "Submit your draft for review!" and it will be looked at by an independent reviewer. Ritchie333 23:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed that you've deleted the Impulse City article

https://en.wikipedia.org/Impulse_City Hi Ritchie333! I guess you have your standards, but here in our community Impulse City is a big deal. Maybe not important to you -- but important to us. An encyclopedia should be a place where any institution especially an educational facility for children can be written about. This is not the wikipedia that I knew growing up. Thanks for making a person feel small and unimportant! Keeyith (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Keeyith: Impulse City is very similar to some of the work I do in real life (eg: see here and here) so I would have liked to have saved it. Unfortunately, I did a news search and found absolutely nothing except for a perfume brand with the same name. Without news coverage, it's impossible to write a neutral encyclopedia article, so I was left with no choice to delete it and advise you that it really doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things if the business has an article or not. If you want, I can restore the deleted text as a userspace draft so you can still read it - would you like me to do this? Ritchie333 10:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We have had some articles written about us, but I would have to track down. That's what makes something "Notable" on wikipedia, having news articles written about you? Here are two that I could quickly find: http://patch.com/maryland/greenbelt/an--free-imaginative-play-classes-in-greenbelt

and http://www.upmd.org/docs/11-749-1328298292.pdf

I'll try to track down some more. Thank you for restoring it to user space. Why not do that from the beginning? -- Misplaced Pages talks about being friendly to new users -- that's much friendlier than just deleting someone's work. Also, the big red DIV that says your article has been marked for early deletion -- because it's not notable -- and then a long confusing explanation as to what "notable" means -- also leaves a new user feeling a bit confused and frankly let down. Why not have people draft in user space -- and then articles can be approved for the real thing? That way you're not punished right off the bat just for trying. Keeyith (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Watching: The way to start in user space and then have it examined exists, it's called WP:AfC. (I avoid it.) But to find it, you first have to be familiar with this place. Why is this, Ritchie? - I know a bit how you feel, Keeyith, because my first article was also deleted within minutes. I found help restoring it via the help function. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Also watching: The WMF trialed a "guided tour" feature for new editors, where it physically showed them how to make basic edits (etc etc.) - at the end of this it would show a message with some helpful text, one of which being a link to WP:AfC to "create your first article!". Do you think something like that would be useful if brought back? It's unfortunately surprising how many newer editors don't know AfC exists -- samtar 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Keeyith: Some answers :

• "Thank you for restoring it to user space. Why not do that from the beginning?" I was tired and made a mistake, that's why I restored it this morning without prompting. Sorry about that. Yash! (who added the original CSD tag) is a pretty diligent editor who has done a lot of good work, and I tend to trust his judgement too; of course like all editors he isn't perfect. Also, administrators have to be accountable to any article they delete and respond to any complaints ASAP (it's a core Misplaced Pages policy - see WP:ADMINACCT).

• "Also, the big red DIV that says your article has been marked for early deletion -- because it's not notable -- and then a long confusing explanation as to what "notable" means -- also leaves a new user feeling a bit confused and frankly let down." - I could not agree more which is why the rather barbed parody User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates is probably my most popular essay (along with User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content, but that's another conversation for another time) that has been read and appreciated by lots of people.

• "That's what makes something "Notable" on wikipedia, having news articles written about you?" More or less that's right, a simple reference is Misplaced Pages:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. I personally avoid terms like "notability" and "significance" and look at it from a different angle - can anybody in the world independently write a neutral article on this topic? This is why we need coverage in third-party sources that have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, with no direct connection to the original subject. To give an obvious example, we couldn't write a neutral article on Donald Trump based on what he writes on his Twitter feed! The further problem is knowing how many references you need, which is a bit like trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - I have restored articles like The Mariposa Trust (a British charity supporting families who have suffered miscarriages) which was created, deleted, restored and deleted in an acrimonious dispute (see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 15 - note in particular one editor said "Due process was followed I rather think deletions like this do more harm than good") despite there being about 25 news pieces covering the charity. And yes, I'm still annoyed it was deleted.

• I recommend the Articles for creation process for newcomers. Unfortunately, some people hate it and want to see it shut down (for different reasons) so it's very difficult to get encouragement to streamline the process. There's also the problem that the Wikimedia Foundation have been dragging their feet in terms of providing a better experience - a very experienced administrator Kudpung has been petitioning the WMF to complete their design of a proper landing page for at least five years until he's banging his head against the wall.

I'm sorry I have rambled on a bit here, but you have made some good points I agree with, and you make a valid point that as an administrator I really ought to do something more about tackling some of these issues. I do know that just yelling at people whose philosophies are different to mine (eg: Sk8erPrince who takes pride in place of proclaiming what articles he's managed to delete from Misplaced Pages!) isn't very effective. Ritchie333 13:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Thank you for taking the time to break this down for me. You've restored my faith in the wikipedia community. At the very least, it seems like you care. I think I was under the impression, that wikipedia would allow pretty much any article to exist, as long as it was truthful. Obviously there's a much more rigorous process/criteria. I'll check out the resources that you've pointed out for me, and maybe I'll be able to edit articles in a way that meets this communities standards. I do think that there are some obvious ways to make wikipedia much more welcoming to new editors, but I think we're on the same side of that issue. I appreciate your time and your effort. I'm sorry for any strife that I've caused you. Best Regards, Keeyith (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Keeyith: I don't think you've caused me any strife (you came here and explained your situation calmly; some people run full speed to the Administrators' Noticeboard with cries of "admin abuez!") The best essays I can give you are User:Uncle G/On notability and User:Uncle G/On sources and content, which are reasonably easy-to-read guides on what generally can and can't go in Misplaced Pages, and why. People forget that human beings write Misplaced Pages articles and a new user's experience with the system will determine how long they stay around for and what else they contribute to. To be honest, you sound like the sort of person who could ultimately be a very successful Misplaced Pages editor - if you have enough free time. What we really need is people improving existing content; to give an example close to you, History of Maryland has been tagged "This article needs additional citations for verification" for over three years. Ritchie333 15:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

See? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That'll probably go the way of this ("You don't want the article, fine, it's gone, have a nice day y'all") Ritchie333 10:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"Money Mike Sandberg" page

Please advise me on how I can edit my "Money Mike Sandberg" page because it was recently deleted on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaels218 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The best thing to do first is gather sources of information. Billboard and Rolling Stone are good sources to use. Have a look at YG as a typical example of a Misplaced Pages article. Ritchie333 22:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

edit 752508563

just because

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I need my deleted article back

Hello. I understand that you deleted my article Lucaso the Voyager without notifying me first. As the author who spent a very large amount of time writing the article, it is upsetting to know that a user simply deleted my hard work without giving me a heads up. While Misplaced Pages may not value the content of my article, I feel I should have at least been allowed to save my writing elsewhere for future use. Please notify me when the article is back up. Thank you.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qaN99tVRXw