Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fram (talk | contribs) at 10:50, 21 December 2016 (→Fuck off: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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)

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)

References

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeroe03 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the text to User:Roeroe03/Lucaso the Voyager. You were notified by Domdeparis about the speedy deletion, specifically "Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable." Particularly for a video that has received a fifth of views as this one I am featured on and which does not have a presence anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Ritchie333 15:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I wonder are you available for weddings, birthdays and bar mitzvahs? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well at least that band's got a better record than the Tories . Yes, I am bitter, cantankerous git that would like as many royalties as Sam Smith, particularly as I think I played about 8 overdubbed parts on that record. Ritchie333 15:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Mine's a pint, thanks. Yours, "Young" Tim Farron (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Would you care to vote on this AfD I nominated here ?

Thanks --Jennica✿ / 14:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Some people get shirty about it, but I've dropped my 2c into the debate. Ritchie333 16:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The person who wrote the article keeps deleting my deletion request I was really under the impression these additions could be added to their respective albums below the track listing, perhaps collapsed. I've seen it on countless other pages. --Jennica✿ / 16:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you got diffs of that? If you have, I can investigate further. If you have put an AfD tag on an article, it must not be removed until it closed. We generally assume that albums containing notable artists with many hits can be expanded in due course; for example, in the last few days I've improved Green Bullfrog from this to this. Ritchie333 16:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant it was a proposed deletion. He should have still maybe discussed it rather than taken it down. I was already told he was okay to do that. --Jennica✿ / 17:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he should. Quite often you see debates turn up at AfD that are PRODs contested for no reason. If this is a regular pattern, maybe I should have a word, though since this was an article I've !voted "keep" on at the AfD, may be it's best left to one site. By the way, if you're interested, if we can get another 1,000 bytes of prose extra into Green Bullfrog over the weekend, it'll be good to go for a Did you know? nomination for the main page. Ritchie333 17:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel like I am bad at prose - that's why I mainly stick to small fixes/formatting stuff. :/ --Jennica✿ / 03:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Marylebone station - almost ready for GA review?

Hi Ritchie! Hope you're well. Just had another read through the Marylebone station article and I think we're pretty much ready for the GA nomination? As you've taken the lead on developing it, will let you make the final call on the nomination timing though.
(On an unrelated note - thanks for the positive comments at ORCP - much appreciated!) Mike1901 (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mike1901: It's getting closer, but it's not there yet. There are still five areas of content lacking citations (I have added {{fact}} tags everywhere to easily point this out), the body then needs copyediting from top to bottom, images need to be checked, and finally the lead needs a complete rewrite (I tend to do this last). It might be there in a week's time, depending on how quickly the remaining sources can be found. Ritchie333 16:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Great, that's helpful! I've got an obvious source for one of the 5 you've pointed out (station facilities section), so just quickly popped that in. Mike1901 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I was having trouble finding a source for services to Kiddminster specifically starting in 2006 (I can see they have done at some point since, but I want a starting date) - the rest I have not looked at yet. Ritchie333 16:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

May be because it wasn't 2006: (though probably need a better source than that - will check later when back at the computer) Mike1901 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I want to try to get more into the field of content creation. As a prolific content creator, could you give me any advice? Thanks. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I do want to write up an essay / guide at some point, but it'll take time and I need a good example everyone can understand first. The best I have at the moment is User talk:RickinBaltimore/Archive 12#RfA, which gives you some ideas. To start off with, find an article on Misplaced Pages that looks a bit sorry for itself, then find a bunch of books, magazines and newspapers that go into far more depth than the Misplaced Pages article. That's always where you need to start. Ritchie333 17:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You are making me feel guilty ...

I used to have ERRORS watchlisted and did a few fixes there (tho not always to everybody's satisfaction). I'd have been happy to write up a map for Drmies but I can't see the buttons any longer. Oh well :-) I'm sure it's actually well under control. There are a lot of excellent admins. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think removing your tools was stupid and petty and I think you would get a sizeable support if you ever wanted to run again Ritchie333 09:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I would hope it caused at least some arbs to think in less absolutist terms. But I was and am prepared to accept the consequences of my action: all of us who were admins at the time got the honking big memo about Arbcom blocks being untouchable. I just sometimes feel guilty that it's turned out to be irrevocable, because in a few ways I was able to help out with the tools; that was one. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't vote for candidates (now) who supported removing your tools, which conveniently left exactly seven names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Puchito Records

Puchito Records - the mess! the horror! I was looking at newly made music articles. there's just some where I don't know where to start, sadly. what do you think? --Jennica✿ / 11:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Well to start off with, a book search reveals lots of references to the label in Billboard, so if you're looking to source claims, that's probably a good as place as any to start. Ritchie333 12:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I meant how badly formatted it is. A gratuitous use of the small code. --Jennica✿ / 14:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that. I think JJMC89 has given a bit of a cleanup. I don't get involved in that much stuff, simply because there are plenty of gnomes bouncing around the place to deal with formatting issues. Ritchie333 21:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ye-Ha! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Protection

As soon as the page protection was off the IP account returned. No consensus here. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have put protection back on - this time for two weeks. Ritchie333 22:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The Gadget Flow

Ritchie, per hits The Next Web, CNN, Fortune, Huffington Post and others--but many are in Greek--can you weigh in on Keep The Gadget Flow? JanisWilloughby (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think other people were right in that you shouldn't canvass people asking them to vote a particular way. In this case, it means I wouldn't be comfortable participating in the debate now. Ritchie333 13:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Incoming beer-carrying homing pigeon...

Mike1901 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break. There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll. If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA). If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December. We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I hope u like this kitten

DocRudy (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Everybody!

Rather than edit war over comments by blocked users, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out the following:

• WP:AfC currently has a backlog of around 1000 drafts
• Around 20,000 articles currently need cleanup for promotional tone
• Around 14,000 new articles by new users currently need reviewed
• Around 52,000 BLPs are tagged as requiring additional sources

Let's go do that...instead of this. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

An apt reminder Timothyjosephwood, thanks! That being said - I favour the WP:RBI approach with socks, so I personally think the reverts are appropriate too! Mike1901 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Unlike SOME users at least my user page hasn't been nuked into orbit. Ritchie333 12:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

wiki project album discussion

I started a discussion regarding the format of album pages here – and I'm looking for opinions. If you have anything, please add :) --Jennica✿ / 09:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I have two things to add : 1) Use common sense, 2) Don't be a cockwomble. See User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies. Ritchie333 12:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Telegram

-- samtar 12:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: This is going to be a long hard slog. I have spent 15 minutes rescuing Sellappan Nirmala where I am certain nobody would haved batted an eyelid if I deleted it per G11 / G12, but I cannot rescue everything. This is a high profile event and if the BBC report tomorrow that the editathon was a failure due to us just doing our jobs, it could be a serious PR damage for the project. Ritchie333 10:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Tell me something I don't know! It's got bugger all to do with me really. I'm just the Joe Soap who's been holding NPP together (what's left of it) for the last 6 years. Actually, from what I understand, the hackethon is in extremely good hands - my good friend RexxS whom I know personally (we even come from the same neck of the woods - well almost). The one advantage is that if we are swamped out of control on this, it should be the final knee jerk to those admins and Arbs who have been taking down brick by brick everything I have built for NPP, and the WMF who think its something to look at when they've finished making all the petty 'convenience' gadgets for the community, and finished drinking their coffee.I can't help because it's the opposite to my time zone - I was already working from 4 am to 7am this morning sending out those messages (and getting consensus to do it first). It's now just gone 6pm and I'm going home to get some shut eye after a long day in the office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'd get hauled over the gender coals by Adminosaurus Rex if I created a new article for Fiona Crack, as part of this wiki-wimmin-o-thon: ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Greg Lake

I know you lifted the WP:PP but considering the increasing amount of vandalism, perhaps re-apply? Just a suggestion. Karst (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

All things said, I don't think there has been any actual vandalism - the date of death stuff was difficult, because the source changed part-way through the day, which is a pretty unusual event. There's a lot of activity on it, but that happens on most recent death articles, and if it passes the In The News Candidate and hits the main page, there will be even more. Plus, having protected once, it's generally a good idea to get somebody else to look it; if there is a clear need for protection, any admin will do it. Ritchie333 17:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. Agreed. Let's just see how it goes. Karst (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Only nine nonths since I last felt the need to post this. 1.4 million views. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You're probably more sympathetic than me II

Do you want to take over with this guy before I lose my temper? Looking at Special:Contributions/Allthefoxes this isn't a one-off, but someone hovering over Special:NewPages slapping CSD tags on them as fast as they come in. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have given them some straight talking, as polite as I can give it. If you see another bad CSD after this timestamp, block 'em. Ritchie333 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ta—normally I wouldn't be this draconian, but the BBC are live-streaming this and I have visions of "I tried to create an article on a woman, and Misplaced Pages immediately deleted it!" plastered all over the news. You can be sure that every fuckup that happens during this, Greg will ensure it's mentioned at every opportunity in any outlet which hasn't banned him, for the next six months. ‑ Iridescent 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't block the editor for Shabnam Hashmi, which I just declined; the original state of the article was clearly deletable. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't block anyone for something they did prior to being warned, unless it was truly egregious—he seems to have knocked it off now. He isn't the first Huggler to get overenthusiastic with the tags, and he won't be the last; it's very tempting to splatter tags and move on, rather than try to fix things yourself. ‑ Iridescent 20:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If you so wish, can you (and any TPWs) keep an eye on Rebecca Strickson too—deleting a female designer of stamps for the Royal Mail has the potential for adverse publicity in so many different directions I can't begin to count them. ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yash!

Quoting from the section you linked to: you are brave ;) - I fixed a link to archived discussion, but can't help to the list of damaged o no not that word again, because it was considered so hot stuff that it was deleted ;) remember, because I said "amused" in an edit summary, after the third revert of six. - We'll see how that nom goes, I was #4 to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As nominator, I have conflict of interest in this RfA and cannot answer any questions. But this video demonstrates how to succeed at RfA using the medium of tap dance. Ritchie333 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Cue this video. Watch it right through to the end. ‑ Iridescent 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Aww, there's lovely, look you"! But just remember... Tapz Meanz Hines!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like Big Jim Sullivan on guitar in the background, not that anyone except me actually cares! Ritchie333 22:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

...and here with Jerry Reed: . Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see the withdrawal, but understand, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Yash has emailed me and explained things a bit more, and I understand what happened and why, and am convinced he has not done anything wrong. I don't want to say anymore because it's not my business but I can see why he would rather withdraw an RfA than rather answer certain questions. I am concerned he has now retired from Misplaced Pages, but hopefully it's just a break. Ritchie333 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Greg Lake

On 9 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Greg Lake, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of which, thank you very much for the barnstar, @Ritchie333: Top man! Cheers, LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Would like some skilled Wikipedian to weigh in

Putting this here looking for suggestions from you or one of your many page watchers. I already posted this on AN and it didn't seem to get any traction. It doesn't necessarily need an admin, just someone skilled in assessing and justifying consensus, with enough clout to have it stick.

This discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Teahouse has been going on for a few weeks, and I would very much like to see it come to some productive conclusion. I tried to steer it there, but with limited success. And it's probably inappropriate for me to steer too much, since I formally opened the proposal anyway. Thanks in advance. TimothyJosephWood 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I can close that, but it'll take a while to read through all the arguments and weigh them together. So have a little patience and I will try and look at it before the day is out. Ritchie333 14:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

11 years ago today...

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit day anniversary!
Best wishes, Mz7 (talk) (01:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC))

Quite amazing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Needs some music. The hammond organ DYK appeared, also one with more band, - singers with Ian Anderson today. What we did with real organ yesterday was quite spectacular! and moar ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Content creation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:Content creation. Since you had some involvement with the Misplaced Pages:Content creation redirect (viz. it targets an essay you wrote that resides within your userspace), you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy_CONT) 04:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Email me Malavika Rajkotia

@Ritchie333: Can you please email me the contents of the deleted page Malavika Rajkotia.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 15:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Satdeep Gill: Done. Ritchie333 14:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Midwest Theological Forum

Hi Ritchie333,

I saw that you speedied Midwest Theological Forum under WP:CSD#G11. I was considering writing an article on the publisher, and would like a copy of the deleted article by e-mail to see if there's anything worth salvaging. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 05:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I can restore it your userspace if that would be easier. Is that okay? Ritchie333 14:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you already?

Community wishlist poll

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools for reviewing new pages: Vote here.
• Reduce the reviewer workload : Vote here

For NPP: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Margaret (singer)

Hi, I've recently been working on this article and just wanted to get in touch with few native speakers who would review it for me, so that everything is grammatically correct and flows nicely. I would really appreciate your help. ArturSik (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@ArturSik: I'm not sure how a degree in fashion design helps one's musical ability, but maybe that's where I've been going wrong all these years. Anyway, the article doesn't look too bad, probably because somebody who has only been significant during Misplaced Pages's lifetime tends to have lots of eyes on the article, leaving not much to deteriorate. Ritchie333 18:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I regularly contribute to this article since feb this year and as you can see here a lot has changed since then, not mentioning that most of the information included there back then is long gone. as I've said I've been working on it for the past few days, spent hours re-writing it. also already got in touch few other users who helped out, so I'm happy to say that I'm pleased with the final outlook. Anyway still thank you for taking your time. ps. about the degree - do you recon I should get rid of it, you're right, it's got nothing to do with music and she doesn't really do much in fashion other than being a 'fashion icon'. she doesn't design or anything like that and if she does she does that occasionally. ArturSik (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of page

I need to ask you about deletion that you perform:"15:30, 15 November 2016 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) deleted page Swardman (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"

Is there any posibility how to get content of this topic? I wrote it only on wikipedia and I dont have it in my computer.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedelo (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dedelo: I have restored the article to User:Dedelo/Swardman, but to be honest a claim of being the largest national lawnmower supplier of a country does sound like a claim to significance, so I'm not sure A7 applies anyway. If you can find one or two product reviews in national newspapers (don't worry if they're not in English, that's fine), we should be able to put this article back into mainspace. Ritchie333 12:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:Thank you, I added some external links to article, so you can look and consider if A7 applies to this article.

@Dedelo: I definitely think it doesn't meet the criteria for A7 now, but that's a fairly low bar to clear and what I'd rather do is make sure it doesn't get deleted at all, even after a full deletion debate. To do that, I'd want to have somebody who can speak Czech well enough to evaluate the sources. For the moment, I've turned it into a draft submission, so you can continue working on the article at your leisure, then when you think it is ready for mainspace, click on the green "Submit" button, and an independent editor will review it. Ritchie333 13:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V sanction

Just a heads up, you probably want to log the ban in the appropriate place for record keeping purposes. Currently, that's here. The Wordsmith 15:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: I was just going to hold off for the minute, because these sorts of closes are the type that get challenged and overturned, so I'll just leave it a little bit longer and ensure the community are happy with it. If it's stuck without argument tomorrow, I will log it. Ritchie333 16:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you help me understand how you reached the consensus to apply this restriction to Mike V? I'm seeing editors I greatly respect on either side of the vote, such as BU Rob and The Wordsmith and The Rambling Man himself on the oppose side and Salvidrim! And Cassianto supporting, and the raw vote numbers are relatively even. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I summed it up in the closing rationale, but essentially most people who opposed the specific proposal still wanted some sort of sanction against Mike V, so assume they would not strongly object to it being placed (or at least would do so less than if I closed with no action). Ritchie333 11:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

How newbies see templates

Hey. I started writing this yesterday, and it's not even a first draft yet. But after seeing User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates, because I've been holding a baby all morning and navigating with one hand, I think you may be a good candidate to chime in. Again, it's hardly a rough outline, but you're welcome to contribute. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Garage rock task force

I am interested in creating a garage rock task force subpage that emulates the rock music project, but also has a section for articles suggestions and article expansion/improvement. I already have a small group of editors willing to participate. Could you direct me to a user who is handy with creating a project page? I read the steps needed but still cannot comprehend it enough to feel comfortable doing it alone. Any help is appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Ritchie333: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

Hello Ritchie333: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 20:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

David L. Richards

Do not remove {{COI}} tags when it is clear that a conflict exists. It may upset the subject, but the subject -- or, actually, his wife -- should not have so blatantly broken WP rules.

I note also that the subject has requested deletion of the article. Assuming the subject is notable, which I think he is, that should not happen -- individuals are not allowed to control the content or presence of their articles. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I declined the speedy tag, which is how I found the article, and trimmed some unsourced or questionably sourced content per WP:BLP. We have two possible scenarios here: a) this really is Prof. Richards, and he just doesn't want to be on Misplaced Pages or b) it's a joe job which can receive an indefinite block if we can prove that's the case. In neither case is the {{COI}} tag really necessary or beneficial, and while individuals cannot WP:OWN articles, experienced editors shouldn't be aggressive about it either. Ritchie333 12:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello Ritchie333,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Misplaced Pages.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Just looking at your user page brightened my day! Thanks so much! —Editor 357 18:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Ritchie333: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, —Editor 357 21:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

A little question: How did you get the stats table on your user page? How can I get one on mine? Again, Season's Greetings! —Editor 357 21:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Editor 357: You can only get those stats if you're an administrator. Ritchie333 10:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Ritchie333! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fuck off

"Fuck off" is not a personal attack, it is an uncivil way to say "go away and leave me alone". (Oh, and I mean to use undo, but misclicked on revert: I didn't mean to label your edit as vandalism, I just wanted to undo it). Fram (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would place more focus on Cwmhiraeth who seems to be simply in this to bait Fram. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Historically 'Fuck off' has not been treated by either admins or arbcom as a personal attack. It being an uncivil way of saying 'go away'. A personal attack has generally been treated as an attack on the person, not just mild incivility (which doesnt merit comment removal). 'Fuck off you *insert perjorative*' would be a personal attack. If everyone who has told someone to fuck off was blocked, wikipedia would be a much nicer, but emptier place. -Ninja edit- Ah I missed fram's response above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I have never seen a situation where an admin (emphasis mine) directly telling an editor to fuck off ends well (see User:Beeblebrox/fuck off and paging Beeblebrox for comment). All it takes is one diff to be extracted onto ANI, and we'd be having this conversation over there rather than here, with far more drama and silliness. That is the reason I reverted, not because I found Fram's comment offensive (annoyed - maybe, offended - no; this comment from Mr Farage is far more offensive without going anywhere near any of the usual "bad words"). I said up-front I wasn't going to complain about being reverted; rather I felt it would help keep the peace at WT:DYK a bit. TRM is right that there is a problem with Cwmhiraeth indiscriminately putting hooks into prep without understanding the subject matter, which is the more substantial issue that needs to be addressed; however, comments like this are not going to help resolve that. Ritchie333 10:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think something is a personal attack, then don't revert with WP:NPA as edit summary: such incorrect edit summaries also don't help to keep the peace or resolve anything (not saying that you didn't try to calm things down and prevent escalation, only that your approach wasn't the right one either, compared to what OID had already done; I do believe that your intentions were good). Fram (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)