Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 104

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105Archive 106→Archive 110

Unblocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ritchie333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per the WP:AN Thread

Accept reason:

Per the clear consensus (permalink) at AN to unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Finally... some sense! Jeni (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Took the liberty of correcting the permalink. Favonian (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

About time too. It's a shame that you'll never get an apology for those who accused you of lying and those who shamefully mistreated and harassed you. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll step back from anything concerning this going forward
"Fab-u-lous, darling!"

It's a shame this was handled in such a poor unprofessional manner, Glad to see you've been unblocked :), Also thank you for taking the time to improve the O2 Victoria Warehouse Manchester article - Not that you need me to tell you but you've done a fantastic job with it, Anyway happy editing. –Davey2010Talk 11:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to mend fences and feelings now. I think our project has seen more than enough spite and anger over the last few months. — Ched (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, alternatively, perhaps a week's worth of rescuing articles from WP:CSD might be more appropriate? And if no-one gets hurt, we could reduce the sentence to three days. Note PMC has said above: "I'll step back from anything concerning Ritchie going forward." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou Swarm for agreeing to do the appeal and to Thryduulf for closing it. Now, what I would really like is Template:Did you know nominations/O2 Victoria Warehouse Manchester, and for someone in WP:GM (if there's anyone actually left on the project who hasn't quit or is blocked) to get a free contemporary photo of the venue, as I can't find one on Geograph. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ritchie! How many days do we have for that DYK? (I also guess we could get some extra days, in the circumstances.) I made 5 nominations yesterday, one ITN nom, one peer review nom, and will have guests in a short while, need to get food going. Another great person died ... - that will come first, and I bet I have a DYK nom of my own which needs to be done today. Happy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Glad to see you again, Ritchie! --valereee (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: The article was created on 15 October, so the week's deadline for nominating is tomorrow. I was going to do a hook along the lines of "Did you know that the neighbours complained about the noise at the 02 Victoria Warehouse Manchester?" However, I'd rather somebody else actually created the nomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I will try, but have a nom due today, and the article is not yet long enough, and three planned for tomorrow one of which is yours (already on my user page). I managed to find enough refs to make Erhard Eppler appear on the Main page, makes me so proud: a politician wo is regarded as a visionary for environment, oppose atomic waepons, peace! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I've got three Green Men nominated, so I don't want to be too greedy and stick all the queues with my stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been away for about a week, but I'm glad to see how this was resolved. And of course, welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: It seems the general consensus is that people want me to stay. By chance, I happened to look at the work and essays of Geogre this week, a Wikipedian who was "constructively dismissed" when I was still married with kids living at home (and hence not having hours of free time available to writing articles for free encyclopedias), who seems to have been kicked about like I have recently. I would probably get on with and see eye to eye with him if he was still around. In particular, User:Geogre/Civility is a very well written and thoughtful essay, that still applies over ten years later. In the meantime, I am just burying my head in mainspace and getting on with writing things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ashford International railway station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ashford International railway station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pkbwcgs -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Railway Battle of Hastings

Hi, have you seen this?

  • Weight, R.A.H. (June 1951). "The Railway Battle of Hastings". The Railway Magazine. Vol. 97, no. 602. Westminster: Tothill Press. pp. 407–8.

Also informing Mjroots. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't. Is it a 100th anniversary of the Marshlink line? My local library has back copies of The Railway Magazine but because they've cut opening hours it's very difficult to find time to do anything much than go in and borrow books. They have a copy of Butt's station guide but it's reference only; I keep cribbing dates off it so often, that I think I need to buy my own copy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Cheapest from NY @ c. £21 incl. postage [1]. FYI. ——SerialNumber54129 15:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not about the centenary, although the article was written around that time. It mainly concerns the opening of the line from Ashford and the hostilities that arose, such as the LBSCR agent who "was marooned in his office for some time, and his gas supply was cut off". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I was certainly aware about various shenanigans between the SER and the LBSCR, particularly over the Marshlink route, but not the specifics. If the library has it, I'll have to check it out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Teen Titans Go! episodes Revisited

You may kindly wish to unprotect the gates to this CN (Cartoon Network) related list which was previously declined by Deepfriedokra. Protecting sysop Courcelles has been dormant since August 23. It WILL survive being unlocked. Night,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa Specht for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Specht is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Specht until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: This needs to go on User talk:Tjla12 - they wrote the article, I just fixed up bits of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I think Twinkle automatically put it on yours - will copy and paste it over there, cheers. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
(tps) Twinkle seems to have been a bit funny of late. It recently completely messed up one of my nominations. Reyk YO! 11:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Possibly, but in this case Twinkle was not to blame because the current incarnation was created by Ritchie333 and Twinkle had no way of knowing that there was another draft somewhere. Regards SoWhy 11:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
That's because I couldn't do the general admin-related fixes I wanted to because some jobsworth admin might have blocked me :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Green Man, Blackheath

On 29 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Green Man, Blackheath, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Bowie's first gig as lead singer was at the Green Man, Blackheath? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Green Man, Blackheath. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Green Man, Blackheath), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Green Man. With banhammer.

.... and there's more, my friend, where that came from! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thurstonfield Lough

Thanks for removing the text. However, the original is apparently from 1983[2] (reused in a council text from 2013) and considerably longer than the enwiki text, which indicates that we copeid them, not the other way around. Furthermore, the original editor has a history of copyvios. Can you please revdel every version of the history until your edits fom today? Fram (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It was only idle speculation on my part of it being a reverse copyvio anyway, and in any case reducing it to a stub (with some sources) with an actual claim of notability (being an SSSI) that was missing from the original was the best course of action in my view. Also, this is long-standing vandalism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Holly Butcher concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Holly Butcher, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It's been ages (well, a few weeks) since I've done the Megalibrarygirl whistle, but ..... *phweeeeeeep* Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I'll look at it. If she had a legacy that should get it over the one event issue. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
There have been a couple of additional news sources this year that refer back to her death, but it's kind of tenuous. Then again, bios of women are your speciality, I just gnome away at railway stations. :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we should keep in draft or userspace. It's possible her legacy will continue. If so, it'll pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ashford International railway station

The article Ashford International railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ashford International railway station 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 Pkbwcgs -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Ritchie333,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 807 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Never too late!

I just want to say thank you for the initial work you did on the page Maurice Gaffney back in 2016! Mad to think it's 3 years ago. I was new to Wikipedia and was making loads of mistakes but thought, hey, this dude is notable enough! Obviously I didn't make it seem like so but due to your relentless sourcing and dedication you saved the page. I never thanked you for being such a fantastic contributor who stumbles across a random page and immediately swings into action to save it from deletion. Three years late, but thank you :) Eolais|Talk|Contribs 18:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"Alice Cleaver (Q2646855)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alice Cleaver (Q2646855). Since you had some involvement with the Alice Cleaver (Q2646855) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tavix: Fixed ;-). For those playing at home, my involvement was moving the page to a more appropriate title. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. But, if your only involvement is from a page move, then it's not eligible for G7: For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. I'm not complaining since I've nominated it for deletion, just an FYI in case you weren't aware. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I would have used R2 at the time I moved it (it's not a reasonable search term that anyone would type in), but I couldn't really justify doing it retrospectively, and delete per WP:IAR is just asking for trouble. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hon. Mary Gwendoline Emmott

"D'ye ken John Peel?" "... well I got a fascinating new 7" from Melt Banana this week, but I'm not in the mood to play it just yet, so here's Teenage Kicks again, brilliant....."

I ended up looking up the Peerage and was slightly astonished to discover her husband's name was Home Peel. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 20:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought he might be related to Sir Robert Peel but I can't see the connection. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Great to see an appearance by the late great Mr Ravenscroft. I wonder did you catch this week's Paxo Show? Was very surprised to see a question about cleavage! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Eduard von Grützner Falstaff

Second to the post previously stated, how can an image of "Eduard von Grützner Falstaff" be a valid and not bogus presentation of "Ritchie333" if Wikipedia is to be a place for truthful and not deceiptful information. What is the relationship with "Ritchie333" and and image of "Eduard von Grützner Falstaff?" The truthful answer is: none.Starweavergroup (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of O2 Victoria Warehouse

Hello! Your submission of O2 Victoria Warehouse at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Green Man, Leytonstone

On 8 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Green Man, Leytonstone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two men who plotted to assassinate King George I were arrested in the Green Man public house in 1722? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Green Man, Leytonstone. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Green Man, Leytonstone), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

AC questions

Hi Ritchie, I saw you added then removed a question for me, but if this *is* something you would like an answer for I'm happy to provide one here, if you'd like. Thanks, Fish+Karate 12:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I misinterpreted something you said (I think you were talking about a general principle, rather than me specifically), checked other contributions from you and concluded I had no concerns about you being an Arb. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

EFRFA

Sorry if I jumped the gun. I didn't see the red notice. Well... I said I was enthusiastic. :-P - MrX 🖋 13:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Did I say how very glad I am that you are back? I mean I know I said it, but please read it again with emphasis on very. :) SusunW (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

October
... with thanks from QAI

Support that! And don't want to join the below, for an edit we can't even see. You are a good member of the cabal of the outcasts, Ritchie, like Br'er (banned OTD 7 years ago), Eric, ... - would get sad by listing more. More musings on my talk: "go on with life ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being back to article work, and nice that you did the latest DYK nom yourself! Click on "October" for our latest - quite great - music, - the critic (link to review at the bottom) had goose bumps in the end, imagine, first word in the header "Gänsehaut" ;) - A friend took shots from closer up, but I need to convince him to upload them. Actually, they are quite like the lead image of the choir which he also took. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom. - As he can't stand, how about you? I believe that victims of enforcement would be the better arbs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Today, I felt I had to something on the tags for Ingo Maurer, but there was RL, and I returned finding you worked on it! Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Today, I noticed that you supported per me, which would make me feel good if you hadn't changed your mind ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Tower Bridge

I'd like to try and help you get Tower Bridge to GA, but I think it needs some work particularly in the final few sections, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes so early in my time here. Whoever added those last two sections in particular, which would need to be radically reworked or got rid of, must have thought that they had merit. Dr Horncastle (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's nowhere near ready for a GA nomination (and would be quickfailed if anyone tried it), it's more an article that we should strive to improve towards GA as a general benefit for the encyclopedia, if you get my drift. I haven't even thought about structure yet - the first step is to just get everything verifiable from third party sources (which typically shows you what should go in an article as opposed to what is already there).Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll leave it to you then. Dr Horncastle (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I still have a big old stack of books from when I was writing the articles on the other bridges, if you want them. I intentionally left out London Bridge and Tower Bridge; the former because I didn't fancy trying to combine articles on nine separate bridges into a single page, and the latter because I didn't fancy the inevitable backlash when I removed that awful image that somehow has "featured picture" status despite the photographer somehow managing to find a camera angle that omitted just about every noteworthy feature of Tower Bridge. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent: I guess by the "awful image" you mean this one. If so, I agree completely and I have had no complaints since removing it. It was a very poor choice for lead image IMHO. Anyway, if I get to Pendrel's Oak tomorrow, I will remember to bring a rucksack as Philafrenzy always brings books to give away, and occasionally it's one I want. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Nobody does tantrums like Commons does tantrums[citation needed]
(....another serious bit of Yanking)
This is the one I had in mind, which was somehow flagged as adding significantly to its accompanying article despite managing to omit the bascule mechanisms, the glass-bottomed upper walkway, the way in which the structure was designed to blend with the Tower, the uniquely narrow roadway, the curving pavements, any of the three unique views (the modern City rising over the Tower, City Hall against the river, a clear down-river view of the Isle of Dogs) for which Tower Bridge is the only ground-level vantage point, HMS Belfast, the coloured illuminations of the four other City bridges—in short, every single thing that makes Tower Bridge distinctive, all while simultaneously failing to include anything that gives a sense of scale (a double-decker crossing the bridge is the traditional one) so viewers have no sense at all of how large it is. (All the "this is an extremely high resolution image" guff on the file description page also yanks my chain, come to that. 9462×4734 (44 mpx) isn't some kind of super-professional resolution which us mere peasants couldn't hope to replicate but the resolution of a decent-quality phone camera.) When the Commons folks realise you've removed it, that's when the tantrums will start, as "not in use in any articles" means automatic loss of Featured Picture status and nobody does tantrums like Commons does tantrums. ‑ Iridescent 15:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
And that sounds like a serious bit of yanking. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Judging by the indentation you're offering the books to me rather than to Ritchie333? I'm sure that he could make far better use of them than I ever would; I was just offering to help, nothing more. I'll see what I might be able to do elsewhere. Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
True; probably worth not attracting too much attention. ——SN54129 21:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Attention to what? Dr Horncastle (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Comfy woollen footwear. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Castles can be chilly places, even horny ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Owch. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC) "I doubt Eric cares about grudges like that"
Wow, what a huge surprise that was... P-K3 (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Green Man, Ashbourne

Hello! Your submission of Green Man, Ashbourne at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

RfA

The aspersions at that RfA are unhinged, and admin action needs to be taken. It is worse than sad, Ritchie - we even have the comments of a sock that should be redacted. They are trying to destroy a good person and something must be done. Atsme Talk 📧 19:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The RfA has turned into a train-wreck; I did make a legitimate point to GRuban that badgering your opposers at RfA always ends in tears, but even so I think the amount of discussion on this issue has been just downright depressing. I know Gerda is unhappy about me striking my support (which I have just undone, even though it won't pass I might as well take ownership of my thoughts and views); equally Sagaciousphil has been incredibly helpful, not just with work with articles on-wiki, but with some off-wiki projects, and I've shared a beer with Cassianto and Schrocat and I'd hate to fall out with them. Anyway, since I've placed a view in the debate I probably shouldn't take any action. A notice on WP:BN for a 'crat to do something is probably best, and I see that Xeno has taken action. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Yee-ha, pardn'r! Full steam ahead at RfA!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
And people say we don't need more bureaucrats. –xenotalk 20:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Thank for the ping, Ritchie, and no way you'd not be welcome for sharing a beer whatever you decide ;) - It was GRuban who found the welcome image for me, DYK? And many more for Melitta Muszely, a treasure, hidden in the category for the opera, - will ask to move them to separate folder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I need to do a QPQ for a DYK that's hanging at the moment; I did look through some of yours the other day but they seemed to all be in mid-review. Regarding 'crats, I'm just going to put these here and see what people think : 1, 2, 3, 4. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Cullen no question, for me. The others look ok too. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
(ec) If I may, I do it in this more quiet corner: George, or anybody watching and capable, please look at [3] and make a new commons cat "Category:Hoffmanns Erzählungen (Komische Oper Berlin)", adding the cat to all images from the performance, clearly marked by George. Perhaps images could be moved to the German title of the opera, because the performance was not in English ;) - after ec: Thanks for the reminder that I have to nominate Template:Did you know nominations/Dixit Maria today, and Template:Did you know nominations/Real Monasterio de Santo Tomás tomorrow! I better get to real work ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wateringbury brewery

You reverted the text about this brewery without checking your facts. I don't need a source - I live there. You have used a years old source to state the brewery still exists when I drive past the site every day and know it's a housing estate. Check an aerial photo of the site if you still don't believe it.

I made an update to fix an error and you put the error back in. Not very good, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayser100 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert it, I changed it to something else. The problem is just because you know what's true, somebody looking in the article in ten years' time won't. On several occasions I have tried to find sources for things added in 2007/2008 that I just can't fact check anymore. If no reliable source has written about the housing estate, that means it's not important to mention in a worldwide encyclopedia, any more than the block of flats in the space once occupied by the Green Man, Blackheath. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Screw it...

...That's funny as heck. I'm in a public place right now, and I almost literally LOL'ed, hitting my head on the floor. Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That's the unseen power of Bishzilla for you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Green Man, Ashbourne dyk

Hey Ritchie, not sure you were properly pinged, so Template:Did you know nominations/Green Man, Ashbourne. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I did notice, I was just going to suggest an actual alt to go with Yoninah's suggestion; I just haven't got round to doing it yet :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Mocked

Ritchie333, I was wondering if you could take a look at the ALT2 hook here, which was added after you gave a tick to the nomination, to see whether it also meets with your approval in terms of sourcing and other checks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This seems really out of character. Whom did Christ mock? EEng 21:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Del and Rodney. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

WT:ACN

Hi Ritchie, I've reverted your edit at ACN, since it restored disruptive material for which another editor was blocked. I'm initiating a discussion for the committee to review my edit, and will let you know if my action is reversed. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

How brave. CassiantoTalk 18:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There's nothing strange in having a group of administrators block a productive editor who causes them some embarrassment by asking them an awkward question surrounding their conduct. The truth hurts I suppose. CassiantoTalk 20:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I actually thought that what Ritchie said there was a thoughtful point, whatever one might believe of what came before. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Where's the disruption? It's a talk page. CassiantoTalk 22:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@L235: I wanted to try and calm down the division between everybody. The original reversion and block of Giano started a noticeboard thread; these generally create dramah and are worth avoiding. While there was consensus to block Giano, his original point was worth mentioning. What are we going to do with FAs appearing on the main page when the main editor is blocked or retired? Eric can't come back until he files an unblock request himself to Arbcom. I don't think unblocking him is going to happen, so lets discuss what we can do about FAs and TFAs. We can defer a TFA if there aren't enough main editors around, and FAs generally get delisted if nobody is around to maintain them (eg: Wikipedia:Featured article review/AC/DC/archive2). That's a shame but when you look at the history of a good article, you tend to find the bulk of the work has been done by 1-2 editors. A truly crowdsourced article doesn't cut it, because everybody assumes somebody else is going to do the hard work of collating everything together.

Anyway, so rather than just revert Giano on sight, let's take the central point and make a discussion out of it. It's a compromise between those two sides and will hopefully calm things down. I didn't interpret the content reverted as harassment or a personal attack (though it was not very well phrased and incivil) as the comment from EEng was also reverted, who is not blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

For the record I had no objection to the removal of my comment, as I'd made the point before – in response, of course, to earlier assertions of Giano's point, so the removal of both parties' reiterations effected no net change to the bottom-line score determining who's winning. EEng 00:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Ritchie. Of course it was not your comment, standing alone, that I was seeking to revert. I had considered whether to include that in my original note, but assumed that would be evident. While WT:ACN isn't the ideal venue for this kind of discussion, we've let it be used for numerous similar discussions over the last few years, and I'm not planning on reverting you if you start a discussion about balancing factors re editors who cause disruption and do good work. As I'm sure you know, monitoring arbitration-space comments is a difficult balance; non-arbs/clerk admins generally don't feel comfortable enforcing our norms and policies in arbitration space, even though we encourage them to, and when arbs/clerks take enforcement action there are always cries of censorship. Let me know if you have any more questions, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I have a question, L235: Where is the "initiation of discussion for the committee to review [your] edit"? I've looked, naturally, but I can't seem to find it. If you've since had second thoughts in light of my pointing out that such a disclosure could undermine Giano's initial block by Berean Hunter and has the potential to make you all look rather silly and two-faced, then fine, you're only human and we all make mistakes. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. CassiantoTalk 08:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I submitted my edit for review on clerks-l, where a consensus was reached that it was appropriate. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 09:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
No link? No surprise. CassiantoTalk 09:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for being rude, but actually you are all mistaken. It is clearly impossible that @L235: could mean that ordinary editors cannot express their opinions about Arbcom business or any other nonsense that arbcom might discuss. I am sure that L235 is a nice person and did not mean to say any such thing, but merely mis-typed. You are all encouraged to continue to express your opinions in the appropriate places, one of which is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. For the avoidance of doubt: I've been threatened with being blocked if I made such edits myself, but, there you go. MPS1992 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

RUN iN RED

I want to point out that the article Run in Red that you A7-ed and salted (after A7ing by User:Deb, and earlier AfD of Run in Red (band) by User:Yngvadottir) has been recreated with different capitalization. The editors involved are similar to those in the earlier AfD. It's possible that the band has since achieved notability, but the runaround of the block is concerning.

I want to disclose that I came upon this upon seeing the AfD mentioned on the talk page of users involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Killick. This discussion got rather heated, to say the least, and it is this that led me to look at the said talk pages. In short, I may not be sufficiently WP:AGFing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted it per WP:G4, as the latest version is not as well developed as the one deleted at AfD, and has less sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Just have to say...

This was refreshing to read. Thanks for that. Home Lander (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem. They created a sandbox page that recommended violence against transgenders, with no evidence of wanting to write an encyclopedia. About 10 years ago, I kicked a bunch of people off a forum making fun of my trans friend, which upset me, and I don't want to see anyone else do that. It's disgusting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333, yep, it was me who found and tagged the sandbox page. That stuff has no room here... or anywhere for that matter. Home Lander (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me to create the page for British Herald https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:British_herald Design.ch (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Carla Denyer AfD

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carla Denyer as keep. I thought this might go to no consensus, but was surprised at keep. If you feel the arguments support keep, I respect your decision, but your closing summary seemed to me not to summarise the debate very well. You wrote, "Essentially, nobody except the nominator and one minor comment suggested the article should be deleted." What I see is 3 for delete (me as nominator, Ralbegen and Tom Morris -- Tom Morris didn't vote "delete" but concludes "Notability looks doubtful at the moment") and 3 for keep (Alarichall as article creator, Deryck C, Montanabw).

I don't know who you meant by the "one minor comment": Ralbegen was fairly brief (but gave reasoning), but then Deryck C and Montanabw were just as brief. It seemed a bit dismissive to use that wording. Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you check the sources that Deryck and Alarichall listed? They supplied them in detail, suggesting evidence the article could be improved, and as the only other advocate for deletion said "A lack of significant coverage of Denyer. Local sources are worth considering, but there isn't significant coverage of Denyer as a person or as a politician. WP:TOOSOON" without commenting on the sources, the "keep" !voters had the better argument as they went into greater depth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I did. (Deryck didn't list any sources. The two Guardian articles Alarichall listed were already in the article when I nominated it; I examined the BBC piece and the two local media pieces after they were mentioned.) I don't personally think those sources satisfy WP:GNG's "significant coverage" criterion and come under WP:1E, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS, under the overarching framework of WP:NPOL/WP:POLOUTCOMES. However, you are the AfD closer and I respect you made a decision. If you feel the arguments were stronger for keeping and the sources given meet WP:GNG, OK. Thank you for explaining your reasoning further here.
My point was that your wording when you closed the AfD strikes me as a poor summation of a 3/3 split and that "one minor comment" is an unfortunate way to characterise input on one side, implying it was less reasoned or considered than short comments on the other side. But I do not wish to press this point. Bondegezou (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to know more about the revert of my Keith Moon biography change. When I read the article I struggled over the name of Neil Borland and the fact that he was killed. This was really too astonishing for me and made it very hard for me to continue reading. I tried to provide more context for this proper name and added a link to the deceased. To be honest, I think the edit did not actually make the page worse and could have stayed. -- Marcuse7 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marcuse7: Firstly, a revert of a good faith edit (which yours was) is never personal, it's just a difference of opinion between two (or more) editors. Anyway, the idea behind the revert is that I wouldn't expect a reader to click on that link, only to be taken to somewhere else on the same page. That's especially true of mobile and tablet browsing, where you tend not to have a preview of where the link will take you in advance. I believe chapter and verse is at MOS:OVERLINK, which says "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on". If you like "Principle of least astonishment", be sure to check out "Principle of some astonishment" for a counter-point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift response and apologies for my late reply. I think that the article is in fact a bit underlinked. When I look up the MOS:UNDERLINK section in Wikipedia's Manual of Style I read that "links should be created for [...] proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers". I think that Neil Borland was unfamiliar to me here. You also mention the WP:SELFRED issue about the intrapage link. Please consider that an intrapage link might not be a redirect. Then, a redirect to a different section is deemed acceptable if it "facilitates navigation in particular on long articles". I read Wikipedia on a mobile device which does not allow for scanning a long article quickly. Mobile devices seem to be the majority of devices used (see [entry] to compare platforms used for reading this article). -- Marcuse7 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I think your best option is to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking, as that's where more people who spend time looking at these sort of issues hang out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:Thank you for pointing me to the WP:MOSLINK page, we are still discussing the issue. Am I right to assume the issue is about a link pointing to the same page, i.e. a WP:SELFRED? (That would mean it is not about placing a 23rd link in the article lead.) Marcuse7 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Rye railway station (East Sussex)

On 25 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rye railway station (East Sussex), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both Rye railway station (pictured) and its signal box are Grade II listed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rye railway station (East Sussex). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rye railway station (East Sussex)), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Rye railway station photographs

Hello,

Regarding this reversion, please note that the image's levels (brightness, saturation, vibrancy, colour balance, etc.) can be adjusted. I'm unsure of what you mean by "more grainy" (as I see very little grain), but that property can be tweaked as well. There's plenty to work with, given that the resolution is 6,960 × 4,640 pixels (163 times higher than that of Rye Station 01.jpg). —David Levy 04:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@David Levy: Well this is just my personal view, but as well as the brightness and contrast levels, the viewing angle of the station is more appropriate in the original photograph, as it matches what people see when walking towards the station from the town centre. Would it help to start a discussion on the talk page? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_104&oldid=1073382727"