User talk:Ritchie333

Keeping an eye on stuff. Meanwhile, here is some music.[1]

"I'm not a cat. I'm a Texas lawyer!"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Elizabeth Whitton

Hi Ritchie, I'm curious how you think this is a case of WP:HEY. As I noted in the AFD, barely any of the added sources even mention the subject of the article. They do a great job of establishing WRENS as a notable group, but do not provide coverage to her. The !keep votes were remarkably lacking in policy: Highlights of the keep !voters included If you want to say the actual policy itself is against me, well, it is, so that's fair and [I would consider] the entire body of 74,000 women code breakers at Bletchley Park as a group [notable] and the sources look good, and this is an interesting biogrpahy. and t I have been hoping that independent/reliable sources would emerge during this discussion to specifically verify Whitton's notability; otherwise there seems to be a risk of WP:SYNTH with the existing sources. When I pressed the WP:IAR !voters, not one actually provided sources for Whitton's article—suggesting that while they may have cited IAR, their real argument was akin to WP:ILIKEIT. I could see a no consensus, but where's the policy based rationale for keeping? Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with Eddie891. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the article except to note that it was improved, and after the final relist following improvements, more people suggested keeping the article as the potential for improvement was there. And that's kind of deletion policy 101 - "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I'm surprised at your comments, given you appeared to file the AfD with regret at being able to unimprove it. (cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Renee Kendall) Perhaps you could argue the case for "no consensus", but that still involves the article being kept anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'm well aware of 'deletion policy 101' and I'd have loved to withdraw, but you seem to be missing the point that I made at the AFD and again here: there wasn't notability established. The only source added after I nominated the article that even mentioned Whitton was the transcript of an interview with her. The latter !votes made no specific commentary on sourcing or the article and several had... interesting logic as I've mentioned above. Where do you see the improvement or consensus that it could be improved? And then once considering that only one source providing coverage of Whitton was added (the notability situation wasn't significantly changed throughout the discussion), what's the justification for giving more weight to later !votes than earlier ones? Normally, I see no difference in no-consensus vs. keep, but here I'd like to re-add the notability tag since I see no establishment of notability and I don't think we should be in the practice of lending much weight to votes that, to me, show a poor understanding of policy (I'd refer you back to my original comment for examples). I also certainly don't think this is a case of WP:HEY and would argue it's a mistake to cite it as such. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross purposes here a bit. I gave more weight to the later !votes after the article was expanded because nobody else refuted them. If I had seen a bunch of later !votes like "Delete per Eddie891, who is right because of 'x'", the close would have been different. But they didn't happen. Once you get past the basic inclusion and verifiability policies, what counts as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" tends to depend on who turns up for the debate - that's just the way things go. Look at all those cricketer AfDs, for instance.

Anyway, with suggestions of moving forward, you can tag the article for improvement if you wish, or you can file another AfD in, say, 3-6 months if you don't think enough progress has been made, or I can re-open the AfD for another week's discussion. I'm amenable to any of these. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Eddie891 here, the later additions to the page didn't actually add anything in the way of SIGCOV in RS, just a lot of no-specific commentary about the WRENS. I am surprised by your comment that "I gave more weight to the later !votes after the article was expanded because nobody else refuted them." Had I know that that would be the case I would have made stronger comments than I already did. Mztourist (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

When somebody makes an unsolicited comment on my talk page about advocating the deletion of articles on women, and uses acronyms such as "SIGCOV" and "RS" without defining them, I tend to tune out and ignore them. Eddie is a reasonable chap and I'm sure we will reach an understanding in due course. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Some good points there, Ritchie and you're absolutely right. I'm happy to revisit in in 6 months or so— or not. When an AFD like this becomes something I feel super strongly about the outcome in, it's probably time to step back for a breath of air. Anyways, cheers and just a note that I do think you should be closing AFDs. Nobody can please everybody, but on the whole I think you come closer than most. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891, There does seem to be something in the water at AfD at the moment, with editors getting thoroughly brassed off with each other for either a) deleting stuff wantonly without thinking about it or b) arguing to keep an article without specifying any evidence (depending on which side of the debate you're on). I looked at closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Skinner (surgeon) and saw mud pies being thrown about from several longstanding editors, and I hope somebody comes along and makes sense of it. Part of the problem in the debate is I don't really see anyone who particularly cares about what state that article is in, as very distinct from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hughes & Kettner where it's pretty obvious that that's the sort of article I am interested in and would want to improve anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, something about AFD seems to bring out the worst in a lot of people (myself included, at times). I sometimes wonder whether it's more trouble than it's worth to bring an article like Skinner to AfD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hugues & Kettner edits

My old Leslie

My old Leslie??
Surely you can't be serious...
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley!
Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, wow, very impressive work on Hughes_&_Kettner, I'm pretty much amazed by all the references you got, seriously! Just one point: the so called "Red box" is not at all a Leslie emulation! It only a speaker emulator/simulator (see http://hughes-and-kettner.com/products/redbox-5/red-box-5/ ). The Leslie emulator is the "Rotosphere".

Rishi333 says "edit out to help out"

But please keep 333m apart at all times

I'll try to fix that when I have some time (unless you do it before me). Thanks for all these edits anyway! Barakafrit2 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Barakafrit2, Hmm, do you mean it's not an "emulator" as in it doesn't have rotating horns and drums? Or simply an "emulator" as it gives you an overall sound as an effect rather than a drop-in replacement for the real thing? I've been playing Hammond organ in groups for over 30 years now, originally playing a real one with a Leslie, but nowadays I use the Nord Stage (my back thanks me for it!). I've been toying with the idea of getting one of the newer Hammonds like the SK-X, except I really need a bottom manual with at least 73 weighted keys and preferably more as I do a combination of piano, organ and synth, often at the same time. Anyway, I digress.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it true that these days they call you "Rick Wokeman"... or is it "Lord of the Balham pub circuit"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

At the moment it's more like Sir Not-appearing-in-this-pub (because of lockdown). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that like WP:NOTHERE-but-with-a-free-bar? At least you're not nowhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Red Box is a simple speaker emulator, not "sound effect" at all, it is useful to get directly on a mixing console/recorder the sound of the amp as if it was played through a cabinet (think, a 4x12 inch Marshall), but without any volume. I think inside, its is just a bunch of passive filters, designed to reproduce the frequency response of the speaker and cabinet combination. Barakafrit2 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

2a00:23c4:2a09:bf00:1c5b:9060:8c49:5ad6

Can user:2a00:23c4:2a09:bf00:1c5b:9060:8c49:5ad6 please be blocked asap for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent, Done; I went with "Clearly not here to contribute to an encyclopedia" as I saw vandalism and threats. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

2021

Thank you for what you said to Flyer22. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think what I remember most about Flyer22 is she could change my mind about something and make me think, "hmm yeah, perhaps we should go with that". It's never nice to hear about somebody younger than you passing away. :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, It's not really my thing (and I suspect it's not yours either) but I just saw a complaint about User:Georgeof1001/Cake and Cunnilingus Day being unsuitable for mainspace, and thought "if there's one editor who I could trust to actually take the subject seriously and find proper sources, it's Flyer22". Hey ho. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree Garden

Absolutely! I do my daily exercise now of converting refs for Stockhausen's works - today Adieu of all titles - in memory of Jerome Kohl, - thanks to your initiative! Another one who died on the Main page today, Vera Wülfing-Leckie, - a red link in the Deaths list, imagine. I went to the garden some great day in October 1996, remembered. Do you do FAC reviews? - BWV 1 is in need. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I do the odd comment, but I haven't really done an in-depth FA review for ages - the best people that are seem to have either retired or banished to the "cabal of the outcasts". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Understand all too well ;) - Two reviewers made the odd comment and supported. One reviewer is completely new to the subject and had good questions. One reviewer is familiar with the topic and had excellent questions. Image review fine. One source reviewer wants sources uniformly, - a source was added which has "location", mine have not, and where do I get it from in online books?? Another source reviewer questioned 4 sources, and accepted 3, because the last reviewer doesn't think the forth is reliable. It's however the source on which the article was built ages ago, and was only used for recordings. L threw it out out and left "citation required tags", in an article that is linked to from Bach Digital! I - in some horror - split the recordings to a separate article. L demanded merging back. Finally L wrote a section in the review, demanding a "reception" section. Source reviewer 1 asks when the article will get stable, and the delegate wants to see an end. End of rant, just explaining what "in need" translates to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bernie Sanders mittens meme

Hello! Your submission of Bernie Sanders mittens meme 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik ^(talk) 17:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Vintage Keyboards Pics

Hi Ritchie333, I've answered back on my talk page. Docrobbie (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Theatre Alba

Hi. Saw your decline of the A7, but was confused by the rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, Basically, if an article cites reliable sources (and AFAIK The Stage is a reliable source for the theatrical world), it can't be deleted per A7. You can still challenge the notability at other venues such as PROD or AfD. My plain and simple guide has further information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I never knew that. I thought that it was a simple matter of no claim of significance, regardless of whether or not it was sourced. Good to know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, I prefer the explanation I have at the guide - which is "can anyone improve this". Well in this case, the article cites this piece in The Scotsman which talks extensively about Theatre Alba and various plays it has produced over the last 40 years. Is that enough to survive AfD? I don't know, but the fact I can talk about how to expand the article, with proper adherence to WP policies, means it's well out of the "blatant" ballpark of genuine A7s like "Timmy is my pet cat. He likes chasing mice and has black and grey stripes." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool. To me, that's more in line with my understanding, is that you felt it made an argument for significance. I had felt that article lent more credence to the notability of the director. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I saw you cleaned up an old peer review tag on the WikiProject Musical instruments. Good idea. I haven't been touching most of the page, pending the work I've been doing, to assess backdated/unassessed articles. Also writing a fair amount. I don't know if you are still working on the project, but I hope so.Jacqke (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Jacqke, Yup, should have Vox Continental up for GA soon-ish; just need to mine another book source first. I'm beavering away on some of the other vintage organs and keyboards around that era too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well that is great. I may ask for an opinion later, when I try to improve an article beyond B status. Jacqke (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD on Gina D's Kids Club

You closed the AfD on Gina D's Kids Club as no consensus. I was expecting you to close it as keep because there were two keep votes and no other votes. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Cupper52, I discarded your vote of "Keep, is notable" because it is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions that gives no information to the closing administrator. That leaves the nominator advocating delete, one editor advocating keep, and no other comments after several relists. Hence, no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Not best practice

Should you post be changed like this? Were you notified? I think your version was better, per NOTAVOTE since you explained you also considered the strength of arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Not cool, AntonioMartin what were you thinking? SQL^{Query me!} 02:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, No I wasn't notified, and had I spotted AntonioMartin doing that, I might have blocked him from editing the AfD. However, he has now calmed down and filed a deletion review, so the matter is stale. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Vintage Keyboards Pics

Hi Ritchie333, I've added a casual picture that shows the nature of the Gibson G101. I'll take on board the need to do something more formal. Keep up the good work. Docrobbie (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Docrobbie, Ooh, nice! Don't suppose you've got one for the Fender Contempo Organ and a close up of a Vox Continental's drawbars, have you? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"I don't want to be drawn to Chelsea." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, The Contempo shots I have belong to other photographers - however, I'll see if I can get a friend in the US to take a suitable shot of his. Similarly, the best shot I have of an appropriate '65 UK Continental's drawbars needs to be cleared by another friend. I expect that this will all happen. I'll keep you posted. At this stage my publisher requires me not to use the actual shots we used in the book. Docrobbie (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, I've uploaded a file (Vox_Continental_Drawbars.jpg) for your use in the Vox Continental article. The Contempo photo is underway. Regards Docrobbie (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Docrobbie, Great, I've added it to the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I've uploaded a Fender Contempo picture for your use. Fender_Contempo_Combo_Organ.jpg Docrobbie (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I've uploaded a better Vox Continental picture and placed it in the Vox page you're working on. Docrobbie (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Private E-mail

Hello Sir Ritchie333. I sent you an e-mail a few days ago regarding a private matter. I’d like to follow-up and see what you think. I’m looking forward to your private response. Thank you very much.

MyNewPhilosophy (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

MyNewPhilosophy, I've checked. I'll try and reply about the private information, but I think we can discuss Wikipedia content publicly. If you are having problems with getting Draft:Domaine Javier to an acceptable state for review, the best place to ask is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, and additionally for trans women you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright sir. Thank you very much. Figured I’d approach you for a few very good reasons. I’m just so lost at this point. I mean, if you respond to my private e-mail, I could elaborate my frustrations further (which I’m sure you’ll be able to relate to), but I feel like I’ve done the best I could do for all the resources available to me at this time. This is my “passion project,” so I really want it finalized — for the world to be able to see my contribution to the community. MyNewPhilosophy (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Bernie Sanders mittens meme

On 12 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bernie Sanders mittens meme, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bernie Sanders mittens meme has raised nearly $2 million for Vermont charities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Sanders mittens meme. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bernie Sanders mittens meme), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Before they were notable"

"Ja Donald, do ja think non-notable people can wear zes expensive shoes?"

To talk page stalkers (are there any left), have a browse over to Wikipedia:Before they were notable and see if you can think of anyone to add to the list.

Ground rules are :

• The article must have been deleted, or at least had an AfD that didn't close as "keep".
• The subject must be common knowledge to everybody today, to the extent any new deletion tag would be obvious vandalism.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly no longer fully here. But meanwhile, does this include people who nearly got deleted Before they were born?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, Surely the original version of that article fails WP:HAMMER? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah shucks. You didn't say anything about hammers. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you interested in adding politicians? I know a lot of people are amazed that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn't get an article until she won her primary. She was deleted as a G11. P-K3 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree, I'm particularly interested in "world leader" levels, though I have checked relative newcomers like Emmanuel Macron and Jacinda Ardern and they asserted notability from the offset. Even the first cut of Melania Trump clears A7. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I would imagine the vast majority of world leaders have done something notable in the preceding 20 years of Wikipedia's existence that would have met the standards for an article already (even if, like Trump, it wasn't public office).-- P-K3 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, Mr Trump. If only... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was deleted for being promotional and while I am not sure that I would have accepted that G11 I don't think notability is a defence to an otherwise valid G11 deletion request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Thanks for starting the collection at Wikipedia:Before they were notable; that was a fun read! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There's Tiffany Trump, created in 2006, Prod'ded the day after, and then redirected for the next 5 years, and after a day again redirected for a year. And then again revived, but 9 months later or so brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Trump, which closed as, you guessed it, redirect. Revived September 2015, again redirected. Same thing two more times in the next months, and finally gotten her own article in June 2016 (by a sock editor, but that's besides the point).

And then there's Carrie Symonds, which I deleted in December 2017 as a G12, which then got deleted in January 2018 as a G11, and which got deleted in July 2019 and in August 2019 as an A7 speedy!

There must be countless other examples of course. Fram (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about the Bernie Sanders mittens meme drew 6,011 page views (501 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the one of most viewed hooks so far during the month of February and has earned a place on the Best of February list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Contesting your opinion...

Hi Ritchie333, I disagree with your opinion on my proposal to have this article deleted. Why should it matter how long ago that editor retired? An article is an article, and in this case it certainly had reasonable grounds to be deleted. Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hockeycatcat, I’d be interested as to your explanation why. You may find this page useful as you formulate your answer. (Talk page stalkers, we are talking about Susan Lyons). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Ritchie333, even if that article was about a male or someone who identifies by any other gender, I would still consider it for deletion because there's simply not enough information. Also, the layout is all wrong. Shouldn't articles about living/deceased persons have at least an infobox? Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hockeycatcat, That is not a reason for deletion, especially A7 speedy deletion (see User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7). The deletion policy says that articles should only be deleted if they cannot be improved by anybody to acceptable standards and there is no alternative. In this case, her marriage to Jefferson Mays is mentioned in several sources (two of which are now added to the article) and therefore there is an acceptable redirect target (see WP:ATD-R). Therefore, deleting this article would violate core policy. There is no consensus at all about infoboxes; indeed we have seen some horrific disputes in that area (WP:ARBINFOBOX, WP:ARBINFOBOX2) and you are better off staying well away from that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, may I use the fish on myself before you do? If not, you may do so. Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll do it -  Self-trout Hockeycatcat (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the main point is - read the policies and essays I linked to. It'll help you to become a better editor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Please don't suggest that I'm a bad editor. Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hockeycatcat, I don't think anyone is suggesting you are a bad editor. If anything, there is a LOT to learn on wikipedia. It's worth noting that a good practice to get into before nominating an article for deletion, is to follow WP:BEFORE. As you can see now, after the nomination the article has plenty of sourcing, so this did exist. We shouldn't be deleting articles on items that are notable, even if the article is in bad shape. The infobox thing is actually something that isn't important (like at all) in an article, so we wouldn't use it to denote notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski I understand now, I didn't know that the infobox was so insignificant. Thank you for being more friendly than Ritchie333! :-) Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hockeycatcat, Hey! There is nothing unfriendly about constructively suggesting ways you can improve. I think we should all strive to be better editors, including myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, forgive me, I am but a minor. Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of spamming mentions, Hockeycat, it's worth mentioning we don't have any full consensus on if infoboxes are even desirable. Ritchie is one of our best editors, and the information/links provided are very good reading tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hockeycatcat, Forgive me, but I am a parent :-) Let me illustrate my thought processes. Suppose you and your friends are out playing football in a yard somewhere, you kick the ball up to a window ledge with a potted plant, which knocks the plant off the window and smashes on the ground. You didn't mean to destroy the pot plant, and feel quite upset and remorseful about it when somebody comes out and says politely, but firmly to take more care with where you're kicking a ball about. It is kind of like that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Understood, but I am not very athletic.

XfDCloser issue?

Not disputing your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1Lib1Ref (2nd nomination) -- fair is fair. But the mechanical/technical process of closing it seems to have gone off somewhere, because three hours after the fact it's still showing up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. Did you see anything odd popping up when you ran XfDCloser? I've had issues with it myself lately -- it botched a relist a week ago. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs is automatically updated by Mathbot (talk · contribs), which hasn't run since 11:00 UTC, or about an hour before I closed the AfD. It normally runs once an hour, but if it's stalled, give the bot owner a prod. (I did say at the AfD you were the only one who gave a convincing "delete" argument so it makes sense you wouldn't personally object to the way it closed). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RfA

In the current RfA nominated, you frequently use the male pronouns. In all the research I made both on and off-Wiki, before making my simple vote, I never came across one single indication of the candidate's gender. However, it is entirely possible that I missed something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a chat with TJMSmith off-wiki, and he's fine with it. I know what you're getting at, but in this instance I think it's a non-issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess it's just my habit of being pedantic for research and detail ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware of...

Are you aware of this proposal which is preculating? It would further unbundle and I plan to oppose on the grounds that every time we've unbundled we've made RfA harder to pass. Thought you might be interested given your recent comments at RFA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, No, I didn't know about that. That's slightly different from a straight "vandal blocker" role which I interpreted as having the block button on a par with admins. I'll have a read through the talk page and drop my views in. It's a trial unbundle (which implies if fails it can be turned off) and it has the important safety valve that an admin can unilaterally yank the right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's incredible (sorry for dropping by). I can't see it passing. But if it does then it would give a lot of impetus to enabling trusted editors to fix issues on the main page (or pending to go onto main page) for example without having to be an admin. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Preculating"? Is that something to do with waking up and smelling the coffee?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

One point to Martinevans. I am, relative to my level of education, an awful speller. I'm amazed I don't make more such silly mistakes (and/or amazed that they're not pointed out to me more often). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

at leest U got sum educashun. But i oftun get stung. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think they've done a lot of things right. Enterprisey has been quite aggressive at seeking out possible critiques and has worked hard to address what is practical without harming the underlying premise. I do, however, think that any admin can pull the right unilaterally sounds a lot better in theory than in practice. As I expect you know, pulling the user right of someone established enough to pass through the maze of requirements this right requires will have friends and that always makes such actions fraught. I think to TRM's point that there are definitely users who could use that right well and who would have difficulty (or worse) at passing RfA. If I could just give it to them I would. But I worry that it would be yet one more reason for someone to think "I can do what I need with the user rights I have. Why go through the hassle of RfA?" which has, historically, been what has occurred. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Are there any admins who RfA'd in the past year or so who would have looked at this and gone, "Oh. Well, if I can just get that, I don't need to RfA, that's all I needed it for."? Or any who would draw objections from !voters because their Q1 only specified needing the tools because of this kind of vandalism? —valereee (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, The obvious candidate who would make use of this, who'd had a go at RfA in the past year, is 1997kB. I think I even said at the RfA that if we were doing "Request for SPI admin clerks" I'd have no issue, it was all the other stuff that goes on top of being an admin that gave me concern. Then there's L293D, but I think we both want him to do a RfA #2 this year anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So those are editors who didn't get through RfA their first time, rather than admins who might have skipped RfA if this responder userright were an option, if you see what I mean? I get that we also don't want folks who've not gotten through their first RfA to give up on it because they could get this instead, though. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, I guess Shellwood could make use of the right - I don't think they've ever gone in for RfA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Ritchie, we're still talking across one another. What I mean is, of say Hog Farm, John M Wolfson, Jackmcbarn, LuK3, Ajpolino, Eddie891, Red Phoenix, Creffett, Cwmhiraeth, Captain Eek, Lee Vilenski, Cabayi, etc. -- all the folks who've successfully run an RfA in the past year: how many of them would have looked at this tool, weighed it against the stress of RfA, and decided just to go for the tool? Don't want to ping them all to ask them, but of course we could. Maybe it would have been good enough for those who only wanted to help with vandalism? (This was in response to I worry that it would be yet one more reason for someone to think "I can do what I need with the user rights I have. Why go through the hassle of RfA?") —valereee (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of the nominations I was directly involved with would have wanted the tools for just anti-vandalism work. Cwmhiraeth and Lee Vilenski wanted the tools for DYK, Eddie891 for closing AfDs, and John M Wolfson for AfDs and ITN. I wouldn't nominate someone who only did anti-vandalism; the minute they make a mistake, they bite somebody and can't explain themselves out of the situation. For example, Jim1138 and Abelmoschus Esculentus both did automated and anti-vandalism patrolling, they both erroneously assumed a good faith edit was vandalism, repeatedly reverted it, and got blocked for edit warring ... then they retired. I wouldn't have supported either of those at RfA for this reason, and I'd be concerned if they got the proposed tool here. In the scenarios where they got caught violating 3RR, they might have blocked the other party, which is a serious violation of WP:INVOLVED and would get a regular admin raked over the coals. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let me do a quick brain dump to ProcrastinatingReader and spell out my thoughts. Is this solution actually solving a problem? I know Enterprisey has done a data dump, but it's not in a format that can draw simple conclusions yet. I can think of a couple of use cases:

1. An IP hopper replacing the infobox image on a featured article with one of anal sex repeatedly every 2-3 minutes, and copying it onto the talk page of anyone who reverts them, and repeatedly reverting it back until blocked. (Yes, this is a real example and actually happened).
2. A group of IPs all putting nonsense words on a primary school article in rapid fire
3. An IP writing "this article is libellous shit" on a poor quality BLP and going over 3RR to do it
4. An IP writing "In 2021, John and Jane Doe divorced" without a source (assume that the divorce is true). Also the same but sourced to The Sun.
5. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP

Only really the first of those could be considered suitable for the "responder" role; the others are all more nuanced and require a different mix of tools.

How is the tool going to be enforced? I don't want to name names and upset people, but I can think of a few people that log reports at AIV day in, day out, and their quality isn't very good, and I can easily see them blocking good-faith editors. In that situation, I'd yank the user right immediately and give them a stiff talking to, saying they should not consider applying for any further advanced rights until they can convince people they've improved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much both Barkeep and Ritchie for your thoughts here! Much appreciated. Also going to ping in enterprisey, who may be able to answer parts better than I. Regarding AIV quality, enterprisey's data tool is actually pretty powerful. It can also check the AIV reporting accuracy % for a particular user. So I'm thinking a bot can report that into a permissions request (like MusikBot does with PERM request info), along with the number of reports they've filed, to inform the decision process. Second, blocks made with the tool being reported to AIV I think ensures that nothing 'slips under the radar' so-to-speak in the form of peer-review. Even admins aren't subject to that kind of review on their actions, so that could be a pretty big safeguard.

Regarding yanking right, I'm thinking perhaps a provision that any yanked right, regardless of the outcome of the discussion at AN, must still be applied for again via the normal PERM process and get an affirmative consensus to reinstate. I think this may help since the AN discussions of removed rights sometimes focus on whether the single or couple of actions were awful and warranting removal, rather than whether the person should actually be doing the job. So having a consensus discussion on promotion again may be an improvement in that regard. But still, I expect this to be a minority of cases, if ever invoked; there are plenty of competent non-admins.

Regarding making RfA harder, this is not at all an area I have experience in, especially not compared to you both, but isn't this somewhat a lost battle? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year suggests ~20 RfAs successful per year from 2014–, with 10 in 2018. Also not sure I saw any successful counter-vandalism background (alone) RfAs in 2020, so perhaps this won't impact RfA much? It's also still a pretty limited right, and in that sense serves as a reason for people with it to run I think. On a similar vein, I think enterprisey's tool has produced a list of the top accuracy AIV users in the past months - there's some good names in there to consider for nomination regardless of whether this proposal passes I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• 'Scuse me for pokin' my nose in but I am well aware of this proposal as ProcrastinatingReader knows. I am reminded of the time I was the most regular admin at PERM for a couple of years and later, the creator of the NPR right. As anyone who has ever owned or managed an internet forum knows, users are constantly jostling and queuing up to be moderators. The Internet seems to be a magnet for contenders for minor rights and Wikipedia is not spared this phenomenon. But with a couple of subtle differences: While few people are in a hurry to be admins, over 700 have now acquired the NPP right. Although the quality of page patrolling has improved, 90% of the work is done by less than 10% of the 'patrollers', and (except for the recent spurt to get things under control), the backlog got worse. Despite my efforts to convince the people who now run NPP since I handed over that the list of rights holder should be drastically culled, nothing much has happened. It's rare to yank a user right once accorded (unless you're an admin and your name is Kudpung) and this is borne out by the many totally retired admins who come back just once a year to make one edit in order to avoid procedural removal of the bit for inactivity. Obtaining adminship on Wikipedia is a big deal despite any Wiki memes, as this recent discussion demonstrates, and while unbundling has proven successful in some areas, I don't think there are any tools left, particularly the block hammer, that can be safely devolved. RfAs are now so few and far between, it might not be prudent to remove even more of the admin tasks, otherwise admins will become like Bureaucrats: largely inactive veterans with the highest level of authority but with hardly anything to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure at this point that we need to try making it easier to ping an admin, via an IRC channel or whatever, before we open the RfA can of worms. I don't think the proposal has any legs without us being able to say what the outcome of that attempt was. I was going to write something on VPIL about that, but ah, real life. Going back to the proposal, Ritchie's list of examples is a good insight - I was planning to go through the list of "most-reverted" vandals (which are not necessarily those that waited on AIV the longest!) and classifying them by whether they're "actually bad" (i.e. would've been a really easy case for an admin to deal with). And finally, while running the numbers there did seem to be a group of users who aren't active/experienced enough for RfA, but have stellar (perfect, in several cases) AIV accuracy records and conflict-free user talk pages. Of course, just a few people with this permission might not make much of a dent in the problem (although time-of-day has little to do with it, see graphs). Enterprisey (talk!) 03:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creepy Company

Hi Ritchie333. I wanted to send you a note regarding Creepy Company. I see that you closed the AFD for no consensus, but the page fails WP:NCORP. It's an advertisement with no valid independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. I'd like to invite you take a look at the page and re-consider deletion. Best, Megtetg34 ^Talk 10:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Megtetg34: The debate was closed as "no consensus" because after several weeks of open discussion, including relisting twice, one person had suggested keeping the article, while one other suggested deleting, with all arguments about equal with each other. I don't have any opinion on the article or its sources. I would advise you to try and improve the article, and if you get stuck, start a new AfD (which a NC close allows you to do). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crunchy Frog

"WARNING! CONTAINS LARK'S TONGUES IN ASPIC!"

I am unhappy about the close as there was no consensus for merger. Relisting would therefore be better, please. For one thing, we might get more good quips like NYB's "spring surprise". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, I hardly think that's good enough! I think it'd be more appropriate if the AfD bore a great red label: "WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!!!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Divio

Hello Ritchie333, are you able to move the page Divio into the "draft space" please? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DanieleProcida#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Divio . Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieleProcida (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

DanieleProcida, I would prefer to see evidence of some major broadsheet sources, such as the Financial Times, covering Divio, first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I don't quite follow what you mean, sorry. Divio is a software company. But it's listed on the NASDAQ First North stock exchange; is https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=DIVIO%20B%3ASTO or https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=DIVIO%20B:STO the kind of thing you had in mind? DanieleProcida (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

DanieleProcida What I like to do, is to see if I can improve the article myself, using independent third-party sources. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find much myself beyond just mentioning that Divo is a cloud hosting company. By comparison, Amazon Web Services has an extensive and reasonably well-sourced article describing the company's history and architecture basics. And I have software uploaded to GitHub, but I'm not important enough to have a Wikipedia article. All that said, I have restored the page to User:DanieleProcida/Divio so you can retrieve the text, but I think it's unlikely that a draft will be accepted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will see what I can do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieleProcida (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

76.75.120.218

Can user:76.75.120.218 please be blocked ASAP? CLCStudent (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent, I was about to write "I can remember some kerfuffle over people.com, but IMDB should definitely not be used for any controversial information in a BLP, so the IP may be acting in good faith per WP:BLPSOURCES". Then I checked the edits before the last one. Blocked for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yash Ahlawat

Hi Ritchie333, I noticed that you closed the discussion as no consensus, but the subject doesn't meet any of the criteria for notability for Actors. He has only played minor roles in films and thus fails WP:NACTOR. Sources in the article are promotional and not independent.

• Forbes The clarity on the Forbes article is crystal as "brand connect" articles are paid for press and even has a disclaimer at the bottom stating Disclaimer: The views, suggestions and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Forbes India journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article.
• Hindustan Times Paid piece with disclaimer at the bottom.
• Outlook India This is a PR article with disclaimer mentioning the subject in passing.

The article has zero independent reliable sources and fails WP:GNG as well. The AfD had one delete and one keep !votes. However, the keep did not address the basic criteria outlined under WP:BASIC. I think the consensus was clear to delete the article.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Not the closer, but I think that that AFD needed a bit more participation before one could confidently call it a cut consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As JJE says, there weren't enough people to gather sufficient consensus on the article. I have no opinion on what should happen to it (which is correct per policy), except I closed the debate with "No prejudice against renomination". In particular, AfD debates should be about what sources are available generally, as opposed to what sources are in the article at present. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I've already done a WP:BEFORE search before starting this AfD and i literally found no sources that address the subject directly and in detail. The sources are mere mentions of the person. One thing i forgot to add to my above comment is that the only keep support was from the author and they did not even explain why the sources established notability. I was wondering if you could kindly reopen the deletion discussion to allow more people to participate in the discussion and to generate a more clear consensus? Thanks.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I can, but given my experience you might be lucky if you get one more person adding their views, leading to "no consensus" again. You're better off filing a fresh AfD from scratch; that tends to attract more attention. Part of the problem is that your opening argument at the AfD was quite vague and weak; if you'd opened it with a similar level of detail as mentioned here, more people may have agreed with you. I personally don't know enough about Indian, particularly Indian entertainment biographies, to be able to judge whether or not we should have an article; indeed, I would say we need more Indian and Asian admins on en-wiki. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Lee Harris (Blockhead)

Unfortunate redlink. Saw this and thought of you. Check him out here, discussing playing Interstellar Overdrive with Mason's Saucers. Fucking brilliant! Not just the playing, but the stories too. All the best! ——Serial 11:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"Zen and the art of Wikipedia Maintenance"

I think this section of your user page wants to be an essay (even if it's just so that I can cite it occasionally). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dodger67, Hmm. It's generally been a dumping ground for thoughts and views that I like so I can recall them at a later date - that's why most of them have diffs back to the original discussion. If there's a particular viewpoint that you want to link to, I can always expand that out to an essay. I have been thinking of writing User:Ritchie333/Annoying user, good content (don't particularly like the title "annoying", but it directly quotes a slide from Jimbo Wales at a Wikimania presentation some time back, so people would recognise the reference) that says the community has never (and probably will never) find a good way of dealing with somebody who makes good edits but it also disruptive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Saha Article creation Help

Hello, i wanna create an article name Sandy Saha. I saw you have deleted the page on 14 september 2017. Now I need your permission to create the page. So can I get your permission ?? If you will give me permission then I can edit the article. Jroynoplan (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)