User talk:Ritchie333

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

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

Text from deleted article

I recently logged into my account to see a page I created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ducat) was speedily deleted in February 2021 without any input from me. Obviously, I will not contest the grounds (and have no standing to do so, despite being the page creator), but I would like to have the text made available for safe keeping in the future. Are you able to send that to my talk page? Thank you for your time.

-- Chris Ducat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Ducat (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Chris Ducat, The text in full read "Robert Ducat (born 1969) is a Christian music artist. He has released several albums: David's Struggle, Have Mercy, Well, and Shelter." That's probably why it was deleted - there wasn't enough information to show people could make an encyclopaedia article out of it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thought I'd left you this already, it's been a few days since my email. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 14:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanamonde, sorry I have been away for a bit just doing other things. I have seen the email and I'll try and get round to doing a reply later today. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries whatsoever, I only just circled back to this too. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

Hi, Why is it that people can create an article and straight away one can google the subject and the article comes up but I created an article on 19 July Martina Evans which is in mainspace ( It comes up if you put it in the search box or click on the link in another article, e.g. Dalston notable people, but you cannot google it and have it come up. It is so frustrating.Aineireland (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Aineireland, you don't have the WP:AUTOPATROLLED user right, so when you create an article you have to wait until it is either 90 days old, or it is marked reviewed by a member of the New Pages Patrol for it to show up in Google searches. See WP:NOINDEX.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Pawnkingthree Aineireland (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's September corner

Omas gegen Rechts - enjoy strong women! I thought of Yoninah on the first day of Rosh Hashanah. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Main page today: the first TFA by a promising author, the pictured DYK by my friend LouisAlain who is discouraged by an AN discussion, and one of the Recent deaths. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed (or maybe nobody did :-/), I've taken a bit of a break recently. No specific reason other than I can't think of anything to write about at the moment. I'll have a quick spin through one of my book sources and see if I can cobble together a few words. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a sign of life! Yes, I noticed ;) - just keep reading. Today's Main page has 2 DYK, one written in memory of Brian, the other by Drmies, and I helped with the German sources. If you have time, but no inspiration, perhaps help LouisAlain on AN and/or with articles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

today: the day of bold red and black, for Dante who died 700 years ago, and Peter Fleischmann who died recently, leaving us films full of vision. Dante: just heard Inferno, imagined by a woman, the main character both speaking and singing with an inner 4-part voice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good wishes on Peace Day Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was out until gone midnight on Tuesday (21), I think it's about time I had a night in. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understand! - Today: a woman in red (back to the beginning of the thread), two who died under "in memoriam" and LouisAlain missed - my first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Wroblewitz

Hello. Help improve and copy edit. Thanks you. Kolpb (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the good folk at Women in Red might be able to assist with this better than me; this isn't in my area of expertise so I'm not sure what I can do specifically to help other than just review the prose. I see the article has been deleted a few years back, but the current revision appears on first glance to be long enough and sufficiently sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Timothy J. Edens for deletion

(snip afd boilerplate)

Eastmain, What's this got to do with me? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, on September 8, 2020‎, you closed a previous AfD for the same article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello Ritchie333,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

JPL close

Thank you for closing the JPL discussion. I see you quoted me. :) When I was reading it, I saw I have a mistake in my writing. I have bolded it here: "if John finds out a topic he thought had no religious involvement is not religiously involved, he could play it very safe and revert his edits." Perhaps I meant "now"? I don't know. It was a few days ago. Anyway, do you think it would be helpful to follow that with [sic] or strike it or something, or trust that the community will get it from the context of the rest of the statement? Again, thank you. Have a great day! --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing the discussion, Ritchie. I honestly wouldn't want anyone else to do it. I know it was a very difficult close and I believe you came to the only conclusion that you could have based on consensus. I may not necessarily agree completely with the results but I didn't expect anything different to occur. I hope JPL is given the opportunity expressed in the comment and stated in the close. Based on the comments of others during this case my confidence is not very high that he will. The validity of the frustration towards JPL is justified and I have told him that he needs to accept that. His actions have been extremely disruptive and this topic ban is his last option to remain here. I wanted him taking it serious. --ARose Wolf 18:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to second the recommendation to tweak the wording of the close to be sure it's accurate. Given the history around this editor and the parsing of statements and supposed lack of clarity in boundaries, the more airtight and correct the explanation, the better. Grandpallama (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the quote from DiamondRemley39 contains a minor typo that may lead to confusion. Clarifying that would be advisable. Clarification of what constitutes a "religious figure" would also be useful. If a successful business person donates a large sum of money to a religious institution, does that make them a religious figure? I don't think so, but I think John needs some tools to evaluate edge cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the typo; the closing statement of the ANI thread is the only place that it is directly mentioned, so that's easy to fix. I did see a notice that somebody needed to close the thread, and reading through the comments, I found a consensus for a topic ban, but wanted to include something that tried to distance this from being a "pile on", and DiamondRemley39's comment seemed to be the best one to go for. As I think you're aware, I just closed the thread based on the consensus I saw, I have previously commented that JPL's AfD comments are not helpful for a closing admin, but that is not a sanctionable offence and played no part in how I closed the thread - I don't believe I've ever clashed with him on any religious topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my typo. Thanks for closing, too. That needed to be done. I didn't mean to start a discussion on the matter on your talk page. Best to you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green - October Editathon

Hello Ritchie333:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2021!

Running from 1 through 31 October 2021, WikiProject Women in Green is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event focused on the topic of women's rights. Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing women's rights-related GA submissions during the event period, with resources and one-on-one support provided by experienced Women in Green GA reviewers. Participants have the opportunity to receive a barnstar.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything’s Strange Here

Hey Ritchie, I was wondering if you could look into this albums page, an IP has repeatedly been claiming that this was a mixtape then they later claimed it as a compilation album. The sources listed on the page all call this an studio album. The IP sent me a message on my talk page and I have also sent them a warning. Thanks! Pillowdelight (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything that leaps out at the history of G-Eazy discography. You reverted something that was unsourced, which is fine per policy, but where's the "repeatedly" bit? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I prolly should’ve stated it was on Everything's Strange Here page. Where the same IP has changed it from stating it’s a mixtape to a compilation album when no sources exist referring to them as that but sources are referring to it as just a regular album. Although the artist did describe it as a “side project” but I don’t think that would qualify as either a mixtape or a compilation album? Pillowdelight (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes more sense. I have semi-protected Everything's Strange Here for a week as regardless of what discussion has been taking place, the back-and-forth with the IPs needs to stop. I don't think a single source, rap-up.com, is sufficient to switch consensus that this is a bona-fide studio album. In either case, I think the best thing to do would be to expand the article a bit to make it more clear, if you can find sufficient source material. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ... that people are strange, when you're a stranger" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Harry Partridge

Hi, regarding the deletion of the article Harry Partridge which you closed, I feel the fact that a WP:RS published new and obviously non-trivial in-depth coverage of the subject matter towards the end of the deletion process (which in my opinion made the article easily pass WP:3REFS/WP:GNG) means the process shouldn't have been closed so early, before the previous voters had had a chance to look at the new source and re-assess their votes based on that new information. This is the source I'm talking about, for your reference. Additionally, the only vote cast after I brought that new coverage up was an unfortunate case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I pointed this out in the discussion, but the vote was nonetheless not stricken, instead, another user felt motivated to post a "WP:AGF Level 2 warning" on my talk page[2] and falsely claim there was "no reason" to assume Wikihounding[3], which is very weird considering that if they had actually looked at the evidence as they claimed it's very clear:

User:MrsSnoozyTurtle posted her deletion vote [4] a mere minute (!) after posting this on my talk page: [5] where she even references another discussion ("the exchange below") I was having with another user about the Harry Partridge deletion article. She wasn't "patrolling" AfD's and found the article that way - her most recent edit at an AfD had happened several days earlier: [6] (incidentally this is where our spat originated). It's obvious how she found her way there, that her vote was only motivated by malice, and that she spent no time whatsoever actually looking at the article/sources in question. It seems like a very bold-faced case of Wikihounding and I think it does deserve at least a warning of some kind, if nothing to make it clear to that user that it won't be OK to repeat that behavior.

(If you should feel that I also deserve a warning for incivility I'd accept it, I understand I might have been too "frank" in some cases in the heat of the moment, but I do feel I wasn't worse than the people I was having the spats with, which might be a shitty excuse but there it is)

If the vote can not be re-opened, I'm wondering if you could help me by pointing out what the best way forward for me would be if I want to give the article at least a chance to be undeleted because I'm somewhat confused by the policy on this. I would be perfectly happy with a completely new vote because I think the last pre-redirect version of the article stood on its own two legs, but it's not clear to me whether this would be allowed. Per WP:RENOM it seems you should go through WP:UND, and I don't have an issue waiting a month or whatever time would be recommended to do it, but on that page they actually make it clear it's for "restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion". Would having the article draftified and then (eventually) submitted through the draft process be a good way forward? Or would it just be considered "out-of-process recreation" and deleted again even if the draft was only let into "articlespace" after being approved by another editor? 101.50.250.88 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]