User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 134

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 130

←

Archive 132

→

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Ritchie333,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I fired up this new NPP script. First article I came across was Brimley, Michigan, created as a redirect in 2004 and expanded out to a full article today. Not amazing sourcing, but not obviously problematic enough and at the worst could be reverted back to the redirect, so no maintenance tags required. However, it's already been marked as patrolled, presumably years ago, so it won't fall off the queue. What have I missed here? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Currently it's not marked as patrolled.[1] If you can see the grey page curation toolbox at the right hand side of the page, you should see that the tick icon is still grey (not green or purple, which indicate reviewed pages). – Joe (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Got it - cheers! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hafiz Hamid Raza

Hello. It's true that this was moved to main space in good faith, by an editor in good standing. But the copyedits made to the article were quite minimal. Wikishovel (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:G5 has been controversial for 20 years. The best reading I can find is User talk:Iridescent/Archive 28#Origins of CSD G5 and User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Feb#About banned users and the banning policy. In the specific example of Hafiz Hamid Raza, it was accepted at AfC by DreamRimmer, an editor in good standing. That means you can't in good conscience use G5 to override the opinion of a qualified AfC reviewer. More to the point, there is a alternative to deletion as in the worst instance we could redirect to Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly.

A question that Newyorkbrad touches on in his essay, but doesn't get answered as often as I'd like, is "What was the editor banned for in the first place?" If the ban was due to civility and not playing well with others, deleting a sock puppet's contributions per G5 seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I certainly don't question DreamRimmer's good faith in the least. It's a short stub about an elected official with adequate referencing. Perhaps they will weigh in on this, to address the question of their opinion being overridden.

That essay by Newyorkbrad is thoughtful and useful, and I'm all for second and third chances myself. But this isn't a case of an editor coming back from a block and making good contributions. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sazmancrpo is a serial hoaxer, repeatedly writing about a non-notable businessman using deliberately faked references, and using uncontroversial edits and politician stubs to disguise this. WP:BMB seems written for exactly this sort of case. Wikishovel (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Ritchie for pinging me. I have no objection to deleting this article under G5. I believe that articles created by socks should be deleted if they align with the guidelines outlined in WP:G5 to prevent these LTAs from wasting other users' precious time once again. As an admin, you are the best person to make this decision. Thanks! 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 11:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I've gone for my suggestion above and redirected to Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly as an alternative for deletion. DreamRimmer, don't believe any of your time was wasted, you evaluated an article based on its merits in an encyclopedia, and that's what's important. Personally, I think as Wikipedia is a completely voluntary project, you are free to do as much or as little work as you like, and in this case I'm not worried about the five minutes or so I've spent on this. Indeed, I would argue that more time is spent / wasted at NPP looking at good-faith contributions on obscure subjects that cite sources that are not in English or are hard to access, and those are a complete ball-ache. I just can't get excited about sock puppetry investigations and avoid taking part in them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, but everyone may have a different perspective on these types of issues. Just to clarify, I didn't mean to refer to the last five minutes spent replying here. What I meant is that when articles created by socks are easily kept in the mainspace, it encourages them to create more accounts and write new articles again. This, in turn, leads to various unnecessary discussions, whether in AfD or elsewhere. Therefore, such actions should not be accepted readily, and they should not be allowed to waste the community's time in the future. In short, permitting these LTAs' articles to remain published is like inviting them back into sockpuppetry.

By the way, redirecting this article as ATD is a commendable decision. I hope this explanation makes sense, even though your views may differ on this. Have a great day! 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Just saw the banner on the top of this page. Feel free to respond when you actually have time. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I will have a thorough look when I've got a spare evening, although it might not be for a week or so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I have replied to your reply, in case it didn't land in your inbox. (since you didn't reply to my replies earlier, I'm worried that you didn't get those) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Carnaby Street

Hi, surprised that this hasn't been promoted to GA yet. Don't know if you are still active or working on London streets though! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I'm not busy, which given I'm in the middle of a move might be a week or two. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That RFA you just suggested

I'm with GRuban, I've got to say. I evaluated her a little while ago, and while I greatly appreciate the content work, there's very little WP-space participation, and none at all outside AfDs for her own creations. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. It was more to see who would support her anyway if there was one. I know quite a few great content creators who I'd never put up for RfA because of a lack of interest in project work. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Dewarter (18:19, 5 October 2023)

Hi.How to edit a semi-protected page? --Dewarter (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Go to the Edit Request Wizard, which will file a request on the talk page that will be responded to by experienced editors. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Live at Leeds

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Live at Leeds 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of DreamRimmer -- DreamRimmer (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. My corpus of books is still sitting in several boxes awaiting the man from IKEA to turn up with somewhere to house them, so responses might be a bit sporadic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jamesstoutauthor (12:44, 9 October 2023)

I am a recently published author, and I want to create a page about myself. I believe readers will want to learn more about me. --Jamesstoutauthor (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a really bad idea. You don’t need a Wikipedia article, and if one is created, you’ll probably regret it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Bettyweb (14:29, 9 October 2023)

Hello. How do I add a photo? --Bettyweb (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Select the "Upload file" menu on the left, which will take you through a wizard to check you have the copyright status to add it and then ask you for the file to upload. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jojo9643 (06:30, 13 October 2023)

Hi, really stupid question but I’m tired of looking for the answer. I am having difficulty reading Wikipedia pages because the print is so small. Is there a way to make it bigger without going to the pdf? --Jojo9643 (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

An interesting question. Most browsers supply a means of increasing or decreasing the font size for readability. For example, using Safari on macOS, you can press ⌘ + to zoom in, or ⌘ - to zoom out. You could also try viewing the articles on Wikiwand, which provides a different user interface experience. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from RioBubba (13:34, 14 October 2023)

How do I edit something about me on Wikipedia that is untrue? --RioBubba (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The easiest way of getting attention is to add a post to the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Explain calmly and clearly what the issue is, and what you would like done, then somebody will look at it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Giordano 1912 (10:49, 18 October 2023)

Hello, could you pleas help me to understand how to add a foot note to my text? Thank you, Giordano --Giordano 1912 (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of different ways of doing this, but the method I typically use is to use the {{efn}} template eg: {{efn|This is so important, it needs putting in a footnote}}, followed by the {{notelist}} template in the "References" section at the bottom of the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from (y('azy(h (14:52, 20 October 2023)

wassup --(y('azy(h (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from "Mdubeyvns" (11:17, 21 October 2023)

how to make my profile --"Mdubeyvns" (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. This is an encyclopedia, not a social network. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Sri prabanjam music on Radio frequency (00:12, 21 October 2023)

how to FM frequency open Please tell me Thanks you 🙏 --Sri prabanjam music (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you want to do with this article? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments at RfA

Re your comments at RfA: I hope you don't find my self-nom as being hasty. The circumstances are quite unfortunate, but this is the only week which I will be available to dedicate time to answering questions. I understand your disappointment and I'm sorry if this caused frustration. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you've shot yourself in the foot a bit with the nomination statement which has led to opposition. Still, a week is a long time and it's possible people who haven't looked at the RfA will look at the whole picture and decide that some of that's misguided and you should be trusted with the toolset. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A303 road

The edits I removed were WP:COI by a WP:SPA that only promotes Dan Hicks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NB1965

There are actually a whole army of them and I removed quite a few of their edits yesterday. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in sockpuppet investigations and am more interested in the encyclopaedia's articles than who wrote any edits. I moved the citations to a slightly more appropriate place per WP:LEADCITE, but it certainly seems to verify the claim that the A303 Stonehenge bypass / improvement is controversial, citing bodies such as the English Heritage and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The picture also seems to verify the claim that the A303 there is a congested single carriageway road. And if you doubt that claim, take a trip on the A303 yourself and have a look, it's quite far from a claim that's challenged or likely to be challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Funny coincidence to see User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful referenced just today...Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I replaced the Hicks articles with equally reliable references from other sources. I hope that works for you as well. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. I certainly don't have a conflict of interest with Dan Hicks; I'd never heard of him until just now. As he is a tenured professor at Oxford (so he is notable by Wikipedia standards by meeting WP:PROF) I think your judgement has been somewhat clouded here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Ritchie333:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1800 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Lightburst (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Xososkyadsvnvnn (14:00, 5 November 2023)

Xổ Số Miền Nam Xem Xem Xỏ Số > --Xososkyadsvnvnn (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Chances of passing RfA

What are my chances of passing at RfA without any content creation. While most editors have the opinion that content creation is most important I was wondering if I got one GA whether I would even have a chance at becoming an administrator. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you will pass RfA without much content writing experience. See my essay for a detailed explanation why. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Ruletheworst2 (15:11, 30 October 2023)

What is the max text you can add to a page? --Ruletheworst2 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The guidelines on article sizes recommend not going over 100K of prose, or about 15,000 words. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarification request at WP:ARCA: EC protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war

Hello Ritchie333,

There is currently a clarification request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Clarification request: EC protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war regarding the recent AE decision to protect the page Talk:2023 Israel-Hamas war.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Typical, wander in to WP:AE because I heard it was backlogged, first thing I do gets dragged off to WP:ARCA. No wonder hardly any admins want to do it! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Xổ Số Miền Nam Hôm Nay Ở Đây

Xổ Số Miền Nam Hôm Nay Ở Đây Xososkyadsvnvnn (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Dw i ddim yn siarad Cymraeg. Ymddiheuriadau am yr anghyfleustra. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Nid wyf yn siarad Fietnameg. Felly dwi'n teimlo braidd yn "xo-so" am y safle yna! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Live at Leeds

The article Live at Leeds you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Live at Leeds for comments about the article, and Talk:Live at Leeds/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DreamRimmer -- DreamRimmer (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Congrats! - Even I collected a few GAs this year ;) - So happy that Martin is free again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, great to see Martin getting back up to speed. Sorry I haven't been around much recently, as it says at the top I'm balancing life between work, DIY and decorating. However, my computer desk and bookshelf are now both back online, so I can crack on with things. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That's great! - User talk:Gerda Arendt#Music keeps track of "my" music and memories, and just today I have a juxtaposition of music performed by the two church choirs in town, one I sang in and one where I listened, to music about love, evening and night. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

A Romanian woman composer is today's topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought of Brian Bouldton today, and his ways to compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have just read through the Georges Feydeau infobox feud at ANI, and notice you got dragged into that as well. I have given my 2c in the thread, and am mindful of this comment from over five years ago. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Schro again, please stop silencing the whistleblower

You can’t solve a problem by ignoring it. And if you think im the only one fed up with Schrocat’s antics then you’re forgetting that community consensus called for sanctions.

So ive asked you about it before, your response was kinda well hes a good writer, which misses the point, and if you had to sanction everyone for disagreeing over an infobox, which also misses the point. Let me try to sum it up:

SchroCat was horrible to many editors.
Many editors left WP.
Many other editors called for sanctions against SchroCat. Community consensus was SchroCat should be sanctioned.
SchroCat “retired.”
SchroCat IMMEDIATELY began editing as an ip and doing the same things that got him sanctioned.
SchroCat “returned” to editing, never served the sanctions.
SchroCat is still being horrible, even playing the victim card on his tp, which is quite hilarious.

Can you please explain why SchroCat does not have to serve the sanctions that community consensus asked for?? Thanks and cheers.Avocadopowder (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies to HJ Mitchell who reverted this. I'm not really replying to the blocked sock, but for anyone else who might be reading this. (For the blocked sockpuppet, please appeal from your MAIN account then try again.)

I have met SchroCat in real life and got on with him, and he has done great work on numerous featured articles. I also think he has got a complete bee in his bonnet about infoboxes for whatever reason, and my heart sinks every time I see him get into an argument with someone about it, and I honestly wish he wouldn't rise to the bait. I don't think I'm the only longstanding editor who likes SchroCat's work who has that opinion. Frankly, if a consensus of administrators decides to sanction him for civility or disruption, he can't really say he didn't see it coming.

I did offer SchroCat the right to vanish in order to "save face" and not be sanctioned with something like an Arbcom ban. However, the deal as I understood it was that the vanishing was permanent and any IP editing or sock puppetry would not be tolerated. It's possible that SchroCat has a different interpretation of this, but that is certainly what I meant.

As it stands, I don't think I can take any further administrative actions regarding SchroCat, and there enough administrators around without the associated history who can deal with this. If the community decides that SchroCat's presence on Wikipedia is a net positive, then you'll need to take it up with the community. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Costy94 on User:Costy94 (15:38, 15 November 2023)

Hello How can I add biography of someone on Wikipedia --Costy94 (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If this involves a living person (and not a historical figure), then the best answer I can possibly give is ... don't. An article about somebody is not necessarily a good thing, it's sometimes impossible to make it accurate and pleasant enough for the subject and also be factually accurate and verifiable to reliable sources at the same time, which causes all sorts of problems. Who do you want to write about? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Sbaio and his behavior towards me

Hello Ritchie333. How are you? Hopefully good. I am Ethan and I am writing because I know you’re an administrator and while I usually wouldn’t do these types of things, I would like to share a complaint about one user the last couple months. In August, I was falsely accused of sock puppetry after a small handful of my edits were coincidentally similar to an individual who was blocked from sock puppetry in early 2022 called “Moka Mo”. I tried to explain repeatedly that I am not the same person as “Moka Mo” and most of my edits were actually useful and not intended to be malicious and my goal was to be informative and helpful. And whenever I tried to reach out to him, he either gaslights me, ignores me or says stuff like “stop wasting everyones time” or “stop wasting time” and more. I was falsely accused of sock puppetry since apparently a small handful of my edits were similar to another blocked user who was blocked for sock puppetry who is named moka mo who I had never heard of before until this summer. Whenever I try to explain I am not the same person, he either gaslights me, ignores me or says things (like stop wasting time or stop wasting everyone’s time and more). This is a very frustrating situation and ofc I understand millions of people have other ideas too but the thing that is frustrating is that he is doing them without any thought or without informing me first and not cooperating with me when I try to get his attention. These actions are very narcissistic to me toxic behavior like this should not be allowed on Wikipedia. It is all crazy because even after I have said many times I am NOT moka mo and my real name (it’s Ethan) but he doesn’t budge. Whenever I call him out on it too, he cries about “personal attacks” although he put this on himself with his narcissistic behavior and all the gaslighting and ignoring he has done with me when I try to communicate with him. While I get his feelings are hurt, I am stating the truth and he needs to realize that sometimes the truth hurts and honestly if he hadn’t gaslit me and simply have just communicated with me then he wouldn’t have gotten such criticism for his actions. I don’t want to ramble too much so I’m gonna stop for now because I think I’ve explained enough for you to hopefully get what I am trying to explain but I appreciate your attention to this very important matter because I want Wikipedia to be a place that is inclusive for all and where people can feel included and not gaslit. And hopefully considering unblocking my real account that got blocked a couple months ago, gymrat16 and consider the possibility of blocking the sbaio account indefinitely for his cruel and abusive treatment towards me and a couple other editors. I usually wouldn’t say this because like I said, this should be welcoming for all but he has crossed the line for me and I believe without repercussions, one can never learn that this behavior is unacceptable. If you open up the activity for gymrat16 you’ll see the edits were intended for good judgement and not meant to be disruptive. Thanks for your time and I hope to hear back soon. Stay safe. 2600:1007:B0A1:E997:D05C:8D3C:427A:3BD2 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, being accused of something when you say you didn't do it sucks. Ask Paul Gambaccini. There's a lot to digest here, but I'll give you some advice. (And note, this on the assumption you're telling the truth, if you're making this all up, deal's off).

Firstly, in future, make your complaint concise and if you can, include some diffs. It took me about ten minutes to look through Special:Contributions/gymrat16 and see what disputes there were.

The first thing I picked up was this revert which changed History of United Airlines to state the merger with Continental Airlines happened in 2011 rather than 2010. Looking at the article, it makes it quite difficult to work out which is the correct year; the prose gives the impression that the merger took a significant amount of time that it covered both years. It doesn't help that the sources are either dead or tagged as unreliable.

Elsewhere, I can see you adding prose to Andrew Shaw (ice hockey) [2]. Again, it's not my subject of expertise, but it doesn't look factually wrong.

The best suggestion I can give you is to take the Standard offer:

Wait at least six months with no sock puppetry. That means no IP editing, no new accounts, nothing. If you want to contact me in six months time, use the "Email this user" functionality.
Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. (I guess that means in your case, don't make things personal about other editors)
Don't give people reasons to object to your return. (See above)

The other thing I'd advise you to do is don't bear any grudges against anyone. No edits like this please - if you want to change something, change it because you're making Wikipedia better, not because of what any other editor does. I did quick look through Sbaio's contributions and concluded they were a good-faith editor who did minor work that I don't particularly care about, so I don't have a problem with them. Sometimes we've got to work with people we don't generally see eye to eye with or have much in common with, it's true in real life and work just as much as it is on Wikipedia. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia that need improvement, and if you know how to write well and cite sources, you can be the most widely read author on an out of the way topic on the internet. That's something to aim for, isn't it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that my agreement to unblock Skyrise was contingent on her agreeing with a 1RR restriction

I don’t understand why you just went ahead and unblocked. Please reinstate the block until she agrees or it expires. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 21:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh right, I thought you were okay with it. Anyway, I've reblocked for the remaining duration. I still remain concerned that if Skyerise sits out the block and comes back, she'll get involved in some other dispute and the next block will probably be indefinite. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

So am I. I’d like to think otherwise. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 06:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe I should ignore this, but blocked editors aren't supposed to use their talk page to urge action on an article, and Skyerise is doing just that.[3] Doug Weller talk 15:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I've seen this before, and I'm not sure we've had consensus for this. There was this example at ANI some years back which concluded there was a slight consensus in allow blocked editors to use their talk page to request improvements to articles. There was also a number of complaints when The Rambling Man's talk page was turned off when he was blocked - I can't find the thread for that simply because TRM has been dragged to ANI too many times. In summary, it depends on what they're doing on the talk page, and as long it's not repeating the activities they were blocked for, there should be a bit of tolerance, unless there are already complaints. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I've found the ANI thread - it was this one. It's a long and arduous thread, and it appears I got in some mansplaining to GorillaWarfare, for which I can only apologise, I'm a lot less hot-headed these days. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It's also worth considering WP:PROXYING. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

S.T.A.R. Labs

Hey on you closer of this afd you said that "votes were split between keep, redirect, merge and delete" wouldnt that be grounds for a "no consensus"? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Usually, the NC is appropriate if editors argue for some mixture of keep or delete with no middle ground. But in this case, several people suggested keep or merge, which along with those advocating redirect, means there is an option that sounds like a compromise most editors would find acceptable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay cool Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from SuvarnaEditor (06:39, 25 November 2023)

Hello i need to create a page for the living person. --SuvarnaEditor (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless you are a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, I would avoid creating articles about living people. It creates problems. The Biography of living persons policy has further information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Milan

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Milan, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I typed a dash instead of a pipe symbol. And they say ChatGPT is the future, but it is, as the Italians might say, affogare in un bicchier d’acqua. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Police Organization

Hey, are you open to reconsidering your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Police Organization? I think that the balance of arguments is clearly in favor of deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh right, I took your comment, specifically "I see two ([30] Dnevnik, [31] RTV) that clearly provide independent, significant coverage of the organization" and the overall decision of "TNT" as a "weak keep", which swung things towards NC. Nevertheless, I think my overall advice in the AfD should stand - wait a while and see if the article improves, and if not, start a new AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be a bit concerned that it seems like the only editor invested in actually editing the article is the same editor who wrote the initial draft, which has the egregious POV issues I pointed out in my !vote. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: I took a stab at rewriting the article, and gave Topjur01 a COI warning, so at least the neutrality issues have been addressed for the time being. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best course of action. Also, after reading your revised version, it makes it a lot more obvious what the organisation is (or, indeed isn't). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

November music

I have vacation pics to offer, with the deepest blue of the sea the third day ;) - we celebrate the birthday of a friend who wrote quite a book about the compositions of a man who will turn 300 soon. - I don't take part in infobox discussions. Period. However, when I see a good-faith edit reverted with an edit summary like this, I can sometimes resist but in this case followed the invitation - which then got painted as if I had launched it on TFA day, - it's so kafkaesque. - I don't even care if that guy has an infobox or not. He was only on my watchlist because I take every TFA on the list for the day. Anyway, Feydeau had an infobox for several hours on the Main page, and nobody complained, until ... - I haven't even looked when the article became FA, - no time. I have articles to write, and two GAN open. That's what I'm here for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Back from a great concert (all Brahms) with the London Philharmonic, and too tired for article work: I looked up when the writer became FA, last year. I was not part of the FAC, not welcome there. Since, we had a RfC for Mozart that expresses pretty much where the community stands in the matter. (I made one comment.) - I added the pieces and the performers to my talk, and looked them up, and the conductor was missing an infobox, but some instinct told me to better look into the history ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Some day if I ever have enough free time and money (I always seem to have one or the other but not both) I would like to take a trip on the Eurostar and Nightjet from London to Vienna and go to one of the celebrated New Year Concerts. Or the Musikverein to watch the Vienna Mozart Orchestra another time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan! - As for the below: did you see the TFA today? Or the latest FA? Or the latest FAC (where I was not welcome)? Surprise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Just accepted a draft from AfC, first one in ages. Can you remind me how we invite the author to Women in Red? I can never remember. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Better ask Ipigott, - I just do it informally. Next day of pics - today my topic is a soprano, comes with a video. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

next day uploaded --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

My story today, Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his, - the composer, born OTD 110 years ago, didn't want it shorter (but the publisher), more here. I'm back to a good tradition: a Britten composition on his birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

User Talk:Gerda Arendt#Mozart Requiem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Also today - Martinevans123 is back with his collection of bad puns and general wit and tomfoolery, so there's hope for us all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

To give my own answer to Gerda's question to the arbs, consider Talk:Mayfair#RFC: Infobox. A drive by IP started the debate, but it was left to me to actually design an infobox that everyone agreed on, get consensus for it, and put it on the article. Anyone can argue back and forth about infoboxes, but it takes more effort to put some actual work in to make the article better. As Observations on Wikipedia behaviour wrote : "There is less "exciting" work to do, such as creating from scratch an article on an important topic, and conflict is the most usual substitute excitement. The early days of the project are over, and just as in a relationship, the truly hard work comes after the initial excitement has faded.". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Does it follow from this that editors whose idea of "important" strongly diverges from the mainstream are more likely to still being writing articles? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think so. There are two factors - firstly, the systemic bias means the articles we're likely to write about have been written to some extent, while notable topics we don't think about as much (eg: cabinet ministers in African countries who obviously meet WP:POLITICIAN) might still yet need to be written. The second is, as standards for inclusion get higher, with more stringent sources required, articles that might have been created back in 2004 wouldn't withstand AfD; when I wrote King of the Rumbling Spires, I wasn't actually sure it would withstand such a debate (but had reasonable confidence it would close as "redirect" if not "no consensus" or "keep") and didn't put it up for DYK (as well as I couldn't think of a suitable hook for it). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"The early days of the project are over, and just as in a relationship, having tried dogging and swingers parties, the truly hard work comes when you have to go to Relate and start looking around for a good divorce lawyer..." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I limit my articles to one per day, expanding or new, and there's no end in sight of topics: artists I hear making music or visual things, songs I sing, music I encounter, places that impress me, recent deaths to be improved. Today an opera singer who died (haven't started yet, had to shuffle heavy snow). On DYK, another opera singer, Luca Salsi, who performed recently with Anna Netrebko which caused political furor, in an opera house with a Ukrainian flag on top, pictured on my talk, in a staging opening on a battle field with smoke rising, almost throughout the performance, - and that was a 2018 production, nothing recent and appropriate. Just appropriate, thanks to Harry Kupfer (trailer video also on my talk, and tomorrow here). I see no lack of topics for life. And no time for anything but content (and music and flowers for thanks). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)