User talk:Ritchie333

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

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

THIS USER MISSES RexxS

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Nigeria

You are aware that you just closed an AfD for a completely unsourced article, where none of the keep voters offered even a single source, as "no consensus", instead of delete? I would think that the basic requirement to give any "keep" vote any weight would be that either the article or the AfD offered anything resembling a source... Fram (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I am, and to be honest I get annoyed when I see a contentious AfD like this, and discover that nobody has made any attempt to improve it. However, I also didn't see enough people agreeing with your deletion rationale, particularly DGG, who declined the original PROD. It's never been policy to delete articles simply because they're rubbish, and if you think there should be one, an RfC is probably the way to go. All that said, a "no consensus" close implies no prejudice against re-nomination when things have calmed down a bit - or if you prefer, I can relist the AfD instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Considering the number of similar articles DGG deprodded, but which then got deleted anyway, I wouldn't give too much weight to his remarks. And of course the deletion rationale was not "it'srbbish", but "fails WP:LISTN, which none of the keeps actually disproved (as seen, again, by e.g. the lack of any sources). Fram (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

So do you want the AfD relisted? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Just let it be, I'm tired of the mindless keeps. If anyone else complains about the closure it may be time to relist it though. Fram (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I should have been more active in following these up. (It was indeed my intention to deprod as many of these as I could find, and eventually go on to deal with the ones that had already been deleted. I think it is generally valuable to call attention to neglected corners here, and always valuable to determine consensus on an area which seems never to have been discussed.) They are all unsourced, but not unsourceable, as they are included in the standard philately handbooks. I had hoped someone active in that field would have added them, as my childhood amateur days in this field ended decades ago. Since they are sourceable, the main reasons for deletion seems to have been that "nobody was working on them or currently reading them", or that they were incomplete, all of which are completely irrelevant. WP is a work in progress perpetually, and has no time limits and no size limits. If further discussion is warranted, I see no reason why they have to be listed independently-, for the same arguments would apply to all. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the main deletion reason is that they fail WP:LISTN, which neither you nor any other proponent of keeping them has actually been able to disprove. The claim that e.g. the topic of "people on the list of stamps of Fiji" (or Finland, or Gibraltar, or Netherlands New Guinea, or ...) is "included in the standard philately handbooks" seems very optimistic; what philately handbooks include, is the basic fact that many collectors collect by topic, and that typical topics are people, animals, sports, events, buildings, ... , just like there are collectors by country, by shape of stamp, by year, by special emission, ... All of which is hardly sufficient to have lists about these topics per country. The additional problems (unsourced, incomplete, wrong, ...) are only giving as indications of the state of these articles and the general interest them, as a counter to argulents in early AfDs about how these topics are clearly notable, of interest, ... and other similar false claims. So far, all your many Prods have achieved is cause a massive amount ofg extra work for many people, a massive amount of pointless discussions, and very little actual improvement to enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I had a short break today, so I Googled around, and found a couple of RS to add as citations to a couple of the Nigerian stamps that have historical significance, especially now that we have email. Those same 2 sources also reference some of the other historically significant stamps in the list, and there are more RS out there for those with the time & ambition to find them, so happy editing to all the history buffs and philatelists! WP:NEXIST Atsme 💬 📧 18:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

External link. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly – those who do not learn history, fail the class. Imagine trying to put a postage stamp on email. Atsme 💬 📧 19:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands (2nd nomination)

Yes, !votes aren't the only factor, but 12/4 is a clear consensus for a keep. I could go directly to Wikipedia:Deletion review but am giving you a chance to change the close to a "keep", or, as suggested at the AfD, a "snow keep". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. Specifically, RandomCanadian gave strong arguments for deletion, while a number of "keep" arguments were procedural, suggesting the AfD shouldn't have been re-nominated as quickly. Those carry less weight as they said nothing about the suitability of having an article. I would also draw your attention to the above thread, which also shows the presence of these stamp list articles is contentious. As also stated above, I can relist the AfD if you like, and if you filed a review at DRV, I would suggest the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised you didn't completely discount/strike all of RandomCanadians' disruptive bludgeoning and faulty arguments. If I had done that, I would have been warned and my !vote discounted. I've seen that happen. Restarting an AfD in this manner is disruptive, so an immediate close and a trout to Random would have been best. I really get tired of wikipedians who take pride in deleting as much as they can get away with. That goes against WP:PRESERVE, which is an important policy. We are supposed to try to improve imperfect content, IOW to build/keep rather than tear down/delete. Much deletion is laziness and an admission that we have failed, and not even seriously tried, to properly document the "sum total of human knowledge" as enjoined by Jimmy Wales. That is why we are here. It is our purpose. Maybe DGG can share some thoughts about this.

The only legitimate question here (and pretty much all AfDs) was notability (all else can be fixed), and, with few exceptions, if someone is notable enough for a stamp, that's pretty notable. The nation is the only necessary source as their own culture and language will have plenty of RS that show what led to the notability of that person, and we don't have to perform the work/translations to find those sources. That a nation deems a person worthy of a stamp is prima facie evidence of notability. Period. WP:NOT is a BS argument in this connection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 09:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You are arguing that the people on these stamps are notable, which is not the topic of discussion. "People who spoke at the parliamentary session of 25 May 1782" will include only ntable people (parlementarians) and will probably be verifiable (if there was a session that day), but that doesn't mean that it would be an acceptable article. The reason for deletion, which was ignored by most "keep" votes (and as you show still isn't understood by all of them), is that the "group", the "list of people", isn't a notable topic, despite the individual people being notable. Fram (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: (talk page stalker) you should count yourself lucky that the AFD wasn't closed as straight delete. Looking at the debate, There is a total absence of valid reasoning behind the keep votes, and nothing to counter the fact that this list violates WP:LISTN and WP:SYNTH, because there is no external source presented which lists the same information. No consensus is a very legitimate outcome, and absent further evidence that this topic is one that's notable for listing, it's likely the next one will be a delete.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"We are supposed to try to improve imperfect content, IOW to build/keep rather than tear down/delete" That's not strictly true all of the time; if I were to write "[politican] is a confirmed rapist and has sexually assaulted at least five girls under the age of 16" with no source, and argued that "we are supposed to try and improve imperfect content", I'd be lambasted for doing so. And on that issue, Jimbo agrees. Okay, that's an extreme example, but it does show that in contentious topics like this, it is perfectly reasonable to have a view that an article cannot be improved, and hence deletion might be a more appropriate organisation of the encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree on all points, except the implication that that "extreme example" cannot be improved by providing several impeccable RS and improving the wording. That would satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE's description of how we are supposed to present such matters and also satisfy Jimbo's goal for Wikipedia. I suspect you took your example too far in your desire to make a point (which I do appreciate), yet even this one can be resolved/saved/improved and then included in the appropriate spot in the appropriate article. We don't have to immediately reject and delete it. That's too lazy an approach. We should try to save it. That doesn't mean we have to do the work ourselves. Sometimes we don't have the time or background knowledge to immediately fix it ourselves, and since the burden for doing so is on the one who wants to include the content, they should be encouraged to do so. In the meantime, if it's unsourced, it should be fixed immediately or deleted, per BLP. If it wasn't a sensitive BLP matter, we'd just tag it with a "cn" and hope someone improved it, but that's a different type of situation.

As far as "That's not strictly true all of the time," I suspect you could come up with a better hypothetical situation where we'd both agree that it was unfixable. Otherwise, I still believe our first priority should be to save content if at all possible, assuming it is from the good faith efforts of another normal editor, not some vandal.

You and I may not fully agree on the AfD decision, but I do respect your opinion(s) and definitely AGF in your efforts. I also appreciate the comments from others and will consider them. I've been here since 2003 and am always learning. Carry on the good work. I think we are all fortunate to be able to contribute to this amazing project. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like the content of the "List of numbers in various languages" page moved to Wiktionary, please.

Hello, I was one of the regular contributors to the page "List of numbers in various languages", and I just found out that it's been removed. I am sorry to see it go, but I know it's for the best on a site like Wikipedia.

However, I did read that you said, "If anyone would like the content moved to userspace in order to move to Wiktionary, let me know." I would certainly wish to see the page on Wiktionary, because it would probably be more fitting there than on Wikipedia proper.

Please reply to this as soon as possible. --Abcormal (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to move this to userspace, but there seems to be a technical problem in doing so. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unable to userfy List of numbers in various languages. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have the backup of the "List of Numbers in Various Language" page?

I was just surprised that the page has gone. :( Fortunamia (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's being restored now to User:Abcormal/List of numbers in various languages - see the above thread on AN. If you think the deletion was in error, you can appeal the decision at deletion review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I doubt very much Wiktionary is going to want any part of this. (I'd have said so earlier, except that the move summary mentioned Wikidata instead. I couldn't figure out why Wikidata would want it, either, but I'm less familiar with the project.) They've indicated that they don't want transwikification from Wikipedia because the content is uniformly awful when considered as dictionary entries, and they handle translations totally differently - see for example wikt:1#Alternative forms and wikt:one#Translations. —Cryptic 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The "Wikidata" was a typo, I got the two mixed up - I don't participate in either project bar the odd contribution. The page looks like it might be useful somewhere and I don't think the content is awful per se, it's just a very large indiscriminate dump of information that has been added to without ever stopping to think whether it would be actually appropriate to have it in an encyclopedia (which was the point those at the AfD were making). I'm just not sure what to do with it. The important thing from my angle is because it's now visible to all editors (albeit now in an obscure tucked-away place), somebody more knowledgeable about these things can work on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

deletion of page Pushpam Priya Choudhary

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pushpam Priya Choudhary (3rd nomination)

You wrongly deleted the page. There was no through discussion and there was no fair opportunity. Please relist the page for discussion. Dakshinamurti (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I deleted it because nobody except you wants to keep the page. You will need to find another article to improve. I strongly advise you not to open a thread at deletion review again, as you may be criticised for wasting other people's time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be contrary, but unlike the Faroes case above I think you've made an error here Ritchie. The OP may not have gone about things the best way or won any friends thoughout the AFD saga, but they presented sourcing to show Notability and overall I think the Oppose votes were small in number in both the recent AFDs and also weak or failed to address the legitimacy of the three sources presented. I would probably !vote "keep" myself. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've relisted the AfD. I'm still concerned about bludgeoning, but we'll see. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, having had done a Google News search myself, I can find a whole bunch of sources that can be potentially used, so on reflection I'd probably leaning towards !voting "keep" as well, provided I could improve the article a bit. I think the problems here were (a) nobody improved the article whatsoever during the third AfD, (b) when an article has been deleted at AfD twice and no established editors have come forward to at least play devil's advocate, then it's easy for confirmation bias to kick in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Shift clicking

Shift clicking

Cliff chicken --ME123 (also note)
Goes well with Rock Lobster. --Tryptolobster

Just gimme gimme gimme gimme .... fried chicken

I know, huh? I'm lucky I found out about it two months in to being an admin, although it didn't save me from clicking that small box 133 times when someone pasted the entire contents of a book into an article... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Thanks to the wonders of YouTube (watch out for the copyvio police), I've found a clip of One Vision rehearsals where Freddie is indeed singing "One shrimp, one prawn, one clam, one chicken" .... and worse. I'll never hear that song in the same way again. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"Fookin' Prawns"! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abbey Road, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Let It Be and Something.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You could have told me that when I made the edit (I was reverting to a stable lead from earlier following complaints elsewhere) and it tagged it as "dabs added" but I hadn't the foggiest what. Harrumph. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent aspersion

Friendly reminder: don't cast nasturtiums. --ME123

I just noticed this and felt you should be aware that you were recently accused of involved bad faith sanctioning by this user. Unfortunately, this is only the fourth or so NPP-aligned editor I've encountered since February that thinks it was okay for Onel5969 to edit war and ignore policy if you had "very little experience with the NPP process and the work required and the challenges faced." One of them even bludgeoned the first ANI report towards the end and argued unironically at one point that Onel doesn't have to engage in dispute resolution or abide by ATD-R because his time is too precious. Darkknight2149 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling to work out the overall context as to what this is about, but if Kudpung (who is one of the most knowledgeable editors about the entire NPP process, second perhaps only to DGG if that) thought I had no experience with NPP, he wouldn't have nominated me for adminship. Onel's block (which was only a block on a single page for edit warring) was appealed and declined by another administrator, not overturned, so it can't have been that egregious. In any case, this block is in the past and is no longer important - in general I have found that Onel is a good editor who is willing to listen when we have disagreed on something (generally whether an article meets a particular CSD criteria such as A7 or G11). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Ritchie and yes, that nomination statement was one of the coolest I wrote and I never regretted it since. Giving credit where it's due, Darkknight2149, I handed Onel5969 a barnstar not so long ago for his work on NPP. Anyway, it just goes to prove what I have always contended: that the majority of NPPers are a lazy bunch of hat collectors and that never in the field of junk and spam has so much been owed by so many to so few; and now, without any semblance of coordination, NPP is in an even worse state than when I was holding it together for years and Ritchie was working there. That said, not being an aficionado of that dark and nauseating almost medieaval squalour of ANI with its leering, jeering peanut gallery on one side and a bunch of admin wannabe governance obsessives on the other, since 1 March 2020 I've not been very clued up on the quotidian crap that cackles there like witches round a caldron. Hence I wouldn't have been aware of any other of OneI's activities, and I'm not in a position to judge either way even if I wanted to, and I don't. I would be hard pressed however, to imagine that a block pronounced by Ritchie were inappropriate, especially where it was endorsed by another admin. Anyway, I see no reason for anyone to be hounding Ritchie or OneI and it's time for all those who can't let it go, to give it a rest now, otherwise if I were an admin (and I ain't) I'd start throwing my weight around. Now back in the land of living after 9 weeks in hospital with a COVID that nearly killed me, so forgive me for having waxed lyrical, but I'm going back to my pianner to bash out some more blues and boogie - and perhaps a bit of jazzed up Bach. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You can't go wrong with a bit of music. Last night I was playing clarinet in a military band (seem to be doing a lot of that these days) running through the full, original, Elgar arrangement of "Pomp and Circumstance No 1", and then doing a few Rory Gallagher covers (the anniversary of his death has just passed) on guitar in a pub. How many people can do both? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kudpung: thanks for the unintentional suggestion here, I hadn't played my piano for quite a few months but I also went and bashed out a few tunes on seeing your message. I hope you are on the mend, that sounds terrible.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Am also sorry to hear that, Kudpung. Hope you will soon feel suitably switched on again. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Pretty much recovered now but it will still take a while for all the side effects of the medication to clear up. My goodness, Martin, I still have the Carlos Switched On Bach album I bought in 1970. Having been taught on a church organ as a kid, that, the Moog, and The Nice and ELP were what fueled my passion for progrock which inevitably ended up in fusion and funk. This afternoon's session morphed from Bach into some Pachalbel and Telemann in odd time signatures (God bless Paul Desmond's influence when I was still in short trousers!). Pomp & Circumstance always brings tears to my eyes - no wonder when I grew up where I did. I guess that's why I contributed (in a very small way) to Tim's FA. Yes, you can't go wrong with a bit of music, the clarinet was one of my Dad's favourite instruments (he played a beautiful rendering of Summertime - remember Artie Shaw's 1945 version?), and of course Gallagher is challenging stuff. Shame he passed away so young. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Elgar might have agreed with you about the clarinet. Composers seem to have their particular pets among the wind instruments. Sullivan's blue-eyed boy was the oboe, and both Offenbach and Britten (of all unlikely bedfellows) seem to favour the flute. But Elgar could add just a single clarinet note to a chord and turn it into something heartrending. Very sorry to hear that Covid bit you so savagely, and glad to hear you're on the mend. Tim riley talk 20:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, when I heard the combination of what the 2nd and 3rd clarinets were doing in the first section before the trio (by playing one and hearing the other next to me) it seemed to be a perfect combination. I'm glad you're on the mend, Kudpung, so many people I know have had Covid but most cases have thankfully been minor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

After that random "fried chicken" remark above, I dug out my Queen at Wembley DVD and listened to both nights all the way through (in the background while doing other things), and some stuff just seems to get better and better with time. Particularly the simple but effective duet of "Love of My Life" which you can't really do justice without about 70,000 people singing along. Actually, when I first got hold of a few Queen LPs in the late 80s, they were completely unfashionable and unpopular (they'd stopped touring and doing interviews, some rumour that their singer wasn't well) and then soon as Freddie died they became the biggest band in the world. To the extent I never want to hear Bohemian sodding Rhapsody ever again - it's been done to death and I'm sick of it. Sorry. And bringing us full circle, it's well documented that Brian May got his tone (guitar -> Dallas Rangemaster -> Vox AC30) from Rory Gallagher. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Or even Nina. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Also... gotta love a bit of Dickie Strauss: [2]

Paris Themmen

Thank you for the protection--a look at the page history indicates that this has been going on, intermittently, for months. Are the disruptive accounts related to this range block [3]? Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe not. But perhaps a new range block is in order [4]. This, too, quacks like a WP:LTA. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with this user, and the history behind the range blocks. You're better asking somebody like zzuuzz who specialises in these things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This is new to me, as well--I've only noticed the article in the last 24 hours. But comments under the page protection report suggest block evasion, not to mention the long term warring and disruptive edit summaries. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Your not gonna get away with this 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869, I’ve seen your talk page and I saw the way you act. Calling us users wannabes and this and that, saying posts like that is literally a violation to the Wikipedia policy, which it’s called a personal attack. Besides, the only reason why you guys keep him around is because you let him snitch on users and you let him get away scold free, all you give him is a slap on the wrist, that’s it. Whenever we try to defend ourselves, you blame it on us. Again, I AM the victim of this. I already told you I didn’t do anything wrong and yet you still requested it to because protected over a completely stupid reason. Again, that’s the only reason why you guys keep this IP user around, you let him snitch on user and allow to get away with it scold free. Period. 2600:1000:B012:18AA:1C5A:E4C4:1AA7:2D4E (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, Mr 2600:1000, let's back up a minute and work out what's going on. Now, as far as I can tell:

The dispute started over whether Paris Themmen should be described as an actor, or also an entrepreneur, real estate broker, commercial casting director. There seems to be some mention of "vandalism", but removing that information certainly doesn't sound like vandalism, but a good-faith improvement to summarise why this person has a Wikipedia article. You then repeatedly reversed this deletion, calling people names, which let to a report on the requests for page protection board. I decided there was good grounds for a protection, and also blocked one of your IPs after you removed a report, which is generally not done except in cases of blatant vandalism or abusive language, which wasn't this.

The response I left at the noticeboard is what I would describe as "ha ha only serious". It's an obvious parody of the Oompa Loompa speeches from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (and to a lesser extent, the film adaptations that are similar but much shorter); however there is a serious message behind it - which is, if you disrupt articles, and administrators take action to stop that, the best advice is to do something else.

I think that's a reasonable summary of events. I'm also going to quote from a well-respected essay, which is : "When someone's first edit is reverted, and they are sufficiently angered by this that they leave several paragraphs of invective on the reverter's talk page, it is highly unlikely that that person is suited to become a Wikipedia editor. Hard as it is, we need to leave our egos at the door, or as much of those egos as it is possible to unload. Not only can anyone edit, but anyone does edit, and reversions of good-faith edits are all part of a day's action here.".

You might also be interested to know that there are a number of talk page stalkers here who are more than happy to let me know when I'm wrong and have screwed up (see the above thread where I deleted something that appeared to have consensus might not have been the right call, so I reversed the deletion to let discussion continue). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

As I explained it before and I’ll say it again, it all started because a previous IP address user deleted them back in April 2021. As you can see here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_Themmen&diff=1015745289&oldid=1007459871, because his career section LITERALLY says he worked into a business career after leaving acting. Plus, I will say this again for the third time, I was only putting it back just to prevent it from that previous IP user from removing it again. That’s all I was doing and yet you guys still won’t listen. Look, I don’t wanna sit here and argue with you about it. I wasn’t even stalking anyone, that is a complete lie. The reason why I left him that message on his talk page is because I wasn’t trying to be rude to him, all I wanted him to do is to just stop wrongfully accusing me of something I didn’t do. Here I am trying to explain myself for my actions and yet you guys are still making excuses just to make me look bad. I was only trying to prevent that section from being vandalized again. Is it that hard for me to explain that to you guys? 2600:1000:B01F:831E:A85D:B264:96EF:C932 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to put this in bold - that is not vandalism. You need to read WP:VANDAL (and to a lesser extent, MOS:LEAD). You are making a complete storm in a teacup over a minor and inconsequential issue, that would have been better spent improving the encyclopedia somewhere else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Look, if I was too hard on him, I’m sorry. I though I was preventing vandalism by restoring those edits. I know that starting an argument against users is the wrong thing to do and I’m trying my very hardiest to keep my cool now against him. Again, I apologize for yelling in my previous talk page posts, saying this and that and all other things. I really thought I was doing the right thing. 2600:1000:B02C:2D60:14C0:7A79:BCD3:939E (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Me: Sees 1.7 million ARC notifications on my watchlist.

Also me: Pours the coffee back in the water part of the coffee pot because it's definitely not strong enough.

GMG^talk 11:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case

Hi @Ritchie333: Would you say it it the case that you can only evidence on the folk that are mentioned in the case list? scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There is some advice given here. A general criteria I would use is if you know of an editor who has had multiple ANI threads raised about their conduct, none of which have closed as any consensus, then by definition that's a problem the community cannot handle and hence is suitable as a case party. That's the context I used for suggesting adding 7&6=thirteen as a party. Of the other major players in the numerous AfD-related threads at ANI over the past year, all the others I can think of have been blocked or topic banned in some manner, so I would class them as problems the community can and did handle, and hence arbitration is not required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see, somebody has already asked in relation to somebody else. That makes sense, and follows process. I just wish it was wider in scope, although it might quite huge. I see what I do with that. scope_creep^Talk 13:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Sometimes there is no consensus, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polarity therapy (2nd nomination). Good job. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

June songs

Thank you for improving articles in June! My song collection is especially rich, look, and the hall where I first heard DFD, Pierre Boulez and Murray Perahia. Do you find the baby deer in the meadow (last row)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Suboptimal protection

I see you protected Thomas Fleetwood (1661-1717)) to prevent AnomieBOT from recreating it as a redirect to Thomas Fleetwood (1661–1717)). The better solution is what Tamzin did: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 18#Thomas Fleetwood (1661-1717)) to delete the endash-containing title too so AnomieBOT will have no reason to create it. Anomie⚔ 11:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that Ritchie did this after I'd started the RfD, I can't really fault him for it. Personally, I saw it as unnecessary in the face of a second RfD, but it's valid enforcement of an XfD consensus. Incidentally, @Anomie, I was actually going to ask, regarding this case: Is there any way to get the bot to skip a title that has been previously deleted with "Redirects for discussion" mentioned somewhere in the deletion summary, maybe notifying some appropriate page instead? Or, better yet... although this might be a separate task... for the bot to reply at RfD if one of its redirects is created, suggesting that we bundle in the en-dash version? (I guess really anyone could set up that latter task, looking through Category:Avoided double redirects/error.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Shall we take the extra discussion to User talk:AnomieBOT so as to not clutter Ritchie333's talk page with unrelated stuff? Anomie⚔ 00:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warren Street tube station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warren Street tube station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Cheers. Stuck for sources about anything else, so it's sadly on the short side and seems to be the tube station they all gloss over for the more important ones nearby, but them's the breaks.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warren Street tube station

The article Warren Street tube station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Warren Street tube station for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warren Street tube station

The article Warren Street tube station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Warren Street tube station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Ritchie333,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

>NPP backlog: 11168 as of 20:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• 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 and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Green - July GA Editathon

Hello Ritchie333:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in July 2022!

Running from July 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event focused on the topic of women and the environment. Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works during the event period (with an emphasis on environmental links and topics). GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Crikey, has it been a year since my last women-related GA, Caroline Flack? Okay, I'll see if I can dig out sources for another one, though I've got absolutely no idea who at this point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Folkestone Harbour railway station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Folkestone Harbour railway station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Folkestone Harbour railway station

The article Folkestone Harbour railway station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Folkestone Harbour railway station for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gibson G-101

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gibson G-101 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Unexpectedlydian -- Unexpectedlydian (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gibson G-101

The article Gibson G-101 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gibson G-101 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Unexpectedlydian -- Unexpectedlydian (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to look at this, as the Folkestone Harbour review came in at the same time and I've been busy elsewhere all over the weekend. Hopefully I'll get round to addressing the issues in the next few days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Folkestone Harbour railway station

The article Folkestone Harbour railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Folkestone Harbour railway station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Promotional stuff

Hi, Ritch - before I nominate these hotels for ?speedy? or AfD - will you take a look at them. I'm thinking speedy because (a) they're not notable, (b) it's obvious promo, and (c) PE?? It's pretty obvious when you look at the editor's contributions. I'm a bit confused as to why this editor (admin) decided to tag that particular promo for all the reasons it should have been speedy deleted. Atsme 💬 📧 11:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a prime WP:G11 if you ask me, and I've tagged it as such. Sometimes it can be shown that a hotel article is notable if it had a long service under a previous name, or serving some other purpose, or if the site of the hotel sits on was previously used for something documented in reliable sources. For example, consider The Courthouse Hotel London, which is not really notable in itself but is documented (amongst other things) as the place where Oscar Wilde met his downfall in 1895 and Mick Jagger and Keith Richards got "busted" in 1967. This article doesn't appear to have any of those claims, and is written like a stereotypical vanispamcruftisment, so it doesn't belong here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Wishing Ritchie333 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   Chris Troutman (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

From Nicole Pesce (inspired by Victor Borge.... especially the finale!): enjoy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing trouble with Mathsci‘s Friends / Network

Hi Ritchie333. I‘m addressing you because I saw you banned Mathsci. For a long time I‘ve had exactly the same problems with him - like obviously so many others, described in the Administrators' noticeboard. He wouldn‘t stop edit warring and deleting sourced and relevant material, without good reason or arguments. He also repeatedly changed the meaning or the appearance of my contributions on various talk pages. Most of that in articles about music, especially around the composer Frédéric Chopin.

In his farewell-statement, Mathsci identified his friends/network, like Smerus or the administrator Johnuniq. This made me see many things more clear and understand: Together, they tried to intimidate me, heckle me or even hound me and deleted my well sourced contributions without good arguments, more than once obviously acting as a group. [5][6] [7] [8][9]

Like that, Mathsci, Smerus and Nihil novi also started dominating and undermining a RfC, filibustering without end and with this conduct omitting sources and quotes which are relevant for the discourse, but they personally didn‘t like.

It still goes on: [10][11]

That’s not the conduct you would expect of users and contributors of an open and free encyclopedia like Wikipedia, is it? Could you have a look at that please or give me a hint? Perhaps also Hammersoft could help? Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the meaning of calling me Mathsci's 'friend', or in his 'network', exactly? I do not know him, and was not associated with the topic which resulted in his ban. I should be grateful to know of exactly what I am being accused here. I see that Chip-chip has launched a similar attack against me at User_talk:François_Robere#RfC_Chopin. Chip-chip is responsible for serial WP:NNPOV attempts to 'prove' that Chopin and some of his circle were homosexual, against the consensus of Chopin scholars and biographers. I and others consistently revert his attempts to burden WP articles with irrelevant gossip. The RfC on Chopin agreed with this approach. If Chip-chip has a grievance or complaint about me, let him be explicit and make it in an open forum, rather than on a user's talk page.--Smerus (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Chip-chip-2020, serious accusations require serious evidence. I'm not saying the evidence isn't available, but if it is, build it up and lay it out in clear terms, using as little verbiage as possible. Approach the users in question, and ask for an explanation. If it's unsatisfactory, then move on to WP:DRN. Follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Ritchie is in no more of a position to do anything about this than any of us, barring presentation of serious evidence. Even so, it's unlikely that any action that blocked or even banned one of these editors would be taken unless there was an ongoing disruption to the project. This is something the community would decide. So, develop your evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft for these hints, I‘ll proceed like that.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Help to restore a wikipedia page

Hi Ritchie 333

could you help me? I am trying to add an article but it has been reverted and protected it. Subject is an actor and person in the movie. Subject is not a movie.

Conversation on talk page is as follows...

"I reverted your latest attempt to bypass the protection currently placed upon the creation of the article Caylee Cowan by using alternative capitalization. Do not do this again.

It has already been suggested in the past that you take the proper route to create an article for this subject. I also suggest you take that route. | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Uncle MIlty, I did not intend to bypass by using alternative capitalization. My intention was to add more citations to websites where the subject is mentioned because the subject has been in several movies and is offer cited in news. The subject Caylee Cowan is not a movie. this is an actor in the movie that it is being redirected to. All citations are from notable and verifiable sources and so I do not understand why it is deleted when other wikis are made for actors who are of similar notability such as Travis Burns (actor), Emily Tosta ,David Sheftell, Charley Koontz, William Shockley (actor), Erin Bethea, Jenn Gotzon, Charlotte D'Alessio, all of whom the subject has worked with. Articleeditscontributor (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)"

If the article has been protected like that, the best thing to do is to write a draft article and submit it to review via the Articles for creation process. If the draft is accepted at review, the protection can be changed at that point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gibson G-101

The article Gibson G-101 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gibson G-101 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Unexpectedlydian -- Unexpectedlydian (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)