User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 97

In response to your "how on earth is that U5 or G11?" message on User:Neal - Rare Ltd, the page should fit under U5 for " blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host" as it consists of nothing that is closely related to "Wikipedia's goals" and is literally a very short blog about the user, detailing their job and a link to where they work. It also fits under G11 because the user seems to be advertising Rare Ltd., their username matching the content on that page and the information on the page appears to simply be advertising themselves and the company they work for. The79 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@The79: The prose in question is no more a "misuse" than "Ritchie333 is a fortysomething software engineer, musician and real ale drinker" or "This is the profile used by the journalist and commentator Peter Hitchens". The policy for G11 states that a qualifying page must be "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten" You can't "fundamentally rewrite" one sentence. In any case, Rare Ltd, in their former guise as Ultimate Play The Game made Sabre Wulf and some of my favourite computer games as a kid; they aren't some backwater company. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:NOTWEBHOST, "limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia" and that "personal web pages are often speedily deleted". The page is literally a personal web page, the only content on the page is "member of the Web & Community team at Rare Ltd". Also, just because it's not some "backwater company", does that mean I'm allowed to advertise it? I would've thought that regardless of the size of the company, even say, Google, I wouldn't be allowed to simply promote it in both my username and my user page? If you don't want to delete the page, that's fine, I am not going to argue further over a user page, I was simply tagging it because I felt that it had nothing to do with Wikipedia's goals and simply seemed like a personal web page about what they do and where they work. The79 (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that nothing you have said or done here has anything particularly to do with Wikipedia's goals either, which is writing an encyclopedia. Have you ever written an encyclopedia article? It would seem not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you implying that you are only fulfilling Wikipedia's goals by starting a new page and/or article by pointing to the list of pages I've created? So other people who edit Wikipedia and contribute information to Wikipedia have done nothing for Wikipedia? Also, this is a talk page, the details on WP:NOTWEBHOST was pointing to user pages, not talk pages. The79 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

With over three-quarters of their edits being semi-automated. Never mind an article, what about a sentence?! :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So how about the other quarter? Clearly you've only seen where I've done vandalism reverting and completely ignored the other pages I've contributed to. Just because most of it is reverting vandalism, that means the rest is nothing? The79 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The real point I'm making here is that you don't seem to have a good handle on empathy and don't have a sufficient grasp on the relevant social skills to work within the spirit of what the policies and guidelines are developed for, as opposed to just being a bunch of rules you can whack people over the head with. A lack of content contributions are an easy way to determine that; if you did do lots of writing on the encyclopedia, you would either discover the correct level of empathy and tolerance to work with other people on a collaborative project, or you wouldn't and get blocked, or you'd take umbrage at the first time somebody disagreed with you and flounce. And I would hope it would be the first of those three things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to point out that I was perfectly fine with whatever your decision was going to be, clearly pointing that I wasn't going to go further at arguing at whatever your decision was (in fact after that, I didn't really discuss any further about the page besides point out to somebody else about another matter). I did take offence at the fact that your statement implied that I hadn't done anything to achieve "Wikipedia's goals" by slapping a log of the new pages (as if Wikipedia is simply about making new pages) and commenting afterwards "It would seem not", before another user decided to jump in and mock by sarcastically saying "Never mind an article, what about a sentence?!" as if I've never done that before, when if you looked through my contributions, you could see that I have, underneath all the mostly counter-vandalism work I've done. I also don't see why you think I can't "work with other people on a collaborative project" when I've already helped others such as in cleaning up an article and making it far more presentable on the Operation Greens article. The79 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood - I said that your entire discussion thread on my talk page isn't conductive towards building an encyclopedia, not your conduct over the entire project (which I haven't looked at bar pulling out a few well-known heuristics that generally turn out to be accurate from my experience), and the fact you're still here arguing about it instead of ignoring it and doing something else does indeed suggest you need to chill out a bit and not go into almighty tirades when somebody suggests ways you might become a better editor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that part - it's just that you brought up the logs for the list of pages by saying "Have you ever written an encyclopedia article", moving it from your talk page to "conduct over the entire project". Secondly, I stopped arguing over the original topic as I said I would, it was just that everything changed topics so it landed here, plus, I don't understand why you think I'm going "almighty tirades" and "need to chill out" when I'm responding to what you're saying in quite a civil manner, full sentences and everything, no different to how you are. The79 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Bingo. What they do and where they work = limited autobiographical information. ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Another. ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The user in question has not edited in eight years. They are quite plainly not misusing Wikipedia for anything right now. I don't see how it is productive to go around tagging such pages.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:U5 does say "It applies regardless of the age of the page in question." I wasn't even paying attention to the age of the page anyway. The79 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) @The79: - Our COI guidelines mandates disclosure of any Conflict-of-Interest and his user-page precisely did that. In light of his editorial activities about RARE's platform games, you ought to appreciate the user-page/disclosure rather than slap deletion tags. ∯WBG^converse 14:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

... as a thank-you-click didn't work (because of too many GA symbols for Cirt), thank you for reverting censorship. Sylvia Geszty (pictured as Cleopatra in the East) - did you know that article dates back to April? I like the pic a lot! Thanks also to GRuban who dug it up, and David who cropped it. Celebrating open arms (vs. secret police, with no appeal). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a caption competition for that - I'll start the ball rolling with "I beg of you, please let my hook be in prep by next week!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

28bytes, not again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I changed to just "welcome!", but the blue blues days are still with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

How about: "Welcome to review, TRM!"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be {{London encyclopedia|###}}. I just tried it and it works, although differently than the Butt-Stations template, as with yours, the value of ### is irrelevant, or maybe that's want you wanted? 82.14.227.91 (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings about the template; I just created it because I cite the London Encyclopedia a lot, and I got fed up with copypasting the cite book template again and again and again. I don't know what the ### does; maybe Redrose64 can help. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I can see you're not assed either way. 82.14.227.91 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The |### does nothing because the template doesn't contain any code to process parameters. So {{London encyclopedia}} is the only valid form. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Links for these two pages...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr.

...are not working when used in a Gmail. The link is made with a Command C, copies well including the period at the end, but when a receiver clicks on the link, it doesn't work because the period at the end is not being included in the link.

Does anyone know how to make this work?

Hathalm (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hathalm, That is... strange! I was able to reproduce it in gmail. If you change the last period to %2e (the Unicode encoding for "full stop"), it appears to work. It's an ugly workaround for sure, ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr%2e. SQL^{Query me!} 16:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hathalm: expressly include the full url. If you are composing an email, use the insert link command and enter the entire path. Note also, this problem occurs elsewhere as well, for example your links above don't work, but you can make them work like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr.

That one doesn't work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr.

That one does work.

— xaosflux ^Talk 17:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@SQL: FYI above. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, The issue is that gmail converts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr. to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr when you paste the link into an email. That being said, using the insert link button works as well to properly link the article, without ugly utf-8 encoding. SQL^{Query me!} 17:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all. You solved it. (Embrace.) :) 184.88.249.16 (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Reviewers,

Proprioceptive Writing is a legitimate intellectual and psychological method of endeavor, and of exploration. The content itself reinforces this - one has but to look into the scholarly sources, references, and associations to see that presentation of the discipline is more than a matter of mere promotion. Add to that, the associations with numerous listed academic institutions, credentials of creators and contributors, and relationships with noted centers for reflection, and we affirm that our dispute with it being labeled "advertising" is just and sound.

If the reviewers would like more information, they are welcome to look into the sources within the article itself, or to email any of the following persons to seek a better grounding in the nature of the subject:

Derek Williams, PWC/PWCSE web admin - jdw0408@gmail.com - Anne Bright - Ann Bright, PWCSE Chief Instructor - anne@thewayofwriting.org - Linda T. Metcalf - PW Co-founder, Principal Proprioceptive Writing Instructor - linda@pwriting.org

Please also consider the following existing Wikipedia articles, to help contextualize the work of PW and its founders:

Peter Elbow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Elbow

Ira Progoff - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Progoff

We more than welcome recommendations for edits/revisions to format and tone, if that would be preferable.

Best and Thank You,

Ddubb0044 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC) and The PW Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddubb0044 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ddubb0044: The problem wasn't so much what the article was about, but how it was written. As Wikipedia is a collaborative process, other editors want to be able to help copyedit the article, add sources, and generally improve it, but if it's structured in such a way that makes it difficult to understand what the subject material is about, that can't happen.

By comparison, I was looking at this Metcalf Consulting piece about how to motivate 12 year olds at school by focusing on positive things; that immediately grabbed my attention and gave me a better understanding of the topic. Obviously you can't compare an encyclopedia article to an essay, but an article needs to be presented in a calm and neutral manner describing the facts; that way it will grab people's attention and make them understand the subject matter.

Moving forward, I think it would be easier to start an article on Linda Metcalf. The good news there is that she seems to have a confirmed post as Professor of Graduate Counseling at Texas Wesleyan University which sounds like she meets the notability guidelines for academics, so it ought to be possible to write an article about her. The other good bit of news is we have an established project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red which is dedicated to writing and improving articles about women, and I can call on several people to help write the article. I'll have a look and see what I can do and get back to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've put a follow-up post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Linda T. Metcalf. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am not sure that this is the place to write to contact Richie333. The Linda Metcalf that you linked to is not the Linda Trichter Metcalf who is the founder of the Proprioceptive Writing Method. I am a certified teacher of Proprioceptive Writing, and a practioner of over 20 years. I have written on Proprioceptive Writing in relationship to Adult Development and Carol Gilligan's ground-breaking work on Voice and girls' development at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education in 1996/1997. I would like to edit the article off-line and then repost for consideration. Does that make sense? JhydeP42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhydep42 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You asked the other day if 101.98.126.25 is this guy. I didn't have a strong feeling at the time, apart from noting a similarity of attitude, but now I'm starting to wonder. XOR'easter (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: It does like BKFIPish; however, as other editors have said, you went over the three revert rule on the article and were lucky not to get a block; while WP:3RRNO says you can revert banned editors without being sanctioned, you shouldn't rely on that and should have rock solid evidence they're banned and that the edits they are reverting to are definitely disruptive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

Yes, this whole incident is making me realize that, whatever small good I manage to do around here, it's not a kind of interaction I am well-suited to... Where does one file a report about suspected long-term bad editing? Is there even a point to doing so when they change IP address twice a day? XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're sure it's the same person, you can start a thread at WT:BKFIP, which I see you've done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I had hoped that would be the end of it, but see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Links_from_lead_sections_to_parts_of_the_article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have declined that unblock request, and reminded him that in the past, an administrator has been in conversation with his employer about abusive conduct on Wikipedia. He is (AFAIK) still community banned, so anyone has a policy-backed reason to instantly block with talk page disabled. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully the discussion there can go on in good faith now (and it seems to have entered a better regime). What's the best thing to do if they come back there from another IP, as seems plausible given their habits? XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Opinions vary. In my view, if they are cleaning up articles and improving prose and nobody is reverting or complaining, I won't do anything. It's only on the first disagreement and disruptive act that it is then worth blocking for sockpuppetry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Just an afterthought but I was thinking of adding the image from the article - any idea how to add it to the nomination? Dan arndt (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: The easiest way to do it is to find an existing nomination with an image (I picked Template:Did you know nominations/Trafalgar Square off the top of my head) and copy and paste the section immediately below the line starting "{{DYK nompage links", including the div and the main page image template, adjusting the filename to suit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - do you need to sign off that the image is okay, given that I added it after your assessment? Dan arndt (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that should be okay, as the image is on Commons and verified as having a suitable free licence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, on July 8, you blocked Hhggtg3279 for edit-warring and personal attacks. Now, the user has continued to be disruptive. I can't list all the reverts (there are a lot), but here are some from the last 24 hours: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. DeluxeVegan (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Plus this one [15] two minutes ago. DeluxeVegan (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@DeluxeVegan: The disruption on Spider-Man: Homecoming has stopped (presumably everyone has got tired of edit warring with everyone else and gone to bed); however be advised I am keeping an eye on the article and if it starts up again, people (not just Hhggtg3279) who go over the three revert rule are at risk of getting blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please explain why article about CherryPlayer was deleted from Wikipedia while the ones about Media Player Classic, VLC Player, etc. still present there? Oldfriend (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oldfriend: Breaking sticks tagged the article with {{db-g11}}, asking it for it to be deleted and recreated because it was written in a way that was fundamentally unsuitable to be an encyclopedia article. Nobody has recreated it yet. To start off with, you could use a source such as this review from GHacks and this German review from the Swiss IT Magazine, using basic information from those. VLC Player is still present because it has sufficient sources of information to easily stand as an encyclopedia article without being challenged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed that you canceled some of my CSD requests. One of them seemed to have a message stating that I "was trying to place as many tags as possible". [16] I can assure you that is not the case. I am currently working on reducing the huge backlog at the stale drafts wikiproject/drive. It has lost traction a bit and I am trying to maintain its work. All articles I mark have been stale and are taking up space for possible articles. The Student Center at Yale had no content, was stale, and the user who created it had very little edits outside of it. That warrants a web host violation.

However, since you are the administrator, I respect your reasoning but would like a bit more info on the situation.

Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: "I am currently working on reducing the huge backlog at the stale drafts wikiproject/drive." Can you show me a link to this drive, what its aims are, and how it is compatible with writing an encyclopedia? "All articles I mark have been stale and are taking up space for possible articles" I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation are desperately short on disk space; if they were you would see emergency equipment fundraising drives advertised on the site. I suspect more disk space is being used on vandals' sockpuppet accounts mocking administrators. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts which is part of the WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. By saying "taking up space for possible articles", I meant that user space drafts that are notable are being overshadowed by all the stale ones. Also, what do you mean by sock puppet accounts mocking admins? Do they really do that? AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I note the project appears to have been started by two indefinitely blocked editors, which makes me somewhat suspicious of its purpose. And yes, vandals really do this stuff, and I think it would benefit for the project for all those blocked editors' accounts with 0 edits to be deleted, and the remainder redacted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Oh my. Thats shocking. Even you had some socks trying to mimic you. The purpose of the project is mentioned on the official wiki project page. I'll make sure to be on the look out for any mimics. Anyway to find new users? Also, one of the leads of the project was LegacyPac. Sigh. He was a big contributor who helped a lot, but sadly his temper and immaturity caused his downfall. What do you suggest we do with the project. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I seem to recall trying to ask for clemency about Legacypac on ANI, but it didn't take consensus. I'm not sure what to do with this project; the problem is, with a few exceptions such as Milhist and occasionally Food and Drink, projects tend to not get much focus anymore, so I'm not really sure if there's a good place, other than possibly the Village Pump. I would be interested to know if there's some follow-up just to determine its purpose and nature, and also if it's technically possible to redact usernames. I know that policy states you can't delete users because of attribution, but Fuck this I will go vandalize another fucking site (talk · contribs) has absolutely no business existing on Wikipedia, full stop, has been blocked for over a decade, and has no contributions whatsoever. I don't see a technical reason why it can't be expunged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I agree that users should be able to get removed entirely, all logs gone. The stale draft drive does benefit wikipedia by allowing notable drafts to be recognized more. Also, there are so many G11 and U5's out there that the drafts need to be in check. For WikiProjects, I have seen Aviation, US roads, United States (The 50k drive), GOCE, Orphanage, CheckWiki, Cleanup, and Portals be constantly focused on. I have been trying to revive certain Wikiprojects such as "Move image to Commons" and "Missing articles", but it is hard doing a WikiProject that has been nearly abandoned. I mean look at This. Its sad to see WikiProjects slowly fade out of existence. My fear is that they will suffer the same fate as portals, mass deletion. What should the plan be for everything? AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the best plan for projects is to downsize them and merge them into a larger project. Although I rebooted Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin because I fancied doing a bit of work on some album articles, that's very much the exception than the norm; similarly Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd which saw huge input from Parrot of Doom, pigsonthewing and John, but since PoD and John have largely disappeared and Andy is busy elsewhere, it's kind of fallen by the wayside. I think the conclusion is that projects don't have a long shelf-life without a disproportionate amount of effort put into them. That said, there is still plenty of activity on the encyclopedia; in particular a lot of IPs do writing and fixing up established articles more often than you realise. I wonder how many of them are retired / banned editors who are still bitten by the editing bug? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That is probably the case with retired editors. It would be sad to let WikiProjects go. I wish there was a way to get more editors aware of all the various drives such as abandoned drafts or the huge missing article page. TAFI seems to loosing steam. AFC, GA, DYK, and FA are going strong though. The one thing that needs more attention is the backlog. The backlog is growing and its not reducing by much, apart from the Orphaned articles. We need a way to drive more attention to it. Theres so much to do, yet I feel like it isn't claimed by people kind of like the ocean, so much potential exploration but only 5 percent explored. Anyway, I personally love being given tasks to do as I get a huge sense of accomplishment such as a backlog reduction. If you have any work to do or need any help. Im always here to help out. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not that it matters, I'm sure, but I'm now all about the love for people who really care about the project. You're one of those. So let's reboot. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, although I must confess complete confusion over what a "bollocks face" is. Say, M25 motorway needs a GA review, and I think Gerda wanted a DYK hook about ten threads above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A bollocks face? Well you could start with this one and add that one too. I'll think about the M25 GA, I spend long enough on it. EZL? I'm not even allowed to discuss that, as you know. Is that some kind of trap? So soon? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I missed that. When did that happen? I had a quick look on the dramaboards and the only thing I can find is a proposal being tossed out. In my view, it is poor form for an administrator to log something at WP:EDR and not put a link to the discussion that led to the consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You know me, I have so much drama swirling around (like a novice Fram), I couldn't point you to anything. I'm sure someone somewhere will be able to point to the bit where I was banned forever from engaging in that whose name can't be spake ever, although I was given the dispensation that I could do whatever I liked at WP:TRM which, obviously, is complete bollocks, but that's how we roll here. I think I'd be okay with making reviews of articles in isolation of any known main page "process of whose name I cannot speak", and I can draw attention to the myriad issues from said "unspoken other place" at WP:TRM, but I can't actively engage with the community, even when it's utter horseshit and full of problems and embarrassing and on the main page for hours and hours. Because that all makes sense. Can't risk it because there are certain admins who, in the past, have shown a determination to simply block, block, block, and move on, mechanically, almost like a robot. So I'm treading cautious these days. Happy to help with the normal sub-par stuff that gets onto "certain" parts of the main page, but I'm permanently "under a cloud". The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Basically TRM kept getting dragged to AE, so Sandstein went to ARCA and this motion was passed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that. I see there I wrote "As I said on the other thread, if you gain TRM's respect and have a quiet off-wiki word, he is reasonable. If you charge in on horseback with Arbcom pro-forma templates, you'll get blown a raspberry", though I seem to remember most of my participation in that discussion was to try and diplomatically get BU Rob13 to take off the spiderman outfit and climb down from the Reichstag. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It was my good friends at Arbcom who instigated the topic ban. As odd as it is. But I have renewed respect for some of them after their response to the board, so I'm letting it slide for now. I think I can trust at least a handful of the remaining committee to do the right thing. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have remained largely silent on the Fram issue aside from stating my views on it once (which drew a few comments of "that's far too sensible to post here") and kept a wide berth of the more hysterical side of discussions. I have said the WMF was, if not incompetent or malicious, extremely naive and unfair about banning a longstanding contributor without any explanation or any right of appeal, but I just don't think Fram has got the right temperament and communication skills to be an administrator and I would have supported a desysop, though probably not a site ban.

As for "that project", I will see if I can raise the issue at WP:ARCA and get some common sense injected into the debate. I am absolutely certain that Gerda Arendt would have no issue whatsoever in you reviewing her proposed text for Georg Katzer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well sure. If I was a betting man/dog/amoeba, then I'd place 1000/1 on that Arbcom tell you to do one, evens that the ban is extended further (as normal when my appeals are lodged) and a million to one against anything favourable occurring. So sure, go for it, common sense is in short supply of late, but I think it's always trumped by the rejoicing hawks who await my demise. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The ban was the result of last autumn's round of drama, when the mysterious "TRM groupies" were brought into the equation and I think you offered someone a Christmas Ale, Ritchie. But probably as long as there are people at DYK who "complain when you're around, and rejoice when you leave" it's going to be difficult for TRM to find a home there...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Late to the party, back from another delightful concert, pianist playing his own piano concerto, first time in Germany (on my talk). No time for Wikipedia. The hook is not about Georg Katzer (I expanded the article but not 5 times), but his opera, and I tried to oblige saying East Germany (which I believe never was a country, - a region yes, a political system yes, but not a country)), and need a check if that would work. The opera with the useful quote about trying in vain to pound at the doors of the mighty. (Insert the mighty you think have too much power.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie

You recently deleted a page I created titled "Paycor," but I don't understand why it was deleted. The reason was marked as a G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion. However, I believe I only had factual information on the page regarding the subject, and I referenced several outside sources including Inc Magazine and The Cincinnati Enquirer. I also fail to see how it is really different than other company pages I see on Wikipedia, like "LaRosa's Pizzeria" or "Paylocity" for instance, so I'm not sure why it warranted deletion. Can you give me an explanation? Thanks

Seanschaeffer24 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Seanschaeffer24: Company articles are a hard sell on Wikipedia; the basic problem is the world at large doesn't talk about them and mainstream news outlets and books don't write about them. If this sounds unfair, then unfortunately it's just a reflection of what the world thinks about payroll software compared to somewhere to have lunch. LaRosa's Pizzeria is included because it has coverage in multiple national news sources, such as this piece in USA Today which explains its longevity and regional importance, while Paylocity is included in the Deloitte Technology Fast 500. If you want the text restored to your userspace so it isn't lost, I can do that for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I get what you're saying, so let me ask you this: If I included more widespread, national outlets/sources (like Forbes for example), would that make it so the page would be eligible to stay published? And thanks, but I still have a copy of the text I can use. Seanschaeffer24 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The best way to proceed is to use the article wizard at Wikipedia:Article wizard. This will take you through a series of steps, explaining basic dos and don'ts, and then create the new page in draft space, where it won't be deleted. If you need help, there is a good Q&A page called The Teahouse which welcomes new users' questions and can give further advice. Once you think the page is ready to go "live", it will be flagged for review and an independent and experienced editor will look at it. I hope that all makes sense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Burghley Park Cricket Club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stamford

Still in Love with You (Thin Lizzy song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brian Downey

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: Do you think we should set up a move request for Brian Downey? Brian C. Downey is naturally disambiguated, and while Brian Downey (actor) has done a bit, he's nowhere near as notable as the guy from Dublin; a straight Google search brings up the drummer in at least the first three pages. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, why not? I somehow thought there were more Brian Downeys than that. The Lizzy man seems to be the primary topic? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, I see you declined the speedy for the recreation of this article. I had raised the AfD at the time and have just done so again - this is (as far as I can see) an identical copy of the article back then. Nothing has changed. The only thing worth noting is that the original author of this article has been blocked and the new article is most likely a sock. There has been previous sock activity with this user and a new case has been raised. Very "ducky" behaviour. This may be worth considering in the light of a marginal AfD previously. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The article has been sent to deletion review and I have left a comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 17#Martin Concepcion. I don't really have any views on who created it; I was more interested in seeing the most appropriate consensus play out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

will find far better summaries that qualify as snarky, from me. That was an objective description of him. Have you ever heard of him or read his works? ~ Winged Blades^Godric 19:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, the mentioned trio are orders more competent. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 20:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of Peter Wright and Spycatcher, which were major and re-occurring items on British news just over 30 years ago. I don't understand why calling him a fuckwit in an edit summary is conductive towards writing or improving an encyclopedia, and to then complain about other editors leaving milder edit summaries is, well, hypocritical. Update: Ah no, this is some other Peter Wright (and not obviously the Mail on Sunday journalist either); however that doesn't really invalidate my point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

All I see is that you are well-aware of how a person can write books from his grave .... What leads to you believe that Peter Wright is a coyrighted name?

And, that does invalidate your point because you had nil clue about what you were talking 'bout. This is the person, in, question. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 20:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Godric, has it occurred to you that over the past 24 hours or so, you have acted like a massive cockwomble? I mean, honestly, I'm trying to do the review of Elisa's block as fairly as I can, and you're make a frightening spectacle of yourself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You have absolutely done a fair and commendable job and given the way it's running, she will get site-banned. There's no doubt on that. And, has it ever occurred to you that you are increasingly getting into a habit of maneuvering into completely alien territories despite however clueless you are? ~ Winged Blades^Godric 19:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I must say that T&S's recent initiative to bring Wikipedia closer to the ideal of a collegial safe space imbued by peace and harmony is having an almost magical effect. EEng 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

for the housecleaning services in my user space! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Aaah, now I see, you're one of those crazy deadheads on Wikipedia who drinks real ale (the kind). I'll take half a cup of Rock and Rye to go with that, with the ale in a bocksbeutel, listening to the river sing sweet songs, to rock my soul. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's strange how I like all that music (largely because it's improvised and you can dig out endless variations on a familiar piece of work, keeping it fresh in your mind) but I'm not particularly interested in the tie-died hippy culture that goes with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Yep, the music is where it's at (I like your "endless variations" description). The scene used to be chill in the mid 80s, almost utopian in some ways: peaceful, functional, fun. After Touch Of Grey, the scene got bigger, but it didn't entirely break the scene. The gangsta hippies in the early to mid 90s ultimately ruined the scene. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Grateful Dead - China Cat Sunflower → I know You Rider 6/16/1990 – Electric bluegrass, Jazz, MIDI, etc. All kinds of music there. (Who are the Grateful Dead, and why do they keep following me?) (Fair use). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This gig has my favourite version of "Dancing in the Street", just taking it to a completely different level. Still, that last tour with Brent Mydland is also a peak of the Dead's career too; amazing to think they were still musically on top of their game after 25 years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Old skool. Friends of mine don't always understand my strong regard for the Dead, so I try to hook them up with the best, 5-star shows, to offset the various weak shows that are out there. Re Dancin', take your pick: Frost 85 or Greek 85. I'm lucky enough to have caught the boys at both venues back in the day (but neither of these shows). I think I like the Frost version slightly better. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Northamerica1000: and @Ritchie333: Don't mean to share my opinion, but I believe the king of jazz rock is the one and only 25 or 6 to 4. I am a huge fan of the Dead as well. My personal favorite is Friend of the Devil. Takes me back to the drives to Massachusetts and New York country side. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article M25 motorway 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) 19:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The article M25 motorway 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:M25 motorway for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It comes as no surprise now to see users with grudges demanding "further sanction". If it wasn't so funny, it'd be tragic. I still want a picture of the four-level stack. Perhaps next time I go to Reading I'll go hands free and photo it as I pass underneath.... The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty on Geograph, such as this one, and they've all got a Creative Commons licence - is that what you were thinking of? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The article already has quite a nice aerial view of the M4/M25 junction. I've never seen it from that angle before. I may have some M23/M25 excitement somewhere in my photo archives. A typical thing that became totally overengineered once the London Ringways were cancelled.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer one from below looking up. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I think I'm doing this right.

The article I was working on for the Purple Rose Theatre Company was deleted due to G12 & G6 - I think I've got a grasp on what those mean. I don't understand the G8 reasoning for the page though. I'm still learning up on all of this.

I'm requesting that the draft be restored in hopes that I can remedy the problems. I'm new and I think I just need more help/need to delete items that aren't from reliable sources. Am I understanding that correctly? I'm hoping that since the notability check was good (as referenced below) I should be able to amend the problems and move forward.

22:10, 19 July 2019 Ritchie333 talk contribs moved page Draft:The Purple Rose Theatre Company to Purple Rose Theatre Company (Draft passes notability check, should be good to accept) (revert) (thank)

Thank you for your time, and everything that you & other admins do. Seriously. It's thankless work. Thomas.Macias (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thankless? You just thanked him! Make up your mind! EEng 01:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.Macias: The problem with your draft isn't anything to do with sourcing; as I recall that was accurate and at least one independent editor concluded the theatre was notable. Rather, it's because the prose appeared to be copied and pasted from other websites. The G6 was logged after Bkissin reviewed your draft and passed it, as it required an administrator to overwrite the existing page, which was a redirect to Jeff Daniels. I looked at the article and the prose looked suspiciously well-formed and comprehensive for something so new, so I used one of our copyright checker tools. I found the first paragraph in the body was an identical copy of a website, the second paragraph copied another, and several other paragraphs were copied from the theatre's official website. Unfortunately, the terms and conditions you see when you edit a page say "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios has more information - Wikipedia's definition of "copyright" is very specific; any text must be licenced to be shared with anyone, and even resold, and most websites don't offer this. The G8 in the logs is simply clearing up the related talk / draft talk pages that don't point anywhere once the main article is deleted. I hope that explains things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Got it. That explains a lot. So then, if I understand correctly, even if something is directly quoted and the source is sourced, it still won't necessarily be protected from copyright. There was a lot on the page that was my own work, and I don't doubt that others were not my own words. Is there any way I could get the draft back anyhow and correct the mistakes? Or is it a line in the sand "no turning back" sort of thing? If it is, I get it, but I know you know that a lot of hours went into getting the formatting and sourcing correct. I'd be... not quite devastated, but upset if I couldn't at least get the work back and fix what I did wrong.

Looking ahead to any future work on Wikipedia, is there a way you can share your copyright checker tool process with me? Or point me in a direction to learn more? That would help me double check anything I put on this site moving forward.

Thank you again for your time! Thomas.Macias (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.Macias: Unfortunately, all Wikipedia pages have to be distributed with an appropriate free documentation licence, and text copied from other websites has to be deleted for legal reasons, regardless of what state it's in. We release this involves work submitted in good faith to be lost, and that is a shame.

To install the copyvio check tool yourself, edit Special:MyPage/common.js and add the following line : importScript("User:The Earwig/copyvios.js"); You'll then get an extra option in "Tools" called "Copyvio check". Click on it and it will give you a report on how likely the page is to be copied from another website. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your update. I used text regarding Iron Vision system from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Iron_Vision_helmet-mounted_display_system . Can I delete also this text from Merkava article in Wiki?--Swadim (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I ran a copyright check on Merkava and it came back with about 75% violation likely, with several paragraphs directly copying a news site. Money emoji, I don't suppose you could take a quick look at this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Did a check using earwig. the 75% match is a false positive, that website copied from us; I figured this out by scanning what Merkava looked like the day the news article was published; They looked the same and no one added in a bunch of content at the time, so it had to have been a backwards copy. They also didn't remove the citation when copying it over to the news site; As it says "Mark II chassis provides a low-cost way to upgrade support units' capabilities to perform medical, logistical, and rescue missions.[19] " If you see citations like this pop up during scans, the potential of the website copying from us is much higher. I have to do an irl thing now but I'll look at the other results on earwig later. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 12:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm removed all the copyvios found by earwig from the article. The section Swadim is talking about seems to be clean. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers m'dears. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie333,

I don't know Wikipedia procedures well, yet, but you have been helpful in the past, so I hope I can ask you about something.

This is my husband's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr. He is remarkable in that 1. He was in charge of flight test engineering at the Skunkworks, Air Force Ones... 2. He, with me, co-founded the Ware Lab at Virginia Tech, and 3. Though he was a conservative icon, and his sphere were also conservative, he married me, a transsexual, SRS in 1981. He got with me in 1989, lived together since 1993, married me in 1995...married me 17 times, each year on our anniversary until his death in 2012.

People in our sphere have always tried to hide this, even caused pain to us trying to drive me away.

I just learned today that someone removed the 2nd paragraph in the Retirement section of his page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr. which stated that I am transsexual.

This is true, and it is very important that a man of his conservative nature, a Christian Elder, in the 1990s would marry me, a transsexual, and the person who removed the paragraph said it was almost slanderous to say—as if I am someone of a nature who a man like Joe should not marry. I wouldn't be surprised if the remover was someone in his sphere who is still trying to shut it up.

But I've learned in life there is nothing wrong with me and that it's wrong of people to assume there is or should be. I've been trying for years, now, to own myself and our love. I've shared it to all friends, organizations I'm in, in my book, at Virginia Tech (where his lab is), all over, because it is BEAUTIFUL. He loved me. A man like that; he loved me, married me, stayed with me until the end in spite of prejudice that tried to hide the fact.

SIR: I am not sure how to handle this, but saying Joe married a transsexual is not any slander—it's true and is a beautiful testament to his loving nature, non-judgmental, non-prejudiced, nature.

QUESTION: What can I do to prevent that paragraph being removed again?

Thank you

Jenna Ware, Hathalm Mrs. Joseph F. Ware, Jr. Co-founder of the Ware Lab at Virginia Tech Transsexual

Hathalm (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hathalm: Firstly, my apologies for not replying sooner, I am not in a position to be on-wiki much at the moment and have been distracted by other things in life. Anyway, it sounds like you had a good marriage that gave you lots of happiness, and that's nice to hear. For what it's worth, one of my best friends is transgender and which she has suffered problems from people, I have tried to be as supportive as I possibly can towards her because to me she sounds like a sensible and intelligent woman.

Anyway, it seems that since you wrote, another editor has restored the content as being appropriate to the article, so I don't propose to take any further action. If it gets removed again, let me know (or put a post on the Noticeboard for Biographies of Living People, and I will look into it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)