User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 119

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

Archive 115

←

Archive 117

→

Your GA nomination of O'Connell Street

The article O'Connell Street 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:O'Connell Street for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Might be a very minor thing, but the image used in the infobox is of the street before the spire. I'm surprised to say there isn't many great alternative images, bar maybe this one? Do you think it matters? Smirkybec (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Smirkybec, I personally think the lead image in the article at present is a little bit better - there's more colour, the light is captured better, and there's not the dullness caused by cloud cover. It stands better as the primary image to associate with O'Connell Street, even if the spire isn't there. I've had a quick look in commons:Category:Statue of Daniel O'Connell, Dublin and there doesn't seem to be anything else that leaps out. I would say this is your opportunity to go out and take a better photo! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, don't know if my photography skills would do it any more justice! Strange it has so few images, given it's included in Wiki Loves Monuments. Smirkybec (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose another thing you could try is print out all the images, ask one of your cats to sit on one of them, and pick that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

BKFIP

Do you mind if I revert Special:AbuseFilter/history/667/diff/prev/22386? It's accounting for about 85% of the hits. The latest sock, Andesitic, didn't even trip the filter once, and I'd like to make some refinements. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, Sure, I don't think I've done much with that filter for a while, and I'm quite happy to defer to somebody else who's got more of a handle on it these days. I seem to recall that specific keyword was picked up in some of the rants frequently and was a good trap for a while, but I guess it's stale. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Also made a few other changes. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review second opinion

Hello Ritchie, sorry to bother you but if you have some time, can you please provide input here? My GA nomination awaits a second opinion and has been put on hold. Thank you. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, Done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Candace Brightman

On 11 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Candace Brightman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Candace Brightman was the Grateful Dead's longtime lighting engineer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Candace Brightman. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Candace Brightman), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerda, this is my contribution to International Women's Day, of course being me it's a few days late. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That's nice! I really liked my second, mentioning 7 women by name in one hook. - Talking numbers, I made 4 infoboxes opera today (replacing the deleted sidebars, I do one composer per day as an exercise, today Ferdinando Paer), and then found we have now 1504 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I only counted 6 on the DYK nom :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrèa, Mireille, Marguerite, Manon, Micaela, Carmen, Maria (Callas), - but only six links, if that's what you mean --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for reduction in protection level: User:Jimbo Wales

I don't think User:Jimbo Wales is meant to be semi-protected indefinitely per the "You can edit this page!" section of his user page. 184.147.106.95 (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I discussed this at the time at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 244#Indefinite_semi-protection. What did you want to change on Jimbo's userpage? If you have a good reason (eg: typos, formatting), then I'll look into it, but I think I'll need consensus at WP:AN or a similar forum first, as the page was only finally indefinitely semi-protected after a lot of vandalism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Should_User:Jimbo_Wales_be_unprotected?. I tagged you in the discussion as a courtesy. 184.147.106.95 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of O'Connell Street

The article O'Connell Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:O'Connell Street 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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible block evasion Mdd97

Redsky00 (talk · contribs)

You blocked Mdd97 for not responding back in February, it appears the editor has made a new account and going back to the articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. This could be a different editor but the edits look similar to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, I'm trying to escalate the general concept of "permanent WP:ICANTHEARYOU" editors further up the chain and just work out why some people can't find our discussion mechanisms or don't want to use them. I see LouiseFeb1974 is back at the noticeboards for lack of communication, and again I cannot hand on heart say it's done out of malice. I think for now, if there's not a clear and obvious intent to deceive, I'd wait until there is a clear warning for something disruptive first before taking action. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Green Bullfrog

The article Green Bullfrog you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Green Bullfrog 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 Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Congrats on yet another GA. You seem to have done a lot of this sort of thing. Do you also do GA reviews? Could I interest you in this? I didn't write it but it's the kind of thing I might have done. It's been listed at GAN. It's about a lady but it's probably not something anyone would be in a hurry to pick up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Kudpung, Sure, I can look at that but it might be the middle of next week before I've got a good few hours to have a crack at it. As far as reviewing, Alanna the Brave does a lot of work on women's history GAs (and might well be our most prolific editor on that topic), and might be able to help too. I know Tim riley's work well enough to have confidence that I'm sure it's close to the GA standards anyway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Richie -- thanks for reaching out (it looks like a cool article!), but I'm swamped this month with RL work. I'll have to wait a bit before taking on anything new. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vox Continental

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vox Continental 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) 14:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank for flagging the editor and the disruptive edits on College Green, Dublin! I must have reverted their edits one too many times for their taste. Not on the Monopoly board, but an important article nonetheless :)

Smirkybec (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

College Green is one of the few Dublin Streets I can say with some confidence I have travelled the entire extent of. What I'm annoyed at is that I had the extra statue details from The Encyclopedia of Dublin and the Obama speech written out in the edit window, and lost the whole lot to edit conflict from this vandal, so had to redo it. I think they should pay a forfeit of having to kick Bishop Brennan up the arse. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh so annoying when that happens! I never manage to salvage my edits from conflicts no matter how they happen. It is a confusingly shaped, and short street, and hard is distinguish from its neighbours, but very important! I didn't expect it to be a hot-bed of controversy though ;) Smirkybec (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Machine Head (album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Machine Head (album) 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) 21:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

GA

Thanks for you work on, and passing Eugénie Brazier. I helped it along but of course the kudos goes to Valereee and Tim. Quality like that make a GA review a breeze. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. There's also a DYK : Template:Did you know nominations/Eugénie Brazier on top. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kudpung @Tim riley I am SO HAPPY. I worked on this and put it on my To Do to get to GA, but finding the French sources that I knew must be there was daunting. Thank you, Kudpung and Tim, for your wonderful work on this article. What it looked like thirteen months ago vs. now? I can't believe how it looks! You did a beautiful job. Thanks, Ritchie, for ushering it through GA and nominating for DYK! —valereee (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

valereee, you could do worse than nominate it for FA. It's short, but FAs don't necessarily have to be long articles. AFAICS, It's been a listed essential article (Level 5) for a long time already. and with Tim's expert FA experience it should be very near to FA already. I'd stick around to help you with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kudpung, I'd do that. I have zero experience at FA except for Marjorie Paxson which I just nom'd, but I'm willing to do the work. —valereee (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding my thanks to Ritchee for reviewing so quickly and helpfully. I think the article is noticeably improved. Tim riley talk 08:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vox Continental

The article Vox Continental 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:Vox Continental for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day!
I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations.
Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk

Aha, that will be why I'm dropping Father Ted references all over the place :-D Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You know you want to.... Seamus O'Bogus 123 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Lai Đại Hàn

You didn't respond to my request at Talk:Lai Đại Hàn#10 March 2021 which is why I am posting here. Are you going to revert Lai Đại Hàn to the status quo before the edit warring began? Obviously I can't do so because that would risk me be blocked again and if you fail to do so you are effectively endorsing 8ya who started the edit war. Mztourist (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist, I have no opinion on what happens to the article, and I am not interested who started what or endorsing any side in the debate. All I wanted you to do was to seek a more formal course of dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion or, if necessary, post on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. In fact, if you had posted a diff saying you had done this, and asserted you would not edit the article until that was resolved, I would probably have unblocked you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to update, a third opinion sub-thread has been started on the talk page, and 8ya has been blocked for edit warring again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought that in addition to blocking Users engaged in an edit war, restoring the page to the status quo ante would also be part of the Admin's responsibilities otherwise one of the parties would "win" the edit war as their edits would be retained. Mztourist (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of discretion. If one side of the edit war is blatantly disruptive, such as adding clear and unambiguous BLP violations, it makes perfect sense to revert back to the BLP compliant version. (The same is true for vandalism, but in that case no discussion is required and all that is required is revert, block, ignore). For all other cases, I prefer to take a "hands off" approach and not touch the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

And that approach, together you blocking me for the same period as the other User undermines my faith in the entire process. Mztourist (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

By this edit: [7] User:8ya has again changed the wording on the page and I request that they once again be blocked for edit warring. A third opinion was obtained which gave language which I agreed to, but 8ya didn't like it and insisted on inserting their own language. Mztourist (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I really don't know what your problem with my edit is. We got a WP:3O which agreed that the Japanese was improper. After that I tried for 3 days to ask you about the wording of my edit, which I could have just immediately reinstated. Instead I got ignored every time I asked about it, instead saying you "don't like" / "like" stuff – instead of concretely saying what it is or going on about completely unrelated stuff.

Note that what the 3O wrote was a suggestion to something unrelated to our edit war and has great issues, as explained twice in a reply to you on the talk page (which for some reason you never replied to).

There is no edit warring here, I simply fixed the improper stuff which our 3O agreed to was improper. If you really don't like my proposed edit feel free to improve it / actually talk for once about what you don't like. 8ya (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think blocks are appropriate now you are discussing things. If things break down again, I really would recommend you look at another article, as the only step from here is the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

8ya has imposed his wording despite the third opinion, how can you not see that as a break down and continuation of the edit warring? Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you've found one of the frustrating aspects of Wikipedia, and one which can lead editors to despair - two people have strong, but different views on something, but nobody else is generally bothered. At this stage, you've both been blocked, both had your appeals declined, both complained about the other party and requested a block .... why don't we draw a line under this, assume the latest edit is an accurate reflection of what was requested at the Third Opinion thread, and run with it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Because its not "an accurate reflection of what was requested at the Third Opinion thread", but as you have chosen to walk away from this I will assume that you will not use Admin tools on the page again. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vox Continental

The article Vox Continental you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vox Continental 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) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, An extreme shout-out has to go to Docrobbie for supplying some of the pictures. I don't think this'll be the last GA to extensively cite Classic Keys. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Congrats!! Extreme shoot out?? Please bring your own towel. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC) ...ITN can be a very sad place.

Ah, that'll be the All Wikipedians over-75,000 edits Indoor Challenge Football Match, the losing team had to pay a forfeit and say "bollocks" very loudly in front of Jimbo Wales. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Now I understand. I think that's what they call "shooting from downtown" over in the Colonies, no? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the Colonies, downtown shooting means something entirely different. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Good heavens, man. It's not even August. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the shout-out Ritchie333, hope to be able to help with more material in the future. Docrobbie (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiWeds

Glad you could join yesterday. As much as I miss the in-person events, it's nice that the online version makes it possible to sorta-kinda meet some people whose names I've seen around for years. Also, I hadn't seen the Monopoly project, which is wonderful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It was good to see you as well, and glad everyone enjoyed my rambling monologues. I think of all the people there, with the possible exception of DGG, you were the user I most recognised from the list. Although I've been going to the London meetups for years, and occasionally other UK ones, it's nice to socialise with people from other side of the world as well, as it gives you a bit more of an idea about who's doing what. People tend to work better as a team if they can picture the real person behind the login. I've always wanted to go to one of the San Francisco meets and chat with the likes of Cullen328, but I've got a list of "things to do when lockdown ends" that's as long as my arm now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If you ever make it to San Francisco, Ritchie, I will organize an edit-a-thon in your honor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Even a year in, we're still figuring out best practices for these Zoom meetings. Some are smoother than others, but in general I think we've done ok. Trying to find a balance between structured and unstructured discussion. Presentations like Smirkybec's are always the highlight IMO, but we also try to maintain a certain amount of "meeting anyone can edit" too. I was glad to hear people enjoyed the breakout rooms (sometimes they don't take off, but they can be quite useful). Unfortunately I had to take off early.

It's never occurred to me to check whether there are UK events happening which are open to all. There's a decent amount of communication between the various US groups, so I've gone (or at least meant to go) to events organized by the SF, Boston, and DC groups, but haven't looked outside the US (how American of me). Maybe I'll have a peek. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your kind words! As I mentioned (although, it might have been later, in a break out room), I run Wikipedia editing evenings as a member of the Dublin hackerspace TOG on their Discord server the last Wednesday of every month. It has been quiet enough, so it's mostly a couple of us (like Antiqueight keeping each other company as we edit with the odd international Wikimedian visitor! I should probably push it out more international Wikipedians for whom the time difference works :) Smirkybec (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There are virtual UK events happening; the next London meet is on the 28 March. I haven't been to any of them yet, partly because I've generally become busy on Sundays now, but partly because the real-life environment offers so much more. I know that not everybody likes Wetherspoons cheap and cheerful food and beer, but it's good enough for me, and I know the London crowd enough now that a couple are simply friends who I like to chat with, often about completely unrelated topics. In particular, ClemRutter has met my kids and had a fun day out with them which had nothing to do with Wikipedia, while Whispyhistory organised my youngest son's birthday treat and made a cake, which was a really nice thing to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Example from a previous discussion about AfD stats

Hi Ritchie, earlier in the JPL thread I had mentioned several problems at AfD, among them voting and "keep mobs" that derail good nominations. Here is an example, [8]. Here we have 3 keep votes with no sources, making claims that that cannot be verified, using arguments such as notability is inherited, and one instance of canvasing which brought out several relatively new and inexperienced accounts to vote. The obvious canvassing here and its results are what really irritated me. Its subtle because its a comment asking for an opinion from an "expert" that then triggers other keep votes along the same lines; plenty of plausible deniability to the charge of canvasing.

Not looking for any action on this nom, I know its going to go down as a Keep in all probability, my "stats" will take the hit, or if its closed as No consensus the time taken to research this will have been wasted. Just providing an example of how stats can be derailed easily and how good nominations based on BEFORE and guidelines can be taken down by bad keep voting. My issue is with stats being used to attack editors; I make plenty of mistakes at AfD, but I make plenty of good noms that are derailed for reasons not suppported by guidelines or sources. I can grudgingly accept this will happen, but ARS members attacking noms based on stats I cant, especially when they have stats such as [9],[10],[11]

I think we should hold nominators to high standards, but those standards need to apply to participants as well and until they are "stats" are meaningless and discouraging, and the AfD process is broken. After participating in AfD for a while, I know how (if I was inclined to which I am not) to make an "argument", ignoring guidelines and sources, but a reasonable sounding one, and then canvass "experts", Wikiprojects, or ARS to retain an article I want to keep. The situation is already weighted against nominators, because we have to have a consensus of editors to delete, while the keep side just needs enough weight to tip the scales to no consensus to meet their goals. There are problems at AfD with delete voting (such as JPL) but nothing like the problem with keep voting, groups like ARS, and accounts that simply advocate unconditionally for subjects they like; add this to the weight against noms I mention, and I think its clear there is a problem.

This doesn't have to happen often to sink a nominators "stats", if this happens in just 15% of someone's noms, it is impossible to keep your stats up without playing games (such as intentionally going and searching out poorly written articles no one cares about for a nom).

Add to this problem:

Good faith withdrawal such as this [12] where no subsequent improvement is made (I got suckered on this one, I knew it wouldn't be improved, but took the hit to my "stats" to be nice). This has happened before to me, I will no longer withdraw like this, its happened too often. I would have been attacked for drafting this in the first place, and accepting draftification as an ATD after the nom would have just resulted in it being moved back with the same hit to my "stats". Another here [13] (as mentioned I almost drafted but after seeing how others are treated for drafted, decided against it).
Inconsistent closes such as [14],[15] being merged to a totally inappropriate target, while another was deleted [16]. Here is another example [17],[18],[19] then this [20] The argument about company vs platform ignores guidelines, its made up as an excuse to keep, I got nailed for 4 keeps on this excuse after 3 deletes. This is an example of how after a few succesful noms, where the nominator assumes things are going well, a keep mob forms to derail further similar nominations, again ignoring guidelines and sources.
"there must be sources" keep votes or using run of the mill local coverage to justify keeping [21], [22] (an admin indulges here),[23],[24] (I understand everyone from Serbia ever mentioned anywhere is notable)
Here is one with four deletes (including nom), two Keeps and it is closed as a Keep [25], check the "sources" (local promos) one of the Keeps uses as SIGCOV.
Another keep mob [26] using it has to be notable because we want it to be and inherited notability rationale.
Another draftify that later was declined by AfC (pretty low bar to get declined at AfC) that will die a slow death in drafts [27].
Another bad close [28], one weak keep and it is closed after only 7 days.
Another keep mob [29] using non-existent "SIGCOV" to claim notability.

I could go into a whole argument about how SIGCOV is ignored or abused regularly at AfD by keeps. eg: South Asian films and tv shows; I could nominate 10 unreleased films or tv shows with only promo coverage and all 10 would be kept. Nominating anything from Serbia, Azerbaijan, Burma, or Turkey is asking for a cage fight [30],[31],[32]. Nominating any shopping mall is the same, every excuse and routine run of the mill local news story or promo will be made into SIGCOV.

A nom with a 65% approval rate will be treated very differently from one with a 75% rate, the above shows how easily that 10% can be distorted by bad keep voting.

A big part of this problem could be fixed by clarifying notability guidelines in cases where there is regular disagreement (especially what SIGCOV is and is not), this would help creators as well, and closers closing based on !votes and not votes (which I think many are scared to do at this point).

Yes I'm venting, the above mentioned canvasing got to me. I hope things are well, Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk 02:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to say again I don't want any action taken against anyone above. I'd love to see a discussion on notability and AfD "voting", but I didn't post this to get action against anyone or on any particular editor. And again I was venting, thanks for offerring an ear. Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 02:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: There's a lot to digest here, but I think you needed to get this off your chest and have a discussion about it. A couple of obvious comments.

The AfD stats tool is a convenient way to browse through a user's history; I mostly use it to keep an eye on what AfDs I've participated in that haven't closed yet. However, the overall statistic of "views matching consensus" doesn't mean much. A lot of my AfD participation these days is where I can't easily close a debate, and have decided to put an opinion in, or start a procedural nomination for someone else. I don't even know what Kairos (retreat) is, but somebody wanted to start an AfD in good faith, so I let them. Conversely, in a couple of RfAs, the AfD stats have been ultimately criticised because the candidate lodged a load of "me too" !votes that just went with the herd, which distorts the statistics in their favour. Regarding : "I got suckered on this one, I knew it wouldn't be improved, but took the hit to my "stats" to be nice" - why is this a problem? The two AfDs you mentioned - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas angels and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External reference are both fine and there's no issue with them at all. The only reason I can think this would be an issue is either if a) you were worried about being topic banned at some point or b) you wanted to file an RfA and think people would oppose over AfD stats. In both cases, I think a bit of diplomacy and tactful communication can get you out of those. Otherwise, the aim of AfD is to see whether or not the encyclopedia is better off or not without this article, nothing else.
One thing I do when assessing an AfD debate is to see what changes have been made in the article. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Sherelh'yqo, one editor had added some sources and fleshed out the article at the same time they put in their "keep" !vote. I don't know anything about the topic, so can't really advise any further; however I think I'd probably close the debate as "no consensus" - your request for citations was largely ignored save for some minor improvements, and nobody else followed on in the discussion. In any case, I have to stress your nomination was made in good faith and isn't really conceptually different to some of mine like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Arden (actress) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheila Divine. Elsewhere Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taingda Princess, the improvement was to add prose like "Taingda princess was one of the most beautiful princesses amongst the daughters of King Mindon." (in whose opinion?) cited to a Google Docs document. That's a rather pyrrhic victory.
The inconsistent results in the AfDs you mention are a product of who turned up to the debate. If nobody turns up then a "soft delete" is more likely; if an AfD is relisted and nobody !votes to delete (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled X68000 games), then it's more likely to tend to a "keep" consensus. I would personally have relisted that, as nobody improved the article after the AfD was started.
The List of cancelled X68000 games AfD reminds me of another problem - non-admin closures. Why do we let this happen? While non-admins can technically close an AfD as "keep", they've got no evidence to hand that they understand the debate or can explain themselves - at least with an admin, you would expect them to be able to comply with WP:ADMINACCT and give you a reasonable explanation.
I don't want to name names, but in some of the AfDs you mention, I saw some people !voting "keep" with weak or irrelevant rationales, and I generally ignore them for the purposes of consensus too. I also disagree with quite a few of the nominations you mentioned, and would close them differently.

Moving forward, I'm not sure there's much we could do. I don't think it helps to refer to "the keep mob" or "the ARS lot". If they're acting like jerks, don't call them jerks, just focus on what's best for the encyclopedia. I have done a lot of article rescue but I'm not a fan of the ARS, which I think you know about already.

I don't think we need to clarify what is SIGCOV and what isn't, we need better quality arguments at AfD. You could try an Arbcom case, dragging the "usual suspects" there and getting Arbcom discretionary sanctions applied to AfDs, but that sounds like a lot of work and not something I'd want anything to do with. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, sometimes you need to vent. I think it might be a combo of looking for better arguments at ANI and clarifying some notability guidelines. All the above (with maybe one exception) are good faith editors shouldn't get dragged through ANI, especially since admins are stretched thin for serious problems. I'd like to join NPP at some point, but can't see myself ever at RfA. Thanks again, // Timothy :: talk 23:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I wouldn't worry about AFDstats too much— I hardly ever check mine and honestly think the tool is not particularly useful because it doesn't consider context at all. There will always be afd voters with er... interesting interpretations of policy so I suppose the only thing to do is keep up with your well-reasoned comments. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth considering an RfC banning non-admin AfD closures except in clear and obvious bad faith cases (eg: AfD for Donald Trump with rationale "he's a [expletive]"). We'd need evidence of questionable closures, and AfD backlog sizes. We certainly didn't used to tolerate NAC AfDs - see this five year old thread. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There is one clear function of NAC: they give a good indication of the suitability of someone for adminship. I don't think w rely on it how as much as we used to, but perhaps we should look more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jefferson Starship proposal

Hi Ritchie,

I posted a proposal on the Jefferson Starship talk page and would like you to have a look and comment. Not sure if this is the best way to let you know. Regards,Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:George Hatcher Band

Hi Ritchie333, from I understand you have a certain amount of expertise in regards to rock n' roll. I came across this draft up for G13 and thought it was quite interesting given they were an English Southern Rock band in the mid-70s to early 80s and have some interesting history. Just curious if you know anything about them. S0091 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

S0091, I added a bunch of citations confirming the group released at least two albums on United Artists Records, thus meeting point 5 of WP:NMUSIC and accepted the draft. As it stands, the article needs some tidying up of prose, but nothing that would warrant an AfD discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic! I actually did not mean for you to put any work into the article so appreciate you taking the time. I will see about tidying it up. S0091 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Machine Head (album)

The article Machine Head (album) 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:Machine Head (album) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Machine Head (album)

The article Machine Head (album) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Machine Head (album) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Err, what? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

~~Thressie, it's failed dismally, because you're just too lazy! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)~~

Yay"! Threesie! You're a real "Highway Star!!" Glenda Slag123 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem is because the article had a {{GA}} template, followed by an already existing {{FailedGA}} template, and got confused between the two. [33] @Legoktm: (current GABot maintainer), looking at goodarticles.php, specifically the code

if ((preg_match("/\|\s?currentstatus\s?=\s?GA/i", $contents) || preg_match("/\{{2}\s?GA/", $contents)) && !preg_match("/\{{2}\s?FailedGA/i", $contents)) {

, I assume the preg_match will match first on "/\{{2}\s?GA/" and then on "/\{{2}\s?FailedGA/" which follows it, leading to the overall condition to be evaluated as false. So that seems to be the issue - the revision of the talk page I just quoted has both the GA and FailedGA templates, when in that edge case, it needs to parse the dates and accept the review as passed if the GA template is newer. This looks like a bug, but from the fix I just described, I don't think it's a bug worth fixing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. Rise of the Machines and everything. Always worth keeping a buggy back door (fnar fnar) so we can bring them down when it all gets too Terminatorish. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There's something deliciously ironic about this happening over a page called "Machine Head". At least it's always good to have all of one's bases covered.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Buggy backdoor?? Please Rambler, no mess. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wurlitzer electric piano

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wurlitzer electric piano 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) 10:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wurlitzer electric piano

The article Wurlitzer electric piano 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:Wurlitzer electric piano for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wurlitzer electronic piano

The article Wurlitzer electronic piano 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:Wurlitzer electronic piano for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Recreated article that you deleted

Hi Ritchie333. I've run into what appears to be a second attempt to memorialize Kitaw Ejigu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I was about to start a discussion on it's talk page when I saw it had been previously deleted by you in March 2018. The editor who's recreated the article first edited June 2018 and is attempting to own the article rather aggressively [34][35][36].

Looking for other history on the article, I'm seeing many ips and a few editors being warned about copyright problems, vandalism, etc between 2010 to it's deletion. I'm not sure if you have tools to see what else may have been going on prior to it's deletion that might shed light on what's happening now.

From what I can see, there's no obvious socking going on with what past editors I can find and what's going on now.

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. --Hipal (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, The current version is different to the one I deleted, and has more sources (the older one had no independent sources at all). If you're not sure we should have an article on it, I think it will need a fresh discussion at AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. All but two references are unreliable, but I'll get all those out first so it's clearer what there is to work with. --Hipal (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rocky Mount Instruments, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Right Place, Wrong Time.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wurlitzer electric piano

The article Wurlitzer electric piano you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wurlitzer electric piano for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, This time, the bot got confused because I renamed the article (per the GA review suggestion). Having a good week debugging GABot! Still, at least this is another GA featuring me playing some music. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ooooh! Get you! Very trampy! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It's the only logical thing to do. On a serious note (and I realise "serious" and "Martinevans123" don't really go together), it's been about nine years since I've thought about improving this to GA. Next job will be Rocky Mount Instruments, which pretty much needs a rewrite. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I know, sorry, I'm a bit of a dreamer. But good for you!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd go for a walk, but it's raining again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, thanks to you and Rambler, it looks like it's raining GAs! Good to see you're coming along. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Docrobbie:, I don't suppose you've got any good images of the RMI 368 or similar to put in Rocky Mount Instruments? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, I'll sort out something for 368X and a Rock-Si-Chord. Docrobbie (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've dropped a couple of images into the Rocky Mount page for you to adjust and position as you see fit. Docrobbie (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § Admin blocked page

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Admin blocked page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333. Perhaps you can help this editor out? They're trying to recreate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adda52 and the title has been salted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving to Commons

Hi, hope you're doing well. I think, this file should be moved to Commons Wikimedia. User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Move to commons. I tried some tools but unfortunately, i failed. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears, I don't think I've ever moved a file from here to Commons, so I'm afraid I've got no idea how to do this. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears There is no indication of why the image should be marked as licensed under Creative Commons SS BY 4.0. The source includes a copyright notice, and works of the Pakistani government are covered under copyright for 50 years. It may meet the local standard on Wikipedia for fair use images, but images uploaded to Commons generally need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose. GMG ^talk 12:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, it is published by the ISPR and all its contents are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License[37]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears all its contents ...Eh. That's not how the disclaimer seems to read. It seem to be saying that this only applies to content labelled for public use, which looks to be a reference to the below images of the current staff under the "public use" header. If they intend this to apply to all content then they kindof need to come out and explicitly say all content. Maybe it's a bad translation and there's a more clear description in an Urdu version of the page. Maybe you could consider sending them an email. I've never dealt with the Pakistani military, but I've emailed the US military several times over copyright issues and they tend to be quite prompt and professional. GMG ^talk 12:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie

Hi Ritchie, sent you an email some days ago. Was wondering if you received it. Thanks. Lourdes 03:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Lourdes, I did receive it. Sorry, it got drowned against a bunch of other stuff (like "Why not take us up on our special offers to this restaurant 200 miles away from you that you went to 5 years ago, it's doing a special takeaway service") but I do intend to give a full reply at some point. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll wait. Lourdes 14:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)