Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:30, 5 March 2021

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

If you leave a message on this talk page, I'll respond here. You may want to watch this page to catch the response. Click here for a tutorial in watching pages. Please avoid using talkback messages if you can - if I've messaged you recently I'll either be watching your page or otherwise keeping an eye on it.

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

2021

Thank you for what you said to Flyer22. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think what I remember most about Flyer22 is she could change my mind about something and make me think, "hmm yeah, perhaps we should go with that". It's never nice to hear about somebody younger than you passing away. :-( Ritchie333 17:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, It's not really my thing (and I suspect it's not yours either) but I just saw a complaint about User:Georgeof1001/Cake and Cunnilingus Day being unsuitable for mainspace, and thought "if there's one editor who I could trust to actually take the subject seriously and find proper sources, it's Flyer22". Hey ho. Ritchie333 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree Garden

Absolutely! I do my daily exercise now of converting refs for Stockhausen's works - today Adieu of all titles - in memory of Jerome Kohl, - thanks to your initiative! Another one who died on the Main page today, Vera Wülfing-Leckie, - a red link in the Deaths list, imagine. I went to the garden some great day in October 1996, remembered. Do you do FAC reviews? - BWV 1 is in need. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I do the odd comment, but I haven't really done an in-depth FA review for ages - the best people that are seem to have either retired or banished to the "cabal of the outcasts". Ritchie333 17:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Understand all too well ;) - Two reviewers made the odd comment and supported. One reviewer is completely new to the subject and had good questions. One reviewer is familiar with the topic and had excellent questions. Image review fine. One source reviewer wants sources uniformly, - a source was added which has "location", mine have not, and where do I get it from in online books?? Another source reviewer questioned 4 sources, and accepted 3, because the last reviewer doesn't think the forth is reliable. It's however the source on which the article was built ages ago, and was only used for recordings. L threw it out out and left "citation required tags", in an article that is linked to from Bach Digital! I - in some horror - split the recordings to a separate article. L demanded merging back. Finally L wrote a section in the review, demanding a "reception" section. Source reviewer 1 asks when the article will get stable, and the delegate wants to see an end. End of rant, just explaining what "in need" translates to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Prompted by the below, I read your "Zen". Inspiring! Do people still talk about infoboxes? I thought that was a topic declared past in 2018. You survived a GA review by Eric ;) - I had no chance. Talking GA: do you think an article about music without a section about the music should be GA? d 812? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There's Vox Continental up for GA review at the moment, complete with a cheesy 40 second recording of one by moi. Ritchie333 23:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

too tired to search, and I don't do GA reviews, remember ;) - what do you think about d 812? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Before they were notable"

To talk page stalkers (are there any left), have a browse over to Misplaced Pages:Before they were notable and see if you can think of anyone to add to the list.

Ground rules are :

• The article must have been deleted, or at least had an AfD that didn't close as "keep".
• The subject must be common knowledge to everybody today, to the extent any new deletion tag would be obvious vandalism.

Ritchie333 18:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly no longer fully here. But meanwhile, does this include people who nearly got deleted Before they were born?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, Surely the original version of that article fails WP:HAMMER? Ritchie333 18:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah shucks. You didn't say anything about hammers. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you interested in adding politicians? I know a lot of people are amazed that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn't get an article until she won her primary. She was deleted as a G11. P-K3 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree, I'm particularly interested in "world leader" levels, though I have checked relative newcomers like Emmanuel Macron and Jacinda Ardern and they asserted notability from the offset. Even the first cut of Melania Trump clears A7. Ritchie333 18:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I would imagine the vast majority of world leaders have done something notable in the preceding 20 years of Misplaced Pages's existence that would have met the standards for an article already (even if, like Trump, it wasn't public office).-- P-K3 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, Mr Trump. If only... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was deleted for being promotional and while I am not sure that I would have accepted that G11 I don't think notability is a defence to an otherwise valid G11 deletion request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Thanks for starting the collection at Misplaced Pages:Before they were notable; that was a fun read! {{u|Sdkb}}  07:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There's Tiffany Trump, created in 2006, Prod'ded the day after, and then redirected for the next 5 years, and after a day again redirected for a year. And then again revived, but 9 months later or so brought to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Trump, which closed as, you guessed it, redirect. Revived September 2015, again redirected. Same thing two more times in the next months, and finally gotten her own article in June 2016 (by a sock editor, but that's besides the point).

And then there's Carrie Symonds, which I deleted in December 2017 as a G12, which then got deleted in January 2018 as a G11, and which got deleted in July 2019 and in August 2019 as an A7 speedy!

There must be countless other examples of course. Fram (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about the Bernie Sanders mittens meme drew 6,011 page views (501 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the one of most viewed hooks so far during the month of February and has earned a place on the Best of February list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Contesting your opinion...

Hi Ritchie333, I disagree with your opinion on my proposal to have this article deleted. Why should it matter how long ago that editor retired? An article is an article, and in this case it certainly had reasonable grounds to be deleted. Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hockeycatcat, I’d be interested as to your explanation why. You may find this page useful as you formulate your answer. (Talk page stalkers, we are talking about Susan Lyons). Ritchie333 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Ritchie333, even if that article was about a male or someone who identifies by any other gender, I would still consider it for deletion because there's simply not enough information. Also, the layout is all wrong. Shouldn't articles about living/deceased persons have at least an infobox? Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hockeycatcat, That is not a reason for deletion, especially A7 speedy deletion (see User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7). The deletion policy says that articles should only be deleted if they cannot be improved by anybody to acceptable standards and there is no alternative. In this case, her marriage to Jefferson Mays is mentioned in several sources (two of which are now added to the article) and therefore there is an acceptable redirect target (see WP:ATD-R). Therefore, deleting this article would violate core policy. There is no consensus at all about infoboxes; indeed we have seen some horrific disputes in that area (WP:ARBINFOBOX, WP:ARBINFOBOX2) and you are better off staying well away from that. Ritchie333 11:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, may I use the fish on myself before you do? If not, you may do so. Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll do it -  Self-trout Hockeycatcat (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the main point is - read the policies and essays I linked to. It'll help you to become a better editor. Ritchie333 12:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Please don't suggest that I'm a bad editor. Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hockeycatcat, I don't think anyone is suggesting you are a bad editor. If anything, there is a LOT to learn on wikipedia. It's worth noting that a good practice to get into before nominating an article for deletion, is to follow WP:BEFORE. As you can see now, after the nomination the article has plenty of sourcing, so this did exist. We shouldn't be deleting articles on items that are notable, even if the article is in bad shape. The infobox thing is actually something that isn't important (like at all) in an article, so we wouldn't use it to denote notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 10:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski I understand now, I didn't know that the infobox was so insignificant. Thank you for being more friendly than Ritchie333! :-) Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hockeycatcat, Hey! There is nothing unfriendly about constructively suggesting ways you can improve. I think we should all strive to be better editors, including myself. Ritchie333 10:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, forgive me, I am but a minor. Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of spamming mentions, Hockeycat, it's worth mentioning we don't have any full consensus on if infoboxes are even desirable. Ritchie is one of our best editors, and the information/links provided are very good reading tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 10:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hockeycatcat, Forgive me, but I am a parent :-) Let me illustrate my thought processes. Suppose you and your friends are out playing football in a yard somewhere, you kick the ball up to a window ledge with a potted plant, which knocks the plant off the window and smashes on the ground. You didn't mean to destroy the pot plant, and feel quite upset and remorseful about it when somebody comes out and says politely, but firmly to take more care with where you're kicking a ball about. It is kind of like that. Ritchie333 10:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Understood, but I am not very athletic.

XfDCloser issue?

Not disputing your close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1Lib1Ref (2nd nomination) -- fair is fair. But the mechanical/technical process of closing it seems to have gone off somewhere, because three hours after the fact it's still showing up on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. Did you see anything odd popping up when you ran XfDCloser? I've had issues with it myself lately -- it botched a relist a week ago. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs is automatically updated by Mathbot (talk · contribs), which hasn't run since 11:00 UTC, or about an hour before I closed the AfD. It normally runs once an hour, but if it's stalled, give the bot owner a prod. (I did say at the AfD you were the only one who gave a convincing "delete" argument so it makes sense you wouldn't personally object to the way it closed). Ritchie333 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RfA

In the current RfA nominated, you frequently use the male pronouns. In all the research I made both on and off-Wiki, before making my simple vote, I never came across one single indication of the candidate's gender. However, it is entirely possible that I missed something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a chat with TJMSmith off-wiki, and he's fine with it. I know what you're getting at, but in this instance I think it's a non-issue. Ritchie333 20:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess it's just my habit of being pedantic for research and detail ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware of...

Are you aware of this proposal which is preculating? It would further unbundle and I plan to oppose on the grounds that every time we've unbundled we've made RfA harder to pass. Thought you might be interested given your recent comments at RFA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, No, I didn't know about that. That's slightly different from a straight "vandal blocker" role which I interpreted as having the block button on a par with admins. I'll have a read through the talk page and drop my views in. It's a trial unbundle (which implies if fails it can be turned off) and it has the important safety valve that an admin can unilaterally yank the right. Ritchie333 15:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's incredible (sorry for dropping by). I can't see it passing. But if it does then it would give a lot of impetus to enabling trusted editors to fix issues on the main page (or pending to go onto main page) for example without having to be an admin. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Preculating"? Is that something to do with waking up and smelling the coffee?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

One point to Martinevans. I am, relative to my level of education, an awful speller. I'm amazed I don't make more such silly mistakes (and/or amazed that they're not pointed out to me more often). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

at leest U got sum educashun. But i oftun get stung. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think they've done a lot of things right. Enterprisey has been quite aggressive at seeking out possible critiques and has worked hard to address what is practical without harming the underlying premise. I do, however, think that any admin can pull the right unilaterally sounds a lot better in theory than in practice. As I expect you know, pulling the user right of someone established enough to pass through the maze of requirements this right requires will have friends and that always makes such actions fraught. I think to TRM's point that there are definitely users who could use that right well and who would have difficulty (or worse) at passing RfA. If I could just give it to them I would. But I worry that it would be yet one more reason for someone to think "I can do what I need with the user rights I have. Why go through the hassle of RfA?" which has, historically, been what has occurred. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Are there any admins who RfA'd in the past year or so who would have looked at this and gone, "Oh. Well, if I can just get that, I don't need to RfA, that's all I needed it for."? Or any who would draw objections from !voters because their Q1 only specified needing the tools because of this kind of vandalism? —valereee (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, The obvious candidate who would make use of this, who'd had a go at RfA in the past year, is 1997kB. I think I even said at the RfA that if we were doing "Request for SPI admin clerks" I'd have no issue, it was all the other stuff that goes on top of being an admin that gave me concern. Then there's L293D, but I think we both want him to do a RfA #2 this year anyway. Ritchie333 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So those are editors who didn't get through RfA their first time, rather than admins who might have skipped RfA if this responder userright were an option, if you see what I mean? I get that we also don't want folks who've not gotten through their first RfA to give up on it because they could get this instead, though. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, I guess Shellwood could make use of the right - I don't think they've ever gone in for RfA. Ritchie333 19:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Ritchie, we're still talking across one another. What I mean is, of say Hog Farm, John M Wolfson, Jackmcbarn, LuK3, Ajpolino, Eddie891, Red Phoenix, Creffett, Cwmhiraeth, Captain Eek, Lee Vilenski, Cabayi, etc. -- all the folks who've successfully run an RfA in the past year: how many of them would have looked at this tool, weighed it against the stress of RfA, and decided just to go for the tool? Don't want to ping them all to ask them, but of course we could. Maybe it would have been good enough for those who only wanted to help with vandalism? (This was in response to I worry that it would be yet one more reason for someone to think "I can do what I need with the user rights I have. Why go through the hassle of RfA?") —valereee (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of the nominations I was directly involved with would have wanted the tools for just anti-vandalism work. Cwmhiraeth and Lee Vilenski wanted the tools for DYK, Eddie891 for closing AfDs, and John M Wolfson for AfDs and ITN. I wouldn't nominate someone who only did anti-vandalism; the minute they make a mistake, they bite somebody and can't explain themselves out of the situation. For example, Jim1138 and Abelmoschus Esculentus both did automated and anti-vandalism patrolling, they both erroneously assumed a good faith edit was vandalism, repeatedly reverted it, and got blocked for edit warring ... then they retired. I wouldn't have supported either of those at RfA for this reason, and I'd be concerned if they got the proposed tool here. In the scenarios where they got caught violating 3RR, they might have blocked the other party, which is a serious violation of WP:INVOLVED and would get a regular admin raked over the coals. Ritchie333 14:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let me do a quick brain dump to ProcrastinatingReader and spell out my thoughts. Is this solution actually solving a problem? I know Enterprisey has done a data dump, but it's not in a format that can draw simple conclusions yet. I can think of a couple of use cases:

1. An IP hopper replacing the infobox image on a featured article with one of anal sex repeatedly every 2-3 minutes, and copying it onto the talk page of anyone who reverts them, and repeatedly reverting it back until blocked. (Yes, this is a real example and actually happened).
2. A group of IPs all putting nonsense words on a primary school article in rapid fire
3. An IP writing "this article is libellous shit" on a poor quality BLP and going over 3RR to do it
4. An IP writing "In 2021, John and Jane Doe divorced" without a source (assume that the divorce is true). Also the same but sourced to The Sun.
5. Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP

Only really the first of those could be considered suitable for the "responder" role; the others are all more nuanced and require a different mix of tools.

How is the tool going to be enforced? I don't want to name names and upset people, but I can think of a few people that log reports at AIV day in, day out, and their quality isn't very good, and I can easily see them blocking good-faith editors. In that situation, I'd yank the user right immediately and give them a stiff talking to, saying they should not consider applying for any further advanced rights until they can convince people they've improved. Ritchie333 16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much both Barkeep and Ritchie for your thoughts here! Much appreciated. Also going to ping in enterprisey, who may be able to answer parts better than I. Regarding AIV quality, enterprisey's data tool is actually pretty powerful. It can also check the AIV reporting accuracy % for a particular user. So I'm thinking a bot can report that into a permissions request (like MusikBot does with PERM request info), along with the number of reports they've filed, to inform the decision process. Second, blocks made with the tool being reported to AIV I think ensures that nothing 'slips under the radar' so-to-speak in the form of peer-review. Even admins aren't subject to that kind of review on their actions, so that could be a pretty big safeguard.

Regarding yanking right, I'm thinking perhaps a provision that any yanked right, regardless of the outcome of the discussion at AN, must still be applied for again via the normal PERM process and get an affirmative consensus to reinstate. I think this may help since the AN discussions of removed rights sometimes focus on whether the single or couple of actions were awful and warranting removal, rather than whether the person should actually be doing the job. So having a consensus discussion on promotion again may be an improvement in that regard. But still, I expect this to be a minority of cases, if ever invoked; there are plenty of competent non-admins.

Regarding making RfA harder, this is not at all an area I have experience in, especially not compared to you both, but isn't this somewhat a lost battle? Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship by year suggests ~20 RfAs successful per year from 2014–, with 10 in 2018. Also not sure I saw any successful counter-vandalism background (alone) RfAs in 2020, so perhaps this won't impact RfA much? It's also still a pretty limited right, and in that sense serves as a reason for people with it to run I think. On a similar vein, I think enterprisey's tool has produced a list of the top accuracy AIV users in the past months - there's some good names in there to consider for nomination regardless of whether this proposal passes I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• 'Scuse me for pokin' my nose in but I am well aware of this proposal as ProcrastinatingReader knows. I am reminded of the time I was the most regular admin at PERM for a couple of years and later, the creator of the NPR right. As anyone who has ever owned or managed an internet forum knows, users are constantly jostling and queuing up to be moderators. The Internet seems to be a magnet for contenders for minor rights and Misplaced Pages is not spared this phenomenon. But with a couple of subtle differences: While few people are in a hurry to be admins, over 700 have now acquired the NPP right. Although the quality of page patrolling has improved, 90% of the work is done by less than 10% of the 'patrollers', and (except for the recent spurt to get things under control), the backlog got worse. Despite my efforts to convince the people who now run NPP since I handed over that the list of rights holder should be drastically culled, nothing much has happened. It's rare to yank a user right once accorded (unless you're an admin and your name is Kudpung) and this is borne out by the many totally retired admins who come back just once a year to make one edit in order to avoid procedural removal of the bit for inactivity. Obtaining adminship on Misplaced Pages is a big deal despite any Wiki memes, as this recent discussion demonstrates, and while unbundling has proven successful in some areas, I don't think there are any tools left, particularly the block hammer, that can be safely devolved. RfAs are now so few and far between, it might not be prudent to remove even more of the admin tasks, otherwise admins will become like Bureaucrats: largely inactive veterans with the highest level of authority but with hardly anything to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure at this point that we need to try making it easier to ping an admin, via an IRC channel or whatever, before we open the RfA can of worms. I don't think the proposal has any legs without us being able to say what the outcome of that attempt was. I was going to write something on VPIL about that, but ah, real life. Going back to the proposal, Ritchie's list of examples is a good insight - I was planning to go through the list of "most-reverted" vandals (which are not necessarily those that waited on AIV the longest!) and classifying them by whether they're "actually bad" (i.e. would've been a really easy case for an admin to deal with). And finally, while running the numbers there did seem to be a group of users who aren't active/experienced enough for RfA, but have stellar (perfect, in several cases) AIV accuracy records and conflict-free user talk pages. Of course, just a few people with this permission might not make much of a dent in the problem (although time-of-day has little to do with it, see graphs). Enterprisey (talk!) 03:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Creepy Company

Hi Ritchie333. I wanted to send you a note regarding Creepy Company. I see that you closed the AFD for no consensus, but the page fails WP:NCORP. It's an advertisement with no valid independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. I'd like to invite you take a look at the page and re-consider deletion. Best, Megtetg34 10:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Megtetg34: The debate was closed as "no consensus" because after several weeks of open discussion, including relisting twice, one person had suggested keeping the article, while one other suggested deleting, with all arguments about equal with each other. I don't have any opinion on the article or its sources. I would advise you to try and improve the article, and if you get stuck, start a new AfD (which a NC close allows you to do). Ritchie333 15:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crunchy Frog

I am unhappy about the close as there was no consensus for merger. Relisting would therefore be better, please. For one thing, we might get more good quips like NYB's "spring surprise". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, I hardly think that's good enough! I think it'd be more appropriate if the AfD bore a great red label: "WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!!!" Ritchie333 13:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Divio

Hello Ritchie333, are you able to move the page Divio into the "draft space" please? See https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DanieleProcida#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Divio . Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieleProcida (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

DanieleProcida, I would prefer to see evidence of some major broadsheet sources, such as the Financial Times, covering Divio, first. Ritchie333 16:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I don't quite follow what you mean, sorry. Divio is a software company. But it's listed on the NASDAQ First North stock exchange; is https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=DIVIO%20B%3ASTO or https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=DIVIO%20B:STO the kind of thing you had in mind? DanieleProcida (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

DanieleProcida What I like to do, is to see if I can improve the article myself, using independent third-party sources. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find much myself beyond just mentioning that Divo is a cloud hosting company. By comparison, Amazon Web Services has an extensive and reasonably well-sourced article describing the company's history and architecture basics. And I have software uploaded to GitHub, but I'm not important enough to have a Misplaced Pages article. All that said, I have restored the page to User:DanieleProcida/Divio so you can retrieve the text, but I think it's unlikely that a draft will be accepted. Ritchie333 18:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will see what I can do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieleProcida (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

76.75.120.218

Can user:76.75.120.218 please be blocked ASAP? CLCStudent (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent, I was about to write "I can remember some kerfuffle over people.com, but IMDB should definitely not be used for any controversial information in a BLP, so the IP may be acting in good faith per WP:BLPSOURCES". Then I checked the edits before the last one. Blocked for 24 hours. Ritchie333 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yash Ahlawat

Hi Ritchie333, I noticed that you closed the discussion as no consensus, but the subject doesn't meet any of the criteria for notability for Actors. He has only played minor roles in films and thus fails WP:NACTOR. Sources in the article are promotional and not independent.

• Forbes The clarity on the Forbes article is crystal as "brand connect" articles are paid for press and even has a disclaimer at the bottom stating Disclaimer: The views, suggestions and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Forbes India journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article.
• Hindustan Times Paid piece with disclaimer at the bottom.
• Outlook India This is a PR article with disclaimer mentioning the subject in passing.

The article has zero independent reliable sources and fails WP:GNG as well. The AfD had one delete and one keep !votes. However, the keep did not address the basic criteria outlined under WP:BASIC. I think the consensus was clear to delete the article.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Not the closer, but I think that that AFD needed a bit more participation before one could confidently call it a cut consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As JJE says, there weren't enough people to gather sufficient consensus on the article. I have no opinion on what should happen to it (which is correct per policy), except I closed the debate with "No prejudice against renomination". In particular, AfD debates should be about what sources are available generally, as opposed to what sources are in the article at present. Ritchie333 11:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I've already done a WP:BEFORE search before starting this AfD and i literally found no sources that address the subject directly and in detail. The sources are mere mentions of the person. One thing i forgot to add to my above comment is that the only keep support was from the author and they did not even explain why the sources established notability. I was wondering if you could kindly reopen the deletion discussion to allow more people to participate in the discussion and to generate a more clear consensus? Thanks.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I can, but given my experience you might be lucky if you get one more person adding their views, leading to "no consensus" again. You're better off filing a fresh AfD from scratch; that tends to attract more attention. Part of the problem is that your opening argument at the AfD was quite vague and weak; if you'd opened it with a similar level of detail as mentioned here, more people may have agreed with you. I personally don't know enough about Indian, particularly Indian entertainment biographies, to be able to judge whether or not we should have an article; indeed, I would say we need more Indian and Asian admins on en-wiki. Ritchie333 10:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Lee Harris (Blockhead)

Unfortunate redlink. Saw this and thought of you. Check him out here, discussing playing Interstellar Overdrive with Mason's Saucers. Fucking brilliant! Not just the playing, but the stories too. All the best! ——Serial 11:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"Zen and the art of Misplaced Pages Maintenance"

I think this section of your user page wants to be an essay (even if it's just so that I can cite it occasionally). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dodger67, Hmm. It's generally been a dumping ground for thoughts and views that I like so I can recall them at a later date - that's why most of them have diffs back to the original discussion. If there's a particular viewpoint that you want to link to, I can always expand that out to an essay. I have been thinking of writing User:Ritchie333/Annoying user, good content (don't particularly like the title "annoying", but it directly quotes a slide from Jimbo Wales at a Wikimania presentation some time back, so people would recognise the reference) that says the community has never (and probably will never) find a good way of dealing with somebody who makes good edits but it also disruptive. Ritchie333 13:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Saha Article creation Help

Hello, i wanna create an article name Sandy Saha. I saw you have deleted the page on 14 september 2017. Now I need your permission to create the page. So can I get your permission ?? If you will give me permission then I can edit the article. Jroynoplan (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Jroynoplan It was actually deleted by three separate admins - me, Cullen328 and Bbb23. If you are talking about this Sandy Saha, I would advise you to use the article wizard and create a draft article that can then be reviewed by an experienced editor. Ritchie333 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a draft in progress, Draft:Sandy Saha (actor). Cullen Let's discuss it 22:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok sir thak you Jroynoplan (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Green for hope

Lenten Rose

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Thanks. I've had a bit of a tough week (can explain off-wiki if you want) and I've been focusing a bit too much on admin stuff over the past few days; however, I still have Classic Keys to mine through to improve a few more articles, so I'll hopefully get on with some actual article writing soon. As for the Greens, did you know I've still got a picture of Caroline Lucas in my porch window - it was a flyer for the 2019 European Elections, that I just kept along with a "Covid - can you help" notice. Ritchie333 14:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Jefferson Starship

Hello Ritchie333

I'm the editor who opened the dispute resolution case. Is there anything I should do? AbleGus, reverted my most recent edits, again using the same arguments. I'm not familiar with the protocol for this, so please excuse if I'm not proceeding correctly.Regards,Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheryl Fullerton, I had a read through Talk:Jefferson Starship, and I'm amazed at how large the conversation is. I've worked on numerous classic rock articles, and I've never seen a debate as lengthy as that. I've tried to pick through the points you have both made, but it's just too long to be able to parse in any meaningful way. However, one thing I have noticed is that AbleGus has generally been working on the main body of the article, adding citations and fleshing things out, while your edits have been to rewrite the lead. That's generally the wrong way round to do things - you want to get the body of the article properly written, referenced and balanced first, then put an appropriate lead on top aftwards.

Anyway, I'm going to take this edit as indicative of the dispute, and I've redone the lead based on my experience in writing leads for numerous other music-related articles. I've dropped a note on the talk page explaining this. Ritchie333 19:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie333

Thank you for taking the time to unjam the "logjam" that has occurred on the Jefferson Starship article. I agree with your comments, in particular comment #3. I have been attempting for several years to add more balance to this article, and other related articles, and less POV, but AbleGus has dismissed my efforts consistently and immediately for the most part. In one instance when another editor intervened, at my request, I was able to get a sentence or two about lead guitarist, Chaquico, into the article. I would like to see a lot more about other members of the original band included, their contributions, and the musical contributions of the band Jefferson Starship both pre-1984 and post-1992, but I have so far been unable to succeed due to this particular editor’s resistance.

I appreciate your effort to rewrite the introduction also; however, because of the article’s content, there are inaccuracies. Based on your explanation of how the article should be written, I see that I must correct the inaccuracies in the article first. I assume you’ve read the intro that I wrote and was reverted by AbleGus and because the intro/summary was not based on the content of the article is the reason my introduction should be used?

I really appreciate the time and energy you put into reviewing my case. If you have any other comments or suggestion for me to help me provide some neutrality to this article, please advise.Regards,Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL 04:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's civility problem

I do so agree with your statement that The principal problem we have with civility is how to respond to it and deal with it . How often do we see civility and no one does anything about it? With that attitude, civility is free to spread unchecked and infect the entire project. I am personally rededicating myself to confronting civility wherever I find it. EEng 14:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This is going to be another attempt of 'Let's tar and feather another admin, frog-march him/her down the street and chuck them over the cliff' case (at least I can only be desysoped once). RexxS doesn't deserve this. Let's hope that this time though, the new iteration of the Committee will investigate the background very thoroughly of plaintifs and/or non involved commentators and take that into account and do some proper arbitrating rather than just read the consensus of a braying mob. Vis-à-vis the line up of active Arbs on this case, there is a chance he'll get a fair hearing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The best description of the problem with civility I have seen is described by Eric Corbett here: "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. ... Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me." It's particularly effective, as the final sentence (not quoted here) in that post is the one people usually bring up as an example of incivility, missing the remainder of the message which carries an incredibly salient point that can be seen again and again at the WP:Dramaboard. I think we'll just have to wait and see how things shake out at the Arbcom case; but my take is looking at the discussions as a whole, outside of contexts of the individual diffs, that things often don't seem so bad and I'm generally still optimistic that with established editors who are normally okay, there are ways of moving forward and finding common ground. PS: EEng, you forgot to add {{fbdb}} at the end of your post :-) Ritchie333 15:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Eric was correct about many things concerning WP, for example certain abusive Admins. But he was completely wrong in that quote which was a very easy construction for someone like Eric to come up with as a defense for his own behavior towards others, i.e. don't blame me for my inflammatory behaviour, blame the system for not allowing me to do to with impunity. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

But what eventually did Eric in wasn't civility, it was sockpuppetry. Ritchie333 20:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day, after years of conflict, things catch up. Al Capone was eventually jailed for income tax evasion. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm ... are you thinking what I'm thinking? Ritchie333 21:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yes! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I remember this solid minority decline of an arbcase about civility. I was declined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a great post. I've quoted a portion of it on the "Zen and the art of Misplaced Pages maintenance" bit on my user page. Ritchie333 23:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

....in which we all say some nice things about EEng

@EEng: If nobody minds, please let me say this (but only if nobody minds, of course). EEng, I think that you are nice. Thank you. I hasten to add that I hope that I have not inadvertently offended EEng, any other editor here, or any other person or persons, or any other species, by having said that. If by any chance, I have done so, please accept my abject apologies. I am so very, very sorry. Thank you again. Thank you very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, You forgot to add a picture of a kitten, or some balloons, or something nicey nicey like that. Ritchie333 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish's post beautifully exemplifies the kind of blatant, unchecked civility I was talking about in my OP. Someone should do something about people like him. EEng 21:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

All I got is barnstars, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 21:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm so very very very sorry! I'm sorry! I'm sorry! Please, please forgive me. But only if you want to. I don't want to impose. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that just takes the biscuit! I always saw Father "Malleus" Jackum as a cross between a Jammy Dodger and a Gypsy Cream. But really, Trypto, you should be ashamed! So passive aggressive, already!! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh Martin, I'm even more sorry now. So sorry! But I'm not Half Man Half Biscuit. I'm Half Fish Half Biscuit. So I'm sending you to sensitivity training. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I can deal with sensitivity by putting on my Joy Division Oven Gloves. Ritchie333 20:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm baked. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

...and Tryptofish warns Tryptofish

Attention Tryptofish:

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although every Misplaced Pages user is permitted to do as they wish for up to 24 hours, it appears that you have gone more than 24 hours without pissing anyone off. This violates our policy requiring that everyone piss off everyone else at intervals of not more than 24 hours. Please use User talk:Jimbo Wales to test any ideas that you have for pissing off Jimbo Wales.

Each month, one editor is awarded the Misplaced Pages Pissoff Award (shown at right) for having pissed off the largest number of other editors. Please nominate qualified editors here.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Warning: Warning oneself is a sanctionable offence. for which you are eligible to be locked in your own Talk page for eternity. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And then blanked! (Or even deleted!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A question regarding GAN

Hello, apologies for this random message. This is regarding two articles Billie Eilish and Harry Styles, both of which are currently GA nominees, but the nominator is not a significant contributor in either case. The instructions at the WP:GAN/I#N1 state: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination". I cannot find any public record of consultation between the nominator and the article's contributors on the article's talk page. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, I recognise the nominator, Trillfendi from elsewhere, and I believe this is a topic area they're interested in. So I don't think it's an issue to nominate these articles for GA, provided they're okay with putting the work in to improvement if a review mandates it. If you want to review them, the first thing I would do is to a quick sweep through the article and check there are no obvious quickfail issues (such as lots of unsourced content, copyvios, layout), then if not, do the review straight as you normally would. Ritchie333 18:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I see, thank you for taking a look at it and letting me know. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 18:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RexxS made me the template, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know that, but it sounds like the sort of thing he would cobble together. Ritchie333 09:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you know someone to ask about modifications? I had this dream of that it could work automatically when I die, pick the dates, exclude who didn't edit during the last year and those blocked and banned for good reasons, but not the many blocked and banned for bad reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Sorry, what do you mean by "modifications"? Ritchie333 14:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean extended functions, as described. RexxS will not help, so who else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who's on the same level as RexxS when it comes to template jiggery pokery. However, the first place I'd start is Category:Misplaced Pages template editors. Find an editor who's Precious, and if there are none, find one you think should be, and if there are still none, close your eyes, point your finger randomly on screen, and pick whoever comes up. Ritchie333 15:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, tell me again when I need it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Macro Recordings

Hi Ritchie333. I see you have closed the AfD discussion at Macro Recordings. Thank you. The result shown is Redirect to Stefan Goldmann. As far as I can see there was No consensus. It has been pointed out by another editor and myself that all delete / redirect recommendations by editors were given before or while oddly ignoring new reliable sources proving notability added to the article while the discussion was still on. Also the article redirected to is not quite a good match with the original topic (part-owner of the record label deleted – information on label's industry awards etc is thus lost to Misplaced Pages). I believe the decision should have been to implement the steps applicable to no consensus (WP:CLOSEAFD). Could you kindly undelete the article – WP:UNDELETE and change to no consesus? Thank you! Planetdust (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Planetdust, It hasn't been deleted, the page history is available via the "History" tab, and a link to the last version before the AfD was filed is here. Regarding the close, a number of people suggested "redirect" as a second choice to "delete", so I think the final result is a good compromise, and asked for specifically. Ritchie333 14:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333. Thanks for the quick response. For pretty much all regular users of Misplaced Pages the article and the information it contained is now lost. The third choice was "keep"... Isn't "no consensus" precisely what is meant to be the outcome of controversial discussions that do not come to a conclusion through consensus? I believe it is clear that the wholesale removal of (well sourced) information is of quite a different nature than keeping it against the strong feelings of a few activist editors. Would you consider "undelete"? Thanks for your time! Planetdust (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have opened a deletion review. Follow instructions at the top of the AfD to see how to participate. Ritchie333 15:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello Ritchie, can İlkaydemirr77 please be blocked? They are evading the block of globally locked user Denizgezmis557761. This is the fifth sock account today. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 18:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I was going to reply but got a bad attack of the WP:SQUIRRELs on Wurlitzer electric piano. Ritchie333 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Merged articles

Hi there. I merged two articles (Soapy Awards into Soap Opera Digest Awards) after discussion on talk page. I copied and pasted it into sandbox, reworked the text, and then pasted into article and left a redirect on other one. I think I should have moved it instead (not sure) as this might have obliterated the history on the old page? Does it matter or is it okay? Thank you! -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

HistoricalAccountings, I think the easiest thing to do is to put the appropriate {{copied}} template on Talk:Soap Opera Digest Awards so that the relevant attribution required to comply with our free documentation license. I've now done this. Ritchie333 20:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

March flowers

Today: Carmen for TFA (on my request), with Bizet's music "expressing the emotions and suffering of his characters" as Brian worded it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Also today: an IP edit-warring on Fleming. I wish he'd edit under his real name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Congrats on the TFA. As for the Fleming feud .... I was wondering where to write this, but I might as well put it here. I am absolutely certain that's SchroCat, in which case I'm going to say this. For goodness sake, why on earth does an intelligent, well-educated and talented writer of FAs get bogged down in such pointless and unnecessary drama? Well, my patience has run out - I have range blocked him for three months. I don't normally go near that sort of stuff, but I've been doing TCP/IP programming since reading "An introduction to Berkeley UNIX about 30 years ago, so I know how to technically do it. Sro23, I feel I should apologise for when you got jumped on by SchroCat's IPs the other month after asking me a reasonable question - I just really wanted to let them vent and ignore it, and while I did mildly criticise one thing you did, I don't think it deserved the abuse that was heaped on you. Ritchie333 20:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this egregious personal attack apparently by the same editor now on a different (IPv4) range. Levivich /_hound 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I got so used to it, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

... still arguing infoboxes and edit warring from yet another IPv4: Special:Contributions/213.205.194.58 Levivich /_hound 22:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, I don't think it's a personal attack, I just think it's sad. Observations of Misplaced Pages behaviour #64 : "It's reminiscent of Richard Matheson's Incredible Shrinking Man, that great existential film into which so much can be read. Instead of helping build the largest encyclopedia in the history of the human race, those editors finish their Wiki lives battling imagined spiders, with toothpicks." Ritchie333 22:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

As I explained to El C, my edits to Ian Fleming are zero, my edits to the talk are zero, my interest in participating in the RfC is zero, but I keep looking for curiosity. I also looked at the archives, and this treasure amused me. Better read Carmen. It's author approached me, introducing steps towards compromise infoboxes for operas (first L'Arianna) and composers (first Percy Grainger) in 2013, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I saw a video about Candace Brightman on my morning FB feed, discovered we had no article on her, and thought "we can't have that!" WP:SQUIRREL. Ritchie333 09:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. It's articles we are here for. I was on my way to request Kathleen Ferrier as the next BB creation for TFA. I'm not concerned about attacks via edit summary from IPs claiming own for a user talk - that's quite absurd - and I wonder if Bish really didn't know who when she reverted. I stole an image from her, and that's what concerns me, not trivia. The RfC was closed well, - but just imagine how much energy and wits could have put to better use if the improvers of Fleming had not used a little argument about collapsing as a reason to remove the box altogether, or at least had listened to "this treasure" and returned it, in 2012. Imagine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I still think there is an argument for not putting an infobox on an article until it is developed enough to mandate a summary; however once one is added it can be considered a general sibboleth that the article is sufficiently expanded to be at least useful. (eg: here) Ritchie333 10:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but Fleming was not a stub ;) - Anyway, infoboxes don't matter much, I never understood why so much ado, much more than for images and tables. Never heard of an image warrior (and have no idea what makes an editor who likes additional (not competitional) structured information a "warrior"). - In case you wonder why no Ferrier: I should have looked, and seen that we have already a request for the day, for Earth Day. Next year, providing we are still doing this. - Which image do you like better for the one who isn't, Bish's or mine? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Sorry, what images are we talking about? File:Kathleen Ferrier.jpg is one, what's the other? Ritchie333 11:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for being enigmatic, and running three unrelated topics. I am more concerned about a lost user than these little boxes, wasn't that clear? (I was when I quoted "expressing the emotions and suffering of his characters", mine being icy.) Please click on "stole an image from her". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Time spent on that arb case is good for nothing, wasn't that clear? When I said "lost" I meant lost, and there's nothing to win. I tell myself to not get too upset over it - as my edit notice quotes - but wasn't successful yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If Schrocat chooses to make an actual WP:FRESHSTART and work on something totally new, I would support that. That would mean abandoning old articles/topic areas/discussions for new ones, and avoiding the editors he had disputes with in the past. His FA's are in good hands and he doesn't need to constantly watch over them anymore. But that's not what we've been seeing. So if he doesn't want a clean start, then he needs to either find a way to access his account, or make some indication (be it in edit summaries or talk page posts) that "this is Schrocat editing as an IP". It's an abuse of the community's trust to say you're retired only to come back logged out to the same old trouble areas. And thanks, but I'd really like an apology from Schrocat for his abuse (and I imagine others would too) though I doubt I'll ever get one. Sro23 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, I've had some off-wiki correspondence from Cassianto, who wants to stress he's had nothing to do with the Fleming infobox feud, and having looked at the off-wiki evidence given, I believe this is true. Ritchie333 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I never even had the idea, but thank you for support. I had good discussions with Cassianto, and even used my "wrongly blocked" template, as I happened to see yesterday. Cassianto, why don't you just return? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your principal problem, Gerda (assuming you want to define it as a problem) is that sometimes I have difficulty understanding what you're saying - and if I do, it's a safe bet others do as well. I usually consider it my fault I don't understand, simply because I've worked with people in different countries and cultures, and in particular have done quite a few projects with Germans. However, hopefully you can see it's possible that some editors may be less tolerant. I have no doubt that you are a kind and courteous person and do everything here out of good faith. The trouble is I can't think of a good way of explaining what the issue is in a way that won't upset you, so I don't. And as I see your popularity in the community rising and the general view moving away from someone sanctioned at Arbcom to a good model of civility and kindness that the project needs, I stick stuff like that on the back burner, along with "Eric, could you please not use the 'f' word when dealing with edit wars, it just inflames the situation". Ritchie333 12:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'll give you an example - again, this is to illustrate what the problem is and how it might help, rather than a direct criticism of your conduct:

• "Time spent on that arb case is good for nothing" - I assume you mean the current RexxS arb case. Do you mean me trying to respond to the evidence to add some colour and a counterpoint was a waste of time that would have been better spent improving the encyclopedia? Okay, fair enough but I know RexxS personally and don't want to see him hung out to dry.
• "wasn't that clear?" - Are you implying that I wrote the response in the arbcom case to snub your or deliberately ignore your advice? Not at all, I wrote it for the reasons I just mentioned above.
• "When I said "lost" I meant lost, and there's nothing to win." - Do you mean that it's a waste of time and RexxS should get the desysop he deserves? I'm sorry you feel like that; personally I'd like to at least state my opinion on a thread once, and then leave it. If the case closes with a desysop and retirement, at least I can say "well, I did something".
• "I tell myself to not get too upset over it - as my edit notice quotes - but wasn't successful yet." - I'm not sure which specific quote you mean, but I'll assume you mean "go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset". Okay, but please understand that we are in the middle of the worst global pandemic in 100 years, so expecting people "go on with life" and "have a laugh" when that's not possible isn't necessary helpful. Again, I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying to explain how people might be able to interpret it in a different way. Ritchie333 15:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You refer to things I wrote in distress over RexxS gone and not planning to return. "Go on with life" is a quote, attribution right there. I tried to be less open/blunt/cruel but see that it can be misunderstood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The general desysop -> retirement cycle is quite sad. As firmly as I believe the case was necessary, I do hope whatever the outcome is doesn't lead to anyone leaving. And I do think evidence that provides a less one-sided view is a good thing (and certainly not a waste of time). I also don't think there's any doubt that all of the actions mentioned in the evidence section were done in good faith to improve the project (which applies to most remedies against regular editors I suppose, but I think it's worth remembering). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for adding the info!

HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"You want goat?"

"No I might a-kill I queen!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arekh

Ritchie, could you please restore Arekh to the page Misplaced Pages:List of hoaxes on Misplaced Pages/Arekh and add {{hoax demo}} to the top for the purpose of archiving? Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, Didn't realise we did that. Okay, done. Ritchie333 09:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)