User talk:Ritchie333

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

Precious two years!

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Gosh, where does the time go? Well, my aims for this year are to have 100 confirmed GAs, and get Category:London Monopoly places to Good Topic status - only a few articles left now.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good goals! I would have liked to have a TFA on 2 February, but it's still open, in case you want to comment peace and joy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It was just promoted, - and please never feel guilty ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Is that you Greda? —usernamekiran[talk] 15:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Who's Greda? - DYK that I need a GA review? Soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That GA review done, I hope for the next, soon, Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen, BWV 66. You seem to have too much time ;) - "hammer and tong", what does that mean? a synonym for shaking one's head? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"hammer and tongs" means doing something with all the might and power you can possibly put into it, like a blacksmith holding a molten horseshoe and repeatedly banging it into shape. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

what's "tong", literally? or is that a silly question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

In German, they are "Hammer Zangen" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Learning, thank you. How about a review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

In German, we have no such image in an expression, we say "mit aller Gewalt" (with all force), most often in "will es mit aller Gewalt durchsetzen", implying that the thing to be enforced is not desirable. I have good news for you (I hope): music in my ears. I am rather sure that the infobox wars are over ("Schnee vom vergangenen Jahr", snow from a past year) when such a thing (not by me) is presented as TFA, with no question raised in the FAC or the day. Softly, no force ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA

I don't want to flood RfA with walls of text, but wanted to respond further re Caleb Walker. I'm very aware of the possibility of driving away new editors, but AGF is not a suicide pact; when three different accounts try to recreate the same article in two weeks, resulting in speedy deletion every time, I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that nothing constructive is going to come of it. I'm happy to be educated on this one; am I missing something? I'm at a slight disadvantage because I (obviously) can't see the article content; my recollection is that it was pretty naf. GoldenRing (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @GoldenRing: Just FYI, that was the comment that I was agreeing to part of, not SoWhy's- I've moved it to where it's meant to be, but Ritchie might want to reword his subsequent reply. Sorry for the confusion. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Basically, if you read a lot of encyclopedia articles and are familiar with how things are structured, you can pick up signals that can help you spot things. In this case, Caleb Walker is a real person and was put as a stand-in for his brother Paul Walker in Furious 7 following the latter's death. At this point, I think it's worth mentioning my specialist subjects are streets and architecture in London, and 1960s / 70s experimental rock, of which this article is neither, but I've read enough articles around here to pick up on that being sufficient to stop A7, because at the very least you can redirect somewhere. Remember that AfDs don't always end in "keep" or "delete" - any possibility of a non-delete consensus there (which "redirect" is) stops the deletion. For now, I have restored Caleb Walker as a redirect to Paul Walker#Career, and the full history is available so you can see all the revisions that were deleted.

As I said on the RfA, deleting something can be upsetting, but what's more upsetting is if the creator tries to ask you as deleting admin to help, and you don't come up with the goods. Hence, in this case, a message "sorry about that, I can clearly see film magazine reports that show he was a CGI stand-in for his more famous brother; I have restored as a redirect" might go some way towards building bridges. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has more information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the history. I see the only content in the article when I tagged it was "jo puta." I'll readily admit that film actors are not my area of expertise - but isn't that the whole point of A1? The article didn't have enough content/context to identify the subject. If you happened to know that a person called Caleb Walker once stood in for his brother in the seventh instalment of a fairly forgettable (IMO) film franchise then perhaps you might have put two and two together and thought maybe that's who they were talking about. But maybe it's not - all you've got to go on is a name that's not exactly uncommon. What "signals" should I have picked up on in this article's content? GoldenRing (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"jo puta" is plain and simple WP:CSD#G3. However, that doesn't mean you couldn't re-appropriate the page as the redirect. As for "signals", to coin an old saying - STFW! You simply a) type "Caleb Walker" into Google and / or b) type "Caleb Walker" into the search box here. Incidentally, I brought up Aldford House specifically because it's right on the edge of what a Google Search could do to tip the balance; in this case, the first hit is an archived copy of the Survey of London which is a dedicated piece about the property. That's way outside A7 (but you knew that as you said so in your answer), as to whether it could survive AfD, it's tricky but again I think a redirect to Mayfair#Properties would probably be my alternative if "keep" wasn't an option. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Two things you have to remember: 1) WP:ATD applies to speedy deletion as well. If you google the subject and it turns out this might be a plausible search term (as "Caleb Walker") clearly is, redirect it appropriately. 2) A1 explicitly says "Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created." That was the reason I raised the objection. AGF is not a suicide pact but simply saying "no suicide pact" is not sufficient to ignore the clear wording of the policy. Regards SoWhy 13:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

While I understand the basic concept, I would like to see somebody explain how an article whose first (undeleted) revision reads as "fuck off" and nothing else could possibly be expanded to something that isn't blatant vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Putting this here, because a) this is where I noticed the discussion that sent me to the RfA and b) I rather suspect more people will notice this here, and that suits me... User:GoldenRing, please read my comment carefully because I mean every word. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also add that your RfA is not tanking with pile-on opposes, indeed quite the opposite, and the tally is creeping upwards. I might describe this as a "Brexit RfA" ie: "well this isn't going to pass but I'm going to moral support anyway" and lo and behold it succeeds. So hang in there for a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes! For once, I thikn people are actually looking beyond the statistics, and judging the answers against what they want in an admin- and finding that, where the statistics and the answers given are in contradiction, the answers trump the stats. Told you- Leicester City! :D — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If this RfA somehow passes, perhaps it will herald a new age of less restrictive RfA standards. I think it would be healthy for Wikipedia to return to the concept of adminship not being a big deal. Lepricavark (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. GoldenRing is turning his RfA around (seriously, give it 12 hours and he could be in the pass range, and I'm not kidding) primarily because his answers to the questions exhibit precisely the sort of attitude and clue I expect admins to have. Most of what I wrote at WP:WRITE is basically a rough set of criteria that allow me to easily tell if somebody has clue or not. I don't think it's any great secret that I think CaroleHenson should have passed RfA as she has clue coming out of her ears (I'm not a metaphor kind of guy, but bear with me...) and I wouldn't be at all surprised that SoWhy is going to be good on his word and put forward RfA #2 when he thinks she's ready and the time is appropriate. However, clue is impossible to fake; it's very easy to use the right buzz-words to pull the wool over people's eyes, but there have been so many upsets caused by admins pulling above their station that people have a right to be suspicious. So I'm not quite sure yet that we're going to have more "purple patches" of RfA. We did have a good run over Christmas with people like Cyberpower678 getting the bit, who are very much not the usual sort of candidate I'd put forward, but still someone I think absolutely deserves the mop and bucket. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably overstated the optimism. Still, I was disappointed when the momentum surge in early January petered out and then very little happened over the past coupe of months. I don't really expect GoldenRing's RfA to pass, but it's fun to think optimistically about seeing new life breathed into the process. Lepricavark (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering that I'm definitely a different breed of users than the average candidate that passes, I'm certainly surprised I passed, and even more so that I passed with 97% support. I'm not complaining or anything, but the views are typically, lack of AfD, lack of main space, or oh god an admin bot operator is too dangerous is what floats around RfA.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Mate, I've got to say, I think he's actually going to do it. Whilst I don't think it will (probably unfortunately) open any flood-gates, it's still a rare and curious thing that we are witnessing. Humbling actually. As well as making me feel somewhat guilty now! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

We'll see. I certainly hope you are correct. Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you might still be- I took my eye off the ball there- the serious (well, large scale?) opposes usually start after a day or two, don't they, and I suppose we haven't got to that stage yet. But even so- — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't expect from this point it'll pass - it's tantalisingly close, but stubbornly short of the mark - but I'm glad I'm providing entertainment for someone. Thank you all for your kind words about me. I hope I live up to them. GoldenRing (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: This is the closest RfA I've seen since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678. It is technically possible that the RfA will close with a 'crat chat, and from my perspective while some of the opposes are fair comment, a number are weak ("needs more experience" - yes, what in and why? Be specific!) and also suggest they won't particularly mind you having the tools. The 'crats may agree and decide the community has a neutral to positive view of you getting the bit, and granting it. I can badger the 'crats a bit to force a chat whatever happens, even if the RfA closes on 62-63%. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 closed successful on 68% support, and that was under the old standards, so I think even a 63% support is worth a discussion. For gawd's sake, don't withdraw - nobody's saying anything new and insightful anymore, so I'd sit it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree in urging you to stick with it GoldenRing. I see this as in some ways a groundbreaking RfA, (in a positve sense), which may help to reshape !voter perceptions on candidates, although with your amazingly long tenure this is somewhat unique. Also I continue to nag about getting the amazing Q5 into expanded essay form. It should be required reading. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Irondome: I've had a go in User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators. It's my fourth or fifth attempt at starting the same thing; I've struggled badly to find the right voice for it. An answer to an RfA question is not really the right form for an essay. I'm not sure about the economic impact of making it required reading, either. Comments welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

TBH I've been thinking seriously about it - mostly because of opposition from a couple of editors who I have a good deal of respect for (not going to name names here). My line of thinking is, "Maybe if they're opposed, I'm really not ready." OTOH there is support from a number who I also respect, and a couple who I expected to oppose it. I think I'm happy to let it run its course - as I said there, I don't have a lot of my self-esteem invested in this. If it ends with "no" then so be it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I joked earlier about this being a "Brexit RfA" but the analogy is uncanny. Opinion is split right down the middle, the result could go either way, a bit of name-calling between sides is going on (admittedly I've jumped in and done a bit, though I have called opinions wide of the mark rather than directed at specific people) and however it does, a sizeable number of people are going to go away disappointed. I've been thinking about the split for the past couple of days, and I can phrase it simply as "do you like WP:IAR?" Everyone that does has looked at the questions, weighed up the insight and clue they have delivered, and voted support. Everyone that doesn't has gone to count beans, look at arbitrary standards and figures that they like, and can't hand on heart ignore them quite enough, and voted oppose. Those that are torn between the two have gone neutral. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• ...aaannnd there you have it. Just awaiting the palace coup now ;) — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 12:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: This really is the "Brexit RfA"! Opinion split down the middle, people unsure about the result until the very end, the underdog wins, and the losers go ballistic over it. Fortunately I'm not Nick Ferrari so I won't scream "you lost, get over it" in a high-pitched voice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh. And at least we didn't have a Johnson running around throughout :D — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 13:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Lord Aleem

Mr Aleem Iqbal (Lord Aleem) is a notable person. There are individuals of far less notoriety with approved articles. Please release my page. I am a new user its my first article, and still learning how Wikipedia works. I intend to edit a high quality article.

Featured in Daily Mail one of the largest news sites in world. And by Vice and in The Sun

Oh i see they are bad sources to use for the article. No problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnsarAction (talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@AnsarAction: We normally delete pages because the subject isn't notable, but that's not the only reason. In this case, the subject has been in the news, and you have third-party sources documenting your facts, so you understand basically what notability in the context of Wikipedia is, I think. However, we have a very strict policy on biographies of living people, and to cut a long story short, you cannot write an article that just uses these types of references, especially when you are accusing somebody of breaking the law and being pulled over by the police for it. In particular, Wikipedia recently voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source, so you will be in trouble going anywhere near it. You might think you're going to write a high quality article, but what you may inadvertently doing is writing libel against somebody who's probably rich enough to afford a lawyer to fight it. Is that honestly a situation you really want to find you, and Wikipedia, in?

If you feel particularly hard done by this decision, I can take the discussion to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, where more eyes can look at it and reach a broader consensus; however, you need to come with sources to broadsheet newspapers such as The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Times or BBC News. If all you have is tabloids, I don't think you'll be successful, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Thanks for explaining the risks. Yes please take the article to wider consensus, maybe better editors can contribute. I have found some sources, including from The Independent and BBC. I was not accusing him of criminal behavior, simply describing the news reports. Thanks for the help.

References

@AnsarAction: Okay, there's now a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lord Aleem, so have a look and have your say. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Ritchie333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnsarAction (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@AnsarAction: There hasn't been much activity on the noticeboard. I think unless there's substantial development by this evening, I'll create a draft version of this article myself and set it up for review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Sounds good --AnsarAction (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@AnsarAction: Right, I've created a draft at Draft:Lord Aleem. I've used the BBC Asian Services source and a reasonably neutral Birmingham Mail link that talks about his family heritage. I had to avoid many of the sources in a news search because they are either the tabloids I mentioned earlier, or talk about him being arrested for .... well, being Birmingham's answer to Jeremy Clarkson by the look of it. If you can use sources similar in nature and tone to the two I've used, it should be possible to get a reasonable article up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you, he has a nice collection of cars, think he applied for the job on Top Gear and has a nice collection of supercars. Your right, mainly tabloid reports about unsavoury antics.

Declined speedy

When you declined the speedy deletion of Princes Mead Shopping Centre, you declared "A7 does not apply to shopping malls". By what logic do you arrive at that conclusion? WP:CSD#A7 applies to any articles about "people, animals, organizations, web content, [or] events" that do not assert a claim of importance or notability. The only type of organization explicitly exempted is a school. A shopping mall is clearly a company or organization, and so fits in the criterion. There is nothing in the writing about CSD#A7 that exempts shopping malls. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I could find a reliable source (a local council report) that had a couple of paragraphs about redevelopment, and that's enough to clear A7. I have noticed that we seem to have articles on many British shopping malls that I'm surprised about, per those in Template:Shopping centres in Southeast England, including The Malls, Basingstoke, County Square, Fremlin Walk and Whitefriars Shopping Centre. A shopping mall is a physical building, usually council-owned, and not part of any organisation, and you only find one, occasionally two, in large towns (at least in the UK). So in summary a speedy is inappropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In my experience, shopping centres are frequently A7d as organisations, as are certain other subjects which are physically places, such as tourist attractions. Adam9007 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Tourist attractions can be organisations (and hence eligible for A7), but if it's a grey area then search for sources and base whether to accept or decline the CSD tag on that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Funny you should mention sources: I was just in some hoo-ha over A7 and sources. What sort of sources are sufficient to pass A7? I removed an A7 from articles about a person, and his company, because there was an interview with the person in a notable newspaper. Both articles were A7d anyway, because apparently, the interview was neither credible (WTH? It was cited, and we've seen it, so we know it's true) or significant. Of course, the AfD was little more than a show trial against me, as they so often are if I decline A7. Adam9007 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I usually let through one hit on Google News or Google Books that has two paragraphs directly about the subject - basically enough to allow me to write a sentence or two myself. This goes back to my essay, of thinking of A7s being articles you can't improve at all, ever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

08:25, 3 April 2017 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Theelord (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host)

08:25, 3 April 2017 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Theelord (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) Why did you do this? I was working on an assignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theelord (talk • contribs)

@Theelord: For some reason, I thought somebody had tagged the page as {{db-u5}}, meaning the page was an essay unlikely to be suitable to turned into an encyclopedia article. I don't know why I thought that, but nobody did, so I've restored it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This is clear abuse. Please hand in your badge, gun, and mop. ;-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay C678, I'm going to start a new career as a Wiki Binman. Do you have anything for the recycling? In fact, it's obvious that the user page is draft content for Marrybrown so somebody serve me a WP:WHALE please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Ritchie333 but it is a copyvio:P CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't 100% copyvio (I was just about to blank the bits that were when another admin deleted the lot, and I'm not in the mood to wheel war today) and given the URL I do wonder if it's a copy of something the editor wrote himself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I thought it might have been a circle copyvio back to a promotional version of the Marrybrown page but couldn't find anything. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing it the first revision (just a header) is the only one clear of Copyvio, the page on the external site appears to exist at least as far back as April 2015. If restored the only thing that could be saved from my understanding is 4 lines advising what Marybrown should do. It does look very much like someone using Wikipedia to host something they should be doing in a word processing programme instead if I'm honest. If you want to restore the first paragraph I'm fine with that. Amortias (T)(C) 15:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll wait and see if he gets in touch first - he's found the main Marrybrown article so he may have just decided to update that instead. As I've said before, copyvios are often created by newbies in good faith, since our copyright policy does not align with common sense (by that I mean our policy makes sense to me, but because I understand the full extent and rationale behind it) and always need explaining. I usually give some silly example like a company selling a leather-bound book entitled "The very best of Ritchie333's talk page" for £399 plus P&P, which is not against our licence, not matter how insane it sounds. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Helpful AnsarAction (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie

I have spent hours writing a wiki article for one of the popular real estate dealers based in Bangalore. I have added it because I believe it should be on wikipedia. I hope you'll consider my request to include that wiki page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafizka (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hafizka: There are millions of real estate dealers all over the world; however this is a global encyclopedia and our articles have to be possible to be improved by everybody. So we have to draw the line at certain types of articles which would dwarf the coverage of other topics if we allowed them. User:Uncle G/On notability is a good essay to read. If you want, I can restore the article to a draft so it can be worked on and reviewed independently. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism spotted

Scarier than Tim Curry playing Pennywise and about 2,500 times more likely to cause premature death

• 50.206.29.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Blatant vandalism since 2014. 22 warnings were issued (23rd was mine). Still vandalising wiki.

I tried to report him on the AIV, but HBC AIV helperbot5 kept on removing the report saying he was blocked 2 years ago. This led to an edit war between me n the bot. But in the end, it is never wise to fight with an idiot so i gave up. —usernamekiran[talk] 15:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: The bot said the IP had been blocked for two years by Widr, and when you block somebody reported at AIV, the bot automatically clears it. So your report was acted on it's all sorted. If somebody is very obviously vandalising (and this IP absolutely was) I don't bother delivering a message, I just kick them off and tell them not to let the door hit them on the way out. (See WP:RBI) The only difference is that a) I wouldn't block "account creation blocked" as if it is a school block, it's a bit unfair to tar all students with the same brush because of one idiot and b) I might have gone for 3 years instead of 2. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

ooooo, worra bitch. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I apologise. I thought the bot said it was two years ago. Thanks Widr. And yes, i agree with everything you said.
  @Martinevans123: erm? —usernamekiran[talk] 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's a mark of status and respect when you become well-known enough for Martinevans123 to stalk your talk page and have the highest number of edits on it after yourself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• hmm. But i didnt understand his comment. —usernamekiran[talk] 15:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Welcome to my world, I don't understand most of them, but if you think that's bad, wait until you get EEng, Atsme and that Pants bloke whose username I can never spell properly debating the merits of steaming .... something I'm not going to talk about right now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• thanks for scaring me lol. See you around. :) —usernamekiran[talk] 15:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sincere apologies. I'm not sure that I understood it either. But you'd probably need to be a seasoned Corrie aficionado. I'm sure there's no truth in the shabby rumour that Threesie can block a troll with a single harsh look. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

👻💀☠️👻{{{{WOOOooo....WoooOOOO!!}}}}....too late Ritchie333, you've summoned the ghosts of your steamy past. THERE. IS. NO. ESCAPE. 👣 We are all on the 👀list now. We 👁👁 E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G 🕵🏽‍♀️. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

... and other shocking news just in. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There's an update by AP...she was 'relieved' to be cleared, and I was somewhat relieved she didn't choose a cemetery...but the 2 beers I drank contributed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Optical Society

Hi, I'm a bit concerned about the various awards that the society has. It seems that quite a lot of them may not pass WP:GNG, and some are created by WP:SPA's. What is the best course of action? Thanks in advance! Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 16:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nicnote: The best course of action is to find sources and improve them. If you can't do that and you are absolutely certain Wikipedia should not have these articles, send them to AfD and see if consensus agrees with you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Abra (singer)

Hi I am a volunteer at OTRS, The agents for the above mentioned artist have been in touch with us insisting the page be deleted as it is a invasion of her privacy.We have explained as best as possible to them the policies and criteria for deletion of an article.Please advice on the way forward as they have been very persistent on this matter. Thanking you FITINDIA (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fitindia: I've got an OTRS account. Can you give me the incident ID and I'll look at it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Hi the ticket number is 2017040310019972 thank you FITINDIA (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fitindia: Ack, I meant I've got a UTRS account (which I haven't used for ages). I don't appear to be able to log on to OTRS at all. How might I get access; as an admin regularly involved in content disputes and fielding queries from new users, I'd probably have a good case for it. (I guess info-en is the appropriate queue?) In the meantime, you could forward the correspondence via email (using the "Email this user" link). Bottom line is I might be able to throw in some examples from my real off-wiki world (that I don't really want to publicly talk about on-wiki) that may explain things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Hi have emailed you. Please have a look thank you.FITINDIA (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I've also applied for OTRS access, since it might be useful for this and other occasions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fitindia: Okay, I think I can make a good guess at what the issue is, and have resolved it in a way that they should be comfortable with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)@Ritchie333: Thank you.FITINDIA (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, can you please explain the block warning as I did not add the original name to Abra article, just wanted it to be tagged for a while for rs to be added, I looked on the internet and there were unreliable sources that seemed to confirm it, I didn't readd it when it was removed again. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: If you don't re-add the information, you won't get blocked. Since I've never interacted with you before, I needed to say that in order to stress there was a serious issue - we don't block to punish people! I'm sure you were acting in good faith; unfortunately your actions inadvertently caused a third party to file an off-wiki complaint about Wikipedia. The best advice I can give you is what I'll call Jimbo's First Law : "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." and that's pretty much what WP:BLP is. If the information was cited to BBC News / The Guardian / The Independent, it would be very easy to counter-act any complaint with something along the lines of "well, Wikipedia isn't repeating anything that's not widely and credibly reported elsewhere". But until it is, this can't go in.

You are correct that you did not add the information, but you did revert it back in; I simply sent round a message to everyone who had reverted the IP (possibly the article's subject or someone acting on their behalf?) in a general capacity that did not take any sides. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be more careful in future, I do revert ips who don't give an edit summary a bit too quickly. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. It is a bit scary when your edits suddenly collide with the outside world (and it's happened to me a few times) but once you notice it, you'll be a better editor for the rest of your days :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

How do I properly create an article about a build system (software) like Bazel and/or smallest article like [[1]]?

Thank you -Indra Indrgun (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

About deletion of page created for Mr. Abhai Sinha (( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhai_Sinha ))

Hello

I am really puzzled seeing the page deleted for no reason.And I seriously don't know who are you ? And who authorises you for deletion. If you own Wiki then I am supposed to answer you , and if you are not then I don't understand why am taking so much of effort to answer you.

Please provide me with the reason for deletion. There is no copy right infringement in doing so. My self is working for Government of India and in the same department. Data put to wiki page has been gathered by me in consultation with coleeuges,seniors and media reports. Please re activate the page,as it's dishonour to him and his profile must be put in public domain , as more than lacs of engineers in my country aim to become like him.

Manish Kanodia 09:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Manish Kanodia: In effect, you authorised the deletion by pressing "Save changes" after reading the text you see every time you edit which says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia and therefore any material that does not match the CC-BY-SA licence (more of that in a minute) must be removed.

Copyright in the context of Wikipedia is a little unorthodox, but I'll try and explain. What we mean by [CC-BY-SA] (the copyright Wikipedia uses) is that you are allowed to share work, you are allowed to modify it, and you are allowed to sell it to others. So, to give a rather far-fetched but perfectly allowable example, somebody could take the complete contents of my talk page archives, print them in a leather bound volume, and sell them on Amazon for $599 a copy. The copyright license is not violated by doing this. Since this runs counter to most copyright on texts elsewhere in the world, we cannot re-use the information unless we are certain we have permission for people to modify and sell it to others.

A copyright-based deletion makes no judgement on the quality of the text or the suitability of an article's subject for Wikipedia. Indeed, I would suggest a senior government adviser has a potentially legitimate claim to our notability guidelines for political figures. The simplest thing to do is to re-write the article, using the source, in your own words. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Georgina Downs

Rather bemused and bewildered by all this!

Hello Ritchie 333! I have to say I am rather bemused and bewildered by all this. Firstly I apologise if I have not replied in the right place but I cannot see how to reply to an existing thread only how to send a new message.

How my clear message yesterday to tripthecottage can be viewed as a personal attack is simply beyond me. I made no such attack just tried to ensure that inaccurate and misleading information is not included in a profile about me and quite right to as it simply should not be.

This has raised a raft of concerns to me about how Wikipedia actually works as it seems that literally anyone, even someone who intentionally wanted to misrepresent me and my campaign (and I am not saying tripthecottage has as I think that is merely down to relying too heavily on newspaper articles rather than checking all the facts) even the pesticides industry or other could come on and write false and misrepresentative information on someone's profile and then the person who is being profiled isn't allowed to correct it when something is wrong!! And even gets threatened with being barred from doing so. Seriously?!!

I am stunned by all this as I quite rightly saw a massive rewrite of a Wikipedia page about me and my work and that contained inaccuracies and misrepresentative information that was misleading. I therefore took to correct that and actually if you see the changes they were not exhaustive as aside from ensuring a number of things were corrected it is only the last few bits I added in that were of any lengthy text and even then it was only a few short paras. The reason for the additional bit at the end is because you cannot include a profile about someone and then have the last information of what they have done as being many years ago. I have worked constantly for 16 years and the petition that is currently live is ongoing and has been covered in at least a couple of media publications both here and in the US, as well as in published factual evidence on a House of Lords committee website which I will gladly send the link to if that can be included as a citation as to be published on such a website it has to have been approved by the Lords committee concerned. (As I said in my message to tripthecottage I had tried to include a link to the petition site itself but it would not let me do so and so perhaps either one of the articles that refers to the petition or the House of Lords committee written evidence page is ok for the citation?)

In relation to some of the other points made in the various notifications I have seen in the alerts (although I cannot be certain I have seen them all as I am struggling to follow how to do all this talk and respond stuff as said).

1. As stated above it is quite wrong to have issued a warning to someone for a personal attack when it was not it was a firmly worded message about how it is simply wrong to have inaccuracies in a Wikipedia page about a living person!

2. To say it is now an autobiography is again absurd it isn't as I corrected a few things and then added a few short paras at the end about the current/live petition. Although it is still not ideal by any means (considering the original Wikipedia page prior to any rewriting of tripthecottage was the more preferred version, although for avoidance of doubt that previous version was not written by me just amended in parts), I think the version that is currently there (unless it has been changed again whilst I type this so I mean the version I amended last night) would be acceptable for now (although see point 3 below for one thing) and until anything else significant were to happen either to me or the campaign that would then require updating. As said hopefully we can agree on the remaining citations to add in and can liase on that.

3. The one other thing I noticed tripthecottage has changed in relation to the reference to the petition is he or she took out the word "poisonous" in the name of the petition. Yet that is in the NAME of the petition and I was citing correctly the name of the petition which is right and proper to do. Therefore that word should rightly be reinserted and perhaps be in quote marks then so it is clear that is the title of the petition?

4. I do not agree that this page should be the UK Pesticides Campaign as although it is of course the name of the campaign and is rightly referred to as such in the text of the page, in relation to all the profile of the campaign and the awards and other nominations it has received that has been to me myself as the named person who runs the campaign. Therefore it would be quite wrong to have it just as a campaign page and as said in point 2 above I would suggest the version as it is is kept with just adding back in the word "poisonous" and have the title of that petition in quote marks as it is the title of the petition as said in 3 above, as well as adding in agreed citations for the petition and other information below it which brings me on to point 5.

5. I cannot understand why all the awards and nominations (that have happened and are fact) were all removed and hence my comments to tripthecottage that it appeared to be a way to downplay the achievements of my work and campaigning efforts. To give an comparable example for this. On the vast majority of Wikipedia pages about living persons there is a list of the awards and achievements. Some of these people would be massively more high profile than others (ie. Leonardo Dicaprio and very high profile people of that nature lists all the Oscars, Golden Globes and other awards and accolades he has won), but surely there is no discrimination of the level of a person's profile in that if they have won awards and nominations even if those awards aren't quite of the level of the aforementioned then they would surely be listed also, especially if those awards have been mentioned repeatedly in the national media (which they have and I am more than happy to send on specific links and citations for that from various media articles). I am not actually even all that fussed about whether all the awards are included or not as there are quite a lot, but just think from a factual accuracy and representative standpoint they should be if they are for others as there should be no discrimination on that score. However, I would be content with the 2 that are mentioned in the existing version if nothing else but think my points in this point 5 are valid and justified.

I hope you appreciate all that is stated above and also hope that we can liase on this further to bring this to some sort of amicable resolution.

Thanks and kind regards, Thefactcorrecter (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A quick ps to the message just sent!

Ritchie333, just a quick ps to the message sent previously. Just in further support of point 4 about how it is right to have it as Georgina Downs with the campaign mentioned therein in that the legal case in relation to the risks and adverse impacts on rural residents and communities living in the locality of sprayed fields was in my name Georgina Downs v DEFRA and thus it was not named the UK Pesticides Campaign v DEFRA. I can send you clear links so you can see the names of the parties involved in the legal case if required. Anyway, as said this is further support to the points I already made in point 4 (ie. about how as all the high profile nature of the campaign in existing national media has been related to what I have had to do to challenge the Government on this issue, including launching the UK Pesticides Campaign as referred to in the page, then it is absolutely right the page should be under Georgina Downs).

One other thing I wondered is that if it is agreed that the current version is acceptable (with the one amendment requested at point 3 I think it was in the previous message and adding in the remaining citations once we can liase on that) then perhaps after the section about the petition (or even before that section as I think the petition was in my name rather than the campaign's) there could be another subheading for the few paragraphs that are related to the awards/RSA/being a registered journalist etc. as there were separate headings for these few things Awards, Journalism etc. in the original version (ie. before there was any rewriting of it by tripthecottage). All those remaining paragraphs in fact could even probably just be put under one heading even if its just "Other" or such like.

Anyway, this is just further to the previous message sent and I hope sending this one doesn't mean you don't see the first message so please see it above under the heading "Bemused and bewildered" etc. etc.

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Response

@Thefactcorrecter: Just leave new messages at the bottom of this talk page, I can reorganise them into some order if necessary. You can also send me an email (use the "Email this user" option on the left hand menu), but I prefer to keep all conversation on here as I like communication in the open, and it allows other people to comment and bring things to the discussion.

The problem you're seeing is basically a common one that occurs when the real world conflicts with the model of Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". However, the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy is fairly established, which means anybody messing around with biographies tends to get stamped on from a great height and kicked out. To be honest, I can't see your article being an obvious target for anybody, most disruptive editing tends to happen on high profile articles of politicians and major celebrities, so I wouldn't worry about it.

I don't think what you said to Tripthecottage was meant as a personal attack, but you were just angry and it came across as such in your writing. The problem with the messages you received in response is we have a number of "cookie cutter" message templates that can be delivered to another user at the click of a button. I strongly dislike them, as invariably they get taken the wrong way by newcomers but when you have 25 users to deal with, and only ten minutes to send a message to each one, they tend to be used as a way of saving time. So while I do have a go at people for using templates all the time, they still get used frequently.

As far as sources go, I have had a look, and found a few things not in the article. I see this 2015 column in The Guardian that reports you were nominated for the Observer Ethical Awards 2015; that can definitely go in the article. There's another column in The Daily Telegraph which could be usable, though it's about 8 years old and probably out of date, and this article in The Guardian that cross-references your research to talk about the affordability of organic food for students. I see the various columns you have written for The Ecologist, and the petition to the Prime Minister. Any debates that have happened in the House of Commons or Lords will be documented in the Parliamentary Hansard, all of which are online (as far as I recall, this is a legal requirement). In short, there are a probably enough sources out there to be able to clean up this article and bring it up to date, including various corrections and awards.

I would advise you against editing your own article. By all means point out anything that is wrong, misleading or factually inaccurate, as it's important we fix it, but otherwise it's best you let an experienced Wikipedia editor handle this, as they'll know exactly what sources to write and what tone to use, so their work is unlikely to be challenged. I can do this, but I don't know when I'll have time as I've obviously got the real world / job / kids etc. to deal with as well. There are a number of other editors I know who I can call on for help, particularly where biographies of women are involved. Unfortunately, some Wikipedia editors hate famous or semi-famous (which you are) people editing their own articles and can get quite aggressive about it.

To answer your specific questions:

1. I've addressed this (in a humorous and rather cutting manner) in User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates. I have mentioned on the Administrators' Noticeboard that I'm handling the issue, so I don't see this problem repeating itself

2. The tag at the top of the article says "This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject." All that means is it needs an expert editor to look at it, gather together the correct sources, and fix it. Unfortunately, we're all volunteers so this may take some time to resolve; in the interim our preference is err on the side of removing information - in the very worst BLP disputes (which this isn't), the article may be blanked down to a single summary sentence.

3. Yes, the petition is called (verbatim) "BAN all crop spraying of poisonous pesticides near our homes, schools and playgrounds!" so we should put it in quotation marks. Unfortunately, change.org is blacklisted and can't be used on Wikipedia - anyone can start a petition on it for any topic, such as "Petition to behead Jimmy Wales" (and yes, people do this). So I'll have to think about how we can source this. At the moment, the petition has less than 3,000 signatures (unless I'm looking in the wrong place), while, say the petition to stop Donald Trump making a state visit to the UK was signed by 1.8 million; so unless the petition is mentioned in a third-party news source, we might not be able to mention it.

4. I simply suggested this as a way to quickly resolve the dispute and bring it to a close

5. As stated above, I am happy to put the Observer Ethical Awards 2015 nomination back in the article as that is absolutely cited to a reliable source and meets our criteria for inclusion. For the rest, I will just need to go and hunt down the sources.

As a complete aside, I was interested to read you were involved in the West End theatre - I work in an arts centre and we have a regular amateur theatre group that rehearses musicals in one of the rooms there.

I hope this goes some way towards addressing your concerns. If not, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Ritchie333 from thefactcorrecter

Ritchie333,

Thanks for the message. However, I see you haven't waited for me to respond before changing things again.

I repeat I am not and have never been called an environmental activist. This is factually incorrect, misleading and is in my view rather derogatory to what my work involves. I am a registered journalist under two well recognized bodies (the IFAJ and BGAJ) and multi award winning campaigner (as you can see if you go back to the previous version I referred to which from looking at it was 11th April 2016 16.38 as I haven't seen the various ones changing things in between to know what was done so suggest you see the awards list in that April one). Therefore please will you change it back to describe my correct title (as a campaigner and journalist) as this is simply not acceptable to me as someone who fights on a serious public health issue to keep trying to mislead as I have never been described anywhere by the "environmental activist" title.

I have made a number of notes in response to your message and so shall respond to it all shortly but wanted to send this on in the meantime and ask that nothing is changed further on this until you have seen my further reply which I shall send on shortly (and certainly do not want things changed by anyone else as now I have started to correspond with yourself then please can we keep it as that without passing it on to someone else that I have to start all over again with objecting to etc. etc. especially considering how upset I am about all of this).

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

All I have done is add some of the news sources mentioned above. Mlpearc changed your description, and to be perfectly blunt I cannot see how that is libellous or factually inaccurate. If you are getting upset over that, you're just going to get frustrated with the place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A plea for humour, japes, and general lighthearted tomfoolery

Bit of a pest

The conversation on this talk page today has been too serious with too many upset people. Come on talk page stalkers (especially Martinevans123), lighten it up with a bit of song and dance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nah. You know me. Don't like to make myself a pest. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, whatever happened to Lordi, they don't make Eurovision like that anymore! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeedy-doody Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A Doctor writes This is clearly a case of over-active talkpage pituitary gland syndrome. This can be caused by walls of text and may lead to diminished sexual interest by the sufferer and an increased risk of bladder leakage issues. I usually recommend in these cases an immediate course of [[2]] to be taken twice a day for two days, combined with [[3]] to be taken when required. Irondome (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

JamesBWatson asks me for a response but no way to do it!

@JamesBWatson: Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I seemingly have no choice but to reply to JamesBWatson here Ritchie333 I am afraid as I cannot seem to reply to this further nameless, voiceless and faceless electronic screen name except here so apologies for having to post it here! Please ensure JamesBWatson knows I have replied here, thanks.

Ritchie333, just as I thought I was getting somewhere with finding someone to liase with on this, my concerns about Wikipedia and your one rule for one and one rule for another approach is extremely concerning to me that yes as someone who has not only been supported by the Daily Mail, including its editor Paul Dacre (and I can send a link to his editors column about me in 2008) and I also in 2008 won an award from the Daily Mail (again all fact and I can send on the links to it) then I am going to look up what articles they have written about Wikipedia as I note you mentioned it on the wall thing.

You say you have to have reliable sources (whilst seemingly not wanting to take the word of the person who is the best source to know about themselves both professionally and personally!) and yet this JamesBWatson has just said that it is immaterial if I have ever referred to myself as an environmental activist or not it is what others have called me. NO ONE Has called me an environmental activist and certainly not as far as I recall in the national press, including in the Guardian which seems to be your source of choice. With the greatest of respect none of you people know anything about me or my work and yet you are professing to decide how I should be referred to!

Again in the one rule for one and one rule for another theme, whilst you say I have a conflict of interest when I do not - I just want things to be factually correct and quite right too - where is the evidence that anyone changing my page is not someone with a conflict of interest against me such as someone with a pesticide industry allegiance, a farmer, or other?

There seems to be a rather misogynistic feel to some of the changes and comments I have been receiving and I note your own comment Ritchie333 about some editors and women. This begs the question who on earth is policing this website, where is anyone of authority to be able to take up properly genuine complaints of substance?

I object to being described as an environmental activist for the very reasons I gave in my previous message to you but perhaps JamesBWatson has not seen and therefore I will repeat them again. As someone fighting for the protection of residents HEALTH then it is a public health issue and in the pesticides world you have two categories in protecting health or the environment and whilst others focus on the environment side as such (eg. bees, birds etc.) anyone who reads any of the articles in relation to my campaign will see it focuses on the health side, although really they are actually inextricably linked, but still to wrongly describe me in that way plays into the hands of all those who keep focusing on environmental issues only whilst ignoring the health side. This is infuriating to someone who does work tirelessly to highlight that the problems with pesticides are not merely environmental but most importantly on human health! Also I object to activist as I have never done direct action which that word is often associated with and have always campaigned in a non direct action and professional way.

Most crucially though, it is not factually correct to call me that as I am a recognized journalist and campaigner and am described as such in the media and you keep saying facts are important yet others then make comments that seem to have no real interest in the facts!

Let me be clear before I get more warnings for being firm, there is NOTHING is this message that is attacking anyone but I have been asked to again explain my objection to the wording and that is what I am doing but am getting increasingly exasperated by all this.

I would prefer to deal directly with yourself Ritchie333 and will send on the response to your previous message to me either later this evening or tomorrow (as I am very tired having been up til 6am trying to resolve all these very serious and genuine issues).

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have explained yet again why environmental activist is not the recognized description of what I do and actually I was going to say in the message just left that no doubt someone would try and find just one even if its in some pesticide or farming industry material to change it to! And in fact the farming and pesticides industry never get anything right in relation to what I do as they are the one of the opposing parties to my whole existence!! Anyway, there are literally HUNDREDS of articles about my campaign in the press and the vast majority refer to me as a journalist and a campaigner (and NOT a pesticides campaigner as that then sounds as if I am for pesticides!)

I would ask that what I actually do is properly referred to in a page about what I do and that is as a campaigner and journalist and if you need me to send you the many articles that refer to me as such let me know and I shall do that.

And to clarify when I said I was upset by all this I mean all of it the whole thing in relation to this page having been rewritten and the many hours I have spent trying to resolve it with people that you cannot even speak to, do not know the real name of, and only have a screen name.

I still intend to respond to your previous response soon.

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: I have actually been watching your talk page, so replying to me there would have been perfectly sufficient. For future reference, however, I can suggest other possible ways of contacting me. If you are replying to a message on your talk page, as was so in this case, then the best method is to me there, so that the discussion is kept together, and put {{Ping|JamesBWatson}} with your message. Provided you also make sure you sign your post with ~~~~ the Wikimedia software will then automatically notify me of your message. Alternatively, you can post to User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, which I check frequently for messages. From 17 April 2017 at 00:38 GMT your account will be autoconfirmed, and you will then be able to post to my main talk page at User talk:JamesBWatson. I hope that information may be helpful to you.

I see that you regard the word "activist" as specifically referring to what you call "direct action", which goes some way towards explaining why you dislike the term. Thanks for clarifying that. However, I'm afraid I really don't understand why you object to use of the word "environmental", nor why you regard it as so essential to separate environment from health. Isn't the central point of your campaign a belief that pesticides in the environment are harmful to health? If not, then I have significantly misunderstood, so perhaps you can put me right on that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Further to previous message

The examples JamesBWatson have given 3 appear to be the SAME article just in different places and all of which are farming and pesticides industry aligned publications and the other is a website I am not sure I have heard of.

It appears that some are keen to get in farming and pesticides industry links in here and yet you previously seemed keen to rely on national press sources! That's gone out the window now then. And yet again I get a warning for wanting my work to be CORRECTLY referred to as it has been in hundreds of articles in the national press and which I said I could send some links on for.

People here just seem to want to find things that fit the narrative they want it to fit. And these are all nameless, faceless and voiceless people who cannot be checked for conflicts of interest. This is not any way to run a business and is highly unprofessional. I will now decide on the next appropriate action to take on this as it is completely unacceptable and will also go look up the Daily Mail articles you have referred to on the wall as I have not read them yet so no idea what you were referring to!

I would say though that if you tell others you are dealing with something and then those others continue to try and fan the flames that is really counterproductive.

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Urgent removal required

Ritchie333,

I have not seen all the various changes that others keep making but there is now a monumental and potentially offensive error which is why people who do not know the facts should not be messing about with this page.

As I had correctly written yesterday it is GORDON Roddick who has signed the petition as you can see if you go to my website click on the petition link scroll down to reasons for signing and you will see Michael Mansfield QC first and then I think Gordon Roddick is 4th. He and Anita were environmentalists together but others may not know that Anita passed away in 2006 I think it was. Therefore you must have that changed back to what it correctly is which is Gordon Roddick please.

One other thing to say is that where it says the "petition was signed[when?]" as it is clearly referring to "by thousands of other rural residents also reporting adverse health impacts of crop spraying in their localities" then it should say that the "petition has been signed by thousands of other rural residents........" as it clearly says at the beginning of that paragraph that the petition was started in 2016 and so whoever added the "when" cannot possibly mean a date needs to be included for each of the thousands of residents who have signed it!! Thus saying that the petition has been signed rather than was signed thus resolves that.

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yes, I can possibly mean that a date needs to be included. Not for each individual signatory, of course, but for when the total reached "thousands." But I'm quite happy for you to provide any source to support that claim, or else remove it from the article wholesale. Similarly with the high-profile signatories. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. by the way, I think about 90% of the discussion threads you have posted here should not really be here at all, but instead be at the Talk:Georgina Downs page. Thanks.

Response to your message

Ritchie333,

I presume it is you who sent me this message no idea as it is not signed.

You said to please let you know if any concerns and I have done and am doing and am quite right to (although am still struggling a bit technically with it all).

These are justified and valid concerns and to be blocked from trying to ensure that how my work description is referred to is correct is extraordinary (as the description you and your colleagues continue to use is not correct and appears to be only how farming and industry publications have referred to me, and btw I had not actually seen those particular ones before and am surprised it is considered as a reliable source).

Anyway in response to your message to me, as you said in an earlier message that the Ecologist articles would be okay then in the absence of having in the actual petition link then there are at least 2 articles that have referred to it one is in the Ecologist here http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988609/pesticide_deregulation_the_real_reason_for_myron_ebells_number_10_meeting.html and the other is the same article in Counterpunch in the US.

Alternatively there is the same references to all that text in the Wikipedia entry (regarding the current and live petition) in the House of Lords committee written evidence (at paras 1.45 to 1.51) and that was published on the House of Lords committee website here http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-energy-and-environment-subcommittee/brexit-agriculture/written/47151.html

Incidentally I note that in your previous message you said the name of the petition could be put in quote marks with the word “poisonous” put back in seeing as that is the correct title.

On a separate note can I just ask what was the problem with the bit about the RSA, especially as you have it as a strap link at the bottom but then no mention of it in the page as it was removed (although not sure who removed it as lost track). It is factually correct I am a fellow of the RSA and in fact if you click on that link at the bottom and go to the separate Wikipedia page you will see me there under D for Downs. Therefore would be clearer to people reading it if the line about the RSA was back in otherwise surely they won’t get why it is linked at the bottom. As said it is factually correct, I am a fellow! I can take a pic of my fellows card and send it on if that helps to confirm it even further…

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As Martin said above, discussions about the content are best put at Talk:Georgina Downs now people are looking at it. I think all the issues you've raised here have now been fixed in the article; I've copied the links to sources over there as well.

"The essential building blocks towards satisfying and collaborative Wikipedia editing"

I don't have any more time this weekend to look at this. Essentially, you need to realise that everybody working on Wikipedia is a volunteer and we are all trying to do the right thing with limited time and resources. I'm not happy about Mlpearc templating you with a stupid block message, but I've complained about him until I'm blue in the face and now just find a suitable brick wall to bash my head against. I cannot be held responsible for anything any other editor does on the site. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A favor (2nd try)

I don't want to reignite your PTSD, but could you could marshal the fortitude to review Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Harry_R._Lewis? I want it to appear on the 19th and I'm starting to get nervous. EEng 08:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply to a message I have only just seen

Hi Ritchie,

Only just seen your message (not sure why the notifications still aren't lighting up to tell me when messages come).

Anyway, thanks but the remaining issues are really not sorted with the most important one being the description of what I do at the beginning. The last 2 or 3 posts at the bottom of Martin's talk page again provide further reliable sources that I have found to show that that farming articles description of me is not an accurate description of what I do. I think I know what I do better than a farming publication who doesn't know me from a bar of soap! Anyway, I have provided the relevant sources (from the Telegraph and Guardian) that supports what I have continued to argue on this that I am a campaigner that runs an independent voluntary campaign of 16 years (and I have spent many an hour working and volunteering to try and help others and would quite rightly like to have what I do correctly described PLEASE).

You will also see that I have provided links in the last couple of messages at the bottom of Martin's talk page for the citations for the Cosmopolitan award and for the IFAJ and BGAJ citation also.

Thanks

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think everything's been updated in the article and on the talk page, so hopefully that's all sorted. Good luck with your continuing campaign. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Live and Dangerous

The article Live and Dangerous you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Live and Dangerous for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A tool to analyze CSD logs

Hi there. I noticed you suggested adding a scan of the CSD log to the Asynchronous Admin Score tool. While checking red links is a perfunctory way to assess CSD logs, I wonder if we shouldn't have a tool that can do a better analysis of such logs. For example, checking red links does not account for pages deleted for other reasons, i. e. when the tagging was incorrect but AfD or PROD took care of it. Do you think you can write a tool that can check the logs of deleted pages against the CSD tags used to determine whether the page was deleted as tagged? Or maybe you know someone else I could ask? It would also be great if such a tool could display successful taggings by criteria, seeing as some criteria are easier to apply than others. I'd try to do it myself but honestly I have no clue whatsoever how to use the information the API spews out (what little PHP skills I have were honed before JSON became a standard). Regards SoWhy 14:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Well, you can use the API to do something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/w/api.php?action=query&format=json&list=logevents&titles=&leprop=comment&letype=delete&letitle=Jemma+Green&lelimit=1 (in the example here, the article was deleted per A7 a few times but recreated, eventually taken to AfD and deleted there). That will give you the most recent deletion entry, which you can parse via a regular expression.

To use the API with something like PHP, the equivalent is roughly:

<?php

$title = 'Jemma Green';

$params = array(

'action' => 'query',

'format' => 'php',

'list' => 'logevents',

'leprop' => 'comment',

'letype' => 'delete',

'letitle' => $title,

'lelimit' => '1' );

$enc_params = array(); foreach( $params as $key => $value ) {

$enc_params[] = urlencode( $key ) . '=' . urlencode( $value );

} $url = 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?' . implode( '&', $enc_params );

$str = file_get_contents( $url );

$response = unserialize( $str );

$log_events = $response[ 'query' ][ 'logevents' ];

if( count( $log_events ) > 0 ) {

$comment = $log_events[ 0 ][ 'comment' ];

if( preg_match( '/\[\[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion\/.*\]\]/', $comment ) ) {

echo "Article was deleted at AfD";

}

} ?>

Hope that's of some use! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the code, that is certainly helpful to determine why a page was deleted. Now I just need to figure out how to parse someone's Twinkle generated CSD log (e. g. User:CaroleHenson/CSD log) to check whether the taggings match the deletion reasons. I'll have another look myself these days using the code you provided. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Operation Great Storm

@Dweller:, @The Rambling Man: Similar to Operation Alf Ramsey .... the 30th anniversary of the worst spell of weather I have ever personally experienced is on 15 October. I could probably take it to GA in a week, given the right book sources from the library (of which there are several); beyond that, do you think there's a hope in hell on getting it as TFA for that date? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

So, I return from my Wikibreak and....

...I see still no takers on the Marylebone station GA review! Well, it *is* the most forgotten of the London termini after all! Congrats on getting Mayfair through though! Just need to decide which Monopoly square to tackle next... hmmmmm... OcarinaOfTime (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Just looked at the board and it seems you're just about there actually, just this one and Kings Cross to go! Might tackle Kings Cross' grander neighbour...gosh that article needs pruning! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I wondered who you were, but I've worked it out. There is also List of London Monopoly locations at FLC to complete the set. Somebody will do the GA reviews eventually. In the meantime I've been tinkering with Soho. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry! Occupational hazard of working in education - my old username got found out by a particularly 'enterprising' student which forced a change. (And so far, they haven't managed to link the two usernames, despite it not taking a genius to do so!). OcarinaOfTime (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not rocket science to work out my real name and my job - hells bells a reliable source printed my home address once - but I'm not going to make it easy or obvious, as that would be just asking for trouble. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Titan Sports Plus

Hi, there. I am the editor of Titan Sports Plus. It was deleted by you 5 minutes ago. Could you please resume the page? I am still constructing this article to meet the criteria of wiki. Could you leave me one or two days to finish it and add all references? If it still does not meet your criteria, you can delete it then. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ujishadow: I have restored this to Draft:Titan Sports Plus. Follow the instructions on the draft template to see how it will be reviewed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Wrap Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Wrap Up Hello, GA Cup competitors! Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review. Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively. There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here. Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Monopoly list

Well that was straight-forward enough! Congrats. Anything more like that in your back pocket you need some teasing out? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, I never realised FLCs were that quick! As you can see from above, we still need GA reviews for King's Cross station and Marylebone Station, then we can go for the GT. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

They typically aren't. That's pretty special in the current climate. I can review one of those if you'd like? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't see a mad rush for anyone else to review them! Only caveat is I had to give some of the book sources back to the library, but hopefully I can work around it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London King's Cross railway station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London King's Cross railway station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London King's Cross railway station

The article London King's Cross railway station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:London King's Cross railway station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marylebone station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marylebone station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marylebone station

The article Marylebone station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Marylebone station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London King's Cross railway station

The article London King's Cross railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:London King's Cross railway station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Beta Kappa Gamma page deletion

Hey Ritchie, Beta Kappa Gamma is a multicultural service fraternity that participates in the Multicultural Greek Council. As an active member of this fraternity, I'd hate to break any necessary rules regarding wikipedia entries on our article.

Could you delineate the exact reasons why our page is being considered for deletion and how we could improve it?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.65.25.122 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically I checked the logs, and administrators appear to have deleted and re-created it on several occasions. Somebody tagged for speedy deletion recently, so I took it to a full discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Kappa Gamma (2nd nomination) to see what consensus will arise from it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is made for a fraternity that has been running for 17 years. Multiple websites showing brothers are www.betakappagamma.org and bkgbaylor.org . I have been working on the website for the past hour and would be very disappointed if my efforts were in vain. The fraternity has grown immensely since 2012 and even the content on the page has resembled that of any other fraternity on Wikipedia. In terms of national presence, if you look on school websites like Baylor, UT Austin or LSU, you will find Beta Kappa Gamma's influence on the community. In terms of chapter numbers, there are multiple fraternities and sororities that have less than 7 and ones that only have 1 chapter(local fraternities). These are sources that show that it is an established official organization in the United States and that it is a fraternity: http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sfl/chapter_orgpage.php?id=55 http://www.baylor.edu/studentactivities/greeklife/index.php?id=74963 https://www.docdroid.net/fTrEh2s/bk-articles-of-incorporation-1.pdf.html (Official document of article of incorporation) https://issuu.com/thedailyreveille/docs/issuu1026 (Page 3 showing BKG fundraising) https://www.gofundme.com/BetaKappaGamma In addition to all these websites, Relay for life is the biggest cancer research event in America. Beta Kappa Gamma was the GOLD sponsor of Relay for life donating thousands of dollars. Here it is on their website. http://main.acsevents.org/site/TR?fr_id=82902&pg=informational&sid=209324 To show the publicity of the organization and both it's service and social impacts: http://baylorlariat.com/2017/03/16/fraternity-to-hold-dodge-for-a-cause-fundraiser/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTJ1kYwIsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKvHSeVmYAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpR5qFYnpZg http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Beta%20Kappa%20Gamma Not only was there local coverage, there was also outside local coverage by cities outside of the fraternity's main residence/university. These are additional sources for Beta Kappa Gamma in Houston and nationally http://www.uh.edu/af/news/March12/green4.htm https://www.google.com/search?q=Beta+kappa+gamma+friends+for+life&oq=beta+kappa+gamma+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i60l3j69i59.3587j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.facebook.com/The-Phoenix-Educational-Foundation-319334178173227/ https://www.facebook.com/bkgbaylor/photos/a.833981646649720.1073741830.830174837030401/997157443665472/?type=1&theater

Thank you Appie094 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Appie094: You need to take this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Kappa Gamma (2nd nomination) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Chiltern Main Line

What were the problems at Template:Chiltern Main Line that led you to create Template:Chiltern Main Line RDT? You could have created Template:Chiltern Main Line/sandbox and developed it there. As things stand, Template:Chiltern Main Line RDT is eligible for WP:CSD#T3. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically, I couldn't get the template to appear in a collapsible box - it always appeared fully sized and taking up the entire space of the page. More specifically, I set a navbar title and added the collapse flags. I didn't see a suitable solution on the existing template that would not break compatibility with where it is already used (ie: on the infobox on Chiltern Main Line. So it doesn't meet T3 as the same functionality can't be provided by that other template right now - although it could be with the right fixes, then I'll delete the fork per G7 when I know it works. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It already had a navbar - the row "This diagram: view talk edit" at the very bottom. Anyway, the sandbox now exists. All you should need to do is make the |inline=yes conditional, something like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that sandbox just has the same problem as earlier :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

ಠ_ಠ

FWIW, I still think you're wrong, but we've probably pretty well covered why. So... to the janitor go the spoils. TimothyJosephWood 10:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Surely you mean Victor?? Or perhaps you were just looking for a favourable position? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

...I'm not sure which one of us is supposed to be the grumpy old man... probably both considering how long we've argued about this point in particular. TimothyJosephWood 11:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to follow up on this but I'm confused as to what context this is about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion (Prosperity Indiana)

Hi! An article that I have been in the process of creating about a Community Economic Development organization, Prosperity Indiana, and it was speedily deleted by you for "not being of significance." I didn't have an opportunity to really even finish the article, and am still finishing the drafts, but it was deleted shortly ago. Can I have a better explanation as to why that explanation was given to it, and what I can do to fix this issue so this is not deleted?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcpreddy (talk • contribs)

@Tcpreddy: The best thing to do in this situation is not to create an article in the main encyclopedia space, but start a draft page first, which can be reviewed by an experienced editor, without the threat of deletion. To this end, I have restored the article to Draft:Prosperity Indiana where it can be worked on further. When you are ready for a review, follow the instructions at the top of the page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marylebone station

The article Marylebone station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marylebone station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

.... and that is, I believe, the last Monopoly location to pass GA, and hence User:Ritchie333/Monopoly is, after a 21-month slog, done. Woohoo! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, @The Rambling Man:, @Anarchyte:, @OcarinaOfTime: : See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/List of London Monopoly locations/archive1. I've included you lot as you all made major contributions to at least one article in the set. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Need your opinion

The outcomes of recent RfAs make it an opportune time to bring this up. I have considered bidding for adminship for the past week. I feel, with the new ways I am reaching out to contribute (article creations on different subjects, pending changes reviewer, Afds, DYKs, etc.) that I am gaining the knowledge required to be an admin. I intend to tackle more acts of vandalism in the coming months before I would consider taking another step foward with this idea. With all that being said, I wanted your opinion on the matter because I have always trusted you above all other experienced admins. Your complete and total honesty on my chances in the near future is appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Unfortunately, the checkuser block last September is pretty much the kiss of death that will gather lots of oppose votes straight away; perhaps if there had been an accompanying unblock against it, that could have been mitigated against. Your AfD performance is acceptable; a couple of withdrawals, but that just shows you admit you made a mistake. (Harper and the Moths seems to have got deleted in a second AfD).

What exactly do you want the admin tools for? Do you really want to get involved in the anti-vandalism side of things? Somebody's got to do it sure, but it's bit of a waste of a talented GA writer to be piddling around the vandalism. Personally, I think bots and software ought to ultimately be better vandal patrollers than humans, given suitable data sets. As an admin, I don't mind popping on to AIV when I'm procrastinating over what article to write next, but usually it's to close a report or bounce it elsewhere, which many admins do not do. I got the bit primarily because I do a lot of CSD work; don't decide to become an admin for any "status" and "prestige" value, because you will regret it, burn out and retire. And longstanding editors can spot "career" admins a mile off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Does that block's impact lessen with time? I have learned to accept it exists in my block log, but I wish it did not blur the fact I have always tried to help out the way I knew best. If I had the tools, I intend to be involved in anti-vandalism work and issues as well as helping out with backlogs where required such as AIV and UAA. Alongside this I envisioned dealing with requests for page protection when dealing with vandalism or edit warring. I think I'm very adaptive to any situation so if I'm needed elsewhere, I would read the appropriate policies and take any advice. I absolutely do not want the mop for prestige because, personally, I think there is a negative stigma that exists with admins. If you think my block is a death sentence, however, I can put the idea on hold for awhile.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Recently, Anna Frodesiak set up a vetting area where a bunch of people analyse potential RfA candidates, analogous to how you might sift through a pile of resumes for a job placement. The very first criteria is "no blocks within the last three years". I do remember the block happening but I can't remember the specifics; I'll have to go back and check. Essentially, though, I can't think of an admin candidate pass with any block being more recent than 2 years away.

Generally, I think it's best to start off with one area of the toolset you're interest in, focus on that, and convince people you won't move onto other things until you're ready. Given your participation there, closing AfDs might be the first obvious step.

If you're still mulling it over, you can start your own opinion poll here, where the rest of the community can give you feedback, but to be honest I'd be surprised if you got an average over 5/10 there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to recap the block: I was blocked a week for apparent sock puppetry by Mike V. A sharp increase of vandalism by the actual sockmaster followed almost immediately afterwards. Despite there being no point to the block other than to be punitive, Mike V upheld the block. I think nearly a dozen sockpuppets and IPs were blocked in that week alone but it never influenced his decision. I want to open an opinion poll in the coming week because I think I have a lot to offer. If it is unfavorable, I can stick to article content for another year or two; it certainly would not hurt my chances in the further future.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Admin's suck, I should know... Stick to making Wikipedia brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Another: agree. And don't request comments, or you may be told you (how many months later? August to April?) created a drama-fest. Stick to article work if you want to become cheerful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Jumping in here, since I landed here for something else. I would suggest to anyone considering RfA at this moment to not do so, probably for at least a month. The blowback from GoldenRing's RfA is making everything to do with adminship very messy at the moment, and RfA is all the way back to being a hellish gauntlet of pain and misery and nasty, big, pointy teeth. But by all means put yourself up at WP:ORCP, it's a good forum for determining your chances and getting advice for things to work on until RfA calms down again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit my confidence in putting people forward for RfA (including your good self) took a bit of a knocking with CaroleHenson, which I thought was a sure-fire winner; though (as I've written elsewhere today) I think I managed it pretty well, she took the rejection in incredibly good stead, and when she goes for RfA #2 she will be even better. All I was trying to get through on Dane's RfA is that he's not ready, and if he'd asked me instead of Coffee, I would have advised him not to run and we'd have avoided this whole mess. I'm now going to say "nuts" to canvassing and ask everyone to go full speed towards Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/List of London Monopoly locations/archive1 and see what you make of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I landed at Schmücke dich (new) and Altenberger Dom (up to DYK standard. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That investigation a few months ago involved not only sockpuppetry but also harassment. In my willingness to try to be everybody's friend and "go along and get along" with my frequent collaborators, I did not take a strong enough stand when I should have. I've been reluctant to admit that the particular situation which got investigated caused me a lot of pain and has definitively diminished my enthusiasm for writing at Wikipedia. I don't expect what I say to matter that much to anyone (of course all the other variables take precedence). But, maybe I need to speak out more often. The bottom line when considering any new administrator should be this: an administrator's job is to protect innocent editors, not hurt them. An administrator should never be one who enjoys the sport of taking punitive action on others. While an administrator sometimes has to take negative actions, it never should be for the source of amusement or be done out of largesse. Period. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Garagepunk66 are you insinuating I would enjoy blocking editors or are you speaking broadly for all admins? If I ever have the tools, blocking would be a last resort for me and it would never be punitive. If you read my ORCP, I state I would use the tools at AfD which rarely, if ever, requires blocking actions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I was careful not to say names in my message above. One reason I did not say names is that you had said (earlier up above) that the sockpuppet was someone else. I hope that what you say is true and that time will prove your contention to be so. However, the reality is that the checkbusters had a certain way they interpreted the situation (they have a high batting average) and most of the other people here (not just me) are going to be concerned by their conclusions. At this time, people are going to view any request you make to become an administrator as being problematic (and quite frankly troubling in light of recent events). The passage of time (over the course of a few years) may possibly soften that opposition. But, right now, it is reality. Personally, in your prior remarks, I would have preferred to see you acknowledge the pain I expressed. I don't mind you defending yourself too--you have that right. But, even if are innocent, I'd have preferred to see you express concern for what I went through. I want people who are administrators to be able to empathize with the pain of those who have experienced harassment. And, I do want to be assured that I can edit here in a climate of safety--I am not assured of that at this time. I stated above what I think an administrator's duties are--just so that any future prospective candidates know what it entails. Maybe time will change things. But, the fact still remains that any editor who has ever been proven of willfully harassing other editors should not be granted adminstratorship. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) TGS, the fact that you created at least two sockpuppets to (1) impersonate a user and (2) harass another user is going to completely nuke any chances you have for adminship. The fact that you have still been apparently harassing said user is further damage. I don't see any reason that you need the tools or any evidence that you work in administrative areas. As others have said here, stick to content creation, which is what you apparently do best and what you apparently love. Softlavender (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The People's Front of Judea

I did click the link, and appreciate the reference :) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Understand? Good, now write it out 100 times, and if it's not done by sunrise, I'll chop your balls off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've heard of relinquishing tools, but perhaps that's going a bit far. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's the ablative you cretin, not the genetive! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Some advice, please?

I fucked up. No two ways about it. This came up at CSD. I deleted it straight away as an attack page - which in its state at the time I thought was fair enough. Twinkle took me to User talk:Owen1234567890 who I blocked as WP:NOTHERE. What I'd neglected to do was check the page history. Of course the article that account had created was rubbish, but nothing deserving a NOTHERE block. Another account had edited it after the CSD tag was added to turn it into something between a gross BLP violation and an attack page. I've unblocked the user, left apologies at their talk page and left an only warning at User talk:Teddykoide, who actually inserted the offending content.

What else should I do to try to clear this up? There are revisions of that page that would be restorable, but the original author had blanked it and the tag that was there was for G7, so it seems daft to restore the previous revision just so I can CSD it again under a different criterion. Add to that, the usernames that show up in the page history leave a faint echo of quacking in my ears. On the other hand, I feel pretty rotten about having blocked a newbie as NOTHERE in error.

Any advice to offer, beyond the obvious, "Look at the history before you jump to conclusions"? GoldenRing (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: The best thing to do (and what I indeed do in these circumstances) is to rewrite the article from scratch so it doesn't qualify for any of the CSD criteria, which an experienced editor ought to be able to do in a few minutes. In this instance, a quick news search shows no revisions of Owen McCarthy were describing any notable person obviously verifiable in reliable sources. So I think it's fine to leave it deleted.

Since there was only five minutes' between block and unblock, I wouldn't have kept the {{uw-block}} message up, as there's the chance they may not even have read it or known they were blocked - instead simply getting an apology from you. I don't know what their reaction is going to be, as they haven't told us and it's hard to judge what people think.

The other advice I would give you is to never do blocks via Twinkle - always write out the block template by hand. By doing that, you are forced to consciously think about what you're going to say, and can never do an accidental block by a simple misclick. Aside from blatant and obvious rapid vandalism (for which I don't even bother posting a block message but block and move on, that's the "I" in WP:RBI), there is no need to rush a block - ever. Make the process slightly difficult for yourself, so you always block when you know its necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I edit-conflicted with Ritchie but he made the points I was going to make. Just adding about the quacking: it's probably just some school kids on their lunch making a joke article about their buddy. As far as policy there's not much to do, maybe watch their contribs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Lifesdear & Livelife2die

"12:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)" you blocked Lifesdear as a promo-account. You can call me suspicious, but shortly after that the account Livelife2die was created. That account waited two days and then started adding channels to BeIN Channels Network, exactly the same thing Lifesdear was doing on OSN. To my opinion, this is rather loud quacking... The Banner talk 18:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted - we'll see what happens next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

He reverted you... The Banner talk 20:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Faboolus trash/sandbox

Hi,

You blocked this user, but I noticed something strange about this page. Is it WP:999 worthy? Or are they just having a laugh? I don't see why he'd want to die if he's happy, although I'm not sure if the page actually makes any sense . Adam9007 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a vandalism / test page. Nothing to worry about I think, it looks like somebody buggering about. I G3'd it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It just seemed that "I am gay I want to die" is a contradiction in terms (hence my confusion). Unless he meant gay as in rubbish? Adam9007 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete Kyoto eSports?

Why did you delete the page it is rather important and hold mass significance in the Hearthstone community. It is even cited in a couple articles here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odenk2 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Odenk2: I couldn't see an obvious way that the article could be improved by anyone independently, but if you say that it can, I have restored it to Draft:Kyoto eSports where it can be worked on further. In general, it's better for novice editors to start in draft space when creating a new article. When in draft, you can click on the "submit your draft" button, whereupon it will be independently reviewed to see if it is suitable for mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully, others and myself can make enough edits to make it a full blown article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odenk2 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyde Park, London, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kilburn and Powder magazine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Link in your essay

Hi,

I noticed that "obvious vandalism" in User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 links to A3 and not G3. Thought I'd let you know as I'm not sure if I should boldly fix it. Adam9007 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Pasg Hapus

	Some Easter Gwyn Hughes Jones for you
	"Pasg Hapus! ... Happy Easter to you" ... y geiriau. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr, Martin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Zahra Schreiber

A total dog's breakfast ...maybe searching for a bit of Elk??

What is a "dog's breakfast" in this context lik you said?★Trekker (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@*Treker: A dog's breakfast (French : petit dejunner de chien, German: Hundfrühstück) is colloquial British slang for a "complete mess". Or in this case, since CSD applies to every revision of an article, I would have to go through every revision and check every version still qualified as A7. However, "this article makes my head hurt" is not a valid reason for deletion. I suggest filing an AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for explaining, I think I may put it up if there isn't any improvement in the next days.★Trekker (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Heyy

Heyy,

I want to make TravelTriangle page

pls tell me if that is possible

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambalika.gandhi9 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if GB fan has dealt with this after you asked him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential bureaucrat

I think you should request a nomination to become a bureaucrat. You would do quite well in the role. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you're not the first person to ask this, I'm going to take the advice I have given to others and started a poll on WP:ORCP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

UK general election page

Hi Ritchie333

Hope you didn't mind me reverting a couple of times - it doesn't seem sensible to have an article at United Kingdom general election, 2017 and another one at Next United Kingdom general election, but maybe you disagree. The article hasn't been moved yet because there's still uncertainty with the vote in parliament coming up, but one the date is confirmed I'd imagine Next United Kingdom general election being quickly moved to the United Kingdom general election, 2017 title. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: No, that's fine (I didn't even notice the first revert) and have explained my reasons on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election. I don't disagree at all, rather I was just being a bit naive. As I explained over on talk, I've full-protected the redirect for 24 hours, which should take us up to the Commons vote. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, you are exceeding your authority. I have no strong view on this one way or the other, but you are imposing your editorial preferences by using admin rights. That is clear from your edit summary and block log entry. I strongly suggest you unprotect this article and allow a discussion to take place, rather than imposing your view on the community. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@MidnightBlueMan: Okay, I've unprotected. I did say on the talk page I was kind of WP:INVOLVED (and contemplated also putting a post on WP:AN to the same effect), but I also thought that by locking the article on the version that the history would suggest I didn't prefer would mitigate against that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. To be honest, on looking in more detail at the issue, I think you are probably right and you may need to protect it again if things get difficult. Apologies for snapping at you, above. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries - I'm not the only admin on the block, and others are looking at this now (not least Amakuru above), so if somebody creates a fork again, one of them will probably protect it. Indeed, a good litmus test for an admin action is to wait and see if another admin does it anyway! (Question for the peanut gallery, if I re-protected could I be desysopped for wheel-warring with myself?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Michael Stolberg

Please check my source.Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid Rugby isn't really my area of expertise - can anyone at WP:RUGBY help you? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Richard Hambleton website change.

Hi Ritchie, I work for Woodward Gallery in NYC. We are the gallery that represents the artist Richard Hambleton. Thanks for your help with Richard Hambleton's birhtdate. I have another question regarding the website on his wiki page. We noticed that his website was changed back to richardhambleton.com. However that is not his official website. His official website is actually richardhambleton.art which has all of his biographical information, artist resume, exhibition history, a large selection of his works and news articles of past and present. Richardhambleton.art was the official website on his wikipage for years and has been Richard Hambleton's official website for 10 years. The other website is promotional material to a documentary film going on at the Tribeca Film Festival and was create for personal gain by a producer of the film. How do I get his official site changed back to richardhambleton.art? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kwhipple90: I've changed the website address, though it redirects to http://woodwardgallery.net/artists/richard-hambleton/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I checked the page and it still says richardhambleton.com instead of richardhambleton.art

@Kwhipple90: Pardon me for intervening, but I think Ritchie333 changed the official website in the external links of the page whereas you might've wanted the link in the infobox to be changed. I've changed the one in the infobox as per the request posted here and on my talk page. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 09:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the IP I reported at AiV

This is how this user deals with conflict. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I wish they'd used edit summaries :-/ ... blocked Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Biased_laptop

"Some need to be told that what the Admins do isn't a game, it's a serious business that has real consequences for vandals' lives!"

I think you might have meant to block this account indefinitely, it's vandalism-only and now it already has a sockpuppet. If not, never mind. Home Lander (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was doing a bunch of IPs (who normally get 24 hours unless it's a repeat offender) and did this one too. Already blocked the sock with Account Creation Blocked so that should be the end of that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(for the peanut gallery, or in the case of Fylbecatulous, the cat herd - the quotation here is parodying Mrs May's speech for the Tory Leadership last summer, to which end I have decided it's time for another userbox.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyde Park, London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horse Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Alt account

Not sure if this applies to blocks, but don't forget that Mlpearc has a legitimate alternate account: Mlpearc Phone. — Gestrid (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I trust him not to evade blocks, he's been around long enough to know that. I just want a chat, explain what the problem is with his editing, then unblock him. It's a longstanding problem where individual edits are excusable, but the long-term edit-warring and poor communication isn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok. And as the policy says, blocks are preventative, not punitive. No need to block the alt if there's no risk of them evading the block on their main. — Gestrid (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your block of Mlpearc

As it's obvious, I do not agree with your block of Mlpearc. First, they had two reverts of the Pink Floyd material, the last one ten hours before your block. Second, the IP they reported to AIV had already been blocked a few days ago for disruptive editing for the exact same behavior. There is no reason for Mlpearc to suffer for wildly inconsistent admin behavior. You also are editing in the Pink Floyd area (and indeed, have edited the same article you blocked Mlpearc for edit warring on), took them to ANI where there was little support for your position, and placed another very dubious block on another editor editing in the same area about five weeks ago. Can you please lift Mlpearc's block with an appropriate note? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Question - if you blocked Cassianto, Sagaciousphil or Eric Corbett for incivility (and I'm going to bet a Mr Kipling apple pie you'd do it for a tad longer than 48 hours), and I asked what you wrote above, would you do it? I've been a fan of Pink Floyd for about 30 years (including seeing them live at Earl's Court in 1994), have taken quite a few of their articles to GA (including Richard Wright, Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii and Atom Heart Mother. "Echoes" is one of their best songs, and I've recorded my own cover of it (which Martinevans123 really wants to get hold of - the mp3 is too big for email). So I thought I'd tidy up the article a bit, add some sources, and if I can source everything I'll give it a bit of a shave and a haircut copyedit. Any one of the newbies that Mlpearc has basically told to fuck off might have been somebody who could have helped get the article to GA. But no, they've all been scared away, so muggins here is doing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your question has little relevance or meaning here. We're talking about your specific actions. Happy to ask for a review at WP:AN if you wish. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Neil, your curt responses suggest you haven't actually read anything I've written, or at least not taken in what I said. Some admins really surprise me, we're an encyclopedia so you would have thought everyone would spend lots of time reading articles and teaching themselves how to communicate more effectively. This is another reason why all admins should create content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have read what you've written above - complete with unnecessary pings and irrelevant hypotheticals. So, WP:AN then? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I just.... sweep the streets I used to own. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Whaaaaaat? The ping is absolutely vitally important. Get a Nord Stage, switch to "Grand Piano", turn the Leslie on and reverb full-up, hit the top "B" and .... wooooooooooaaaaaaahhhhh Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:999?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yucca&type=revision&diff=777022028&oldid=777021562

Is this some sort of suicide/violence threat? What do you reckon? I'm not sure... Adam9007 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me - it's not really a credible threat in my view. I've blocked for 24 hours, but if you really think it's genuine, follow the instructions at WP:EMERGENCY. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)