Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Semi-protection I understand. Why template-editor accessible? --George Ho (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's what we tend to do with templates that have high usage. It means people wanting to change them have to have good technical understanding, to avoid a high load on the server. The user right is reasonably easy to ask for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- TE is not reasonably easy to acquire and 691 transclusions is not TE-high high usage. Also, the server can manage whatever load we throw at it; there is such a thing as load balancing and a queue. Alakzi (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I seem to remember just saying "could I have TE please?" (I think it was to edit Template:AFC submission) and got it. It certainly wasn't a big deal compared to RfA! To be honest, I was faced between template protection (it's sufficiently high use) or no protection (not sufficiently high use) - I didn't see a requirement for semi. As @Jonesey95: has done the most work on the template, let's see what his view is and maybe go with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's because it was you; most people have got to ask for it at WP:RFP/T, where they will be scrutinised. What do you mean about semi? Alakzi (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- It was asked for semi-protection by an editor who had never touched the template asking for it. Based on my own experience (eg: Template:Db-event), template protection does seem to be favourable for templates that transclude many articles (although "many" is subjective). The principal problem is if you aren't entirely sure what you're doing in, you can change the template many times with little "fix", "oops", "fix again" and "debug" edits, each one individually affects the job queue adversely. That's why it's a good idea to get a consensus first, test, and ask someone with technical changes to make the live deployment. Pretty much how all good professional coding is done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- TE is not so much an issue with the template in question, but I've seen instances where protection was clearly detrimental. So long as people use the transclusion count as the only measure, this sets a very bad precedent. Alakzi (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why not ask at the template's talk page what other people think, or another noticeboard (not sure which is best? WP:VPT maybe?), and we'll see what takes. Have you a specific change on this template that you are frustrated about because you cannot make it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can edit the template; I'm a template editor. I don't feel so strongly about it that I'd start a new thread elsewhere. Alakzi (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why not ask at the template's talk page what other people think, or another noticeboard (not sure which is best? WP:VPT maybe?), and we'll see what takes. Have you a specific change on this template that you are frustrated about because you cannot make it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- TE is not so much an issue with the template in question, but I've seen instances where protection was clearly detrimental. So long as people use the transclusion count as the only measure, this sets a very bad precedent. Alakzi (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- It was asked for semi-protection by an editor who had never touched the template asking for it. Based on my own experience (eg: Template:Db-event), template protection does seem to be favourable for templates that transclude many articles (although "many" is subjective). The principal problem is if you aren't entirely sure what you're doing in, you can change the template many times with little "fix", "oops", "fix again" and "debug" edits, each one individually affects the job queue adversely. That's why it's a good idea to get a consensus first, test, and ask someone with technical changes to make the live deployment. Pretty much how all good professional coding is done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's because it was you; most people have got to ask for it at WP:RFP/T, where they will be scrutinised. What do you mean about semi? Alakzi (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I seem to remember just saying "could I have TE please?" (I think it was to edit Template:AFC submission) and got it. It certainly wasn't a big deal compared to RfA! To be honest, I was faced between template protection (it's sufficiently high use) or no protection (not sufficiently high use) - I didn't see a requirement for semi. As @Jonesey95: has done the most work on the template, let's see what his view is and maybe go with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- TE is not reasonably easy to acquire and 691 transclusions is not TE-high high usage. Also, the server can manage whatever load we throw at it; there is such a thing as load balancing and a queue. Alakzi (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sway Public Relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gixego 17:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- There has never been an article with that title, so I can't restore it. In general, you'll get a better result asking for a restore to draft (which I'm usually happy to do) than charging head first into DRV. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333, I see you declined the CSD because CSD doesn't apply to "locations". I would argue that Pepper Creek, Porter County, Indiana is a company since it's a commercial lot of houses, so no more a "location" than Bob's Hardware Store is. But I grant it's a disputable issue, so I'll just PROD it instead. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- @MatthewVanitas: Okay, PROD sounds good. It looked suspicious but I tend to err on the side of not deleting things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333 - I was wondering if you could help us remove a web extension from the blacklist. Our concern is that there is a wiki editor somewhere who is practicing favoritism .I brought this up another wiki editor who threatened to ban my editing privileges if I accuse any wiki editors of this; however, his threat is absurd because how can anybody assure another that their fellow human being is without bias? These are gestapo tactics and they will never deter us from researching how DyingScene.com is not being currently considered as a valid news source when sites like punknews.org and absolutepunk.net are. DyingScene.com arguably does more interviews, album reviews, exclusive premieres and publishes way more original content then either of those sites. Our goal it to get the site whitelisted. Can you please assist? Robzwop (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Robzwop: First up, don't mention the Nazis even in passing, it hurts you more than it helps. Secondly, it would help to know which articles you are having difficulty with. @Carrite: is an experienced editor whose clued into the indie-punk scene more than I an (given I've just been improving an old blues hippie that figures) but my gut feeling is I probably wouldn't consider any of those three sources to be particularly good. For band articles you really want to be aiming to cite things like Billboard, Rolling Stone or the music section of the New York Times. Band articles are a hard sell on Wikipedia and I know from personal experience that you can be reasonably successful without ever having one. As for the blacklist, your best bet is to raise a thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The link for the party re-directs to his page. Neither are notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Send it to AfD then. A7s are for blatant articles that have not a chance of ever being improved to notability. If you look at WP:CSD carefully, you'll see that "not notable" is a typical error when speedy tagging. If I thought it met the criteria for A7, I would have deleted it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing the work to put it on AfD. Appreciate the help. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bond Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. 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) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bond Street 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the consensus is perfectly clear that it's no longer appropriate to keep it locked in Sinden's version. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Probably, but the protection is (according to my clock) going to run out in about 11 minutes, so I think I'll just run its course for the mo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I nominated this article for AFD (2nd nomination) but I screwed up the formatting. Can you help? Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC) -- Never mind, already taken care of. Quis separabit? 22:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 |
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! |
Yum. I certainly think you and Cyberpower678 should be admins, but there's this blasted thing called "consensus" around here. Ah well, as Gerda might muse, Vielleicht Das Nächste Mal.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Vielleicht nächstes Mal, - German is no friend of extra capitalization in headers. May be that's why I still hate (and I don't say "hate" often) what we have instead of A Boy was Born. Listened to it, King's College Choir at the Rheingau Musik Festival: A Boy was Born, of course, what else?. How would anybody have the idea to name a thing differently than its creator? Only Wikipedia assumes higher authority - called consensus - than the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know but me and the "missus" do get a good chuckle out of that massive RfC a while back that debated "The Beatles" over "the Beatles". Actually, the whole of Lamest edit wars makes us laugh, I must pop in something about the "Barbara hater" accusations on Barbara Streisand that turned up a while back.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Happy chuckeling - you probably didn't write The Beatles. Imagine you name a child (like Britten did) and people give it an official different name, and remove the image of your name from the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 | This user helped promote Faversham to good article status. |
Another GA! Keep up the good work. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you keep an eye on this IP, keeps spamming the Dorchester article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- 12 hours' protection should sort that. In the meantime, as the old saying goes, WP:RFPP is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you find anything more on Nicky Blair's?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Had no idea Vine Street was so tiny, surely little more than 10 metres long! I do think we need to find who is based in the buildings there currently though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- A bunch of non-notable businesses, back ends of shops, and if you're lucky, a few chavs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 |
The Letsbeavinyou award for services to policing |
| For your great work on Vine Street, London. Now run along PC 333 Ritchie, Mrs Jones is reporting a theft of her daffodils in Arcadia Drive. Report to me for traffic duties when you're done. Sgt. CassiantoTalk 18:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC) |
- "Rum, Sodomy, and erotic asphyxiation". One quite often leads to the other in some police stations, I'm led to believe! CassiantoTalk 18:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's still not 5x expanded to get up to DYK though, which would have a brilliant hook. Aaaargh, bloody rules. Just need 400 more characters or so, but I've mined every source going. Maybe I'll just add some unsourced original research like a "bent"
copperadmin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC) - Do say hello to D/Supt Jeremy and DC Timothy. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC) ... oh, and P.C. Pan Am, of course!
- Right, as Graham Chapman might say, I'm so and so of the yard and I'm stopping this sketch because it's not using a proper punchline. Now, you're all nicked, down to the station with the lot of you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- sock-it-to-me, Harry Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I 'ave it from a semi-reliable source, that Graham Chapman's birthplace is now the "neurological and specialist care unit' of CheerHealth Ltd. What an 'orrible name. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- sock-it-to-me, Harry Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Right, as Graham Chapman might say, I'm so and so of the yard and I'm stopping this sketch because it's not using a proper punchline. Now, you're all nicked, down to the station with the lot of you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's still not 5x expanded to get up to DYK though, which would have a brilliant hook. Aaaargh, bloody rules. Just need 400 more characters or so, but I've mined every source going. Maybe I'll just add some unsourced original research like a "bent"
How many more users have to run into his editwarring ways? See: . Saw this on Wikipediocracy. Regardless of he was in the right or not, I pointed out as well as other users have pointed out that he is a problem user. I get blocked for three weeks--where you chickened out on unblocking me--and he gets a slap on the wrist for his 6th dragging to AN/I. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is no justice, either on Wikipedia or in the world generally. Oscar Wilde - two years' hard labour for sodomy. Dale Winton - not a peep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Importance of Being Fastest? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC) "I'm so sorry, Oscar, love, but it's time for you to enter the RED AREA!"
- funny. I remember supermarket sweep in the old day's when cable was 20 channels and nothing was worth watching except hbo. Maybe it'll be like The Magnificent Ambersons...when young George Minifer aggravated people, they'd all say he'd one day get his comeuppance. When he did, none of them we're around to see it. The entire autie thing with Winklevi looks like a canard...he added all that b.s. as a convenient excuse after people started raising issues his hehavior. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- 20 channels? Good grief, hands up who remembers when we had three and you had unforgettable classics like this. not too heavy on the banjos - vulgar, vulgar Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- In fact Britain only has one, except for that special Welsh one, over in the far west for the "hard of thinking". Allegedly. Dai Laughing (Splott) 18:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- 20 channels? Good grief, hands up who remembers when we had three and you had unforgettable classics like this. not too heavy on the banjos - vulgar, vulgar Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
A couple of days ago, you increased this editor's block for edit-warring from 60 hours to indefinite, citing Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Runtshit. Although this editor was indeed needlessly offensive, he is clearly not Runtshit, who has a very characteristic agenda and style. This editor has very different interests, and is apparently aggrieved that I PRODded his article. Unless you have some specific evidence which is not apparent to me, then I suggest that you undo your block and allow the original block to run its course. RolandR (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- @RolandR: - This edit convinced me it was. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- No. As I said, he was venting because I had PRODded his article. Runtshit has a very characteristic pattern; he makes no legitimate edits, but follows me to articles I have been editing, particularly articles related to the Middle East or Socialism, and makes taunting, frequently scatological, comments. He will repeat the same edit on as many articles as he can before being blocked, and never uses edit summaries. There are also username traits which this editor does not display. In short, this is a genuine editor, with a particular interest in the subject of the article, who is unable to handle disagreement. It seems unlikely that, unless he improves his behaviour, he will be around for long; but he should not be indeffed on the basis of a clear misidentification. RolandR (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I've unblocked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- No. As I said, he was venting because I had PRODded his article. Runtshit has a very characteristic pattern; he makes no legitimate edits, but follows me to articles I have been editing, particularly articles related to the Middle East or Socialism, and makes taunting, frequently scatological, comments. He will repeat the same edit on as many articles as he can before being blocked, and never uses edit summaries. There are also username traits which this editor does not display. In short, this is a genuine editor, with a particular interest in the subject of the article, who is unable to handle disagreement. It seems unlikely that, unless he improves his behaviour, he will be around for long; but he should not be indeffed on the basis of a clear misidentification. RolandR (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. This is about WordGirl (season 7). I've had a look at the deleted revisions, and I 100% agree that it's a G12 candidate. But in this case, as the page is going to be under a lot of scrutiny due to Cyphoidbomb's RfA, would you be willing to IAR and undelete the page until it is over? The non-admins following the RfA will undoubtedly want to see the page to help them in their assessment of the candidate, and they won't be able to do that if it's deleted. And legally, Stfg's revision with the content blanked out and the large "Investigation of potential copyright issue" notice visible should cover us until the RfA is over. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Mr. Stradivarius: I'm afraid I'll have to decline. Copyright violations are one of the few things that I believe are non-negotiable. As it says at the top of this edit window : "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". I appreciate it would be beneficial to restore it for non-admins to make an effective evaluation, and that the timing of this is particularly unpleasant, but as an admin if I see a page that unquestionably qualifies as WP:CSD#G12 it must be deleted. To try and give an analogous example, many people would have preferred the evidence of harrassment against Lightbreather in her arbitration case to be played out in public, but there are good reasons why it couldn't, and I feel the same (albeit to a lesser degree of severity) about copyright violations. The only reason I could contemplate restoring is if somebody can supply obvious proof the original source has a CC-BY-SA compatible licence. I hope that clarifies my position. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure that this is analogous with the Lightbreather case, but don't worry, I do understand where you're coming from. As I said, my suggestion was an IAR one, so as policy goes, your position is definitely the stronger one, and I'll respect your decision. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: this, I genuinely do not understand how you perceive my comment as an insult to another editor, rather than as standing up to someone who, from my perspective, had insulted me. "I find it strange that the candidate would need somebody to change his diapers, grown-up admins are supposed to speak for themselves." I'm not asking you to justify, I'm just pointing out that I have no idea where you're coming from. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: Text communication is difficult - so much emotion is lost and tempers flare more easily. If I got the wrong end of the stick, I'm sorry. In this instance, I think Kraxler was bluntly telling AussieLegend that his bludgeoning replies to everything were unhelpful and actively harming your RfA. As an admin, people will insult you - if you work in anti-vandalism, you can expect abuse from just about anyone. You must have a thick skin to deal with this. So even if Kraxler really was insulting, don't fire back. Okay, in normal chat between editors, it's not too bad, but for an admin to a blocked (or soon to be blocked) editor, you really need to ramp the AGF up to silly levels. Otherwise you'll burn out. This, incidentally, is where the "Old fashioned values" userbox on my page comes from - you can see people having a pop at me on this talk page, but I do try and calm the situation down and approach everything rationally, though I'm not always successful.
- Anyway, from now on, apart from numbered questions directed at you, avoid commenting at the RfA and tell AussieLegend he should not make any more edits on it. Hopefully then the result will come back around 75 - 80% and you'll get a pass. Despite my concerns that adminship might not be best suited, I really do wish you all the best as you generally are polite, well-mannered and I sincerely believe you are here to help the project. That much is clear, and you wouldn't have had the large level of support you've already acquired without it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments, Ritchie, thank you. I do have a thick skin and I rarely get into it with other editors, even [when dealing with people who are clearly unhinged]. I only pointed out that I found his comments condescending and rude. That's not an insult to him, that's an explanation of how I perceived his comments. I was over the matter immediately after that, so to hear it come up again as a point of concern is distressing. One huge flaw in the RfA process is that people get to voice opinions based on cherrypicked information, and the candidates are discouraged from addressing the incorrect perception. For instance, I can list for you 14 examples from my past 1000 edits where I demonstrate I have a clear understanding of Wikipedia's copyright rules. Am I allowed to present that to at the RfA? Of course not, and that's what makes this a flawed system. Anyhow, thanks again for your note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Cyphoidbomb:, I thought the allusion was blatantly obvious. I made a comment elsewhere, without mentioning the name, that he should back off due to actually damaging the RfA and causing drama. I was understood immediately. I think admins should have sufficient perception to recognise such nuances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
That "other user" you mentioned here, namely User:Madhyapak, is another sock of the same sock master who created the article. The article should thus still he deleted. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Even so, I think G5's should only apply if the article should be AfDed or otherwise should not be added. I know people shouldn't evade blocks and create content while doing so, but that's life. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northumberland Avenue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pall Mall. 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) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was about to say "yeah right" but bugger me, it appears the cigarette gets more views than the street. Well I never. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello mr.Ritchie as I saw that the article with name Akhtar Raza Khan has been deleted because of copyright problem.I think someone who dont have any knowledge of the rules on wikipedia would have created that.
Now, I decided to creat the article again abiding by the rules and laws.But it says only an administrator can creat it.Therefore I am requesting you to please restore the article I will improve that article.I will take out the contents which violates copyright rules. Or you may simply creat a new article with that name with a few lines I will thereafter improve that adding more words and sources...
It will be your kind favour on me If you accept my request.
Thanking you for reading my request.
Ejaz92 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Ejaz92: The easiest thing to do is to use the Article Wizard to create a new version of the article in Draft space. You can then submit the draft for an independent review. When the review is accepted, the protection can be removed at that time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.I benefited from your advice and wrote a draft.I will be very thankful of you if you reveiw the draft soon Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan Ejaz92 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie. I noticed you've had The Nice nominated for GA for nearly 2 months. I've had a music article, DJ AM, nominated for almost as long as yours. Just throwing it out there, if you'd like to swap reviews i'd be happy to do so. You review mine and i'll review yours. I expect your review to be thorough though, as mine will be also, I don't want to give you the impression that i'm interested in just passing both our articles through with a perfunctory check. No worries if you're not interested or too busy though. I made this same offer to someone else a couple weeks ago but they didn't reply. I do review GANs myself from time to time with no expectation of getting a review in return, i'm just rather keen to get my current nominations all resolved as i'm going to be taking an extended absence from Wikipedia in September. Anyway let me know if you're interested or not. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: I am struggling to find the time to do GA reviews - typically I find they require about 2 hours' dedicated focus on the article. However, I've started the review here and made a few initial comments. I think the main issue we'll have is keeping the plane crash and death in proportion to his career. As for The Nice, it's been more like two years since I thought "this article really should be improved" and it's had at least one trip to the BLP noticeboard since then as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Nice 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there an update on the pending unblock request at User_talk:Stokesnet#July_2015? Not sure if you got the info from Bbb23 that you were waiting for, as you wrote on July 20. I was reminded this was still pending when one of the related sock's unblock req was just declined at User_talk:Mwrcwms#Unblock_Request. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Bagumba:@Bbb23: I haven't heard anything since I posted the unblock request and if I didn't know any better I would say that Stokesnet has got fed up of Wikipedia rules and regulations and given up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe its a notification bug, or its disabled. I've pinged Bbb23 on their talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's very late, and I'm very tired, so I may not express myself as clearly as I normally would. I saw Ritchie's message soon after he put the unblock request on hold. Whether the ping was succcessful doesn't much matter as the page was on my watchlist. I didn't respond for two reasons.
- First, normally (at least in my experience) when an administrator puts an unblock request on hold to seek comments from the blocking administrator, he approaches the blocking administrator on their Talk page. He doesn't put his comments in the hold expecting the blocking administrator to respond on the blocked user's Talk page. So, I assumed that if Ritchie really wanted to hear my views, he would done that, but he didn't.
- Second, I wasn't eager to respond to what Ritchie said. I was quite taken aback when I first read it. I had had no problem discussing the issues with Bagumba, but I found Ritchie's comments at least mildly offensive. For him to say publicly that he was "shocked" and that we should "apologise" was over-the-top given the circumstances, and I didn't know how to civilly respond to an administrator that would characterize the events in that way. (As an aside, I don't know what he means by the loss of the orange bar. It's still alive as far as I know. I just got it when Bagumba posted to my Talk page.)
- Third, I am also well aware of how many times Ritchie has blocked users and how much he hates doing so. If I recall correctly, at one time he said (on Drmies's Talk page?) that it made him physically ill to block users. That's a rather unusual thing for an administrator to feel. Some administrators, of course, block more than others, but I know of no other administrator who is almost effectively opposed to blocking. In my view, that makes Ritchie biased when evaluating an unblock request in any circumstances.
- Fourth, as to the merits of unblocking the user, I'm still not convinced that unblocking her is for the benefit of the project. On the one hand, she discusses the Meeks article as if her only interest was in helping someone who'd asked for it, but, on the other hand, she has worked on articles that obviously benefit her non-profit. Whether her overall intent is malicious, benevolent, or a mixture I can't say, but there are a lot of unexplained inconsistencies in her statements. Just because a lot of what she says is plausible - and I'm willing to accept some of what she says as true - doesn't mean that everything she says is true. Just as with some vandals - and I'm not labeling her a vandal - there are some that are purely malicious, but there are also some that vandalize a good deal and also make constructive edits. At some point, you have to decide what should be done with a particular user on balance. The black-and-white cases are easy. The gray ones, not so much. I wish Ritchie's comments could be undone. It now looks like if I agree to unblock her, even if I don't apologize, I am implicitly apologizing because it comes after Ritchie's comments.
- Finally, although you may already be aware of it, I don't want there to be any misunderstanding later. Per policy, checkuser "blocks must not be reversed by non-checkusers. Administrators should not undo or loosen any block that is specifically called a "CheckUser block" without first consulting a CheckUser." (see WP:CHK section entitled "CheckUser blocks") WP:CUBL is even stronger: "If an administrator believes that a checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee. A reversal or alteration of such a block without prior consultation may result in removal of permissions." And this is not really a case of an erroneous checkuser block. I think that Ritchie believes the user should not be blocked because they acted innocently. Please don't expect any more comments from me tonight. I may continue to edit Wikipedia (I have recurrent insomnia), but I won't be doing anything as draining as writing this little treatise.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe its a notification bug, or its disabled. I've pinged Bbb23 on their talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: If there are no further comments, perhaps you can formally decline the unblock. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd rather close it as "no consensus" if that's possible. I don't think there's much point going to WP:AN to get a wider consensus over the block, as the editor has disappeared so any other action is moot. Let me see if I can close it appropriately. Regarding the "loss of the big orange bar", see Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ#What happened to the orange bar for talk page messages on Wikipedia? specifically the point "we do realize that there's a risk that messaging-related notifications are not sufficiently prominent in the web interface". I find the final paragraph on Stokesnet's talk to be insightful and worth everyone taking on board. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Nice may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {{Notelist}}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh that's right, don't fix it yourself, just moan. Are you here to write an encyclopedia? Hah - may Keith's L-100 drop on you on a great height :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Count yourself Lucky. To stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I tried but it bounced. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Count yourself Lucky. To stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333, the nominator has replied to your review; I was wondering whether you could return to continue it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to presume that this was intended as a joke. Surely an administrator would not be so insulting? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, 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.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 |
The Barnstar of International Forgiveness | |
| Yes, Threesie, I've decided to graciously forgive you, for being such a Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
- (p.s. please don't block me again Mister Admin, Sir. A "suitable adjustment" is already on it's way to the usual PayPal address.)
Hi, I'm looking for an admin to revert an undiscussed move of KTM to KTM-Sportmotorcycle AG, on the basis "Malaysian railway is much known". The KTM railway is not the primary topic and before this page is moved (again; this was tried in 2009) there needs to be consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not really my topic of expertise, I'm afraid. The best thing to do is go to requested moves and set up a proposed move request. That will give you a consensus under which anyone moving again can face sanctions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 |
No Gun Ri Barnstar |
| Thanks for protecting No Gun Ri Massacre. Very much appreciated. GABHello! 20:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
- You're welcome, now run along to WP:DRN and get a consensus on what to do, otherwise it'll get protected again, and next time a less charitable admin might hand out blocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old Kent Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elephant and Castle station. 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) 09:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I think i didn't go about this the right way to create a page/info on John Smith (Band) i was the bass player for this band.can i request it to be created. not sure how it all works?? be great to hear from you. thanks and regards Adrian Morgan Adrianmorgan1970 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Adrianmorgan1970: Hi. The problem with the article is when it goes live, it needs to be in a state where other people can improve it, and without the sources of information, general consensus can sometimes be to start from scratch. I've restored the article to Draft:John Smith (band) so it can be worked on further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your pass for Commemorative Cantata for the Centenary of the Birth of Pushkin. Background here, substantial help and insight ;) - Would love to find out under what circumstances the premiere happened, and who wrote the orchestral version when? - I am quite proud that just before the composer's 150th birthday (others get a TFA that day) I dug into it and removed in his works list Cantata after Pushkin for womens' choir ;) - If you want to see if someone has been proclaimed Precious just look at Wikipedia:QAI/Awesome Wikipedian, - and Susun is not only precious but even a project member! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well I never. Susun is certainly an awesome Wikipedian, of that there can be no doubt. Who needs a mop and bucket? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- You never what? - I just created an overview for articles open for review on the project. Feel free to add, as a friend, - and review, of course ;) - hint: would like to see BWV on DYK on 16 August, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am DustyAmbers on wikipedia and I was ruthlessly and unfairly blocked by Nakon because I reported someone for a username violation (bongwarrior,i was patrolling recent changes and saw a user named bongwarrior editing something and i thought that was a violation) i had no idea that person was an admin and i was blocked right after just for that reason
I am asking you as a favor to unblock me , I plan to edit positively to wikipedia. I should not be banished for no reason .And Nakon should be brought before AIN for this — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustyAmbers222 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am going to take a wild guess that Nakon has had enough experience to know that a user whose first two edits are gibberish to their user page and talk page will then make a third edit that is either vandalism or a bad faith accusation, and locked the account pre-emptively. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi, Alex, Andy and Aussie are in need of a an appropriate warning from a disinterested administrator: . Please keep an eye on this, so these hard cases don't get themselves blocked (if possible). Appropriate maternal admonitions to the lot of them from you might be helpful. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone needs to calm down - it is only the name of a template. A casual reader of the encyclopedia will never notice its name, much less care what it is. That's a really important point to make. I have stated my position a bit more clearly on talk. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: You're absolutely correct, but I don't think move protecting the template was necessary. There has only been one move since the discussion started, due to Alakzi's bad non-admin close, and now that he has inserted himself into the discussion I don't think it will happen again. That said, I am not asking you to unprotect it. I'm here because, as you should be aware, the discussion has now turned into a ridiculous argument (funny that it was all pretty much OK before Alakzi arrived). Nothing aside from your posts in "Move protected" is helpful. "Warning and a plea for self-interested common sense" is only getting worse. I think it was a mistake by Dirtlawyer1 to start that as it's just going to detract from the move discussion. As an uninvolved admin, would you consider closing these discussions so we can concentrate on the move discussion? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I realise we don't normally full-protect (much less indefinitely!) but in this instance, a move request is still underway and I don't believe the project is greatly harmed by the lock in place. It also forces the people who object to it being locked on the wrong version to state their case better. For that matter, I don't think everyone tearing each other's heads off on talk is particularly problematic either; the casual reader won't read that conversation, so it's safely buried out of the way. I can close it as "No consensus" but I think people are now sufficiently annoyed at the protection that it might be better for another admin to okay that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: You're absolutely correct, but I don't think move protecting the template was necessary. There has only been one move since the discussion started, due to Alakzi's bad non-admin close, and now that he has inserted himself into the discussion I don't think it will happen again. That said, I am not asking you to unprotect it. I'm here because, as you should be aware, the discussion has now turned into a ridiculous argument (funny that it was all pretty much OK before Alakzi arrived). Nothing aside from your posts in "Move protected" is helpful. "Warning and a plea for self-interested common sense" is only getting worse. I think it was a mistake by Dirtlawyer1 to start that as it's just going to detract from the move discussion. As an uninvolved admin, would you consider closing these discussions so we can concentrate on the move discussion? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ritchie. For what it's worth, I think move protection was a smart move, and may just save Alakzi and/or Alex from getting blocked from edit-warring over the move.
Aussie, I will be glad to hat the "warning and appeal to common sense" thread (started by me) in an hour or so, so we don't scare off third-party participants in the RM discussion and otherwise frighten the horses. So, tell me this: what is the real objection to the template re-naming? Is it just because it's Alakzi and Andy again, seemingly being pointy? Obviously, whether the template uses a shorter name with the longer redirect, or the longer name with the shorter redirect, is six of one, half dozen of another . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have NEVER move warred. I'd closed the discussion at a time when I was uninvolved, and enacted the outcome. The closure was reverted out of process by AlexTheWhovian, but to spare everybody the drama, I let it be. I'm frankly exhausted to have to refute unfounded accusation after unfounded accusation. Alakzi (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Try being an admin, unfounded accusations of admin abuse are all part of a day's work here ;-) I don't remember saying you or Andy move warred and I don't believe you did, but really this whole sorry mess is so close to edit warring over the colour of templates that I really do despair. I tell my kids off for fighting like this, "*sniffle* He hit me!", "No I didn't!" "Yes *sniff* you did!" "He's lying, I never touched him" .... not here as well please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Alakzi is correct, he hasn't move-warred at this template. I'll give him that, but he has breached 3RR on the talk page. His close was just a bad one. The opposition to the template rename is essentially that it's pointless. It achieves absolutely nothing. We already use {{Episode list}}, not {{Television episode list}} for related episode lists, so {{Series overview}}, which is used for series overview tables, is a consistent name. AlexTheWhovian has also recently created {{Episode table}}, which the TV project is adopting so that we can ensure WP:COLOR compliance in episode tables (whether or not they use {{Episode list}}) so we have a string of consistently named episode list related templates. Making one inconsistent just doesn't seem a good idea. It has nothing to do with Alakzi and Andy's pointy editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh deary me, have I breached 3RR when reverting obvious trolling? To the gallows. Alakzi (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Aussie, I'm tempted to respond with that "meh!" thing the kids all use these days, but it always sounds vaguely insulting so I won't. As I read it, the name argument basically boils down to shorter vs. more specific. I have my own opinion on the shorter vs. more specific in this case, but I'll leave it to the RM discussion participants since I really don't think it really matters much as long as the template documentation makes the template's intended purpose crystal clear. I would hope that you, Alakzi, Alex and Andy could cooperate regarding the resolution of the color-contrast-compliance issues instead of haggling over this. This strikes me as small beer, regardless of the RM outcome, and certainly of no consequence to our readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I urge you to come here and spread your peaceful vibes. I am reading through BWV46 now and looking at the DYK review. Peace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- That works, too. Music for the savage breast.
Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC) - Thank you, Ritchie, what am I supposed to do? (Battleground, canvassing, - that's what I hear about myself.) Alakzi and SusunW help me a lot these days, so I am biased on top. - Here something general: read the Precious list, not for who got it and who not but for lines such as "grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- All you have to do is interject squabbling with distractions of GA and DYK review offers ... everyone stops arguing and improves content. Everybody wins! Lovely precious list. I have gone back to Old Kent Road to try and source some of the content as part of the Monopoly miniproject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 This is about their egos and not about building a better encyclopedia. From my perspective, there is never a reason to revert anything unless it is obvious vandalism. If everyone is focusing on building a better encyclopedia, discussion should bring consensus. Reverting it a sign of wanting it your way. Breathe, be calm, ask yourself is someone going to die if this change waits until we can have a calm discussion? What true harm will happen if it waits for us to discuss it? What true harm and who will I hurt if I continue to push my POV? Clearly in this situation, the involved parties are harming their own relationships and nothing else. Is it really worth that?
- All you have to do is interject squabbling with distractions of GA and DYK review offers ... everyone stops arguing and improves content. Everybody wins! Lovely precious list. I have gone back to Old Kent Road to try and source some of the content as part of the Monopoly miniproject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have had one of those awful days, where someone wanted to push their ego driven agenda above improving the encyclopedia, but I just walked away and I buried myself in creating what I hope will be my first GA approval. Gerda Arendt mutual admiration society ;) SusunW (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I do revert, but only once. Last Sunday I was hit by someone reverting me twice, three red ill links, - instead of reverting again I created the three articles, - one will go to DYK, - sometimes there's unexpected pleasure ;) - I heard a gorgeous concert that place yesterday, btw, BWV 170 and 105, - the latter also where I was reverted twice, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I do quite a few reverts like this, but like Gerda I make a point of only reverting once. Sometimes an article, particularly one that's stable and reached GA / FA, really is in a better shape with the earlier version. However, in general I think it's a good idea to tend towards reverting less. If in doubt, don't! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have no time to dig into the solid mass of comments on too many pages, but said something on Opabinia regalis about a comment that would have hurt me. Traveling the weekend, - while I'm away you can look for the word peace on may user page, used more often (9) than criminal (2), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Everybody needs to go to the cinema this weekend and watch Inside Out - seriously, don't let the Disney / Pixar production fool you (though that in itself means kids will enjoy it anyway), it is one of the most brilliant and profound films I have seen in a very long time, because there are so many characters and plot devices in it that apply to Wikipedia. Take the scene where Anger takes the desk and flames come out of his head and Riley has a row with her dad, that's just a variation on "No angry mastodons" or "Don't throw your toys out of the pram" isn't it? And I can just picture Sadness at the helm of Gerda's mind every time she posts a Precious reminder of a retired Wikipedian. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- LOL on the Gerda reference. Priceless (or should that be "Precious"?). Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article In the Land of Grey and Pink 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 Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The article In the Land of Grey and Pink you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:In the Land of Grey and Pink 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 Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie, since you often work in music articles and are familiar with WP:NALBUMS requirements, could you please salt Revival (Selena Gomez album)? It has been incubated at draft space and keeps getting recreated prematurely. Thanks in advance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, deleted per R2 (again) and salted (three strikes, you're out) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I don't really care either way, but should it be redirected to Gomez's page and fully protected? Calidum T|C 15:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think a user is going to type "Revival (Selena Gomez album)" into the search box. The album could be a note on Revival (disambiguation) to see Selena Gomez and that would be fine. IIRC the draft reviewing script can spot salted entries and flag the review in a category so an admin can deal with it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I don't really care either way, but should it be redirected to Gomez's page and fully protected? Calidum T|C 15:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) The article should at the very least redirect to Selena Gomez. It's a more likely search topic than you think. I'm sure many of Gomez's fans expect it to have a Wikipedia article; they should at the very least be pointed to her article. The page can be fully-protected if frequent restoration is an issue. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I have added it, with a link to Selena Gomez, to the list of albums at the disambiguation page Revival. --MelanieN (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) The article should at the very least redirect to Selena Gomez. It's a more likely search topic than you think. I'm sure many of Gomez's fans expect it to have a Wikipedia article; they should at the very least be pointed to her article. The page can be fully-protected if frequent restoration is an issue. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
