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.
Would you care to vote on this AfD I nominated here?
Thanks [and it's okay if you don't want to. Not sure if this is even allowed] --Jennica✿ / talk 14:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Some people get shirty about it, but I've dropped my 2c into the debate. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The person who wrote the article keeps deleting my deletion request [and notices off their talk page calling it "needless blah".] I was really under the impression these additions could be added to their respective albums below the track listing, perhaps collapsed. I've seen it on countless other pages. --Jennica✿ / talk 16:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Have you got diffs of that? If you have, I can investigate further. If you have put an AfD tag on an article, it must not be removed until it closed. We generally assume that albums containing notable artists with many hits can be expanded in due course; for example, in the last few days I've improved Green Bullfrog from this to this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I meant it was a proposed deletion. He should have still maybe discussed it rather than taken it down. I was already told he was okay to do that. --Jennica✿ / talk 17:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he should. Quite often you see debates turn up at AfD that are PRODs contested for no reason. If this is a regular pattern, maybe I should have a word, though since this was an article I've !voted "keep" on at the AfD, may be it's best left to one site. By the way, if you're interested, if we can get another 1,000 bytes of prose extra into Green Bullfrog over the weekend, it'll be good to go for a Did you know? nomination for the main page. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I feel like I am bad at prose - that's why I mainly stick to small fixes/formatting stuff.:/ --Jennica✿ / talk 03:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I used to have ERRORS watchlisted and did a few fixes there (tho not always to everybody's satisfaction). I'd have been happy to write up a map for Drmies but I can't see the buttons any longer. Oh well:-) I'm sure it's actually well under control. There are a lot of excellent admins. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I think removing your tools was stupid and petty and I think you would get a sizeable support if you ever wanted to run again Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I would hope it caused at least some arbs to think in less absolutist terms. But I was and am prepared to accept the consequences of my action: all of us who were admins at the time got the honking big memo about Arbcom blocks being untouchable. I just sometimes feel guilty that it's turned out to be irrevocable, because in a few ways I was able to help out with the tools; that was one. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't vote for candidates (now) who supported removing your tools, which conveniently left exactly seven names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
As soon as the page protection was off the IP account returned. No consensus here. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I have put protection back on - this time for two weeks. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Puchito Records - the mess! the horror! I was looking at newly made music articles. there's just some where I don't know where to start, sadly. what do you think? --Jennica✿ / talk 11:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Well to start off with, a book search reveals lots of references to the label in Billboard, so if you're looking to source claims, that's probably a good as place as any to start. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I meant how badly formatted it is. A gratuitous use of the small code. --Jennica✿ / talk 14:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that. I think JJMC89 has given a bit of a cleanup. I don't get involved in that much stuff, simply because there are plenty of gnomes bouncing around the place to deal with formatting issues. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 21:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie, per hits The Next Web, CNN, Fortune, Huffington Post and others--but many are in Greek--can you weigh in on KeepThe Gadget Flow? JanisWilloughby (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I think other people were right in that you shouldn't canvass people asking them to vote a particular way. In this case, it means I wouldn't be comfortable participating in the debate now. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles.
Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break.
There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll.
If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA).
If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Dear Ritchie STOP Made admin STOP Got bits STOP Blocked cause of death vandal 14 times this morning STOP fed up of looking at AIV must STOP
Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 12:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
-- samtartalk or stalk 12:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The remains of Ritchie333's talk page after the recent edit war.
Rather than edit war over comments by blocked users, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out the following:
WP:AfC currently has a backlog of around 1000 drafts
Around 14,000 new articles by new users currently need reviewed
Around 52,000 BLPs are tagged as requiring additional sources
Let's go do that...instead of this. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
An apt reminder Timothyjosephwood, thanks! That being said - I favour the WP:RBI approach with socks, so I personally think the reverts are appropriate too! Mike1901 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies:) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Kudpung: This is going to be a long hard slog. I have spent 15 minutes rescuing Sellappan Nirmala where I am certain nobody would haved batted an eyelid if I deleted it per G11 / G12, but I cannot rescue everything. This is a high profile event and if the BBC report tomorrow that the editathon was a failure due to us just doing our jobs, it could be a serious PR damage for the project. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Tell me something I don't know! It's got bugger all to do with me really. I'm just the Joe Soap who's been holding NPP together (what's left of it) for the last 6 years. Actually, from what I understand, the hackethon is in extremely good hands - my good friend RexxS whom I know personally (we even come from the same neck of the woods - well almost). The one advantage is that if we are swamped out of control on this, it should be the final knee jerk to those admins and Arbs who have been taking down brick by brick everything I have built for NPP, and the WMF who think its something to look at when they've finished making all the petty 'convenience' gadgets for the community, and finished drinking their coffee.I can't help because it's the opposite to my time zone - I was already working from 4 am to 7am this morning sending out those messages (and getting consensus to do it first). It's now just gone 6pm and I'm going home to get some shut eye after a long day in the office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'd get hauled over the gender coals by Adminosaurus Rex if I created a new article for Fiona Crack, as part of this wiki-wimmin-o-thon: ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I have given them some straight talking, as polite as I can give it. If you see another bad CSD after this timestamp, block 'em. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Ta—normally I wouldn't be this draconian, but the BBC are live-streaming this and I have visions of "I tried to create an article on a woman, and Wikipedia immediately deleted it!" plastered all over the news. You can be sure that every fuckup that happens during this, Greg will ensure it's mentioned at every opportunity in any outlet which hasn't banned him, for the next six months.‑Iridescent 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Please don't block the editor for Shabnam Hashmi, which I just declined; the original state of the article was clearly deletable. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't block anyone for something they did prior to being warned, unless it was truly egregious—he seems to have knocked it off now. He isn't the first Huggler to get overenthusiastic with the tags, and he won't be the last; it's very tempting to splatter tags and move on, rather than try to fix things yourself.‑Iridescent 20:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
If you so wish, can you (and any TPWs) keep an eye on Rebecca Strickson too—deleting a female designer of stamps for the Royal Mail has the potential for adverse publicity in so many different directions I can't begin to count them.‑Iridescent 20:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I know you lifted the WP:PP but considering the increasing amount of vandalism, perhaps re-apply? Just a suggestion. Karst (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
All things said, I don't think there has been any actual vandalism - the date of death stuff was difficult, because the source changed part-way through the day, which is a pretty unusual event. There's a lot of activity on it, but that happens on most recent death articles, and if it passes the In The News Candidate and hits the main page, there will be even more. Plus, having protected once, it's generally a good idea to get somebody else to look it; if there is a clear need for protection, any admin will do it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Cheers. Agreed. Let's just see how it goes. Karst (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Only nine nonths since I last felt the need to post this. 1.4 million views. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Putting this here looking for suggestions from you or one of your many page watchers. I already posted this on AN and it didn't seem to get any traction. It doesn't necessarily need an admin, just someone skilled in assessing and justifying consensus, with enough clout to have it stick.
This discussion on Wikipedia talk:Teahouse has been going on for a few weeks, and I would very much like to see it come to some productive conclusion. I tried to steer it there, but with limited success. And it's probably inappropriate for me to steer too much, since I formally opened the proposal anyway. Thanks in advance. TimothyJosephWood 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: I can close that, but it'll take a while to read through all the arguments and weigh them together. So have a little patience and I will try and look at it before the day is out. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
On 9 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Greg Lake, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of which, thank you very much for the barnstar, @Ritchie333: Top man! Cheers, LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Quoting from the section you linked to: you are brave;) - I fixed a link to archived discussion, but can't help to the list of damaged o no not that word again, because it was considered so hot stuff that it was deleted;) remember, because I said "amused" in an edit summary, after the third revert of six. - We'll see how that nom goes, I was #4 to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As nominator, I have conflict of interest in this RfA and cannot answer any questions. But this video demonstrates how to succeed at RfA using the medium of tap dance. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Cue this video. Watch it right through to the end.‑Iridescent 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like Big Jim Sullivan on guitar in the background, not that anyone except me actually cares! Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to see the withdrawal, but understand, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda. Yash has emailed me and explained things a bit more, and I understand what happened and why, and am convinced he has not done anything wrong. I don't want to say anymore because it's not my business but I can see why he would rather withdraw an RfA than rather answer certain questions. I am concerned he has now retired from Wikipedia, but hopefully it's just a break. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Content creation. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Content creation redirect (viz. it targets an essay you wrote that resides within your userspace), you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit day anniversary! Best wishes, Mz7 (talk) (01:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC))
Quite amazing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I saw that you speedied Midwest Theological Forum under WP:CSD#G11. I was considering writing an article on the publisher, and would like a copy of the deleted article by e-mail to see if there's anything worth salvaging. Thanks, RJaguar3 |u|t 05:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I can restore it your userspace if that would be easier. Is that okay? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Can you please email me the contents of the deleted page Malavika Rajkotia.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 15:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently been working on this article and just wanted to get in touch with few native speakers who would review it for me, so that everything is grammatically correct and flows nicely. I would really appreciate your help. ArturSik (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@ArturSik: I'm not sure how a degree in fashion design helps one's musical ability, but maybe that's where I've been going wrong all these years. Anyway, the article doesn't look too bad, probably because somebody who has only been significant during Wikipedia's lifetime tends to have lots of eyes on the article, leaving not much to deteriorate. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 18:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I regularly contribute to this article since feb this year and as you can see here a lot has changed since then, not mentioning that most of the information included there back then is long gone. as I've said I've been working on it for the past few days, spent hours re-writing it. also already got in touch few other users who helped out, so I'm happy to say that I'm pleased with the final outlook. Anyway still thank you for taking your time. ps. about the degree - do you recon I should get rid of it, you're right, it's got nothing to do with music and she doesn't really do much in fashion other than being a 'fashion icon'. she doesn't design or anything like that and if she does she does that occasionally. ArturSik (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I started a discussion regarding the format of album pages here – and I'm looking for opinions. If you have anything, please add:) --Jennica✿ / talk 09:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I need to ask you about deletion that you perform:"15:30, 15 November 2016 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) deleted page Swardman (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"
Is there any posibility how to get content of this topic? I wrote it only on wikipedia and I dont have it in my computer.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedelo (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dedelo: I have restored the article to User:Dedelo/Swardman, but to be honest a claim of being the largest national lawnmower supplier of a country does sound like a claim to significance, so I'm not sure A7 applies anyway. If you can find one or two product reviews in national newspapers (don't worry if they're not in English, that's fine), we should be able to put this article back into mainspace. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:Thank you, I added some external links to article, so you can look and consider if A7 applies to this article.
@Dedelo: I definitely think it doesn't meet the criteria for A7 now, but that's a fairly low bar to clear and what I'd rather do is make sure it doesn't get deleted at all, even after a full deletion debate. To do that, I'd want to have somebody who can speak Czech well enough to evaluate the sources. For the moment, I've turned it into a draft submission, so you can continue working on the article at your leisure, then when you think it is ready for mainspace, click on the green "Submit" button, and an independent editor will review it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up, you probably want to log the ban in the appropriate place for record keeping purposes. Currently, that's here. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: I was just going to hold off for the minute, because these sorts of closes are the type that get challenged and overturned, so I'll just leave it a little bit longer and ensure the community are happy with it. If it's stuck without argument tomorrow, I will log it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you help me understand how you reached the consensus to apply this restriction to Mike V? I'm seeing editors I greatly respect on either side of the vote, such as BU Rob and The Wordsmith and The Rambling Man himself on the oppose side and Salvidrim! And Cassianto supporting, and the raw vote numbers are relatively even. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I summed it up in the closing rationale, but essentially most people who opposed the specific proposal still wanted some sort of sanction against Mike V, so assume they would not strongly object to it being placed (or at least would do so less than if I closed with no action). Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey. I started writing this yesterday, and it's not even a first draft yet. But after seeing User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates, because I've been holding a baby all morning and navigating with one hand, I think you may be a good candidate to chime in. Again, it's hardly a rough outline, but you're welcome to contribute. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I am interested in creating a garage rock task force subpage that emulates the rock music project, but also has a section for articles suggestions and article expansion/improvement. I already have a small group of editors willing to participate. Could you direct me to a user who is handy with creating a project page? I read the steps needed but still cannot comprehend it enough to feel comfortable doing it alone. Any help is appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Just looking at your user page brightened my day! Thanks so much! —Editor 357(Talk • Contributions) 18:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Season's Greetings, Ritchie333! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
A little question: How did you get the stats table on your user page? How can I get one on mine? Again, Season's Greetings! —Editor 357(Talk • Contributions) 21:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I assume your removal of the hatnote in this edit was an unintentional side-effect of your removal of the "stupid vandalising bot's" edits?
Please take care with this sort of thing. Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Do not remove {{COI}} tags when it is clear that a conflict exists. It may upset the subject, but the subject -- or, actually, his wife -- should not have so blatantly broken WP rules.
I note also that the subject has requested deletion of the article. Assuming the subject is notable, which I think he is, that should not happen -- individuals are not allowed to control the content or presence of their articles. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I declined the speedy tag, which is how I found the article, and trimmed some unsourced or questionably sourced content per WP:BLP. We have two possible scenarios here: a) this really is Prof. Richards, and he just doesn't want to be on Wikipedia or b) it's a joe job which can receive an indefinite block if we can prove that's the case. In neither case is the {{COI}} tag really necessary or beneficial, and while individuals cannot WP:OWN articles, experienced editors shouldn't be aggressive about it either. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I see a lot of false claims as a Commons CU and this feels like the truth. I'd give you 10:1 odds that this really is Professor Richards and his wife doing the editing. If you're OK with the article as it sits -- that it appropriately describes Richards for WP purposes, then by all means remove the {{COI}}.
I bite newbies only when they do things that are blatant violations of the rules, such as writing an article on one's husband. I note that so far, except for the comment in the Commons UnDR, she has not yet declared her conflict of interest on either of her User:Pages. All I see now is a pair who want to have the article their way and if they can't have it their way, they want it removed. That's not the way we do things. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
"Fuck off" is not a personal attack, it is an uncivil way to say "go away and leave me alone". (Oh, and I mean to use undo, but misclicked on revert: I didn't mean to label your edit as vandalism, I just wanted to undo it). Fram (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I would place more focus on Cwmhiraeth who seems to be simply in this to bait Fram. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Historically 'Fuck off' has not been treated by either admins or arbcom as a personal attack. It being an uncivil way of saying 'go away'. A personal attack has generally been treated as an attack on the person, not just mild incivility (which doesnt merit comment removal). 'Fuck off you *insert perjorative*' would be a personal attack. If everyone who has told someone to fuck off was blocked, wikipedia would be a much nicer, but emptier place. -Ninja edit- Ah I missed fram's response above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I have never seen a situation where an admin (emphasis mine) directly telling an editor to fuck off ends well (see User:Beeblebrox/fuck off and paging Beeblebrox for comment). All it takes is one diff to be extracted onto ANI, and we'd be having this conversation over there rather than here, with far more drama and silliness. That is the reason I reverted, not because I found Fram's comment offensive (annoyed - maybe, offended - no; this comment from Mr Farage is far more offensive without going anywhere near any of the usual "bad words"). I said up-front I wasn't going to complain about being reverted; rather I felt it would help keep the peace at WT:DYK a bit. TRM is right that there is a problem with Cwmhiraeth indiscriminately putting hooks into prep without understanding the subject matter, which is the more substantial issue that needs to be addressed; however, comments like this are not going to help resolve that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
If you don't think something is a personal attack, then don't revert with WP:NPA as edit summary: such incorrect edit summaries also don't help to keep the peace or resolve anything (not saying that you didn't try to calm things down and prevent escalation, only that your approach wasn't the right one either, compared to what OID had already done; I do believe that your intentions were good). Fram (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind I dont think you should have told him to fuck off either, turn the other cheek etc. TRM's recent experience should show, you can get dragged down by it in the end. We already lost one decent admin in the area, and I would rather not lose another. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
You're all good people. Please will you all accept a metaphorical hug from me and this ASCII asterisk as a token of my affection: * --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie, you wrote "TRM is right that there is a problem with Cwmhiraeth indiscriminately putting hooks into prep without understanding the subject matter, which is the more substantial issue that needs to be addressed." Not so; this is one of the many things that TRM says which are not entirely accurate. In this particular case, I promoted a hook about a carol but having used Google Translate, thought the wording in the hook was wrong and altered it. Gerda reversed this so I brought the matter up at the DYK discussion page for another opinion. And there the matter would have rested if decent, unbiased people had responded. But Fram is out to get me, come what may, and TRM tags along behind like a shadow, or even goes ahead as shadows can, and there we are! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be very little difference between "indiscriminately putting hooks into prep without understanding the subject matter" and "promoted a hook [...] but having used Google Translate, thought the wording in the hook was wrong and altered it." Fram (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I notice Cwmhiraeth again reopened the closed section at WT:DYK, to gratuitously drop a personal attack against me, and at the same time to post an incomprehensible defense of their own actions: "I did reopen the thread, but Fram reverted my action. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)" (in response to TRM complaining about Cwmhiraeth hiding part of the discussion including the very post they wanted so desperately to have my answer on!). Perhaps someone else can go to Cwmhiraeth and explain a few things to them about discussions, logic, personal attacks, and dead horses? Fram (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I reopened the thread to the extent that I moved the end of the archived section up a few lines to the position it had been in before you started interfering with it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
??? Let's see: you reopened an archived thread, I replied, Only in death archived again. I unhid a series of comments you inexplicably had hidden, but I didn't change anything about the archiving. You then reopened the archived thread. My "interfering" consisted of a terse reply to you (you did ping me after all), and re-establishing the visibility like it was before you meddled with the archived discussion. Again, I never interfered with the beginning or end of the archive, the only one that did that was you. At least take responsability for your own actions. Fram (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
But Fram is out to get me, come what may, and TRM tags along behind like a shadow, or even goes ahead as shadows can, and there we are! No, Fram is out to make sure you stop promoting errors to the main page, as am I. I don't "tag" behind anyone, in fact if you read the posts we make more thoroughly, you'll see we most often make different points, many times I let you know about your mistakes in preps on your talk page and Fram doesn't comment there, many times Fram posts issues about your failures to pick up mistakes that are heading to the main page at the DYK talk page, sometimes we both comment, for instance in this case where you somehow refused to accept that a native German speaker could speak German better than Google Translate. I think it's time you stopped digging. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Just another fun-packed, fluid-flinging day at Ritchie333's talk page
I was going to take my seven-year-old nephew to the zoo, but instead I'm going to bring him to this talk page. This is better than a zoo. EEng 16:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
(Probably there should be an essay by that name -- I just don't know what it would be about...) I have to disagree with your assertion that Moors Murders is u.p.d.-able -- see the thread I opened on its talk page. (I've got a talk to give on Monday, so I'll have to get back to it then, maybe.) I think it's a prime example of an overwrought article needing a severe copyedit. EEng 23:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but the Moors Murders (more specifically, any suggestion that Myra Hindley was not guilty as hell and might ever be released from prison) were a regular feature of British news for decades, to the extent that I first thought Hindley was some sort of political activist when I was growing up. It's probably the most notorious 20th century British crime and many Brits have a significant knowledge of the case anyway. So I think it does deserve the full extent of coverage that's present in the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
More notorious than Fred West? Anyway, it's not a question of "full coverage" -- it's the inclusion of stuff that's beyond any reasonable notion of full coverage. See the proposed "Smith agreed" rewrite in the thread already mentioned. EEng 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hands up if your article's still assessed at crap class!
What do you think could be done about this article? I feel like it's too far gone and if we pared it down, it would be as small as as stub: Hare Kkaanch Ki Choodiyaan. It has a section showcasing dialogue between characters. it's awful --Jennica✿ / talk 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I've trimmed a bit, but we generally keep articles about hit singles, as just confirmation of the title, artist, and track listing can be of use to somebody who doesn't want to wade through the artist's general article. On a related note, Lisa Scott-Lee's article has got a bucketload of unsourced rubbish around the 2005-8 mark, which I suspect has been in there for years. On a semi-related note, I'd forgotten all about Steps, did you have to remind me about them? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a television show, or are you referring to a different article? I think you replied to the wrong message --Jennica✿ / talk 05:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Jennica Ah, no I just thought you wanted me to look at the articleToo Far Gone, a single by the aforementioned Ms Scott-Lee. As for that other article, I would recommend fetching the matches and dynamite and removing that massive plot summary (and if I didn't know any better I'd say that was a copyvio) as soon as. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Redolta is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coventry 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The article Coventry Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Coventry Street 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
![Thumb](#/media/File:"TOUCH".jpg)
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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
; see Talk:Coventry Street 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
