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

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

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

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

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

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding ((Subst:Xmas4)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding ((subst:Happy holidays)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding ((subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday)) ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Ritchie333,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Hi, Can I politely request an email with the content of the page, or have it returned to draft so I can continue working on it. Did not get a chance over the holiday period, and I returned to it being deleted. Thanks! BearMinimum (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BearMinimum: As I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Jina as soft delete, anyone can request restoration of the article, which I have now done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Thanks!BearMinimum (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Ritchie333,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year 2020)) to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article More (soundtrack) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:More (soundtrack) 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 Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at InedibleHulk's talk page.
Message added 21:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

DBigXrayᗙ 21:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Ritchie. Could you restore this one please? It was deleted as a vanity page on 25 December after a prod of which I was not aware. I think I wrote all or most of it and it doesn't read (in the Google cache) as a vanity page to me. He has written several significant books. Not sure why it was prodded but I notice he is Jewish and writes some politically controversial material so that might be something to do with it. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: As the article was deleted as an expired PROD, it can be restored on request easily - so I have done that for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Prodder's sole edit. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article and saw it was a restored PROD (by Ritchie333); was surprised that such an article could be deleted by a single edit user (always a flag of COI concern), under such general criteria (the article was not written in any kind of promotional style). I think it should have been declined by the deleting admin, or the user told to take it to AfD? I rarely use PROD (for various reasons), but Is this how PROD works – seems quite lethal? Nice job btw Philafrenzy. Britishfinance (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, thanks. It was never suitable for deletion on a prod. The deleting admin should be pinged. Lots of people have complained about the prod process for exactly those reasons. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As PRODs are supposed to be uncontroversial, and can be declined by any user for any reason at all (including no reason), an admin can't really be criticised for deleting them after seven days with no objections, as that's what the policy says. Similarly, policy also says they cannot object to them being restored. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't they also supposed to apply a common sense check to them if the stated rationale is clearly wrong or inadequate? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but if the administrator's counter-argument to that is "I followed chapter and verse on policy", there's not much point bringing it up. A quick look at WP:REFUND shows me that the deleting admin (Muboshgu) regularly refunds PRODs there, and I'm certain if you had asked them for a restoration, they would have done exactly what I did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, but if we are deleting them without applying any sort of common sense check we will be losing good articles because not everyone knows they can get a refund or how to ask for one. Promotionalism, for instance, which it wasn't, isn't ever a valid reason for deletion, it's a need for editing. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read WP:PROD there is none of WP:A7 type language (e.g. use of "unambiguous"), outside of the admin providing an "informative deletion reason" (which I think was provided, whether one agrees with it or not). CSD criteria seems stricter than PROD? Maybe it is because CSD can over-ride an author's objection (unlike PROD); however, the issue with PROD is in cases like this where the author is not around? Should PROD not follow CSD criteria? Britishfinance (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think PROD needs to, because stopping a PROD is trivial. As for promotionalism, as you can see in the below thread, I've just cleaned up Hypex Electronics, adding a brief company history explaining its importance and citing numerous sources. So you're kind of preaching to the converted! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Ritchie, but what if the creator is not around to remove the PROD (or just nobody watchlists it)? Put another way, I don't think an admin would have deleted this article as an A7 (or a G11), however, it was deleted in compliance with WP:PROD? Britishfinance (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the old "Hey, we used to have an article about this - where's it gone" syndrome, where consensus based on who turned up (or who didn't) to the debate determines the result, as opposed to the actual consensus over time. The best example of that is the Mariposa Trust which was deleted five times before consensus stuck. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point Ritchie. Shades of, If an article gets deleted, but nobody was there to !vote on it, did it ever really exist? All the best. Britishfinance (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns. The issue is that "very obvious and unambiguous cases" are a bit ambiguous, which is why of course I am totally fine with my nominations being denied (and coming from seeing WP:CORPSPAM as a problem in needs of fixing, I may well be on the more deletionist side here than some others). If they are, then I'll consider the rationale and upgrade to PROD/AfD when necessary. I don't CSD every article, if you look at my prod log or such you'll see that some get PROD and some AFD without the prior steps. Is there any way to check what percentage of my CSD gets accepted in CSD mode to see what is my hit/miss ratio? Hard data would allow me to reconsider the usage of my CSD noms. (Also ping User:Elahrairah who raised a similar concern with me recently). I hope I am not 'spamming' CSD too much, but I am trying to prevent unnecessary entries from ending up at AfDs where such problematic entries (or simply, spam...) would take more of community's precious time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I'm curious as to why many people think that A7s are "a bit ambiguous", when my thoughts at WT:CSD and User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 frames it in a way that it isn't. As my essay suggests, the problem with A7 is that later, when somebody looks at the rationale for deletion, all they will see is a reference to the CSD criteria, and unless it's not blindingly obvious, they'll at best get confused and at worst complain about "abuez adminz!" This doesn't happen with PROD (because they can be easily refunded, per the above thread) or AfD (because the deletion discussion is permanently logged). Additionally, the problem with Hypex Electronics is you should have noticed the article was vandalised on 28 May 2019, trashing the version that showed the company was a dedicated manufacturer of audio technology developed by a notable person and patented by a notable company, which would have led you to the detailed Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers citation now in the article. My "holy grail" of WP:CORPSPAM articles is to discover notability, and specifically reliably-sourced negative coverage (such as bankruptcy or embezzlement), put that in the article, and hope the creator discovers WP:PROUD the hard way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy I see you've declined a couple of Piotrus' speedies as well. Hopefully this is just a one-off blip and we've reached an understanding. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, I read your nice essay at User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 and if you don't mind, I will ask you an opinion about some speedies I will do in the future, so see if we can agree on the line separating speedy cases from what should go to PROD+. Right now I've tagged for A7 "Sevin Rosen Funds" which seems to have no claim for importance, outside having financed a few notable organizations, but per WP:NOTINHERITED this is not sufficient for notability. Or would you think that such an unreferenced claim (some sort of involvement with a notable entity - I've had related speedies declined with argument that 'the company was created by a notable founder', for example) is sufficient to make A7 not relevant? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(tpw) Piotrus, while some disagree with this, an A7 should have a quick WP:BEFORE; in my experience, many admins (rightly) also do a quick google search to see if anything comes up. For example, in the case of Sevin Rosen Funds, a google throws up material on this firm from WP:RS/P, including Wall Street Journal, Reuters etc. Doesn't mean that this is not an AFD case, but an A7 should be unambigious, and when quick BEFORE's throw up material like this, you will find admins (rightly) declining it. Ritchie's very useful A7 guide gives the core test of: could any independent editor reasonably improve this article so it would not be deleted at AfD?, which emphasises this point. Britishfinance (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: Of course BEFORE is a good idea and I do it too, through when faced with sources like the two you found I am concerned with WP:ROUTINE (and with such sources often being rewritten press releases). The first source is paywalled, the second has some elements of WP:INTERVIEW. I wouldn't mind if someone declined it, and it ends up at at PROD or AfD, through right now as I am learning about A7, my concern is whether you think it was a valid (if declinable) A7 or not. I don't want to 'abuse' A7, but I also don't want to conclude the tool is useless (or too dangerous to use along the lines of 'you will get blocked if you create too much work for admins'). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, once you are getting into a "discussion" about the refs, you are really in normal AfD territory (i.e. the article above may still be an AfD delete), however, you are leaving the unambiguous requirements of A7. My own sense-check doing A7 is that if it is declined (this happens to everybody as there is variability in the definition and the application of it), then it should be a no-brainer AfD (i.e. almost a snow delete). If I can't get to that on an A7, I move on (but I encounter plently of such A7s doing WP:NPP). Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article before reading this discussion in-depth, and my answer can be summed up here. In my experience, hedge funds are likely to be an A7; however in this case having read various iterations of the article from a number of different editors, I concluded there were enough "hooks" such as having a notable founder, early founding of Compaq which created the PC industry as we know today, and their financing of Electronic Arts. It's well out of A7 territory. However, to answer the question of "was it an abusive A7" - no, it wasn't egregious and doesn't require any action other than declining it without prejudice to start an AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie. The obit was from his father Stefano Magaddino. You removed the PROD on a false pretense - the page in that case, once you were made aware, should be deleted. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the thread two above this, anyone can remove a PROD tag for any reason; although in this case the real reason for removing the PROD tag is because I believe it may be possible to improve and source the article (or, if not, to redirect to his father's biography, as you just stated), and would prefer a full AfD debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I have looked for sources, books as well, and although he has had a couple run-ins with the law, nothing seemed notable enough for a standalone article, as he is very much in the shadow of his father. There are a couple things said about him on his father's page. I think, as you said, a redirect to his father's article may be a good solution for now. Would you be opposed if I do that? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that sounds fine to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I created a page which you deleted. I originally created the page a few months ago and it was deleted because of the information I put. I didn't know how to edit and undelete the page that was deleted before so I created a new page. I believe that the new page I created includes information that is beneficial to wikipedia and meets its guidelines. Can you please help me restore/provide me with input on how to restore the deleted page? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl1121 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jl1121: The article was deleted following a discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Sim Ashman - last September. It was then re-deleted as a recreation of an article deleted via a discussion (because the views of the four people who requested deletion cannot be unilaterally overridden). In particular, Amazon and IMDB are generally unsuitable as source material. I have restored the article to Draft:Jean-Sim Ashman where it can be worked on without threat of deletion; when you are happy that the page is complete and informative, you can follow instructions at the top of the page to get it reviewed by an experienced editor. This will give us a new consensus over the original deletion debate. I hope that's all clear; if not, feel free to contact me again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am not sure the no consensus closure is warranted here at all. Curious to hear the reasoning of it, mostly because it de facto makes SITH's vote/comment valueless. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: I had another look and I don’t see an issue with relisting the AfD for another week. Do you want me to do this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do if you can, I also plan to comment in that week when I get to have more time. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 04:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reaching out. I would love to do an interview. Can you send me me an email and we figure out a time to talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henningpiezunka (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll draft something soon. In the meantime, a list of previous RfAs I have helped set up is here. (Also paging LZia (WMF)). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the recent edits on Pearl Jam. Lugnuts reverted an edit which improved the article, was well cited and in the legacy section (not the lead) just on the basis of WP:DENY. Denial on the cost of an article's improvement is not a thing that any wikipedian shall be proud of or jimbo himself. You're an administrator so you shall intervene and tell Lugnuts that the consensus was not even reached when regentspark interfered and used that moment for his revenge. I hope you help as soon as possible. Regards 117.234.33.239 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intrinsically see a problem with your edit. Is there something Lugnuts knows that I don't? I'd recommend starting a fresh discussion at Talk:Pearl Jam and unless anyone can point me at a definitive sockpuppet investigation that proves you are actually something like Russavia editing logged out, I think who is asking the question is irrelevant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie. Please see this discussion in the archive of the talkpage. This is the same IP range as this user, who is a confirmed sock, which they admitted to. The same editor came running to you for help last year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, if their edit is good, surely letting it stand improves the article and in a way denies recognition by us not reacting to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want this discussion to be taken to the administrator's noticeboard incidents. Ritchie333 make it happen. I dont understand this concept of a sudden stop in consensus. It ended on the IPs but nothing happened. Now its time to bring it on the big stage. I hope admins would be fair in making decision. Regards SouthAmerica1000 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky,

The flying cloud, the frosty light:

The year is dying in the night;

Ring out, wild bells, and let him die let's get Brexit done!"

- Lord Alfred Toryson123 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for those (foolish enough to be) following at home... [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

If I wanted to listen to bells, I'd stick this on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief man, what's wrong with you? Not that troublesome demonic possession again, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It must be something like that, because I keep forgetting to finish off improving Tubular Bells to GA. Maybe this year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Church of the Cosmic Skull, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classic Rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be a DAB page. Fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie,

I was wondering if you had any idea whether RHaworth was going to comment in the Workshop, or its talk page, I realise it's pretty ugly, but I feel without genuine participation it's got a distinct lean to desysopping which I feel would be a major loss Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I don't have any regular contact with RHaworth other than bumping into him at meetups. I think he has said all he wants to on the evidence page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie, Hope all is well,
Nearly an hour ago I reported someone for edit warring (the war occurred at 2:30am UK time), The dealing admin reckons it's not a violation because 24 hours has passed ....,
I work it out that it's only been 9 and a half hours from the edit war to my reporting (11:30am) ..... I really ain't sure if I'm having a huge brain fart here or whether this needs relooking at ?,
Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I have warned the user to start a talk page discussion over the image changes, otherwise they will be blocked from editing the article, via the new partial block functionality. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha good to know I wasn't going absolutely mad! :), Many thanks for your help, Have a great day, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I only looked at 3RR at AN3, which wasn't violated. But Ritchie333's approach seems sound. Sorry if I let you down. I'm spread a bit thin, so maybe I should not have closed that report. El_C 12:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: WP:AN3 is, in my view, going to need a review of how we do things, since partial blocks are now a thing. In my view, you should still avoid a block if you can, but a partial block is far less draconian and an unblock request is simpler as you can look for evidence on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I've only implemented one partial block so far, but you're right that it should become the norm for AN3. El_C 12:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to bother you again, He's now using an IP to edit war[3], I could go the SPI route if preferred, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that partial blocks are a good response to edit warring; not, though, for socking. An abuse of trust such as that deserves no less than a site-wide response. ——SN54129 13:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I semi'd the page for 2 weeks, in any case. El_C 13:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's pretty much on a "last chance" warning now; any other problematic behaviour will earn a full block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

..... and blocked. Well that was predictable :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]