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.

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Like 2019, remember? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What happened in 2019? If you're referring to this, then the more years between that and now, the better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mind is much simpler, Ritchie, I just enjoyed visiting the location pictured in 2019. (And I never looked at any block-log.) When I proudly announced the TFA of 1 January 2019, I wanted to see the location. In 2023, I did, as pictured. (more on Floq) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh right. I watched the traditional 1 January concert at the Musikverein, ending in the usual encore of the Radetzky March featuring the audience clapping along. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for sharing! - The 2023 picture is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been busy reading about a different kind of festival. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for sharing! - Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, for the WikiCup, I have a question. To get points for editing articles and pages, do you have to have previously worked on them, or can you just find a page and edit it? Thanks! --"Girls are like bonbons - why have just one when you can have the whole box?" Googolplexior (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know, I've never worked on the WikiCup. The Rambling Man and Cwmhiraeth have, so they might know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Googolplexior, you can earn points even if you haven't created an article, but you need to have significantly improved them. Best, — Frostly (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not trying to be difficult on that block. Unblock them if you think its appropriate; I won't complain, even if I think the block should remain. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it needs more of a consensus, mixing warnings and obvious disruptive edits with a bunch of good faith ones. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help me make the deletion discussion --Redirect machine (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first question to ask is why do you want to delete the article, and what policies does it not comply with? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see great minds think alike. So alike, in fact, that we have overlapped on a couple pages! I didn't think anyone else was enough of a nerd to actually go through and do this. If you want, I can put up a list somewhere and then we can cross off each page we handle to avoid double-dipping. jp×g🗯️ 12:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, through some trial and error, I have figured out that Cluebot absolutely sucks for this task -- it only respects the archive size limits inasmuch as they apply to the whole task. So, for example, if the max archive size is set to be 100kb, and it notices that 600kb of threads need to be archived.... it will just ram 600kb into the latest archive, and then make a note for the next run. This creates a giant pain in the ass. So I just use the template for sigmabot instead.

((Archives))
((User:MiszaBot/config
| archive             = ((subst:FULLPAGENAME))/Archive %(counter)d
| algo                = old(1d)
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 100K
| minthreadsleft      = 10
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| archiveheader       = ((Automatic archive navigator))
| key                 = 
))

This is what I've been using, anyway. jp×g🗯️ 12:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also been advising people to use ((subst:Setup auto archiving)), which uses LowerCaseSigmaBot (MiszaBot as was). In the case of User talk:MargaretRDonald, it seems to have done the right thing.

I'll give EEng some more time to archive his talk page further, but I've got a feeling I'm going to get to a point where I've asked ten people, all of whom have instantly agreed on bot archiving, and question why he's being stubborn about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may have noticed that nowadays everything is advertised as being curated. My talk page is curated. I'm not annoyed or anything, but you don't need to push. EEng 00:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case you didn't see it, I put a link to your comment at EEng's talk page, in the interests of transparency. In one fish's opinion, EEng should not be required to use any kind of bot archiving, so long as he archives manually to an extent that satisfies those who care. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that's fine, and if EEng gets his talk page down to the same size as those who've had bot archiving recently added (whether by responding to a request or us adding the directive on a dormant account), which is about 80k of prose, then I'll have no problem. But we're not there yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The correct measure is not 80k based on what a bot does on someone else's talk page. The correct measure is whether other editors have any problems communicating with him. I hope that we don't get to the point where I have to question why you're being stubborn about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)That's probably a good idea. What happened here is that I went through the top ten on the list, checked there was no archiving template at the top of the page, and then added it, unless the user had edited in the last 6 months, in which case I asked them to do it. I guess you put the archiving elsewhere than the very top, because I couldn't see anything, and also by definition I couldn't scroll through the talk page text to find it as it was hammering a CPU at 100% and causing weird usability errors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen your discussion about piping on the talk page of Jean-de-Nivelle. Much to my chagrin, he still acts if removing direct links in favour of redirects is something like mandatory. Recently I came across another editor with the same idea. As far as I read the pages so often liked by Jean, I can not see any obligation to fix these already correct links. Is that my flaw? The Banner talk 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Deliberately posted here as Jean gets upset when his spiel is questioned or opposedReply[reply]

I really don't know which is the right way to proceed with this. I thought that changing lots of articles en masse needed a link to an RfC or extended talk page discussion to show most editors were on board with the changes. There was a discussion, and the bulk of changes has been paused for the minute, so that's my main concern out of the way. To be honest, extended discussions about the MOS start sending me to sleep and I end up thinking "decide amongst yourself what we should do, and let me know". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Mandatory. Let me say, the results are mixed. Jean is jumping up and down and getting personal, others state that the MOS is indeed not mandatory. The Banner talk 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I seem to recall my statement was "Oh my word, what a tempest in a teapot. Decline the case and tell everyone, in the words of John Bercow to calm down and take up yoga.". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wikipedia Vector 2022 issues.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the only website I can think of where posting a screenshot to resolve a technical issue gets you nagged by a bot. Mind you, it's not as bad as the time I uploaded a picture of my bookcase (with a caption like "offline sources are great!") which somebody took to FfD because of the "copyright" on the book spines. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering when you have time, if you could take a look into the Contributions of User:107.10.129.126 . His edits on wikipedia have been highly disruptive and each time he gets warned he removes it from his talk page as “vandalism”. I believe he should be banned from Wikipedia. Thank you for your help always Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IP has been edit-warring on Shenna Bellows, claiming that "Salon is a deprecated source". Our guide to typical sources that might be deprecated or unreliable says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." In this case, the source is being used to state a fact, so it probably shouldn't be used for that. That said, they shouldn't call this reverting vandalism. However, that was two weeks ago, and sanctions must prevent current disruption, which this isn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you taking the time to look into this. User @Beccaynr & I came to an agreement on a section on page Brett Cooper (commentator) & then the I.P began a similar dialogue much like the one you mentioned above. It didn’t seem productive or accurate what he was insinuating referring to the sources being used. Again, thank you for your help Elvisisalive95 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Elvisisalive95, thanks for the ping, and hi Ritchie333 - I am mostly off-wiki for the nearish future but did notice my 16 January 2024 warning to User:107.10.129.126 was reverted with the edit summary "Removed vandalism" [2] and then followed by further participation [3] in the discussion originally between Elvisisalive95 and myself at the Brett Cooper (commentator) talk page. I was thinking because User:107.10 may be continuing to edit war at Shenna Bellows, [4], [5], [6], [7], their contribs might get reviewed and a further warning at minimum might be warranted; e.g. [8] (Jan 4 2024); [9], [10], [11] (20 Aug 2023), [12] (21 Nov 2023), etc. [13] (22 Apr 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you seem to be the only chance I've got, and the only expert around on the matter. Please, see what's happening in that DRN case of mine, read it a bit. There is some WP:OR in the article, but that's not really what this case is about. Also, I agree that the article has a confusing title, but that's not my fault. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read through the thread at WP:DRN, but I have to concur with Robert McClenon that I'm not entirely sure what the dispute is about, and the walls of text at the noticeboard make it harder, not easier, to work out what's going on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have closed the discussion at DRN because there are discussions in another forum, this user talk page, and because there are conduct allegations. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now understand the problem. The truth can only be found by reading, checking and investigating. Here on Wikipedia, either noone has sufficient time for that, or noone really cares. Z80Spectrum (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to point it to you the best I can. Read this: | copyright issues Z80Spectrum (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really get involved in Commons, let alone debates on Commons, so I can't really help you there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You must consider the possbility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers. Even long-time editors might be such. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They work in groups. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)Z80Spectrum, please stop saying things such as you seem to be the only chance I've got, and the only expert around on the matter (my emphasis) - it's long since ceased to be attributable to a new editor, and suggesting that all other editors involved don't know what they're talking about is insulting.

Additionally, I highly advise you redact the above statement that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers. Even long-time editors might be such - unless you have solid proof or evidence of such a situation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have evidence. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then you better post it for all to see and judge. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rye railway station (East Sussex) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kj cheetham -- Kj cheetham (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Rye railway station (East Sussex) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rye railway station (East Sussex) for comments about the article, and Talk:Rye railway station (East Sussex)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kj cheetham -- Kj cheetham (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do like a day out to Rye along the Marshlink in the spring or summer, having a pint or two in the garden of the Cinque Ports which overlooks the station. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like a good afternoon when the weather is warmer than it is now! -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm WikiUser: NilsLahr, reaching out regarding the recent decision to delete the Wikipedia page for IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation. As one of the top experts in the streaming media industry and a key inventor within this sector, I have significant historical knowledge and insights to share on this topic.

IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was a pioneering force in the early streaming media market, significantly contributing to the industry with numerous patents and innovations. Notably, it was among the first to extensively use satellite technology for digital streaming, setting a precedent in the field. The company's impact was further validated when it went public, achieving a valuation of $2 billion. This financial milestone underscores the company's significance and the importance of maintaining its history independently.

It's noteworthy to mention that Broadcast.com, a competitor which utilized technologies developed by IBEAM, has its own Wikipedia page ([Broadcast.com](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com)). While Broadcast.com is known mainly for its association with Mark Cuban, IBEAM was a key inventor in the market space and was larger at the time. This comparison highlights the need for IBEAM's history to be similarly recognized and preserved.

I acknowledge that I may have a biased perspective due to my close connection with the topic. However, I have endeavored to source all data from internet sources and am open to ideas on how to minimize my bias. The historical significance I can provide should not be overlooked due to my personal connection to the subject.

I understand the challenges posed by the scarcity of online references from the late 1990s. Yet, the lack of these references should not diminish the historical importance of IBEAM. Existing sources, like Streaming Media Magazine, can provide verifiable information to support the company's notability.

I am concerned that merging IBEAM's history with another entity may lead to a loss of valuable historical context. Therefore, I am eager to explore ways to reinstate the page with adequate references and a balanced perspective. I believe that my expertise and firsthand experience in the industry can contribute significantly to this effort.

As someone still learning the nuances of Wikipedia editing, I seek your guidance on how to proceed with revising and potentially reinstating the IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation page. I am ready to collaborate and provide detailed information to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the article.

Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to any advice you can offer on how to best preserve this important piece of digital streaming history on Wikipedia.

Nilslahr (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article hasn't been deleted, it's just been flagged for a merge. I don't really know much about this topic, I just closed the deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation (2nd nomination) as a decision to merge, which seemed to be the overall converging view in the discussion. You're probably better off having a discussion with HighKing, who mostly strongly advocated for the merge (in my opinion), who can explain what should be merged with the parent article, Williams Communications. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MagrittePipe.jpg In the light of The Banner's remarks above, could you cast an eye over the discussion here?

I'm very keen to resume my use of Nardog's script, and there's now documentation. Do you still have concerns? I'd be happy to discuss further, but I'd really like to feel that the situation is moving forward. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I need help writing an essay about major functions of money, including: unit of account, store value, medium exchange --Fidelia2006 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you're in the right place - Wikipedia is for writing and improving encyclopedia articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I created a wikipedia page for a school organization last year by November. But it hasn't been published. I wonder why that is the case. Please can you enlighten me? How long should it take for a wikipedia page to be published publicly? Ivan-Carl (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only edit you have is this one on my talk page. I don't know what article this is, sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is “userfying”? You wrote: “If anyone wants this userfying for improvement, let me know.” Under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Estrin. If I can locate enough secondary sources, I might submit this page as a draft. Probably not anytime soon, there are not enough verifiable sources. Is this what is meant by userfying, as in user-verifying? Thanks Christian Roess (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) No, not quite. "Userfying" is Wikipedia jargon for moving an article to a user's userspace so that they can improve it as a draft and eventually submit it to be restored as an article. Even though it has been deleted, Ritchie is offering to take the article and move it to User:Christian Roess/Jerry Estrin, including its contribution history which will be needed if the article is restored (per WP:ATTRIBUTION), and leave it for you to work on. Pages in userspace aren't technically "articles" - readers are unlikely to come across them and they're not indexed by search engines. You can generally have as much time as you want to work "out of sight" so to speak, but you should remove any controversial or negative information about a living person if it does not have a source (you can restore it later when a source is found). Then, when you think you have addressed the issues which led to its deletion, you can ask for a review and for your improved draft to be restored, or if you're confident you can do it yourself. I hope that helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that’s very helpful. Thank you for your help and time. Christian Roess (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I've restored this to User:Christian Roess/Jerry Estrin so it can be improved in user space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated. I’ll keep you posted. - Christian Roess (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]