Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57→Archive 60

Your GA nomination of Mayfair

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mayfair 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 CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Think I'll slap a {{coi}} template here then :p :) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 17:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
If I had a genuine conflict of interest with anything in Mayfair, I would not need to edit Wikipedia, I would simply ask my butler to do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, indeed- for socks, it would be, what, Jermyn Street, and for meat, Smithfield Market, I guess!  ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, If you are referring to me performing the review: Per GA instructions, it can be "reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator." I follow the GA criteria equally and in all cases. If there are comments, it's generally that I may be a little too nitpicky. It's still a work in progress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Carole is fine to do the review, and that I've got to go back to my book sources to fact check is indicative of a good GA review, in my experience. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeeess... clearly. A sense of humour and an appreciation of irony, whilst not a prerequisite, does no harm in the administratura of today. Carry on. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
LOL. Alrighty then... I don't know you well enough to know when you are kidding - one of the pitfalls of the written word. Well, I finished my comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you CaroleHenson- and I apologise for writing in a deadpan tone of voice! ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 19:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Carole, advance to Mayfair. FIM, pay a ten pound fine or take a chance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
'Bank error in your favour' :) ... who draws that card nowadays, except PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the rest of the privateers... — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 19:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I advanced to Mayfair and will take a chance. : )
Congratulations for a job well done. It was a very easy GA review to do - really just minor items - and a fun read. There wasn't anything in the GA instructions about me adding the GA icon to the article. Do you do that? I don't remember.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The bot should sort out the green blob for you, it runs every 20 minutes so the next batch should be any minute now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being the admin that makes one too many.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  → Call me CP678 19:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Ritchie333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Bullshit. Ritchie333's brother (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's convincing enough to tell me that you're spouting nonsense.Cyberpower | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. Why would I register an account as Richie333's brother if I wasn't actually his brother?
  2. He always keeps his computer under password. I mean, I get why. Back when we had dailup, he was always the kind of person that cleared his history when he logged off. He said it helped the computer run faster. But...well...you know. Ritchie333's brother (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Well it wasn't me, if that's what you two bozos are implying. --Ritchie's brother from another mother (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Right then, shall we tell them about the time that you came round to my place when I was 21 and you were 16, we got you pissed on cheap vodka and cider, we told you my flatmate's epilepsy tablets were Es and you believed us. We laughed about that for ... quite some time. (note to talk page stalkers, this really happened) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone call the wiki-police. This is beginning to sound like one of those pathetically amateurish Daily Mail smears. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Chandler Gilbert Community College - April Fool's hoax

Do you mind taking a look at this page. The new article is a dupe article that says that the college is closing - and so this could be misleading for people looking for info about this college. I added the hoax tag. Could you delete this article if you agree?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my, I see you're having an unusual day!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I've redirected to the article about the real college - that should sort things out with the minimum of drama, I hope. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I see your point because that's a likely search string.
I don't know if it's appropriate to hide the rows with the hoax content. Would that be something that would usually be done? Or, just leave it there?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean the history? Probably not, unless it's seriously defamatory and grossly inoffensive, which it isn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, cool. Well I love simple solutions - so there you are. Couldn't get much simpler. Another item for my "lessons learned" list. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The usual mantra is "why not try a redirect - they're cheap". Unlike deletion, they preserve the history for non admins, which is good as admins can put their feet up without being nagged to undelete stuff :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

@Theelord: For some reason, I thought somebody had tagged the page as {{db-u5}}, meaning the page was an essay unlikely to be suitable to turned into an encyclopedia article. I don't know why I thought that, but nobody did, so I've restored it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
This is clear abuse. Please hand in your badge, gun, and mop. ;-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay C678, I'm going to start a new career as a Wiki Binman. Do you have anything for the recycling? In fact, it's obvious that the user page is draft content for Marrybrown so somebody serve me a WP:WHALE please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Ritchie333 but it is a copyvio:P CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't 100% copyvio (I was just about to blank the bits that were when another admin deleted the lot, and I'm not in the mood to wheel war today) and given the URL I do wonder if it's a copy of something the editor wrote himself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I thought it might have been a circle copyvio back to a promotional version of the Marrybrown page but couldn't find anything. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Declined speedy

When you declined the speedy deletion of Princes Mead Shopping Centre, you declared "A7 does not apply to shopping malls". By what logic do you arrive at that conclusion? WP:CSD#A7 applies to any articles about "people, animals, organizations, web content, [or] events" that do not assert a claim of importance or notability. The only type of organization explicitly exempted is a school. A shopping mall is clearly a company or organization, and so fits in the criterion. There is nothing in the writing about CSD#A7 that exempts shopping malls. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I could find a reliable source (a local council report) that had a couple of paragraphs about redevelopment, and that's enough to clear A7. I have noticed that we seem to have articles on many British shopping malls that I'm surprised about, per those in Template:Shopping centres in Southeast England, including The Malls, Basingstoke, County Square, Fremlin Walk and Whitefriars Shopping Centre. A shopping mall is a physical building, usually council-owned, and not part of any organisation, and you only find one, occasionally two, in large towns (at least in the UK). So in summary a speedy is inappropriate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In my experience, shopping centres are frequently A7d as organisations, as are certain other subjects which are physically places, such as tourist attractions. Adam9007 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Tourist attractions can be organisations (and hence eligible for A7), but if it's a grey area then search for sources and base whether to accept or decline the CSD tag on that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Funny you should mention sources: I was just in some hoo-ha over A7 and sources. What sort of sources are sufficient to pass A7? I removed an A7 from articles about a person, and his company, because there was an interview with the person in a notable newspaper. Both articles were A7d anyway, because apparently, the interview was neither credible (WTH? It was cited, and we've seen it, so we know it's true) or significant. Of course, the AfD was little more than a show trial against me, as they so often are if I decline A7. Adam9007 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I usually let through one hit on Google News or Google Books that has two paragraphs directly about the subject - basically enough to allow me to write a sentence or two myself. This goes back to my essay, of thinking of A7s being articles you can't improve at all, ever. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie

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

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

Lord Aleem

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

Featured in Daily Mail one of the largest news sites in world.[1] And by Vice [2] and in The Sun [3]

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

@AnsarAction: We normally delete pages because the subject isn't notable, but that's not the only reason. In this case, the subject has been in the news, and you have third-party sources documenting your facts, so you understand basically what notability in the context of Wikipedia is, I think. However, we have a very strict policy on biographies of living people, and to cut a long story short, you cannot write an article that just uses these types of references, especially when you are accusing somebody of breaking the law and being pulled over by the police for it. In particular, Wikipedia recently voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source, so you will be in trouble going anywhere near it. You might think you're going to write a high quality article, but what you may inadvertently doing is writing libel against somebody who's probably rich enough to afford a lawyer to fight it. Is that honestly a situation you really want to find you, and Wikipedia, in?
If you feel particularly hard done by this decision, I can take the discussion to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, where more eyes can look at it and reach a broader consensus; however, you need to come with sources to broadsheet newspapers such as The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Times or BBC News. If all you have is tabloids, I don't think you'll be successful, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349572/Teenager-18-caught-using-mobile-phone-wheel-300-000-Rolls-Royce-Phantom-registration-plate-says-1-ORD.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/rich-kids-of-instagram-lord-aleem-arson. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1354467/young-millionaires-rant-at-cop-who-pulled-him-over-in-his-500k-lambo/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

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

[1] [2] [3] [4]

References

  1. ^ "Independent".
  2. ^ "BBC".
  3. ^ "Jalopnik Article".
  4. ^ "CarBuzz Article".

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Optical Society

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

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

Vandalism spotted

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

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

@Usernamekiran: The bot said the IP had been blocked for two years by Widr, and when you block somebody reported at AIV, the bot automatically clears it. So your report was acted on it's all sorted. If somebody is very obviously vandalising (and this IP absolutely was) I don't bother delivering a message, I just kick them off and tell them not to let the door hit them on the way out. (See WP:RBI) The only difference is that a) I wouldn't block "account creation blocked" as if it is a school block, it's a bit unfair to tar all students with the same brush because of one idiot and b) I might have gone for 3 years instead of 2. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
ooooo, worra bitch. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Welcome to my world, I don't understand most of them, but if you think that's bad, wait until you get EEng, Atsme and that Pants bloke whose username I can never spell properly debating the merits of steaming .... something I'm not going to talk about right now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Sincere apologies. I'm not sure that I understood it either. But you'd probably need to be a seasoned Corrie aficionado. I'm sure there's no truth in the shabby rumour that Threesie can block a troll with a single harsh look. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
👻💀☠️👻{{{{WOOOooo....WoooOOOO!!}}}}....too late Ritchie333, you've summoned the ghosts of your steamy past. THERE. IS. NO. ESCAPE. 👣 We are all on the 👀list now. We 👁👁 E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G 🕵🏽‍♀️. Atsme📞📧 19:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
... and other shocking news just in. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
There's an update by AP...she was 'relieved' to be cleared, and I was somewhat relieved she didn't choose a cemetery...but the 2 beers I drank contributed. Atsme📞📧 22:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Abra (singer)

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

@Fitindia: I've got an OTRS account. Can you give me the incident ID and I'll look at it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Hi the ticket number is 2017040310019972 thank you FITINDIA (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fitindia: Ack, I meant I've got a UTRS account (which I haven't used for ages). I don't appear to be able to log on to OTRS at all. How might I get access; as an admin regularly involved in content disputes and fielding queries from new users, I'd probably have a good case for it. (I guess info-en is the appropriate queue?) In the meantime, you could forward the correspondence via email (using the "Email this user" link). Bottom line is I might be able to throw in some examples from my real off-wiki world (that I don't really want to publicly talk about on-wiki) that may explain things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Hi have emailed you. Please have a look thank you.FITINDIA (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, got it. I've also applied for OTRS access, since it might be useful for this and other occasions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Hi, can you please explain the block warning as I did not add the original name to Abra article, just wanted it to be tagged for a while for rs to be added, I looked on the internet and there were unreliable sources that seemed to confirm it, I didn't readd it when it was removed again. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Atlantic306: If you don't re-add the information, you won't get blocked. Since I've never interacted with you before, I needed to say that in order to stress there was a serious issue - we don't block to punish people! I'm sure you were acting in good faith; unfortunately your actions inadvertently caused a third party to file an off-wiki complaint about Wikipedia. The best advice I can give you is what I'll call Jimbo's First Law : "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." and that's pretty much what WP:BLP is. If the information was cited to BBC News / The Guardian / The Independent, it would be very easy to counter-act any complaint with something along the lines of "well, Wikipedia isn't repeating anything that's not widely and credibly reported elsewhere". But until it is, this can't go in.
You are correct that you did not add the information, but you did revert it back in; I simply sent round a message to everyone who had reverted the IP (possibly the article's subject or someone acting on their behalf?) in a general capacity that did not take any sides. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll be more careful in future, I do revert ips who don't give an edit summary a bit too quickly. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem. It is a bit scary when your edits suddenly collide with the outside world (and it's happened to me a few times) but once you notice it, you'll be a better editor for the rest of your days :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

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

@Manish Kanodia: In effect, you authorised the deletion by pressing "Save changes" after reading the text you see every time you edit which says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia and therefore any material that does not match the CC-BY-SA licence (more of that in a minute) must be removed.
Copyright in the context of Wikipedia is a little unorthodox, but I'll try and explain. What we mean by [CC-BY-SA] (the copyright Wikipedia uses) is that you are allowed to share work, you are allowed to modify it, and you are allowed to sell it to others. So, to give a rather far-fetched but perfectly allowable example, somebody could take the complete contents of my talk page archives, print them in a leather bound volume, and sell them on Amazon for $599 a copy. The copyright license is not violated by doing this. Since this runs counter to most copyright on texts elsewhere in the world, we cannot re-use the information unless we are certain we have permission for people to modify and sell it to others.
A copyright-based deletion makes no judgement on the quality of the text or the suitability of an article's subject for Wikipedia. Indeed, I would suggest a senior government adviser has a potentially legitimate claim to our notability guidelines for political figures. The simplest thing to do is to re-write the article, using the source, in your own words. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Georgina Downs

Rather bemused and bewildered by all this!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quick ps to the message just sent!

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

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

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

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

Response

@Thefactcorrecter: Just leave new messages at the bottom of this talk page, I can reorganise them into some order if necessary. You can also send me an email (use the "Email this user" option on the left hand menu), but I prefer to keep all conversation on here as I like communication in the open, and it allows other people to comment and bring things to the discussion.
The problem you're seeing is basically a common one that occurs when the real world conflicts with the model of Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". However, the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy is fairly established, which means anybody messing around with biographies tends to get stamped on from a great height and kicked out. To be honest, I can't see your article being an obvious target for anybody, most disruptive editing tends to happen on high profile articles of politicians and major celebrities, so I wouldn't worry about it.
I don't think what you said to Tripthecottage was meant as a personal attack, but you were just angry and it came across as such in your writing. The problem with the messages you received in response is we have a number of "cookie cutter" message templates that can be delivered to another user at the click of a button. I strongly dislike them, as invariably they get taken the wrong way by newcomers but when you have 25 users to deal with, and only ten minutes to send a message to each one, they tend to be used as a way of saving time. So while I do have a go at people for using templates all the time, they still get used frequently.
As far as sources go, I have had a look, and found a few things not in the article. I see this 2015 column in The Guardian that reports you were nominated for the Observer Ethical Awards 2015; that can definitely go in the article. There's another column in The Daily Telegraph which could be usable, though it's about 8 years old and probably out of date, and this article in The Guardian that cross-references your research to talk about the affordability of organic food for students. I see the various columns you have written for The Ecologist, and the petition to the Prime Minister. Any debates that have happened in the House of Commons or Lords will be documented in the Parliamentary Hansard, all of which are online (as far as I recall, this is a legal requirement). In short, there are a probably enough sources out there to be able to clean up this article and bring it up to date, including various corrections and awards.
I would advise you against editing your own article. By all means point out anything that is wrong, misleading or factually inaccurate, as it's important we fix it, but otherwise it's best you let an experienced Wikipedia editor handle this, as they'll know exactly what sources to write and what tone to use, so their work is unlikely to be challenged. I can do this, but I don't know when I'll have time as I've obviously got the real world / job / kids etc. to deal with as well. There are a number of other editors I know who I can call on for help, particularly where biographies of women are involved. Unfortunately, some Wikipedia editors hate famous or semi-famous (which you are) people editing their own articles and can get quite aggressive about it.
To answer your specific questions:
1. I've addressed this (in a humorous and rather cutting manner) in User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates. I have mentioned on the Administrators' Noticeboard that I'm handling the issue, so I don't see this problem repeating itself
2. The tag at the top of the article says "This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject." All that means is it needs an expert editor to look at it, gather together the correct sources, and fix it. Unfortunately, we're all volunteers so this may take some time to resolve; in the interim our preference is err on the side of removing information - in the very worst BLP disputes (which this isn't), the article may be blanked down to a single summary sentence.
3. Yes, the petition is called (verbatim) "BAN all crop spraying of poisonous pesticides near our homes, schools and playgrounds!" so we should put it in quotation marks. Unfortunately, change.org is blacklisted and can't be used on Wikipedia - anyone can start a petition on it for any topic, such as "Petition to behead Jimmy Wales" (and yes, people do this). So I'll have to think about how we can source this. At the moment, the petition has less than 3,000 signatures (unless I'm looking in the wrong place), while, say the petition to stop Donald Trump making a state visit to the UK was signed by 1.8 million; so unless the petition is mentioned in a third-party news source, we might not be able to mention it.
4. I simply suggested this as a way to quickly resolve the dispute and bring it to a close
5. As stated above, I am happy to put the Observer Ethical Awards 2015 nomination back in the article as that is absolutely cited to a reliable source and meets our criteria for inclusion. For the rest, I will just need to go and hunt down the sources.
As a complete aside, I was interested to read you were involved in the West End theatre - I work in an arts centre and we have a regular amateur theatre group that rehearses musicals in one of the rooms there.
I hope this goes some way towards addressing your concerns. If not, please let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Ritchie333 from thefactcorrecter

Ritchie333,

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

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

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

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

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

A plea for humour, japes, and general lighthearted tomfoolery

Bit of a pest

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

Nah. You know me. Don't like to make myself a pest. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, whatever happened to Lordi, they don't make Eurovision like that anymore! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, indeedy-doody Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
A Doctor writes This is clearly a case of over-active talkpage pituitary gland syndrome. This can be caused by walls of text and may lead to diminished sexual interest by the sufferer and an increased risk of bladder leakage issues. I usually recommend in these cases an immediate course of [[2]] to be taken twice a day for two days, combined with [[3]] to be taken when required. Irondome (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A favor (2nd try)

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

Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_55&oldid=1141421096"