Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 87

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90

Current MaranoFan block

I'm all about the (fucking) bass!

Hi Ritchie, I believe you need to fix this. You specifically notified MaranoFan of the AN thread you opened on Winkelvi's IBan violation, and pointed her directly to the specific thread [1], which, like all notifications of noticeboard discussions, especially from admins, appears to be a direct invitation to participate in it. She then posted there four times [2], [3], [4] (self-reverted), [5], and got blocked by 28bytes for a month for her trouble. All of her posts, even her comment to MONGO, seem to be covered by WP:BANEX and by your notification to her of the thread. Please fix this. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I've had a word; hopefully it'll get sorted out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
...and preferably within the week, or that's one fat GA review down the pan :D :p ——SerialNumber54129 12:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've never seen you gush, or near-gush, despite what I read elsewhere about you, "your enthusiastic and near-gushing attitude about doing the GA for MF"... Can you point me to the gushing? I might learn something. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This is such a sad situation because it sets a precident. When someone violates an IBAN that protects you, you will no longer be able to present evidence on wiki without fear of a block. I challenged User:28bytes who has ducked responsibility for the bad block. I'm of a mind to take them to ArbComm for this and seek to remove tools. I've got no special opinion or feelings for MF, it is the principle of the whole thing and the community can no longer trust 28bytes with tools if they are willing to block an editor who is only trying to stop abuse against them, then passes the buck to other Admins to deal with. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac: I am disappointed that you have chosen to misrepresent what I've said. I take full responsibility for the block, and have indeed responded to your multiple aggressive demands on my talk page by (1) explaining why the block was necessary, (2) offering to take the block to AN for a block review, and (3) pointing you to my statement that any uninvolved administrator could lift or modify the block if they felt the block or block length was not correct. What has happened now is that MaranoFan has appealed the block and her appeal has been declined by an uninvolved administrator. She is welcome to file another unblock request, of course. I have more than fulfilled the accountability requirements set out in WP:Administrators and at this point I would appreciate it if you would either file the ArbCom case request or drop the stick, rather than cast aspersions about me across multiple other editors' talk pages. 28bytes (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think 28bytes blocked simply to make things fairer towards Winkelvi. As for the near-gushing attitude, I have already said that MaranoFan has been disruptive and continued to mention Winkelvi after being asked not to. Therefore a block is within the bounds of administrator discretion and stops accusations of bias against Winkelvi. I was hoping there would be a consensus to unblock MaranoFan, but unfortunately there isn't. The principal reason I want her unblocked is, of course, to complete the actions (including fixing the maintenance tags I have put on the article) on Talk:Meghan Trainor/GA3; however, any other uninvolved editor can do that. If all the action points listed on the review are dealt with, I can pass it. As Meghan's notability rests entirely in the internet era, it should be possible to find sources for everything I have queried as failing verification. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Talking about the blocking Admin's actions in this thread is not "casting aspirations across multiple other editors talkpages". I'm giving 28bytes every opportunity to reverse their error but they don't want to it seems. Admins expect editors to admit their errors (real or imagined) before unblocking, but again 28bytes has not admitted any wrong doing or lapse in judgement for blocking MF. Admins need to be held to the same standard as Editors. If Richie is correct that the block was to make things "fairer" for the indef'd editor, sorry but that is not appropriate or effective. It just feeds the false narritive that there was a two problem when MF did nothing to cause WV to breach the IBAN. There is another unblock request posted - MF is being extrememly reasonable admitting wrongdoing even though he only responded to Richie's invitation to post at AN. 28bytes has another chance to undo his/her mistake. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem now is that other administrators have endorsed the block, while other administrators and longstanding editors (including both of us) have opposed it. This leads to a logjam. In my view, MaranoFan should be unblocked because there is no consensus for it, but I don't think invoking WP:IAR to get around WP:INVOLVED is going to be helpful as somebody will moan about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Catherine Kerrison

On 6 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Catherine Kerrison, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that historian Catherine Kerrison (pictured) thinks beauty is still important for any woman in the public eye? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Kerrison. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Catherine Kerrison), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

this article on catherine talks about "non traditional sources" but doesnt say what that actually means so i put the clarify tag on them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4023:D900:203C:81D:F174:42CA (talk • contribs)

Why don't you read the source material kindly added by Megalibrarygirl and SusunW and you'll find out? Also sentences in English start with a capital letter, the contraction of "does not" has an apostrophe, the first personal singular pronoun is always capitalised, and sentences end with a full stop. Now, in the words of The Rambling Man, don't forget to smile! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Smiling when typing actually brings about a change in tone, and it works whether you're a man, woman or something else! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the smiling was self-referential more than anything else; I just find it difficult to do when I look at the news and see the big orange goon plastered all over the front page. Maybe the solution is to not edit after reading the news. (As opposed to reading In The News).... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Well as you know, the last (and only) time I recommended someone smile, they subsequently flounced off in a tragically typical temporary DIVA retirement after threatening me manyfold. Probably best you stop bringing it up at every opportune moment, or at least stop crediting me with it each and every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

you sound a bit angry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4023:D900:203C:81D:F174:42CA (talk • contribs)

The article's history is indicative of one of the major problems we have with Wikipedia contributing to systemic bias. In this case, an article about a notable writer and historian was written, to address the fact that not enough biographies of women are being created. Somebody tried to delete it and blocked the creator; through the hard work of several editors, we have rescued it and made it presentable. And then somebody comes along and defaces it with tags, making it look like Wikipedia is only a half-finished product. So pardon my French, but if you can't write a coherent sentence using proper English, what are you doing on this project? Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Drafts and see if you can rescue one of the biographies there. (As for being on edge, it's probably because I've been reading about the good chance of the Republicans winning the Senate in the mid-terms). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

if an article needs citations and clarification; an article needs citations and clarifications; doesnt matter if someone tried to delete it or if theres hard work put into the article; besides; me and you have just made the article better with our edits; good for us!!

the creator was blocked for sockpuppeting; are you defending sockpuppeting?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4023:D900:203C:81D:F174:42CA (talk • contribs)

At times, what is referred to here as "sockpuppeting" isn't really abusive, or not abusive enough to block all the accounts with no possible avenue of appeal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Need you to look at sumptin'

I've got Loham watchlisted, so my attention was recently drawn to what appears to be suspicious IP activity by User:2405:205:6203:B55E:0:0:27E8:68A5 who added Joy Badlani as one of the cast in some 50+/- films. See their edit contribs. Before I reverted the IP the first time, I tried to find something (anything) to verify Badlani having appeared in Loham and couldn't find anything. The same for a few other random selections I made from the IP's edit contribs, and also on Joy Badlani where I found this removal by Cyphoidbomb. It appears to me we may have a connected user adding his own name for parts he may or may not have played as an extra. A Google search shows that he promotes himself using YouTube, FB, other social media and unreliable sources. I'm curious to see what Cyphoidbomb thinks about all the other articles, and then I'll create an AfD for Badlani but in the interim, will you semi-p Loham? Atsme✍🏻📧 15:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: - This is the "Rudranil Ghosh vandal". Please see this writeup. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I've mass reverted the recent chunk of editing, and it looks like Materialscientist got a ton of the other stuff. IP has been blocked, and kudos to you for having such a sharp eye, Atsme. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Cb. 😊 It's always a pleasure to collaborate with you. Atsme✍🏻📧 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Armistice Day 2018

When this War Is Over
When this war is over
It will be a better day
When this war is over
It will be a better day
But it won't bring back
Those poor boys in their graves

- J. J. Cale (2006)

Did you know that... The Road to Escondido (2006) - features the last recordings of notable Hammond organ player Billy Preston. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC) .... "When it happens on the street, We call that a crime"

I have notice that the page Tu Maza Jeev has been created in paid advocacy. I was checking its creators profile (Mr Tiven) and IMDB records of same film https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6317992/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast its noticed that Tiven's name has been listed as Social media marketing manager. It seems upfront like its a paid advocacy after scrutinised his profile it has been notice he have created few more pages in such way, which has been tried to edit under there own names, fortunately those users got ban and then user has re-edited it. I think we should stop paid advocacy and take necessary action, to stop vandalism as well. (106.78.214.200 (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

I’d rather not; WP:JIMBOTALK is full of nutters. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Serial trouble maker, blocked for disruptive editing and evasion of previous blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
He picked the wrong person to try and cause trouble with, I haven't the faintest idea what he's banging on about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I think he just picks on random admins each time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Electric Fox Music

I can't believe you deleted my hard work. I work REALLY hard on it and instead of enjoying the work that Idid, you delete it! HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF I DELETED YOUR HARD WORK? YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT, RIGHT? SO, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJAlexander408 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Naughty Ritchie333! I realise that this kind of thing could be a pain for you, R333, but yours is by far the most entertaining talk page on my watchlist – thanks for being so naughty! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) See what Wikipedia is not. We appreciate your hard work, but we need to make sure that every article in Wikipedia is in accordance with our policies. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of places on the internet you can post this outside of Wikipedia. It's not the only website in the world. I can restore the article to your userspace, but you appear to have a copy of this already. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
And how do you know I'm naughty, I haven't shown the pictures of (Redacted) to anybody :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Too late – I saw the photograph! Nortonius (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333, you deleted my work again. WHY DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING!!!!! I'm not doing anything wrong. DJAlexander408 (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Clever...

It's all about ingenuity right there, slick Ritchie. ^_^ - A Atsme✍🏻📧 18:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I mentioned you here. ——SerialNumber54129 16:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Mid air collision! I did think "ah why don't I just block and revert" but WP:INVOLVED and all that. Say, while you're hear, up for a pint in Pendrel's tomorrow, I'll be passing through. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah...I reckon that could be a thing. ——SerialNumber54129 16:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, might not be before 6pm but there were plenty of bods around that time last month. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Ritchie, didn't get the oportunity to empty your wallet into my liver on this occasion! ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Had an early start this morning, so if I'd gone it would've been the old 12-1400 shift or thereabouts. ——SerialNumber54129 12:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Be all my sins remember'd?

Here's the thing: I see Wikipedia's content under continual threat from POV warriors, vandals, and other folks NOTHERE to contribute. They deface the edifice of knowledge we've collectively built. I have tried (as part of the necessary countervandalism effort protecting the articles we've written) to prevent the damage they cause. If my past perceived wrongs will never be forgiven I will sooner quit the field rather than risk being punished by the mob. I don't agree that I was uncivil or edit-warring in this case but I guess good editors can disagree on those points. Perhaps I deserve a warning for how I handled that incident; message received. It's bad enough the WMF treats all of us with contempt but I really can't abide being treated in this manner by my fellow editors. I genuinely hope this makes sense. If I earned a warning, fine. Bringing up an incident a year ago feels like shooting inside the tent, especially when it seems you're eager for a fellow admin to block me. I don't have to edit here if the consensus doesn't want me here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: As you know, I've got over 120 GAs, a couple of FLs, and pretty much at least one of those gets edited by somebody every day and turns up on my watchlist. However, the vast majority of them are made in good faith, because knowing how to edit a Wikipedia article to a high standard is a skillset that is difficult to learn - how many people can use {{harvnb}} correctly without ever making a mistake?
Let's take the dispute one diff at a time. Okay, we start of with DaveC1967 adding this. Now, if this article was on my watchlist, my first thought would be to type "joanne nosuchinsky compound media" into Google, and we get this source. Hmm, well although this is a BLP, all we're doing is citing what her job is and nothing else, so that sounds like it meets WP:BLPSOURCES. And that would be that. Instead, you reverted with "source?" - now at this point there's no issue (plus I make reverts like this often enough myself) as the burden is on the editor adding content to cite it. So, next edit is to add the source to the "External links" section, which sounds fine to me. ClueBot NG tripped with a false positive; I can't remember if you can still report errors with ClueBot, but I've certainly added a few (even when I've reverted the edit, if I think it was added in good faith). Then things deteriorated, you edit warred without an edit summary which is always a bad idea. You stopped right at the line of 3RR, and reported the other guy at WP:AIV for vandalism. I have a VERY dim view of people abusing AIV to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, and like to come down on them like a ton of bricks so they realise they aren't as smart as they think they are. So yes, you did something reckless and boneheaded and I admonished you for it.
I've got to be honest, I could have blocked you and I think the block would have been accepted by the community. The reason I didn't is because I would also have to block DaveC1967 in order to be fair, and I don't believe in blocking people when they've pissed me off and I'm cross with them. So, in a very real sense, you got away with it. Other admins watching ANI may not feel so charitable, and given we've been having huge debates about civility elsewhere, one of them might think "well, here's exhibit 'a' for us to run a test case on". I don't particularly want to see you blocked or for anyone else to block you, I'm just saying that in my experience a less thoughtful admin might do that anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The reason I didn't is because I would also have to block DaveC1967 in order to be fair I don't think you've need to, since DaveC1967 hasn't been warned about civility (nor has he been uncivil that I see) or edit warring while Chris very well knows the rules on that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It depends if you think reverting ClueBotNG false positives counts towards a "revert" for the purposes of 3RR. If it does, DaveC1967 has gone over the limit; if it doesn't, he hasn't. In any case, this was not a situation where blocks all round would have been beneficial at all - indeed, I think it would have been likely that both editors would have retired or taken a break a response. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if DaveC1967 went over the limit since there is no reason to expect an editor with 15 edits to know the rules about edit warring; I don't know if blocking Chris would help (I'd rather he reflect on his behaviour, especially in regards to WP:BITE), but was just pointing out that you can be fair and block only Chris. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
And CT warned DaveC1967 about adding unsourced material but not about edit warring. ——SerialNumber54129 12:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King's Cross St. Pancras tube station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King's Cross St. Pancras tube station 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King's Cross St. Pancras tube station

The article King's Cross St. Pancras tube station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:King's Cross St. Pancras tube station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King's Cross St Pancras tube station

The article King's Cross St Pancras tube station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:King's Cross St Pancras tube station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King's Cross St. Pancras tube station

The article King's Cross St. Pancras tube station you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:King's Cross St. Pancras tube station for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the bot freaked out with the rename. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

1rr

Ritchie333, I am a bit confused. I listed 2 reverts within 24 hours. nableezy - 21:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops, you are right my fault. Misread the dates. nableezy - 21:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
No problem, a procedural close is also less controversial. More to the point, the reverts were over a NPOV tag on a featured article. In that situation, I would recommend just having a quick chat with TRM over why you think the particular section is non-neutral; AN3 should be reserved for cases where somebody really just does not "get it" and won't stop being disruptive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page you can see that this is something that has been discussed and argued over for a good long while. Im not sure how I can proceed when the discussions continue to get closed as "no consensus" and then people argue that those "no consensus" closes make it so that there is consensus for the status quo. If you have a way forward I am all ears. nableezy - 21:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK is good advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Really? I dont see how. nableezy - 21:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I thought you'd say that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case, Nableezy, you have spent some time at the talk page arguing about the neutrality and scope of the article, but as far as I can tell nobody has agreed with you. Sometimes (like when everybody else thinks the Pall Mall square on a London Monopoly board is pink while you think it's purple) consensus just doesn't go your way. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I dont think thats true, if you look at the RFC you will see a number, a majority even, agree with me. The requested move itself was closed with "the current title is misleading". I have no problem accepting when a consensus goes against me, but if everything is closed as "no consensus" am I supposed to just say oh that means there is consensus? nableezy - 21:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
If you don't get a consensus at an RfC, the status quo should remain, and it's probably best to look at something else. In any case, putting tags on articles tends to be surprisingly unproductive, unless they are specifically reminders for yourself to fix up content. I think part of that is having had many articles tagged for upwards of ten years now, their impact has been reduced and people seem to ignore them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean I dont disagree on the tags being somewhat useless, but at the very least they inform a reader that there is a dispute about the content. But specifically about a no consensus close of an RFC and/or requested move. Does that mean the discussion should be ended? Or, better question, what can I do to get to a consensus, regardless of whether that consensus endorses or rejects my own view? nableezy - 21:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The best option I can think of is the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is a formal venue where you can gather a definitive consensus if multiple talk page discussions have failed (which certainly seems to be the case here). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the suggestion, I will pursue that route. nableezy - 23:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

With WorldCat as a "reference"? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It was Shaw! Nortonius (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Ritchie333,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Technical stuff I have no clue about

As we are all aware, WP technology baffles me. I have zero clue where to even post what just happened and am hoping you can help me. We are doing the final edits on Sirimavo Bandaranaike to nominate it for GA. So when everyone said I think we're done, I ran the dash thingy and date thingy. The problem was that the date thing took out the as and bs on the sources where there are multiple articles by the same author. Not even sure if I am explaining this well, but for these two

*{{cite news |ref=harv |last1=Fernando |first1=Tilak S. |title="Operation Holdfast" & Consequences |date=7 May 2015a |url=http://www.sriexpress.com/article/2922-life-abroad-pt-125-operation-holdfast-consequences.html |accessdate=1 November 2018 |newspaper=Sri Express |location=Colombo, Sri Lanka |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20181101180325/http://www.sriexpress.com/article/2922-life-abroad-pt-125-operation-holdfast-consequences.html |archivedate=1 November 2018}}

*{{cite news |ref=harv |last1=Fernando |first1=Tilak S. |title=Remembering Dr. Sivali Ratwatte |date=16 November 2015b |url=http://www.sriexpress.com/article/2963-remembering-dr-sivali-ratwatte.html |accessdate=29 October 2018 |newspaper=Sri Express |location=Colombo, Sri Lanka |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20181029190050/http://www.sriexpress.com/article/2963-remembering-dr-sivali-ratwatte.html |archivedate=29 October 2018}}

It took out the a after 7 May 2015 and the b after 16 November 2015, breaking the link between the anchor and the citation. How do I report this problem? Do I need to tell someone, other than you? (Basically, I'm hoping you will just wave your magic wand and fix it :) ) Thanks! SusunW (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SusunW: You're actually fine; nothing's broken. If you're interested: if there are multiple sources from the same year and source, the sfn templates do not know which to link to which. You had already fixed that by using the ref={{harvid|source|year}} parameter, and including the letter subscript there. So it wasn't required in the date, and the script cleaned that up for you. Check the inline refs; they work. Vanamonde (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, if you're interested, this script is incredibly useful when you are using this citation format. Vanamonde (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 thanks, I think I am not making clear my problem. When I ran the date program, it took out the letters, so all the citations linking to those with the same author and multiple dates in the same year had those glaring red error notifications. I pulled up the last good version and manually put back the a and b to get rid of the reference breaks. (I am incapable of talking WP technical, so I probably still am not explaining this well.) SusunW (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Oh, you mean with this edit? I guess I was checking the article after you did that, so there was nothing broken when I checked. Are you still seeing red notifications? Vanamonde (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Yes, that is the one where I manually fixed it. this one is the one that screwed it up. After I manually fixed it, the errors went away. The problem is that if you are running the script to make sure all the dates are in a uniform presentation, it takes out the lettering, breaking the links between the cites and the anchors. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: I see what happened. The issue is (I'm guessing: I couldn't write that script) that the script doesn't like the dates to be things other than dates, because they then display funny in the references. That can be fixed this way. Hope that helps. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Thanks! Okay, treat them as if they are without an author or with a long list of et als. Good to know. Do I need to report the glitch somewhere, as I am sure it impacts more people than just me? or just go about my business with the work around? SusunW (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Well the script is doing what it was supposed to do: it so happened that your fix (for the problem of multiple sources from the same author and same year) was caught by it. Since there's a different fix (the one I showed you, using the harvid template) nothing really needs to be done with the script. Also, that's what the harvid template is for (and also for long strings of authors that need to be reduced to something manageable in the text). Vanamonde (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

"Vote early. Vote often."
Hello, Ritchie333. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Karen Carpenter

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Karen Carpenter 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) omg yasssss keep it up the good work! VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense

Would you like to substantiate this claim so I have an idea of exactly what the hell you're talking about? So there's no confusion, I'm referring directly to although Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it. You're either being fed lies by someone or outright bullshitting and this is tantamount to childish gossip. Praxidicae (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd need to look through my contributions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Drafts to get a full picture, but that was set up in direct response to Donna Strickland and I've certainly seen your name turn up there a number of times, declining drafts. No, I can't remember if any or all the ones I overturned were declined by you off the top off my head. I certainly don't see you actively participating at Women in Red; if you are, then I'll apologise for that. However, if you spent more time writing the encyclopedia and less time bashing people over the head who disagree with you, people wouldn't get that impression. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Then you need to rephrase what you've said because it is entirely misleading and has literally NOTHING to do with what you're citing. Yes, I decline drafts. Some of them might be notable but if they're wholly unsuitable for mainspace, I won't accept it. If you don't like my style of dealing with AFC or believe I am breaking policy, go ask for my removal and get consensus. Until then, stop with your childish nonsense because it's gotten really old. Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
And stop trying to bully editors into participating in WIR or whatever you're obsessed with in any given week. You don't have to see me editing at WIR for my contributions to this project to be constructive. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
If you come to my talk page using words like "lies", "bullshitting" and "gossip", you need to calm down and take a breath and come back when you are more chilled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Considering this is now the, what, third time in a month you've ignored my concerns about your behavior and now you're telling me not to discuss it here, would you like to give me a better place to do so? Because I'll gladly have the discussion there. Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow, this threatening attitude really begins to get boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not threatening anyone, but if you feel that way, you know where ANI is. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed I do, many thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
OK everyone, let's take a minute to let cooler heads prevail. Yelling at each other, no matter how much you think you're right, isn't going to accomplish anything. Keep conversation civil or it will just escelate further. Kb03 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I think the tone was set with the opening tirade. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Many drafts are garbage. It isn't the responsibility of the reviewer to fix every article. Also, implying that an editor is somehow doing it wrong because they arn't participating in XYZ project is nonsensical and, I would have hoped, beneath a long time admin. There are many ways to contribute, participation in one particular project isn't required. zchrykng (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you think this is garbage? What about this non notable website tagged A7? I'm sure I can pull out a couple of diffs of your contributions and destructively criticise them. Ah yes, "learn how to cite things on wikipedia, learn what a reliable source is and if you can't do those things, start a blog rather than writing here." How would you like it if you cooked a meal for me, and I spat it out, calling it "garbage" and said "if you can't do those things, get a takeaway than cooking here"? (I assume you're not a Michelin 5-star chef; if you are, then change it to gardening, cleaning, cricket - anything you're not good at, which must be something) and see how you feel about it. Incidentally, I have defended BradV - he thought he was doing the right thing and acted in good faith; he doesn't need to be beaten about it until the end of time Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That Irish bull terrier diff is probably not one you want to be using as your example. I doubt there's anyone who's had any dealings with Dr Nobody who hasn't lost their temper at least once. Incidentally, your use of the A7 nomination of Twitter is a little unfair; that was an entirely correct deletion (and was accepted—the only reason it still exists is because someone later restored the history); Twitter at that point was an utterly non-notable startup. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what it is with the Irish bull terrier article, but people seem to have lost their senses over it, and there can't have been much wrong with the Twitter article as it was created a month later which turned into this a week later, and has remained with us ever since. Anyway, my point is that anyone can randomly walk up to any editor, pick up a diff in their contributions, and pick it apart - for instance, one might well say that this is a personal attack on a living person. And that you shouldn't be so quick to judge something as "garbage" or "spam" because you can look foolish if you're subsequently proven wrong. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so why don't you take over all of AFC and do it yourself and make the policies requiring we accept everything you deem a-okay? Or why don't you go take it up at AFCH/Participants instead of denigrating editors who are acting in good faith of doing something nefarious? And you've still not addressed my original point nor redacted your outright lie. I don't know why I expect anything different from the "do as I say, not as I do" club. Praxidicae (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
All I can see is, "Fuck you Ritchie333, you asshole administrator" :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
And how should one interpret someone implying that they are lesser of an editor because they don't participate in the project you want them to? The hypocrisy here is ridiculous, pardon me if I don't feel bad for the way you're reading into a valid criticism while you sit here and berate me at every given opportunity and refuse to redact an outright lie. Not to mention that any time I have come to you with a concern or a complaint you've responded with "smile more" or written me off entirely. Of course, I expect this to go no differently. Praxidicae (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as the Twitter article provided no claims of notability in 2007 when it was tagged, that seems reasonable to me. As for the Donna Strickland draft, the only RS was the Optical Society page (which some people have questioned since it doesn't seem completely independent) profiles of employees are generally not considered RS and papers published by the subject of the article can't be used to establish notability. Is it "garbage"? No, but it isn't acceptable for mainspace either.
As for my response to Dr Nobody, I fully stand by what I said. It was after many attempts to get them to read, and apply, policy and guidelines. Competence is required, and part of competence is giving at least an iota of care toward the policies of the site you are working on, especially after multiple people have pointed out the issues multiple times.
Regarding the strange cooking analogy. If I was cooking for people and had multiple people over multiple days tell me something isn't acceptable and made no apparent effort to correct the problem, that is a fully reasonable response. zchrykng (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so you think it's alright to be rude to people you disagree with. Fair enough, I admire your honesty. I'm not talking about "sorry, I don't think your cooking's up to snuff". I'm talking about stuff like this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I left you a comment elsewhere relating to this, but having now read the above I can't not be somewhat irked by your accusations - please clarify your comment about Praxidicae. This all seems to be based on your personal opinion of her as an editor - TNT 💖 20:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
If Praxidicae stops leaving abuse on my talk, I'm happy to leave him alone and do something else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you kidding me, Ritchie? You literally put up a total, unsubstantiated and outright lie about something I had nothing to do with, and after I questioned you about it, told me to calm down instead of backing it up. WP:ASPERSIONS applies to administrators too, even those that think they're unblockable, you know? Praxidicae (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
There's no "abuse" here for goodness sake. I'm asking you, again, to clarify your accusations, please? - TNT 💖 20:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Generally I would think that making completely unfounded aspersions against someone is closer to abuse than using strong-ish language to call someone out for the previous. zchrykng (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_87&oldid=1079463270"