User talk:Ritchie333: Difference between revisions

Line 210: Line 210:

:::Creating an unreferenced article is something a lot of new editors do in good faith; also the corresponding draft at [[Draft:Incredibles 3]] cites ”[[Entertainment Weekly]]” and ”[[Bloomberg]]”, so we could only really say the information was ”unverified”, not ”unverifiable”. [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 15:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok I understand that… and while I do AGF, looking at the edit history for that IP and their edit summaries, can you perhaps understand why it was felt these were not good faith additions? [[User talk:Danners430|Danners430]] [[Special:Contributions/Danners430|tweaks made]] 15:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::The IP has been blocked, and rightly so, but that’s kind of a separate issue to what we do with the page itself, which could be anything from delete and salt outright to accept the draft and move into mainspace, with all options in between. I also note that the IP is only the ”latest” person to try and turn the redirect into a full article, and there have been previous attempts in the article’s history. I think the discussion here has been a little bit at cross purposes. [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 15:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

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.

Hello please help me —Zimkhitha Mabentsela (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help on? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’m a new editor and recently submitted my first AfC draft:

Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stefano_Profumo

The draft was initially declined. I’ve since revised it, and the reviewer’s latest comment indicates it’s acceptable; however, the draft still shows as not accepted. I may be misunderstanding the AfC workflow—does acceptance require any further action on my part?

If helpful, I can provide diffs of the changes I made and the sources I added. I’d really appreciate your guidance on the best next step. Thank you! —TheFlyingPhysicist (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My go-to answer to this is from the much missed DGG, who was one of the most knowledgeable and respected editors dealing with articles about academics, particularly new articles. As he wrote, “People unfamiliar with the academic world may not realize this–and thus sometimes nominate these articles for deletion–occasionally even by Speedy– but a full professor at a major research university is almost certain to be notable. I can see from this reference that Prof. Profumo is a fully tenured professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. I am accepting the draft. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I’m not ignoring the TPG discussion, but I’m really busy for a few days at least. Thanks for trying to help with you-know-who — doesn’t seem to have worked [2]. E Eng 02:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally started the conversation because of Roads4117‘s talk page jamming up with automated bot notifications. Indeed, that’s one of the main problematic areas that causes large talk pages, semi-inactive or retired editors that don’t turn automated messages off. I’ve told Zackmann to assume good faith, but if he wants to stick his fingers in his ears and yell “EEng smells” then I can’d really do anything about it. He’s not helping me, as he’s going to make people think “those people advocating TP limits are just doing it to cause trouble, so I’ll oppose”. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can i use this as a reference? a podcast on youtube as primary source. Not the last one which i added as a reference. But this one [3] it has the yt podcast in that webpage, so does that qualify as a reliable source? Dagoofybloke (🥀) 10:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s so much a question of being reliable, as to whether or not it’s appropriate to have in a featured article. Many artists can claim to cite Pink Floyd as an influence, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we should include them in the parent article. Rather, it should be restricted to those who cite them as a prime and definitive influence, and are recognised by many authoritative sources as being so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HI
How do I write a publish new article ?
Can I upload the same ?
Please guide me. —Sbanerjee.gorabazar (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to write about? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two aspects of your RFC that are insufficient, User:Ritchie333.

First, you ignore how the current version has been stable for ~6 months when you claim that the status quo is the 75 KB version. It simply isn’t true the old version is the status quo – or rather, if you disagree with me, you need to argue for how long we should wait until we consider a consensus to have developed and a version to become stable. Most editors would answer somewhere in the region of 1-4 weeks, but you? Not even 6 months is sufficient according to what you wrote in the RFC intro. This makes your RFC read as partisan (not neutral).

I wrote the following paragraph before I realized you might be taking about WP:TALKSIZE and not WP:USERTALKSIZE. See my add-on post below. Thx. CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second, you did not even include an option to retain the current, stable, version that says The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor’s own discretion. This I think is a severe shortcoming, and I hereby ask you to add it as another option. You will find that my post in the straw poll is “option F”, fully expecting you to add it. If you do add it, but for whatever reason decide to assign the option a different letter – not F – you have my permission to edit my post to conform to your choice. Thanks. By the way, your option E, removing the clause entirely, is not the same thing. The current version isn’t silent on the matter – it quite specifically tells wikilawyers to back off and leave user talk pages to their owners. There absolutely needs to be at least one option to keep the wording as is and there currently aren’t any.

Regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A third area where I believe you should clarify your RFC: The current guideline offers separate guidance on talk space in general and user talk space specifically. Your RFC fails to make this clear. Is your RFC about WP:TALKSIZE, about WP:USERTALKSIZE or both? If you intended to request comments on only one of the sections, that’s fine, but you need to specify which one. If on the other hand you did intend both, are you suggesting should merge the guidance and no longer provide separate guidance? (Perhaps you simply missed the fact you’re lumping together two different sections of the guideline into a single question) I would urge you to clear up all this a.s.a.p because it’s already causing confusion in the comments. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen your discussions there, and here, I urge you to read this. This discussion is closed. If you want to propose changes to the RfC or start a new one, I’ve got no objections to that happening on the existing discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can i start to write article about doctors in india —Yuvina2020 (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I general, I don’t think doctors have sufficient coverage in sources to be able to write an encyclopedia article. Category:Celebrity doctors shows examples of such people, but these are special cases that have achieved coverage in sources by other means. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re killing me smalls!! FINE I’ll just take it to AfD… Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the presence of this source from The Independent disqualifies it from WP:A7 and WP:BLPPROD and there is no completely uncited and questionable content to do a WP:BLPDELETE either. No objections to AfD, as long as the debate focuses on the sources. “I think this article looks like total crap” (which was also my view when I looked at it) is not a reason to delete anything. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could have also just fixed it, but seemed like a case of TNT to me. In any case, thanks for your work! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an AfD myself, I did a quick search for sources and the results lit up with all my “favourites”, The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror which doesn’t fill me with hope. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAH! Good call. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ritchie333, please respond to my request addressed at you at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Delist BFDI (and unsalt). —Alalch E. 09:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what happens when you fail to block those who violate 3RR: 1) THOSE people continue. 2) A message goes out to their opponents that 3RR means nothing. Sorry. Stateside Steve Happy (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, this user is also now disrupting the Roxy Music page. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Just reverting pointless vandalism and restoring the article title. Stateside Steve Happy (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clear to anybody from the edit history what you are doing and flagrantly disregarding MOS:THEBAND. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Gareth Thomas was Welsh, then Celie Imrie is English. Stateside Steve Happy (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you help me adding a reference as being “Myself” ?
Thank you,
RWJOHN —RWJOHN (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You generally cannot cite yourself as a source, it has to be from a reliable and trustworthy third party. Why do you want to cite yourself? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ritchie333! Thank you for being my mentor, and it’s a pleasure to meet you. I’m new to Wikipedia, and like my physician colleagues, I’m trying to create a Wikipedia page about my notable accomplishments, but my draft page was deleted because it appears to be self-promotional. I’m waiting on a request for undeletion of my last draft. Do you have any tips/guidance on how best to revise my draft so that I avoid it being self-promotional? Thanks!! —Gl9flores (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gl9flores I have accepted the request for undeletion of Draft:Glenn Flores (physician). As the page is still in a draft space, it does not directly harm the encyclopedia’s reputation like a live article would. While I would generally ask people not to write about themselves, named professors of established educational institutions do tend to have sufficient sourcing to have articles, so I don’t think meets the criteria for speedy deletion.

By way of a counter-example, an archetypical candidate for speedy deletion for blatant advertising can be found here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @Ritchie333. This is very helpful!! Gl9flores (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the DRV instructions, I’m notifying you of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 25#Battle for Dream Island. Thank you! ObserveOwl (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I wan to publish a wiki about a company, but I got blocked as they thought it was LLM, but it was not.

Please suggest me how to create a page in a better way —Mykyta Ageyev (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki is a type of website, such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, c2, RationalWiki etc. If you mean you want to create an article, I see other editors have claimed you are trying to get paid to do this. Is this true? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir Ji can you help me please 🙏 to create me a wikipedia account —Dr Jitender Gill (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you mean – by writing this message, it shows you have already created an account. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ritchie333. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users’ IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account

When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user’s browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account’s name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
- There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
- There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won’t be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67’s IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if “reasonably believed to be necessary”. (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can’t be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
- This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account’s activity.
The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m new to Wikipedia and I wanna know how to make my first article is it sandbox? —Happypersono12 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to get started is to create a draft page in your own user space. The Help page on userspace drafts has further information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently create an article about Tau Alpha Omega Freeman a Fraternity and Sorority registered here in the Philippines. I have create already a draft and attempted to publish but there seems to have a problem in publishing. —Japetjarantilla (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t see any contributions aside from the one to this talk page. Did you save a copy of the draft locally before trying to submit it in Wikipedia? That would be the most suitable way to retrieve the information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why an AfD? It’s a perfectly good redirect right now, why not leave it as a redirect? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, you were edit-warring with an IP (as were other editors) about whether it should be an article or a redirect. In my view, none of you had been discussing the issue at all; an AfD will force that. The presence of a draft space article also means there are a number of different possible actions. I’d recommend raising your views at the AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don’t have any – it was an anti-vandal revert based on the fact that they were creating an article with zero references, which would go against the Verifiability policy, which says such articles should go in draft space first and only created in main space once sources are added. Happy to voice this at the AfD, but I don’t really see in what sense our actions were wrong or misguided Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an unreferenced article is something a lot of new editors do in good faith; also the corresponding draft at Draft:Incredibles 3 cites Entertainment Weekly and Bloomberg, so we could only really say the information was unverified, not unverifiable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand that… and while I do AGF, looking at the edit history for that IP and their edit summaries, can you perhaps understand why it was felt these were not good faith additions? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been blocked, and rightly so, but that’s kind of a separate issue to what we do with the page itself, which could be anything from delete and salt outright to accept the draft and move into mainspace, with all options in between. I also note that the IP is only the latest person to try and turn the redirect into a full article, and there have been previous attempts in the article’s history. The reason for this is I think a 48 hour block won’t stop somebody from doing these sort of hijinks and thought they might revisit the article in a few days (or just evade the block and do it sooner); having this discussion puts the brakes on all of that. I think the discussion here has been a little bit at cross purposes. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply