User talk:Ritchie333: Difference between revisions

Line 166: Line 166:

:Is this really necessary? [[User:DatGuy|DatGuy]][[User talk:DatGuy|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/DatGuy|Contribs]] 13:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

::I do recall that we once had next to zero citations to the ”[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]]” in BLPs, whereas now we have a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=insource%3A%2Fthesun%5C.co%5C.uk%7Cthesun%5C.mobi%7Cthesun%5C.ie%7Cthescottishsun%5C.co%5C.uk%2F+incategory%3A%22Living+people%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 whole bunch of them]. 🙁 I certainly don’t think consensus has changed from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=517246829&oldid=517219836 this memorable view]. [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont)]] 13:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

== [[Yarrow Maaytey]] ==

As it said in the PROD that it has been unsourced for 15 years it is old enough for being on [[Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia]]. ”'[[User:Crouch, Swale|Crouch, Swale]]”’ ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|talk]]) 18:10, 21 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.

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]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Incredibles 3. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. jolielover♥talk 04:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because of course 😀 Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was honestly expecting the edit warring IP to have opened the discussion, as they were beginning to get rather ridiculous…! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring IP will have a hard time doing that as they’ve been blocked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true… but I’ve seen some persistent block evaders for far smaller nonsense Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, it is not unsourced. There is a whole section of the article about the 1980s electrification, which is fully referenced. Maybe the wording could be restored, with a link to that section? Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure there was something in the MOS that said don’t put in redirections like “for ‘x’ see the section below”, but I can’t find it.

Also, I was trying to find a really good source to explain what the current status of Robertsbridge is, and whether you could ever get to Tenterden only on trains ever again, but could only find a good news source from 2021. I’m sure it’s been updated; I have travelled on the Kent and East Sussex Railway a few times with my kids as far as Bodiam Castle.

By the way, well done on getting the article through FAC – I found it as a whole a fascinating read, and deserving of its featured status. The electrification in the mid 1980s was lucky to happen at all, and means at least there’s a half-decent service from London to Hastings. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ritchie, perhaps MOS:SELFREF OR MOS:INSTRUCT? —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current status of Robertsbridge is that a new station building is being built at her heritage site (Robertsbridge Junction). Network rail have been doing trackwork at their headshunt during the recent closure of the line. Track has been laid as far as the first level crossing out of Robertsbridge. Just need to rebuild from there to Junction Road Halt. Unsure whether or not the reopening of Salehurst is part of the plans, but I would hope so as there’s a decent pub in the hamlet. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the agreement between European country and Africa country after colonization —Kenny’s search (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you mean, sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your motivation for protecting the Lio Tipton page, leaving it in a state where her allegation of a sex trafficking near-miss has been removed.

You have protected the page citing WP:CT/GENSEX which simply does not apply here – the ‘edit war’ had nothing to do with gender identity, pronouns, etc. ~2025-31868-41 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality says “The Arbitration Committee has enacted remedies that apply to all editors who make edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them (the “contentious topic”). The contentious topics procedure applies to all pages and edits related to this contentious topic.“

This has applied to this article since 3 June 2021. Also, the policy on biographies of living persons says “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether the material is in a biography or in some other article. Such material should not be added to an article when the only available sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.” Wikipedia has reached a consensus on citing the Daily Best: “There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.” Therefore, additional reliable sources will need to be provided; these can be suggested on the the talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no gender-related dispute here. While Lio identifies as non-binary, that is completely orthogonal to the dispute, which surrounds her recounting her experience of being pressured to travel to Saudi Arabia to become a “wife” to a Saudi prince.

There is also no reason to consider this contentious – it is not an allegation against her, nor does it reflect poorly on her.

Given that both the reasons you’ve provided are invalid, would you mind providing your actual reasoning? ~2025-31868-41 (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A reason you don’t like or disagree with is not “invalid”. As it is, I have started a discussion on the biographies of living persons noticeboard where you are free to have your say and supply further sources of information, ideally from reliable and trustworthy outlets. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you genuinely believe that it was ArbCom’s intention for discussions of sexual exploitation to be obscured when a non-binary person happens to be the victim? The fact Lio is non-binary is entirely irrelevant and not the locus of the dispute at all. ~2025-31868-41 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Edit warring § User:IvanScrooge98 reported by User:~2025-32055-48 (Result: No violation)

Hello, I’m the user who opened the report about Margherita Hack and Mahmood (singer) in WP:EWN, that you declined because “there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply”. I’m here for more information about this: may you tell me as precisely as possible what I should do to be able to open a report that might be not declined and what I should not do, please? ~2025-32008-40 (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting occasionally (as the diffs showed, these were spread over several months) is not a reason to take administrative action. If you disagree with another editor, the first thing to do is leave a message on their talk page, and if that fails, consider dispute resolution. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how do crest my citations —Ternenge Godwin Iorshe (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean. The guide to referencing and beginners may be of help. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

where I have to edit —Webvibe7001 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to your editing history, you have been using ChatGPT or some other automated model to edit Wikipedia. Please don’t do this – Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ritchie, I just wanted to see if you could nominate me for adminship? I understand that I am below 10,000 edits, but I just wanted to see if you could,

The reason I want to be a admin, is so I could speed up the process of getting disruptive users off the platform, instead of waiting and waiting for someone to do something about it. shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at contributions, and your history at AfD isn’t particularly good; also your most edited article, Space Battleship Yamato has you writing unreferenced content with no edit summary. I will not nominate any editor for adminship without a reasonable track record of understanding what it takes to write an encyclopedia. My essay has further information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create a page for myself, with my name. —Webvibe7001 (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean a user page, with basic information and what you can contribute to the encyclopedia – sure. If you want to write an article about yourself, I strongly recommend you don’t. This essay explains why. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I was wondering how or if it is possible to create your own document —1millionskills (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you mean, sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do I edit stuff —Anonymousdvl (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you want to edit about? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would I edit formalizing to formalising as per British English? —ShreddyExtreme (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bryceahorvat‘s mentor Goldsztajn is away.

If I make multiple edits on one page in a short amount of time, will my account be suspended? —Bryceahorvat (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what the edits are. If I’m doing a lot of work on an article, such as improving it to good article status, I will make lots of small edits within a few hours as I spot things that can be tidied up or fix minor errors. What you shouldn’t do is repeatedly revert another editor’s contributions, which can be sanctionable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks’ noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 12:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary? DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall that we once had next to zero citations to the The Sun in BLPs, whereas now we have a whole bunch of them. 🙁 I certainly don’t think consensus has changed from this memorable view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it said in the PROD that it has been unsourced for 15 years it is old enough for being on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply