It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.

A word from the special one:

I roll my eyes
At all the socking (wooah-oah)
They all need blocking (wooah-oah)
Page protection too

When they return (when they return)
They are so fickle (wooah-oah)
Had to install Twinkle (wooah-oah)
Any 'dmin will do

(from José and his Amazing Technicolor Comic-Sans signature)

• Great! Now that you've "found it..." Do you have any suggestions/Are you going to attempt to be part of the solution.... or will you simply fade away into the background with nothing more to offer?Cebr1979 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Cause we're now at almost 7 hours later and you haven't done anything with what you "found" (y'know: what you were (supposedly) looking for the entire time)! This is a serious problem and I (shouldn't have to/)won't be letting it go. 11 hours had passed before you went running for help, whereas I have been asking for help for weeks. With you being an admin, I do expect that you will now help to solve this issue. We should be allies at this point, I shouldn't need to come to you 7 hours later for a follow-up on something you (even being an admin) felt the need to go for assistance on. You should have already started... something.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this talk page, it says "This user is gigging a lot and may not respond quickly to enquiries" (although in the case last night it was a recording session). Slakr has given a good situation of the scale of the problem on ANI, and I don't think there is any solution short of disabling anonymous editing or semi-protecting a lot more pages, both of which will get strong resistance from the community. I think you're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a rock and a hard place? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Richard Wright (musician) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Richard Wright (musician) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ritchie! Here's something that might be right up your alley: the article Don Tate. I deleted it earlier this month per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Tate (2nd nomination). An IP identifying himself as the subject just posted a note about it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive230#Don Tate. The discussants at the AfD had held out the possibility that the article could be improved. So I have restored it and will give a shot at improving it. Want to help?

Background: The subject had earlier written an article about himself; it was just what you might expect, full of puffery. He tried several times in 2006-2007 and all of those were deleted. He says that since then he respected the rules and did not write about himself. The current version appears to have been written by someone else, in 2013, and is encyclopedic. I told the IP/subject that he could make suggestions at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never say never! OohBunnies! (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OohBunnies!: - oooh, long time no see, and welcome back! Since we last spoke I've written about 40 GAs and become an admin (yikes!) but that "not overreacting" piece on your home page has been an inspiration for me not to go ballistic and shout my mouth off at anyone on here (at least too often). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your GAs and admin bits! Have you sold your soul to a shadowy cabal yet? If not, then you certainly aren't doing it right. ;) And wow, it's strange to think something I said was an inspiration for someone - in a good way. Anyway, I'm back to studying now, so hopefully I'll have a lot more sources to play around with and might get some writing done. And I'd like to return to AfC, but I'll need to brush up on everything. I'm pretty rusty after a long break. OohBunnies! (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Ritchie333, when you have time, can you give reference 187 on that page a look? It is for the French certification for the album. The ref is giving an error. I have not used the certification tables / layouts previously and hence don't want to touch it. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all fixed now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Although you did not make the top 16 of Round 1, you did participate and you still deserve a barnstar. Thank you so much for being a part of the 2nd Annual GA Cup and we hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - please take this section in the least antagonistic way possible, I really do mean it just as an example to demonstrate why it's good to consult with blocking admins before unblocking. A while ago, after a long and disturbing pattern of behavior, I blocked someone. Without any consultation with me or asking for any further clarification as to why I blocked them (and despite the fact that they had, frankly, one of the weirdest and most out of policy unblock requests I've ever seen,) you unblocked them, while stating that I had made a WP:INVOLVED block. If you had asked me further about it, I could have clarified that I was in no way WP:INVOLVED and further discussed the block with you, including linking to eleven previous AN and ANI sections directly relevant to it. But after taking a block review to AN an instantly being mobbed, I let the issue drop.

The user you unblocked has now been indefinitely blocked by a well-respected checkuser as a puppet of a long term disruptive master who has been around for years intentionally sowing discord among ENWPians and planting hard to detect hoaxes in our content. So... can we agree that, especially for blocks where the full context of the block isn't apparent from just the initial block message alone (and keep in mind that would've made my initial block message contain probably 50 diffs,) we should be consult with the blocking admin before arbitrarily accepting unblock requests? Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about. We should do whatever is best for improving the reader's perception of the encyclopaedia, and not dwell on who blocked who or who spilled whoever's pint. I certainly strongly dislike the "never mind the quality - feel the width" statement on the current logo ("4,000,000 crappy start class articles?") And people who dwell on old blocks miss the point - there is much more to life than blocking. Pick an article on User:Ritchie333/Monopoly to improve. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Ritchie333, I'm wiki-friends with Hafspajen and Yngvadottir,[1] and am interested in trying to have a conversation with the person from Santiago-slash-England, about coming down from the Reichstag. I may have better success that others who have tried in the past, talking to this particular Santiago-slash-England editor, because of three factors:

• I also edit purely as an anon (albeit from a quasi-static single-physical-location IP),
• I also think unexplained reverts are a slap in the face (albeit do not edit-war about such rudeness), and
• I also want wikipedia's voice to be objectively objective in a strict sense (though I do understand why the constant threat of AfD leads to prominent nigh-subconscious attempts to make a claim to wiki-notability in the lede).

Now although these favorable bullet-points don't guarantee I will succeed, and although it is a long shot that everybody can once again sing O Come All Ye Faithful together in wiki-harmony, I would like to make the attempt. Trouble being... for obvious reasons... I cannot edit the LTA casepage (nor even the case-talkpage thereof), and the conversation at User_talk:190.45.93.157 is also anon-blocked now. Can I write a message, asking the person in question, to contact me on my usertalk, and have you copy the message to the various locations that it might be noticed, by the person from Santiago-slash-England? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have seen you around, though it beats me why anyone editing more than once a month would want to stay as an IP as the user experience is pretty awful in my view (I can't even ping you to tell you I've replied, for one thing). Anyway, the semi-protection on talk expires tomorrow, but I'm not sure you'll get a suitable audience there. I didn't semi-protect the LTA talk page and I don't think proxy editing to work around a protection is a good thing for an admin to do as somebody somewhere will moan about it. I've dropped a note on the protecting admin's talk page to see if I've got clearance to lift the protection. Failing that, I think your best bet is to probably start a thread on ANI, so you get a wider consensus of administrators. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to answer your comments roughly in order mentioned, my personally remaining an anon, is mostly a philosophical stubbornness, related to anyone-can-edit. I'm working on the ping-thing, actually, it annoys me as well.  :-)     And yes, eventually there will have to be a consensus amongst some subset of admins, but until and unless I manage to get a two-way consensus betwixt myself and the Santiago-slash-England person, about how they can best contribute sensibly and potentially be unblocked (on the basis of blocks-apply-to-humans-not-to-IP-addresses), a wider audience seems unlikely to be low-drama. It is possible they are reading this comment here, which is partly why I asked you. And of course, the other reason why I asked here, is because I didn't want to be mistaken for a sock.  :-)     So point being, no problem about not wanting to proxy-edit, it is likely not even necessary. I'll try to catch a time when pageprot has expired on the LTA pages, and put a please-contact-me note there at some point. If you notice another IP get rangeblocked, and want to leave me a talkback-or-equivalent, prior to the talkpage-access of the latest rangeblocked group being revoked, I will try to help at that point. Ideally, of course, the person from Santiago-slash-England will just come directly to my usertalk, after which I can move the how-to-best-get-unblocked conversation to their then-current usertalk. In any case, thanks for your work on this Ritchie333, and your open-ness to the admittedly-slim but still non-negligible possibility of a win-win outcome.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Bex is nominated for best Acoustic bluesartist in Europe.

Can you add a link

https://europeanbluesawards.wordpress.com/

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinoBoley (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Oxford Street 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 Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I wanted to write that my edit was in good faith, and I hope the understanding is mutual. I wanted to request clarification for your reversion. I see you wrote in your edit summary that the sleeve says Eddie Offord and not Eddy Offord. That being said, it seems that most Yes–related websites and prog rock publications use Eddy and not Eddie. I'd like to dialogue with you to hear your perspective. Best, The Obento Musubi (t · c) 09:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Obento Musubi: Of course your edit was in good faith, that's without question. What I have learned from working on these types of articles over an extended period is that we tend to have arguments about names that really aren't that important to the layman reader who just wants to find out key information. So I've noticed a general consensus to defer what is written on the sleeve notes (eg: "John" vs "Jon" Anderson, which model of Hammond did Tony Kaye play, both in the same article). Hope that clarifies things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could I request that we link to Eddy Offord while maintaining Eddie Offord? That way we can prevent linking to a redirect. Thanks! The Obento Musubi (t · c) 10:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see a problem with that - we do that already for John / Jon Anderson as it is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Yes Album may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sophie Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit machine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't refer to a disambig page any more :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be quite a trial "down the slots", even when you're a famous female British computer scientist. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd better stop editing the article now before somebody drags me to ANI accusing me of creating a shrine to Sophie Wilson, and guts half of BBC Micro (although gutting a BBC is the hallmark of a dedicated hardware hacker, so maybe it's okay). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you might as well stick to tiny male articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC) p.s. 'ere, mate, I 'ad one of them pitted fig-trees once. But it got redirected to "teeny pussies". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I was just checking that Sonia Poulton (best known for being called a "zebra in a wig" by Katie Hopkins) was still a blue link (it is) and thought of the "Tara Test". Basically, like WP:DUMPY, it means that a BLP on a female subject has to have achieved as much as Tara Thingumybob to get an article. Maybe when the dramah has died down a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yah! I mean like totes, dude. And major lolz fwaaar, fwaaar!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auntie Ruth would have sorted the pair of them out, probably by throwing them out into the snow at 5am claiming they were having too much fun. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love your point. I suggest adding to it "especially for a high edit count editor" or similar. Legacypac (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I prefer what I've written, which states a general principle - any admin with about 4 years standing should be aware of WP:INVOLVED. While you're here (and since I've kind of mocked it two sections above), I for one am getting tired of hearing about Neelix and Tara Teng and would quite happily wish never to hear about the pair ever again.

I was watching Black Book recently (great film, highly recommended) and near the end there is a scene where the local community, free from repression against the Nazis following VE Day, round a bunch of collaborators up and heap physical abuse on them, until the British and Canadian army come in and say "you lot are as bad as the the Nazis!" and that's the situation I feel we're getting towards on ANI and elsewhere now. I know many eyes and bodies have been hard at work clearing things up, and it's only natural to feel extreme annoyance at who caused it just as much as I get annoyed as people who leave stale coffee cups around the office or think fire extinguishers are things you prop doors open with, but you should take care not to turn that annoyance into personal animosity. For instance, you wrote here "where are the sources" - the manual of style for plot summaries states "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations" and I noticed an arb reformatted your evidence to be less accusatory, and that's a good thing in my view.

Someone (I think it was NE Ent but I can't remember) said the minute the peanut gallery on ANI decides you are a "villain", people will pounce on you left, right and centre - it's happened to Neelix; don't let it happen to you as well! Now, I've really got to get back to finishing work on Oxford Street and throw a few more London street GA reviews on the pile, as it's been too long since I've done some serious writing here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't wade through 100,000 byes of the article, most of the sources and many related articles to clean up a real world mess. If I was the target of that article I'd call the police. Legacypac (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that Neelix is in the same league as Robert John Bardo, Margaret Mary Ray or Mark David Chapman? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Oxford Street 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:Oxford Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that there is any claim of significance in "Dylan Attwell (born Ballarat, Victoria, Australia 4 July 1998) is an Australian Rules Football player in the Ballarat Football League (BFL). He plays for the Sebastopol Kookaburras". If it was "Dylan Attwell works at McDonalds" or "attends XYZ University" are they claims of significance? Of course not. If it said "won an award" or "is the best player in the BFL", then yes, I'd agree with you, that's a claim of significance - which I know is less that a claim of notability. But WP:CCS says that the claim should "lead to notability" - and just saying you play in that league is no such claim. You said it "has a claim to meet WP:NSPORTS", which generally says "professional leagues" (the BFL is nowhere near being a fully professional league) and specifically WP:NAFL states for Australian rules football that only playing in the Australian Football League or having received significant awards in state leagues (which are still a level above the regional leagues like the BFL) are notable. Decisions like this are just wasting all of our time, and letting Wikipedia be used for a vanity page for another week. Please reconsider, or just stick to topics that you understand what significance actually is. This is an unreferenced BLP of a 17 year old. I think there should be a special CSD category for articles on minors. But it always gets shouted down that A7, G10 & BLPPROD are enough. We shouldn't let stuff like this hang around for no reason. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to AfD then. If I remember to !vote in it I'll go with redirecting to the football league's article per WP:BLP1E. And unless the article is a copyright violation or defames a living person, it doesn't hurt for it to hang around for week. Having an insatiable appetite to delete other people's work bites newbies and scare people away from contributing to Wikipedia, so don't! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the reason for articles on minors is normally either vanity or to embarrass the guy, I hope you keep a very close eye on it for the next week, in case any of his mates decide to "enhance" his article. "Doesn't hurt" is an appalling attitude to keep non-notable U-BLPs of minors and does nothing to enhance the reputation of this site. Sending it to AFD still means it's here for a week, and it gets google indexed, mirrored, etc. That's the point of CSD, get rid of the obvious articles that don't belong. And as the article creator hasn't even responded to the BLP Prod that was placed 7 minutes after the article was created, I think newbie biting isn't really an issue here - not by me at least. As for redirecting it to the league article, you're joking aren't you? Thousands of players, all of whom have other real jobs, play in that league. None of them other than some medal winners are mentioned on the article page, and none are notable based on their play in that league. Anyway, based on the original version of the article, he may have only played at a junior level! The-Pope (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to spend more time writing articles and less time moaning at editors who disagree with you. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment at EAR. As an admin , it would be perfectly appropriate for you to block this IP now for at least 14 days. All their November edits have been blatant trolling. See WP:EAR, user's contribs list and talk page. I can't do it because as a subject of one of his attacks I suppose I'm involved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I had a quick look and concluded that a) the issue had gone stale and b) the best thing to do with trolls is not feed them, which blocking can do in spades. I see they've been blocked anyhow. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I finally blocked them, they just couldn't let go. Not feeding them, but purely as a preventative measure - they were harassing and really upsetting another editor. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Oxford Street to Good Article status. It's always a pleasure to read your stuff. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Khazar2: Thanks for the comprehensive review. If you've never done so, it's worth at least seeing Oxford Street in the Christmas shopping experience just to identify with it. In other GAs I have on the pile at the moment, Leicester Square is also essential London tourist viewing. By contrast, the North Circular Road is strictly for the natives. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all the respect why my article deleted ? i don't understand well with the specific example the reason for!! can you send me more simple specifically correction parts for my articles or references or whatever is to correct it ?? By the way my page article is Martech (musician) that was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marios Nicou Charalambus (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marios Nicou Charalambus: I think the fundamental problem is that Wikipedia gets so many articles about bands, and if we didn't keep some reasonable threshold of inclusion, the encyclopedia would be dwarfed by unfinished stubs. The best page to look at is the notability guidelines for musicians, which explain some of the criteria that can be used - a hit record is an obvious one, a "supergroup" of independently notable artists is another. I would recommend clicking here and using the Article Wizard to create a draft page, that can be reviewed by an experienced editor when you are ready to do so. If you want, I can restore the text of your earlier article into a draft as a starting point - please let me know if you wish to do this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 thanks so much for your help. so yes it would be good if you restore me my article back for Martech (musician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marios Nicou Charalambus (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marios Nicou Charalambus: - all done at Draft:Martech (musician). Follow instructions at the top of the page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gloucester Road, Bristol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnpike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your contribution to the stabilization of an important article. ReliableBen (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I should be obliged if you would restore three of the Neelix redirects; Triple glazed, Triple-glazing, and Triple-glazed. Though these were originally included in WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 10#Sextupleglazed glasses, they were excluded from the closing consideration as you had previously deleted them as WP:R3. They are over six years old so WP:RFD#HAMFUL considerations apply and they are commonly used terms and entirely plausible redirects. See here for example. Best, Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling: I just checked the RfD and as far as I can tell those redirects were included, so consensus has been to delete and if you recreate them, any editor could legitimately speedy delete them (via WP:CSD#G4). Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... how can you be just chilling with triple glazing?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@BDD:. Hi BDD, would you give an opinion as to whether you included these redirects in your closing decision, please? My understanding is that if you did not then they can be recreated and if you did then I need to take them to WP:DRV. Best, Just Chilling (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were not included in my closing decision. I mentioned that I wasn't doing anything with redirects that had already been deleted by others. Perhaps I should have, but that discussion took up quite enough time already. At a glance, I don't see anything wrong with this trio of redirects. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I didn't see a need for any of the redirects, as once you type "triple gl" you will find the relevant term, and I don't think casual readers explicitly type dashes. It took me a while to find two-up two-down, referring to housing standards (and what I think the primary topic should be), whereas Two Up Two Down refers to the 1970s sitcom. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and Ritchie333: Hi. I saw your note on the user talk page. I'm not planning to comment there as it appears I am not particularly welcome there, and the response would probably be yet more expletives. So a few comments here:

• I am sorry the block has disrupted the peer review but I don't suppose a couple of days delay will make much difference in the long run.
• I am deeply respectful of Cassianto's content contributions to the project, but this does not give them a free pass.
• The correct course of action is absolutely not to "revert three times and then to report the issue". Three reverts is not an allowance or entitlement as you know. The appropriate action would, after the first revert, to discuss the matter and seek assistance from other editors. (Although in this case the matter was so trivial that it would probably have been better to leave it.)
• In my opinion the block of 48 hours is needed to show that we enforce our expected standards of decorum and editor behaviour. To unblock now would send out the message that it is okay to repeat what happened yesterday.
• Since the block, Cassianto has shown zero regret for their actions and has not given any assurances that they would act differently in the future. In fact the hostility and belligerence suggest quite the opposite.

I appreciate we have quite a different take on these issues, but I hope this clarifies my position. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: as Cassianto has said he does not wish to be unblocked, I think it's best to take him at his word and leave the issue for now. I'm not denying disruption from all parties, that would be absurd, but paradoxically I have found that any block of a long-standing editor causes more disruption than it solves - just look at what happened when I blocked RationalObserver a few months ago. I find a blunt message saying "okay, that's enough, if you do 'x' again I think we'd be within policy to block you per [list of policies]" tends to do the trick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you attempted that form of warning with this user in the past? Their talk page history is littered with such warnings, and the response is generally less than productive. HighInBC 14:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had the opportunity - by the time I find about these things, the block has been and gone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"An admin's lot is not a happy one", is it. I'm reminded of that line in La Rossa: "... just as long as he knows that it's dance, smile - or quit." (What a superb track and entire album that is). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ritchie, he'd actually received explicit warnings against editwarring and NPA at a time when no action within a day of his block. I generally agree with you that warnings are valuable and I've often chosen not to block for 3rr violations in the past, but he'd received warnings about it within 24 hours and had wound up at AN/EW again anyway. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Cookies!
		MarkYabloko 14:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better![reply]

In view of comments posted at User talk:Drmies#Cowboy unblocks, revisited about pings being missed, I am letting you know that I have posted at User talk:Davefelmer again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated there, I'm going to wait for Davefelmer to comment on events. There's no point me doing a "cowboy unblock" on an editor that doesn't actually show a desire to edit articles, after all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for FAC which also happens to be my first attempt. It is also the first Indian Telugu film article to be nominated for such status. If interested, please leave your comments here. All constructive comments are welcomed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Don't know the show, but it gave me a laugh. "Slap a wig on a "Speak Your Weight" machine..." Ah well, enjoy it while we can, someone will come along soon and undo or collapse the lot. Best, BMK (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably like it, cynical, dry, humour with lots of mindless slapstick violence. I went through a phase of being called "ah-ha, Ritchie baby!" after a regular catchphrase in the show. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to see if it's available on Netflix or elsewhere. BMK (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, does that mean you think I'm "cynical"? And let's not even talk about "mindless slapstick violence". BMK (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"They say television encourages violence. Yet here I am slamming his face into the refrigerator, and we haven't even got one!" And personally, I would rather have one BMK than 150 "yes, admins are so brilliant, I couldn't agree with them more!" types (do they exist?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was gonna say that the clip reminded me of The Young Ones, but now I see that that was Rik Mayall as well. BMK (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brother you had protected the article Akhtar Raza Khan because there were copyright violations.

I made draft on the subject which is free from any copyright infrigmentation.It is sourced with a good no of 3rd party sources.I have been working on it since 4 months.

Therefore I request you to please unprotect its creation.So that the draft may be moved to the namespace article.

Thanks.Ejaz92 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejaz92: I see the draft has already been declined multiple times. When you have submitted a draft that is accepted, that would be a suitable time to consider unprotecting the main page. Also @Sarahj2107: who has asked the same question elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best.I am waiting with this procedure since more than 4 months.You may yourself check the sources they are verifiable 3rd party sources.The subhect is well notable.Apart from these I have many Hindi and Urdu language sources on the talk page of the draft.

Please do somthing.......Either unprotect or review the draft......I will be very thankful to you.....Ejaz92 (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this isn't my area of expertise at all, so I'm not sure I could really do anything to help. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terraced houses in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waterloo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}