User talk:Ritchie333

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

This is Ritchie333's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142: 21 days

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.

Question from Zimkhitha Mabentsela on Paul Swarbrick (14:02, 13 October 2025)

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]

Question from TheFlyingPhysicist (00:39, 14 October 2025)

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]

Hey

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]

Regarding the recent revert in Pink Floyd

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]

Question from Sbanerjee.gorabazar (16:12, 19 October 2025)

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]

Re your recent RFC on user talk page size

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]

Question from Yuvina2020 (04:29, 22 October 2025)

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]

Lauryn Goodman

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]

Admin action request

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]

Edit warring

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]

Roxy Music

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]

Question from RWJOHN (16:18, 24 October 2025)

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]

Question from Gl9flores (13:07, 25 October 2025)

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]

BFDI deletion review

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]

Question from Mykyta Ageyev (18:27, 27 October 2025)

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]

Question from Dr Jitender Gill (14:21, 30 October 2025)

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]

Guide to temporary accounts

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

Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

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

How to use Special:IPContributions
How automatic IP reveal works
How to use IP Info
How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

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