Ritchie333

[Dysklyver]

Personally I think a lot of Wikipedians read this site but simply would never admit to it, not that they admit to reading any of the other sites anyway.

[Graaf Statler]

Of course!
Look, every critic in the wiki world on the WMF products, on Wikipediocrazy, and even on Proboard gets mute. That is a part of there propaganda machine.
Of course this is for them a bad site, and if you admits in public you are reading Sucks you are out. Because there it is where the real trolls are, the blocked users, the vandals etc.
It's a part of there astroturfing, Wikipediocrazy is the critical site, controlled by uncle Jack. He determined what criticism is allowed and what is not, critic on Jimmy is always allowed because he has done it. It is all his fault.
What is course rediciles, because he is only a small part of the whole wiki story. A important part, but a rather small part compering to the rest. Why do you think the keep on telling he is the only founder? So they can blame him! And only him! It a smear campagne.

[CrowsNest]

Jeez.

There's an even better example just today at User talk:Mate Bulic Fakjea. Here's someone who's fairly clearly trying to edit in good faith but who's never had the complicated intersection of BLP and RS explained to them, and has been met with a talkpage full of gobbledegook templates and ultimately blocked (and now I have someone baying for my blood at WP:AN for refusing to remove his talk page access altogether because he became frustrated at the block and said A Bad Word). ‑ Iridescent 23:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As I think OR is aware (probably more than most now), pretty much every instance of me being dragged off to ANI has a root cause in an incident like the one described above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey dumbass, you realise we can read this shit, right?

If you're gonna tell self-serving lies, try to pick ones that aren't easy to debunk. IIRC there's a single diff out there where someone got so sick of your habit of misremembering what happens to you, they even summarised the reasons you get dragged to AN/I. I don't recall it being anything like the way you tell it.

And stop trying to muscle in on Drmies' wiki-girkfriend, you cock-blocker!

[CrowsNest]

If it's a biography of a woman you want improving, you need the Megalibrarygirl whistle. *Phweeeep* Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Whistling for a woman editor's attention?

Is he doing this deliberately?

Nobody is that dumb.

[Dysklyver]

If it's a biography of a woman you want improving, you need the Megalibrarygirl whistle. *Phweeeep* Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Whistling for a woman editor's attention?

Is he doing this deliberately?

Nobody is that dumb.

I think we need to objectively think about it.

[CrowsNest]

You ever have one of those days that you have to apologise for being an asshole? Ritchie has one nearly every day, it's just rare for him to actually be asked to apologise, much less do so. Sort of.

And what makes any of those reliable or third party? I've dropped in something from Retro Computing News, but ntnu.no is self-published (though an excellent source IMHO and one I have known about for about 20+ years), a wordpress.com obviously doesn't have any editorial standard, I've already added numerous citations to crashonline, what makes wizwords.net and nonowt.com reliable sources? Unless, of course you're arguing that our reliable sources policies are dumb, idiotic and counter-productive against experts, in which case bring it on - I just don't think enough people will agree with you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Ritchie333:, thank you for your reply. As someone who was in good faith trying to help you out, I deem your words unnecessarily hurtful and with a flair of ad homenem. Good luck with the article --Coin945 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you ever have one of those days where nothing seems to go right? :-/ The point I was trying to make is I've tried most of those sources, but I just don't have the confidence that any of them will "stick" and not make people complain about them for spurious reasons. That was what I meant by "bring it on" ie: if we can get more people to inject some common sense into some of the sourcing guidelines instead of treating them like dogma, the project will be improved. I did keep your additions, I just copyedited them a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Most likely Ritchie has borked an article here, dumping reliable sources (blogs are reliable in certain contexts) while chancing his arm by including stuff he knows is 100% unacceptably sourced, because he finds the policy inconvenient. Can't be bothered to look into it to that depth, the astonishingly tone deaf comment from a guy who once claimed he was all about editor retention, is enough for me.

Back to his best for 2019, he is one of the few people who actually took a festive holiday. Probably too pissed to edit, sharing stories with Eric Corbett in the Rat & Ferret.

[CrowsNest]

Dumbass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =877548049

Put Ritchie in charge, the Wikipedia database would be 90% hidden comment text.

What an utter fuckwit.

[CrowsNest]

What a despicable prick this guy is.....

Any talk about "free speech" is a red herring; this is a private website and there are things you should definitely not say on Wikipedia (try saying "I'd like to upload my collection of child pornography to Commons, what's the best category to use" and see how far "free speech" gets you when the police pay you a visit). .......Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The only red herring here was this totally off the wall introduction of a comparison of an RfA vote to a highly illegal and thoroughly reprehensible act.

You might presume the reason he stooped this low was because he was talking about someone who had messed up one of his RfAs and he is just getting all worked up like he does, the sad little addict, but in all honesty, Ritchie is just such a fuckwit, he is perfectly capable of saying something as grossly inappropriate like this at any time, in any situation.

[CrowsNest]

Since Ritchie is at least aware Commons exists, why the fuck is he illustrating Wikipedia articles with his shitty images, replacing a Commons image with a locally uploaded no less, when Commons has a bunch of far superior images.....

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Meeting_Place,_St_Pancrass

What a fuckwit.

I literally cannot believe someone as clueless about such a basic aspect of article writing, not only managed to become an Administrator, but actually lectures others on how important it is that they posses content creation experience.

What experience was he drawing on here? Where did he ever learn that this sort of vanity driven episode of article degradation, was remotely acceptable?

[CrowsNest]

What the fuck?....

If I might give one piece of advice - don't say "improved phrasing / punctuation", just say "changed phrasing / punctuation". "Improved" carries the implication that whoever wrote the old prose was an uneducated dingbat; whether it is or not, just improve the encyclopedia without rubbing people's noses in it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Just when you think this guy cannot possibly be dumber than he already has been.

I'm all for WP:CIVIL, but if this ridiculously precious interpretation of a word like 'improved' is his new standard, there are about a million blocks he should have placed for far worse examples of people throwing shade, but didn't. Usually because 'content creator'.

The Wikipedia of Ritchie is where you can quite easily get away with "revert childlike writing" as if you never in a million years intended to imply the author was a simpleton. It is a Wikipedia where they barely even acknowledge that personal attacks are merely a sub-genre of incivility, not an alternate name.

I genuine scratched my head at his new found interpretation of the Rules of Decorum, until I realised what should have been obvious for this hypocrite ... the dude he is advising must have been "improving" Ritchie's text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

As such, all of his asshole mates can rest assured, he won't be applying this interpretation to their conduct.

Once again, I am amazed at the thought he seems to think the outside world can't see what he does. Although on that score, not for nothing does he seem to genuinely fear he is, in reality, an uneducated dingbat.