User talk:Ritchie333

two AfC questions

Hello Ritchie, I have the same request of you, as of Anup.  :-)   User_talk:Anupmehra#also.2C_please_revisit_this_one_WT:Articles_for_creation.2FSapience_.28software.29

  The article prose needs a severe rewrite, but the sources clearly exist to demonstrate the corporatin is notable (as opposed to their eponymous product ... this article is written like it was about the software but actually it should be rewritten to be about the company). I would suggest pushing this into mainspace, if VirtualAvi agrees, and let the NPP and AfD folks rewrite the contents to fix the tone, stick to the sources, and so on. Does this sound reasonable?

The version of the submission I declined said pretty much nothing about what the company did. That's now been added, but the information is unsourced. If you want to put it into mainspace, I won't object, but if it goes to AfD, somebody will need to explain what's going on to the article's creator. I generally don't like company articles that put too much attention on the founders and the turnover - as you can see above, I gave Red Brick Road a thorough going over to highlight what I thought was the most notable accomplishment (creating a nationally famous slogan) up front. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  p.s. While I'm in the neighborhood, can you give me an opinion on the Duromac article, if you have fifteen minutes? It is borderline, and we've got about four-and-a-half people saying it meets WP:GNG, but about four other folks say it isn't quite there yet. Here is my nice-n-tidy analysis[1] of the sources for Duromac, and here is the article.[2] Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! That looks like a lot of work. A supplier of commercial and military vehicles might be notable, or it might not. I'll have to get back to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Blur (band): problems of neutrality

You helped this article to get GA where as there is a important problem of WP:NPOV concerning facts that are easy to check via the site Billboard.com. I explained the problem and proposed a solution on the talk of the article. This needs to be fixed quickly. Woovee (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be fixed quickly and I agree with Indigopud's assessment in the article's history. Chill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review reminder

Hopefully you're busy with gigs... but a reminder that you started a GA review of Tommy Flanagan; I've dealt with most of your initial comments. EddieHugh (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about this - I need an hour in front of a desktop PC to close this off, which. I just haven't had (as well as gigs, I'm also writing stuff for the radio now which eats into spare time easily). I will hope to get the review finished by close of play today. Sorry about the wait! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Benjamin Clementine

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Hansel and Gretel in 3D for deletion

Don't template the regulars
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hansel and Gretel in 3D is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hansel and Gretel in 3D (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions on whether the article stays or goes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Sinclair

Hi & Happy New Year! It seems that there's consensus for creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sinclair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Sinclair. Are you still up for it? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. I don't mind the project being created (after all, I created Mined-Out, an excellent example of a new article this project should support, only a few days ago), but there's been very little interest, and I don't want to be the main / sole contributor to the project. Possibly we could create it, but have a fallback option of collapsing it down to a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games if things don't pan out. How does that sound? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  Hmm. Being just one of just a few people concentrating on it would be far from ideal, I agree. Perhaps the proposal should just be left until there's more support then - I'm not sure what's best. As for a potential task force, the subject matter would presumably encompass more than games alone, so wouldn't a task force of WP:COMP be more appropriate than WP:VG? (Happy to take this to the proposal page for further discussion, where others might chime in too one day.) Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Leaving the proposal as is on the back burner sounds like a good idea, and probably the root cause of why the proposal has sat undiscussed for a year. Some relevant articles go into WP:COMP, such as ZX Interface 1, Opus Discovery or Multiface, so possibly a task force, or at least one on a single project, would be inappropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Beatles' rooftop concert

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Great job you and Gabe, our resident groovy 60s editors! 45th anniversary today!! You should definitely upload a fair use image of The Beatles' rooftop concert a historic event, the external photo today isn't enough. Done..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Here is me looking groovy I'm not a fan of tackling fair use images, simply because it's far easier to do a Google image search and get a much richer selection. There are always creative ways round these things - Pink Floyd at Pompeii uses nothing but free images outside the infobox, by having the clear nous and foresight to film in a public place and use artwork from a public museum. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hehe I watched In Like Flint the other day and felt really groovy man. In Floyd's case though you have a poster of the event. One photo or poster or whatever I really think is needed in the way a fair use CD cover is used for albums etc but I agree that other than that it's best to be creative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think exchanges like this and this are also a reason I avoid discussions about non-free images. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Re Article on Yogacharya Tapan Bose

Hi There Ritchie,

I added some references and yet have not seen article approved.

Please check article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kriya_Yoga_Guru_Yogacharya_Tapan_Bose

Perhaps you can help edit it a bit. I made the changes needed and gave citations too.

If there are tiny issues you have my permission to make the appropriate semantic and form changes.

Thanks

LAKULISH — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAKULISH (talk • contribs) 08:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your article wasn't submitted in the queue. I've now done this, so hopefully somebody will take a look at it soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A few things

Aloha. Thanks for commenting on Talk:John Barrowman. I will have a followup question for you shortly, so please keep an eye on your notifications. I want to point out (FYI) that your comment on Flyer22's talk page at 18:34 missed a few things, but this is not necessarily your fault.[3] First of all, you were a little late. Just under a day prior to you saying "You need to file an RFC/U", I informed Flyer22 that I was working on a draft RfC in my userspace.[4] I'm not sure if I will file it just yet as it is a work in progress. Second of all, you've said that you aren't going to file it yourself because your views "align closer to John's" and that you "see where he's coming from". Well, you may want to be careful there. Flyer22 and myself have been strong critics of the Daily Mail. However, the community has maintained that these kinds of sources may still be considered reliable depending on their context (for example, an interview with a celebrity journalist) and their content (such as uncontroversial and matter of fact statements). More to the point, John's position on this matter was discussed last September and the community explained to him why it was wrong.[5] He refused to back down. John's views on this matter, therefore, are not just out of sync with the community, but lack consensus. Editors cannot create private blacklists of sources they personally do not like and then willfully remove those sources from every article. There is no policy or guideline that supports that kind of disruptive behavior. Finally, John has falsely claimed that there were BLP violations (there were not) and he edit warred while threatening to block editors as an involved admin in the dispute he created. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• In terms of the article, I think I am happy with your proposals. As far as John (talk · contribs) is concerned, I didn't see any issue when I reviewed the individual sources in Talk:Brad Pitt, and there is a good argument to make that his methods of working get results and make an article better - would John Barrowman have received this level of attention to detail and improvements otherwise? I would urge you to focus on the content wherever possible and not get distracted by what other editors have done. I don't believe he is in principle against you filing an RFC / RFC/U - at least it will get the conversation out in the open, rather than squirrelled away on some user talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ritchie333 for your thoughts. I try always to follow through with promises so I would have to block Viriditas if they again restored tabloid sourcing to a BLP in contravention of WP:BLPSOURCES. I am curious to know why you think I would be INVOLVED in this instance, as I removed the offending material in an administrative capacity. The community elected me in 2006 to enforce policy, and unless or until WP:BLPSOURCES is repealed or watered down, I intend to enforce it too. On the other hand, if you think it helpful, I could post any block at WP:AN/I for review. I would greatly prefer not to have to block this user who I suspect is well-intentioned, and my preferred outcome would be that better sources be found to support the material this user wishes to add. The idea of holding a community RfC to reconfirm our existing policy on not using tabloid journalism on BLPs also wouldn't do any harm. I see quite a number of mis-statements in Viriditas's comments above, and it may be worth taking into consideration that this user has some kind of axe to grind. Me, I am just upholding our standards, and protecting our project and the subjects of our biographical articles. Take care, --John (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • John, you are mistaken on every point, which tells me you still don't understand the situation. There has been absolutely no BLP violation of any kind nor have you been able to show that there has been one. You have falsely stated there was a BLP violation, followed by your failure to follow BRD, your subsequent edit warring, and a warning by yourself, an involved admin, that I could be blocked, followed by your statement here and in other places that you would in fact act as an involved admin and use your tools in a content dispute. To make matters worse, this is not the first time you have done this. You were corrected by the community in September 2013 that your understanding and interpretation of BLP and RS was in error and you have failed to correct your continuing misunderstanding. John, the evidence is clear. You have willfully and deliberately ignored the consensus on this matter and you have implemented your own personal "blacklist" against policy, which has led you to remove sources and their corresponding content across Wikipedia on no solid evidentiary or policy basis other than your own pet beliefs and unilateral action supported by your threats to use your tools against editors who disagree with your rogue administration. I am curious as to what kind of "axe" I could have to grind here, John, or do you not understand that idiom? You have not responded to any substantive points on this matter nor have you responded directly to any questions about your actions. Does this need to go to ANI, RFC, or straight to arbcom? Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmm. I wonder if you are claiming to have telepathic abilities, as you impute so many opinions to me that I do not hold. By all means, you are welcome to take me to any sort of dispute resolution noticeboard that you see fit. Regarding axes, I am extremely flattered in a way but worry that you may be over-personalising things just a little with this tottering monstrosity. To be absolutely clear, my involvement with the John Barrowman article begins and ends with making sure that you and others do not add content sourced to tabloids onto an article on a living person. You would do well to realise that. Be well. --John (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
        • John, you're wrong as usual. I haven't added any content sourced to "tabloids" into any BLP, and frankly, I don't give a damn about your involvement in the John Barrowman article. My concern begins and ends with bringing you to the attention of the community and seeing that you are sanctioned for creating a personal blacklist of sources against the consensus of the community based on your own misinterpretation of BLP policy and RS guidelines. Your position on this matter is not just in the minority, it isn't supported by any consensus anywhere, and your interpretation of BLPSOURCES and how we evaluate sources has been shown to be completely at odds with how we use them. John, you do not get to unilaterally implement your wild interpretation of policy on this site. I hope that's clear, because you will not be allowed to get away with it. Keep threatening to use your tools and block me John, as that will only provide more diffs for me to use against you. See you on the noticeboards, RFC, arbcom, etc. as I'm willing to go as far as necessary to stop you. Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Aha, so are you claiming that this edit which added material sourced to The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and Metro, as well as the Daily Mail, and for which I quite properly warned you, was made by your little brother or something similar? Or perhaps I am wrong as usual... --John (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
            • John, you did not discuss your edits on the talk page. You "warned" me that you would act as an involved admin during a content dispute, a dispute that you have been waging unilaterally against consensus. When dragged to the talk page kicking and screaming, you failed to address a single point raised, instead trying to change the subject. It's difficult to take you seriously, John. If you want to discuss the use of The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and Metro, then you are welcome to use the convenient subheadings I created for that purpose. For some reason, those areas of the talk page continue to remain blank and devoid of your input. John, what you are doing is unacceptable and does not conform to any policy or guideline. You do not get to personally implement your own source blacklist against consensus. That's not how Wikipedia works. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
              • I'm really sorry but I am struggling to maintain a belief in your good faith here, and it isn't fair to clutter Ritchie's talk page with this discussion, so this will be my last reply here, though I do not rule out discussing it further elsewhere. An admin does not become involved by acting in an administrative capacity, as I did when I removed tabloid sourcing from a BLP per policy, and I did again when I warned you for the edit I highlighted above which you made restoring the poor sources (assuming you aren't really claiming it was your little brother!). I am sorry you find it so infuriating to be pulled up for your mistake, but mistake it was. There's really nothing to discuss regarding The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and the Metro as they are unambiguously tabloids and therefore unambiguously cannot be used in the way that the article was using them before I removed them. The Sun claim was particularly egregious. Thank you for not restoring these claims, as that would have been unambiguously block-worthy. I see you are claiming that SELFSOURCE applies to the waffle from the Mail, and maybe it does. I won't block over that, but if you are so confident of your case, what would be the harm of opening it up to a wider discussion? I won't press you further on the various other false claims you have made, as I don't see any benefit in further embarrassing you and I recognise there may be competency issues here. We all make mistakes, and that is how you learn, if you are able to acknowledge them as such. But that is your responsibility, not mine. Be well, --John (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)