User talk:Ritchie333

Keeping an eye on stuff. Meanwhile, here is some music.

Your GA nomination of West Pier

The article West Pier you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:West Pier for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. --Biblioworm 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry; just joking! I just Passed the nomination a few minutes ago, but I had some difficulties getting the topic on the talk page's GA tag correct. Apologies if I made the review complicated and frustrating. I should consider making my own GA review survial t-shirt. ;) Regards, --Biblioworm 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you lucky I've got a sense of humour ;-) .... seriously, the best way I found to close off GA reviews is to copy and paste the original "page", "topic" and "subtopic" fields off the opening template, which keeps it all in sync. You'd have thought that somebody would have done a Twinkle-type widget for all this. I seem to recall Technical 13 or someone like that was pondering about writing it. Anyway, thanks for a good review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? Please refresh my memory. I know I did some stuff to fix expensive parser function issues on the GAN page, but I don't remember all the details or what I planned to do moving forward. If there is interest in a script, I'm willing to research and put something together. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• I can't for the life of me remember; it's buried somewhere in the WT:GAN archives. A button that's like the AFCH tool for AfC submissions would be an absolute godsend, and the spec for what files you need to change and when is pretty straight forward; if you poke the talk page templates in the right order, the GA bot can pretty much handle everything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of West Pier

The article West Pier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:West Pier 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 Biblioworm -- Biblioworm (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Response about alleged personal attacks

I just came across where you told me: "Now now, less of the personal attacks, young man."

I did not make any personal attacks. I said nothing personal at all. I said that a competent reviewer would have to do an actual review. That's always true of every nomination. I did not say that you were incompetent. Yes, there was an implication that your "review" was incompetently done, although I didn't explicitly say it. Well, let me say it explicitly now: your "review" was incompetently done. Please note: pointing out that an incompetently done review was done incompetently is not a personal attack.

Urgh. I really don't want to dredge this up again, but I'm afraid I'll have to rehash the whole thing, so I can refute the "personal attacks" claim.

There are many items which a DYK reviewer should check and mention in the review as having been checked, such as the article's age, size, neutrality, citations, and copyvio check. Your only notation: "Article is brand new". Other than erroneously dismissing the original hook, which I discuss below, that is the entirety of what you mention as being reviewed.

You did "review" the original hook (... that according to The Guardian, Ed Miliband's awkward eating of a bacon sandwich could have been because it was a bread roll and not sliced bread?), saying "the hook is misleading, all The Guardian actually says is Nigel Farage is better at eating sandwiches, with the roll / slice comment being ancillary. So let's go with ALT1 ... that The Guardian thinks Nigel Farage is better at eating a bacon sandwich than Ed Miliband?"

According to the article, "The Guardian said that the sliced bread which Farage ate was easier to eat than the bread roll which Miliband had." The source says: "Keen observers will notice the sliced bread of the Farage sandwich arguably makes it an easier handful than Miliband's roll." How is the original hook misleading? It restates what's in the article, which seems to fairly accurately restate what's in the source.

As for your proposed ALT1, there was absolutely nothing even slightly resembling that in the article, in violation of one of the most fundamental DYK rules. And perhaps the most important DYK rule of all is that a hook fact must be verifiable by the reliable source for which there's an inline citation. But this source (and I can only determine it's the source you intended from the context of your comments, since the "fact" doesn't appear in the article and thus has no inline citation), a four-sentence blog, only vaguely, sort of, obliquely, kind of, almost hinted at it. The only remotely relevant passage states that "Nigel Farage couldn't miss an opportunity to show him how it's done."

Then, to make matters much worse, you approved the nomination with your own faulty hook. This is precisely why reviewers should never approve their own hooks. It seemed as though you were so tickled at the prospect of getting your hook on the Main Page that you completely abandoned the idea of doing any sort of actual review.

After I posted to WT:DYK about the issue, you responded, "I'll go write 100 lines saying 'I must not be funny on the main page'." This is what really solidified my questioning of your competence in reviewing this. I had explained the specific problems with your hook, and you responded as though the problem was just that you were trying to get a funny hook on the Main Page.

There is a small but very vocal group of users who strongly disapprove of humorous hooks on the Main Page. I am not among them. Such hooks are fine with me, as long as all DYK rules are followed. Since there is opposition to such hooks, reviews for them should be done especially meticulously.

Rather than taking responsibility for your mistakes, you attempted to shift part of the blame to the set builder, and even to EEng for not offering a second opinion. Yes, ideally the set builder would have caught the problems, but the most important component in the DYK machine is the reviewer, and I can't fault the set builder too much for erroneously trusting that an adequate review had been done. And saying that you'd asked EEng for a second opinion seemed to be disingenuous; it certainly appears that you were not asking for a second opinion about your hook or your "review", but rather simply wanting him to come up with a funnier hook.

Can you honestly look at all of this objectively without realizing that your "review" and your response to the problems could, indeed, be seen as having been handled incompetently?

Sorry to have gone through this again, but I felt I had to defend myself regarding the alleged "personal attacks". I have absolutely nothing against you, and I'm sure you're an otherwise fine editor, but in this case, you really bungled. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Woah, calm down a notch. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things - there's no libel, defamation, blatant hoaxes, just a mistake. We all make them! You're not helping your cause by using words like "incompetent", "questioning of your competence" and I'm not "shifting blame" on anybody - rather this is a collaborative project and we all need to work together. That means when somebody screws up (and now I'm an admin I've pulled DYK hooks from the main page having seen reports on WP:ERRORS myself), you fix it, then you move on. Pointing fingers around doesn't really help anyone. I will say though that the atmosphere on DYK talk (that you're not to blame for) is rather unpleasant at the moment, and has put me off DYK for a bit. Big hugs and make up? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No need for me to "calm down". I've remained calm throughout. Those snippets are out of context; please note that I never said that I questioned your competence in general, but only with this issue, based on the way you responded: I posted about specific problems and you basically replied, "okay I won't do something entirely unrelated". Surely you can see how such a disconnected response could lead me to believe that you didn't understand what the problems were. Maybe you understood and were just trying to be funny, but I can only go by what you actually said. Honestly, it seemed as though the subject just made you so giddy that all that mattered was making a funny hook and giving funny replies. Above, you omitted an important step. You fix it, make sure the user understands what they did wrong so they don't do it again, then move on.

Thank you for acknowledging that I'm not to blame for the WT:DYK situation. If what I've said could be interpreted even remotely as being similar in any way to that garbage, I sincerely apologize. Of course, it's litterally a lovefest over there now compared to what it was last year. The unrelenting toxic environment then – what I refer to as the "Dark Days of DYK" – was so bad that, even though none of it was directed at me or anything I did, it drove me away, not only from DYK, but from Wikipedia entirely, for nine weeks (which is a very long time for me). I think some of the others who were driven away are still gone.

Also no need to "make up"; we weren't fighting. Besides, from looking around, I see that you seem to be friends with Drmies, and any friend of the doc's is a friend of mine. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Because you have no more space for another GA badge. Esquivalience t 22:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duke (album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Duke (album) 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 Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Manohar hospital

Actually, I've just noticed that the Manohar hospital article is possibly a recreation of something deleted at AfD - see discussion. That would qualify it for speedy deletion now. I think I had better add it to my watchlist in case the thing reappears. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Well since a G4 only applies if the article is substantially identical to the one deleted at AfD, if you do a complete rewrite (eg: Ultra Rare Trax) or plug in a redirect instead with justification, you can usually get away with it in my experience. Hospital articles are a mixed bag, British ones with a full A&E department seem to be always kept (eg: William Harvey Hospital, Frimley Park Hospital), private ones less so. No idea about Indian ones at all, hence why I thought you'd know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I am a mere minion and so cannot compare/contrast. That said, the creator was the same person and there is so little that can be said about the thing that the articles almost certainly were substantially identical. India has both public- and private-run hospitals. The latter are the ones that tend to try to use WP for publicity/promotion, for obvious reasons, and they're also often rather dubious in their medical practices, which probably isn't helped by the number of degree mills and the ease with which it is possible to buy fake degree certificates that claim to have been issued by reputable universities. The thing has been protected for a short period, so I will await developments!

BTW, I went in the Jolly Farmer not long before it closed. One of my brothers was married somewhere not too far from there and I was short of something to do the night before. He'd paid for me to stay at that ridiculously expensive hotel where the England rugby team trained (> £300 a night then) but a B&B and someone with whom to gab would have suited me better. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Frank

Thanks for your support, - my question about the spirit of the restriction was not answered, well, I asked only the user who raised it. - I expressed my view that arbcom should apologize to Eric for the GGTF case caused by baiting him, - but who am I speaking about the spirit of restrictions ;) - Just don't say "honest", - everything should be honest without a label ;) - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'd intended to work on this a bit earlier, but had promised to help someone with something else just before you started this article. A shame that so many restaurants and clubs like this have closed their doors; it's good that we can create articles for them here so there can be some type of an idea what the restaurant was like and why it was important. Thanks again! We hope (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Persistent admiration

Can live without that, and saw it on other users also, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Wickedly Welsh Chocolate

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds wery ritch! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Boom-boom! Very good, Gerda :) - Sitush (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Today, we think of spirit ;) - yesterday I discussed the "spirit of restrictions" and asked an arb (who supported my appeal) how precisely I "improved" (while I believe that I didn't change, and don't plan to change). I will go and tell Eric that he and I have now one more thing in common: a TFA on 31 May ;) - I still remember an uneasy feeling passing Precious to him three years ago, to some remote pinnacle with a Latin name at that time. Did you know that he came down to human on my talk in 2013? Look for "Malleus" and find "Have to warn you though that I'm not really a Wikipedian, have never been a Wikipedian, and I scare away women, children and new editors. Allegedly. But I'll try and be gentle." (and he always was to me), "The length of the infobox vs. the length of the lead is a factor that seems to have been largely ignored in all of the recent "discussions"." and "The reason I asked was because I'm thinking of adding my real name to my user page. ... I think a little more openness might go a long way." (Inviting Callanec and Liz, just to read, also DeltaQuad, as mentioned) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Cricket

Ritchie333 I need some help and advice.

This really is a worthy addition to wiki.

You know my husband has been blocked by a certain user, for editing Lichfield CC's wiki page. I have seen hard copies of the claim he made about Australian Test Cricketer Keith Miller AM MBE playing in the Chauntry Cup. Please would you take the time to look at http://www.cricketworld.com/media/files/chauntrycup.pdf Column 6 Paragraph 6. My dear old husbands' edits were deleted immediately whenever he cited this document or made any claim about this article. Would you please read the whole piece and if you think anything is worthy of addition on Wiki, would you be kind enough to add it?. I know that if I do it, that certain user will have me blocked straight away as a sock puppet. I just want an experienced but impartial viewer to read this piece. Also, if you search for the Chauntry Cup on the "tube of You ness", you will see that Sky Sports believe my husband, in his claim that the Chauntry Cup, actually is the oldest 20/20 in the world. I don't want you to be accused of being a sock puppet as I have, so I fully understand if you don't want to get involved. I really appreciate your interest in the Cup and find it amazing that YOUR edits are not challenged by this individual but my husbands are. Thanking you in advance. Jo JoanneB123 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned on my talkpage yesterday, I supported it being included with the source. The problem was that they didn't add the source the first time, and then when I said the source was fine, all they did was call me stupid, and question my ability to read, instead of actually readding it, like both of us wanted. See User talk:Joseph2302#the chauntry cup and this, which didn't add the source.

@JoanneB123: I don't want to argue about it again, I agree with Keith Miller being added, as long as the source is added too. But don't accuse me of things that aren't true- I rejected it because no reference was provided, and then your husband chose not to readd it, instead he decided to argue and attack me on my talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, the assertion that I got him blocked is wrong- he repeatedly claimed that his only purpose for being on Wikipedia was to promote the Chauntry Cup, and so an admin decided to block him. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The British Newspaper Archive has lots of scans of the Lichfield Mercury, so I dare say the unreferenced content can actually be cited to those if somebody with a subscription (that'll be muggins here I guess) has a look. Not now, I'm off to bed, maybe tomorrow. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The source for Keith Miller playing is here- all editors (me, Joanne, Dartman & socks) agree it should be added. The rest of the above is just a rerun of claims that a Dartman sock made yesterday against me, all of which I've refuted. I agree with it being added, just actually add it instead of making false accusations against me instead. Also, I'm not sure the exact text to be added, as I don't want it to be WP:UNDUE- after all, this is an article about Lichfield Cricket Club not just the Chauntry Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well this diff shows you removing that content with an edit summary of "no source that Keith played in Chauntry Cup" which contradicts exactly what you've just said. And aside from a copyedit, that's your last contribution to the article. So, I'm sorry Joseph, but you seem to be more interested in biting newbies and stirring up trouble than improving articles. I'm hardly surprised Dartman has been getting cross with you, you've just parroted policy rather than help him. Now, as The Colonel said, stop that, it's silly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: They only provided the source after I removed the text, and then I accepted it should be readded, see User talk:Joseph2302#the chauntry cup- but they didn't bother readding it. Have you seen the abuse they gave me on my talkpage- I'm not biting the newbies, I'm defending myself against an abusive sockpuppet. FWIW, I think Joanne will make has the potential to make a good Wikipedia editor, as long as she stops being a mouthpiece for her husband. Every action that her husband has taken towards me is to abuse me and call me stupid, and the post above is saying the same thing. Also, if you read Talk:Lichfield Cricket Club, I provided the source for someone else to add, I didn't do it myself since I believed that sockpuppets should not be dictating content.

And I strongly believe in improving articles, but Wikipedians should be able to work with other users, something that Dartman/LichfieldCC didn't do, and got blocked for not doing (that an explicitly stating multiple times they were here only to promote). Cricket articles in particular I like improving. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, 2 of the 3 users who supported @JoanneB123:'s unblock (me and @OhNoitsJamie:) supported it on the condition that they stayed away from the Chauntry Cup. I'm happy for the Chauntry Cup section to be expanded, but not by Dartman socks- I don't have access to the BMA, but these additions were good. I don't want a full article about it, listing every winner in a massive table though, like The Chauntry Cup article that was creates. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Even so, as an experienced editor, you need to keep a cool head. If somebody says "you're wrong", don't answer back. Text-based communication is hard to convey emotion, and it's so easy for misunderstandings to escalate into fully-fledge warfare. Provided a new user shows evidence of wanting to improve an article and shows evidence they want to do it the right way, I'll extend as much slack as possible. I have to say I'm not really a fan of our sockpuppetry policy and activities, it's too far removed from the end product of creating content and trying to block every Russavia or Best known for IP sock ever is like Cnut trying to tell the tide to stop coming in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to extend huge amounts of slack to the original Dartman/Lichfield at The Chauntry Cup, but the fact is Wikipedia policy says they shouldn't be creating new accounts. Also, is there something specific that you consider as "answering back"- I feel all my responses were justified, and aggressive behaviour towards is is never acceptable, newbie or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I personally found "your blatant, constant telling me I'm wrong seems to be the exact same mentality as the users who created the article and got blocked, you're not a sockpuppet are you?" to be an unlikely piece of writing to lead to a peaceful conclusion of a debate. Now, I've really got to get The Nice copyedited in shape for a GA, so I'll duck out there and wish you happy editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duke (album)

The article Duke (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Duke (album) 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 Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Neil's "idiot" comment

A pony, yesterday

Some buscruft. Notice the ponies have carefully disguised themselves not to appear in the picture.

He called himself an idiot, not any other user. You could've asked him directly before attempting to fuel the fires at his RfA. Alakzi (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not fuelling any fires, I just want to hear his explanation. I assumed it was banter and there was a reason for it, and I'm certain I've said worse myself, but I'm cautious that new visitors at the Teahouse may not pick up on that. I have not made up my mind which way to !vote yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a playful, self-deprecating "I'm an idiot" for having made four consecutive edits (presumably typos or somesuch). He did not call another editor an idiot, so you should consider reframing your question - if not retract it, which would be wiser. Alakzi (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If NeilN is as good as an administrator candidate as everyone says he is, he will answer it courteously and politely without issue, and I will be a happy chappy. What is on my mind currently is the drama with the latest Eric Corbett block. I am very specifically thinking of this scenario and making absolutely sure Neil will not fall into the same trap in 12 - 18 months' time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Neil will respond courteously; I've not come here to defend Neil, but to express my concern with your judgment, for having posed the question, and - now - for refusing to retract it. I don't know what the comment you linked to is about. Alakzi (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You're complaining about something you don't understand. However, I'd like to thank you for your edits on Folkestone bus station as I've just found this news piece that I'm sure EEng can help me work into a fine DYK if we just put our minds to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you can find enough more material to solve the notability problem, I can probably come up with something. It shows promise but for the moment I'm drawing a blank. EEng (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And here's another bored pony for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the bus article is unsalvageable; so much so I've sent it to AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Blimey! Is this a first? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(watching) The comment (linked to) was refreshing a lone oppose during an RfA, which - looking at it now - seems like a good observation which I ignored then. The editor who quoted it was just named WER's editor of the week. - General observation: irony in written communication - such as calling oneself an idiot - is often misunderstood, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand Neil's message perfectly well. Are you implying that your question to him was disingenuous? Alakzi (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I am talking about. If you don't understand why I dislike admins blocking prolific content creators, even out of inexperience rather than malice, then that's a shame. I think our conversation is done, and I will see you around a TfD somewhere, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I dislike it too. What does it have to do with the question you asked Neil? Alakzi (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In case of interest, the candidate had no problem answering the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

.... and I'm happy with the answer and have !voted support. Now, are we finally all done with the conversation or would you like to help get the pony off the bus? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's become abundantly clear that I'm not gonna get a straight answer from you, so, yes, we're done. Alakzi (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's quite simple. If somebody says "hey, you called someone an idiot", do you attempt to quell the situation (as Neil did), or do you attempt to stir the pot? Now, take that scenario and apply it as follows, let's say somebody starts an ANI thread saying "Hey, I was edit warring on Kelpie and Eric Corbett told me to fuck off! Waaaaah!" Do you attempt to quell the situation, or do you say "Well, I don't give a flying toss how many FAs he has, saying "fuck" on Wikipedia is the absolute worst thing in the world ever, OMG block him now please!" I don't want an admin that does that. If you don't understand that, you run a serious risk of creating a massive drama-fest. So much for "like to see everybody here get along just a wee bit better." :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't want an admin who does that either; stop making suppositions, and stop taking digs at my words and work. The question you posed to Neil is inapplicable to the above scenario. Neil was playfully calling himself an idiot; there was no tension and no misunderstandings in his interaction with the other editor. What other possible answer would he have given you? Alakzi (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I happened to read this again, and I think I might've been unnecessarily argumentative with you. Apologies. Alakzi (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. It's text-based communication; we lose all sorts of subtleties when writing and our intent gets lost. I do have strong opinions and occasionally they come out of the woodwork, but they are always with the underlying intent to improve the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pete Townshend

I think I may have asked you this before, but would you like to collaborate to bring Pete Townshend to GA (possibly FA) sometime? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You did. I can do some of GA, but Townshend's articles covers far more than just The Who, and I'll need sources to do anything beyond about 1983, which covers tinnutus, White City, Psychoderelict, publishing for CSI and whatever else he's done outside of his main band. Probably a BLP minefield over his child pornography arrest too. First task - get rid of Mark Wilkerson's "Amazing Journey" - it's a self published source that's badly written and factually questionable. "Lacking the requisite test scores to attend university" - did he seriously contemplate going to university or did he just want to doss for a few years avoiding "real" work? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he did seriously consider going to university, though I would have to check the source first. He's very intelligent, probably one of the smartest rock stars, and it kind of surprises me that he didn't go to college. His post Who stuff needs some expansion, which is somewhat problematic since the article is already fairly long. I agree that the child porn charges are a minefield, though it should be mentioned (briefly). What is factually questionable about Amazing Journey? Also, is Who I Am a reliable source? I have a copy on my bookshelf, but I would hesitate using it for the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Amazing Journey was not released by a traditional publisher with any editorial control, some of the facts (I forget what exactly) are questionable, and there's an unpleasant POV about the whole thing. Who I Am is fine as a source, and I'd say its essential for this article. I'll have to grab a copy, I've heard its a fascinating read in its own right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty entertaining. There was one part that had me laughing out loud, where he gives his philosophy on groupies. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I came back and saw...

When the sun beats down and I lie on the bench and I think of the users I've mocked .... me, I'm just an admin, you can tell it by the way I block....

I would have opposed if I was present here during your RfA :-p Just kidding! Congrats, Ritchie. Thanks for volunteering, however, don't ignore the content work, it is one of the fields in which you're an expert. Best, Jim Carter 14:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a free country, you can lodge your oppose here instead. I have a vague aim to get 50 GAs before the summer is out, hopefully not all of them being old Genesis albums. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Old Genesis albums never die, they just find their way into the back of your wardrobe." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They say (well I do actually) that for every seven admins who are elected through RFA, one is actually worthy of the tools. Well, I just counted and you were number eight, making you a living proof that my theory is indeed correct. At last, one of the good guys enters the grizzly and murky world of adminship. Cassianto^Talk 11:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Thanks. I hope Drmies is one of the others. I have this sinking feeling I'm just going to bang heads with a lot of admins whose way of working I disagree with though :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

He is. Yes, plenty of head banging to come I'm sure. Call it "a perk of the job" ;) Cassianto^Talk 13:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If you were #8, I was #3. I guess we know where that leaves me! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

...a possible exception to the rule ;-) Cassianto^Talk 16:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

hi

I need someone to close my AN/I, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I had a look, and I don't really have sufficient experience in medical articles to be able to make a good decision. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks anyway--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for apostrophe abuse

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing from editing for disgracefully abusing punctuation marks, as you did here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Ritchie333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My brother did it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked. Go on, try and edit a page. HA HA fooled you!

Had you considered using the Grocer's Teahouse Process? We offer a more gentle way of leading you away from "bad apostrophe habits." (multiple bracket infringent's also considered) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

First, you should kneel in front of the blocking admin and confess that you sinned against the spirit of the community. Promises don't count. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ritchie333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My brother did it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Friends and relatives of greengrocers should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Bencherlite^Talk 10:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

These socks are a  Confirmed match

I am truly appalled and herewith resign in protest!! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, if you're not going to unblock me I'm just going to get my socks out instead. And believe me, they smell awful today. Anyway, now we've calmed down, could any of you help me beef up Draft:Dewtron so it's acceptable for mainspace. There seems to be very little in the way of reliable sources out there, but unreliable sources confirm that Mike Rutherford and Jon Anderson used their bass pedal synth, so there's got to be something out there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So first it's Genesis and now it's Dewtronomy?! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I can tell that you still didn't reach the proper state of repentance. Also didn't follow mom's advice to change socks daily. - You speak of article work? Really? No way before you confess. Lost content? Who cares? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I wear sandals, you know. I once wore shorts into the office too - that went down like a cup of bleach. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Way ta go, Threesie!! Shorts are all the rage in the bleachers. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Lo-Max Films

Since when has an article citing the NYT been eligable for A7? What a fatuous (and needlessly sarky)question: the cite is to an article about a film produced by this company. Doesn't make the company notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You should read the criteria for speedy deletion again carefully. Just because you think a company is not notable, it does not follow everyone else should share your views, in which case it's always best to file a full AfD debate and get a consensus. From my experience, a NYT source is usually sufficient to get at least a redirect from an AfD. Indeed, I made the same summary at Ruth Guler;[1] the tagger apologised and the article went to Did you Know? on the main page instead. Something to think about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments

A Request for Comments about the use of album covers is currently on at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. It would be greatly appreciated to have more opinions on the matter. Lewismaster (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thurso

Trying to get this over the line for GA with Sagacious. Can you see if you can find anything more on it? Lede could use expansion too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The best advice I can give is existing GA / FAs, most obviously the Towns in Trafford featured topic or Ashford, Kent and use those as requirements. I've added a Transport section, with a bit on the station and some buscruft. There's probably a bit more you can say about the station. There are too many images, or at least the placement of them isn't what I'd expect a GA to have. In all honesty, the lead is best left right until the very end - how do you know what to summarize if you haven't got all the data in front of you. The history section is glossed over, it does say the town was an important seaport, particularly under Norse rule, but I think that'll need to be fleshed out a bit - hopefully that's where Sagaciousphil can come in. I'm slogging away at Faversham at the moment which is taken forever to improve to GA standard, but if I get fed up with that I'll see if I can tackle this a bit more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'm an expert at writing city articles of course, but Thurso for some reason I couldn't find what I was hoping for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on discretionary sanction alert

It is my understanding that as long as I observe 1RR, I am in compliance with the conditions of the sanctions. I don't like editors who attempt to intimidate with templating and invalid 3RR reports when I am editing to current standards when they are editing to a decision that has not been made yet and IMO has only about a 50% chance of changing the existing standard, despite the numbers. Skyerise (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skyerise: The key problem I think is that every now and again we have moral panics on Wikipedia - this is one of them, Chelsea Manning was another, Scientology turns up every now and again and if I never hear the word "Gamergate" ever again I will be a happy man. Paul Graham has an excellent essay "What you can't say" which explores moral fashions in more depth. The only sane solution I've found is to state your view on the talk page as clearly as possible once then forget about it and work on another article until the heat dies down. I recall a similar incident here on Genesis P-Orridge where I did pretty much that - I see the style of pronouns has been changed back, but ... well worse things happen at sea. I agree with Drmies' comments here - you're a good editor with a solid track record in content, and I generally have all the time in the world for those sorts of people, so I would urge you not to become a martyr to the cause. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Katie Hopkins wiki regarding her contributions to Vive Charlie magazine

Hi Ritchie,

I'm a little confused as to why Katie Hopkins' articles in a magazine are not considered a good enough source to prove that she contributes to that magazine. It seems to be a circular trap. Surely the proof of this is the magazine(?).

Can you suggest sources, other than the primary source, that would prove the primary source to be true?

Nial Slain (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nial Slain: The best source would be an officially authorised biography of Katie Hopkins that received rave reviews in the national press, but such a source doesn't (as far as I know) exist. I've had a look through the article's history, and I'm trying to work out which edit removed a citation to this magazine. I don't recognise the title, so I'm not sure what its track record for fact checking and accuracy is. However, the Katie Hopkins article has serious ongoing BLP problems, in as much as it's far too easy to cite the next controversial remark that makes it to BBC News, The Guardian or the Daily Telegraph again and again, which turns the biography into too much of a hatchet job. With BLPs, just having a good quality source isn't enough, you also need to think "is the information I'm about to add vitally important to understanding this person"? It's obvious she has a reputation for provoking and upsetting people, anyone can see that! If in doubt - leave it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Important

Hi. I had nominated few article for Speedy Deletion per A7 criterion because they did not have any sources on article and on net as well so they failed WP:N. Thanks PawanAhuja (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@PawanAhuja: The best thing to do is then nominate them for deletion restating this in depth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel some articles are horribly poorly written and the problem is Google indexes them as soon as they are live. And almost all I tagged were clearly failing the basic WP:N criterion for a BLP or a CORP. Thanks for your suggestion. Will do that. :) PawanAhuja (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We have lots of articles needing cleanup on writing! (And yes, we should fix them all) However, the speedy deletion criteria is only reserved for a narrow set of criteria that has no obvious potential of being improved. You need a full debate to get consensus that something is non-notable. With historical figures, notability can sometimes only be seriously proven by non-free sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Per your explanation, I have now listed few articles that might need an AFD. There are few problematic editors who wrote articles on themselves and upon tagging with DB they repetitively removed them. I need any admin support out here. Please help me out. I still remember those days where my teacher said some pieces of info on Wiki are not true and I believe these are the people responsible for them. Thanks PawanAhuja (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Weathereditor1 evading your indefinite block of Weathereditor

As User:Weathereditor threatened, he's returned to evade your indefinite block and repeat the same disruptive edits, this time cleverly calling himself User:Weathereditor1. Thanks if you can take care of this. Maybe you can semi-protect each of the articles that he's trolling, too? —Patrug (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Patrug: *sigh* ... well I half-expected him to evade the block as an IP, but the WP:QUACKing is deafening. All I really want to do is for him to realise why he was being disruptive. While I could deal with all of this, I think it's probably fairer if another admin has a go, so I don't get accused of being judge, jury and executioner all in one. I'd follow the usual channels of WP:AN3, WP:RPP and WP:SPI - somebody will pick it up quickly enough. He's made good faith edits to Faversham and Ashford, Kent, so it's not an obvious troll and he's making sufficient edits to the point where semi-protection won't work. I would just caution you to revert only if you think an edit makes the article worse, not because it's by a block evading editor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reported the user here prokaryotes (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Help ...

Can you help, please? Likely sock getting worse. I can't see any other Admins around. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil: Not a diff I want to read while eating breakfast - yuck. Anna has picked up the baton, and I've semi-protected Kangal dog for a week in case they sock some more. Sorry, I was still busy improving Faversham to GA status which is taking the best part of forever, I hope you can take that as an acceptable excuse! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - and apologies for subjecting you to that but I was in panic mode! You might want to obscure the edit on User talk:SineBot (without looking at the actual image). I hope I haven't messed the bot up by reverting as its now acquired a big pink warning sign? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to you

Hi Ritchie,

I'm responding to your message you left me yesterday regarding an article I'm trying to put on Wikipedia for a company called "City Winery".

You said: "I've created City Winery as a redirect to Nevada City winery which has an article. If that's the one you were looking for, be bold and expand it. If not, (there looks like there's another one in New York City from a quick scan of sources), drop me a line and I'll see what I can cobble together."

City Winery is completely separate from Nevada City Winery. It's located in NYC, Napa, Nashville and Chicago, with more cities soon to come. Here's the website if you'd like to see more information: http://citywinery.com/

I've tried more than a few times now to create the article/page for City Winery and it keeps getting denied and deleted (Wiki's reason being that it reads like an advertisement.) I've edited it many times to make sure that it is all factual and doesn't sound like an advertisement at all, but it keeps getting deleted.

There's already a page for the CEO of City Winery, Michael Dorf (Entrepreneur), and I would like to link back his page to his company, City Winery. If there is any way you can assist me, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Allison Aporifgpr (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Allison, I think there should be enough to create an article about the New York City Winery, given a quick search for sources. @Dr. Blofeld: can probably assist, though I think he's on a break at the moment; failing that @We hope: may be able to assist. This Rolling Stone Source saying Stephen Stills plans to gig there is enough to convince me I can make an article that will be acceptable for our inclusion policies. Watch this space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aporifgpr: Okay, there is now a City Winery article up, cited to a bunch of sources I'd normally consider neutral and reliable. To expand the article will probably involve pulling bits and bobs from other sources, but it's definitely possible to spin a proper article out of this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie! Thank you so much for assisting. I very much appreciate it. A few questions though - can I make some edits to the page without having it be deleted again? A few of the facts are incorrect. For example, City Winery is NOT related to the Nevada City Winery - they're totally different. Also, I want to include that City Winery is also located in Chicago, Napa and Nashville. Additionally, I would like to mention who the CEO of the company is - Michael Dorf (he has a Wiki Page). Lastly, would I be able to mention the wineries that supply wine to City Winery? Would this be possible?

Thanks again! Aporifgpr (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note

I never wanted to see anyone blocked either, personal attacks aside, it was just a clash of egos. Big dog deal. Keep up the good work trying to force the DYK issues to be acknowledged and hopefully resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It was nice to have least done a prep -> queue assembly and see what you're actually getting at. EEng will be back armed with crazy puns before you know it (I see he's pinched my "matching socks" one already). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Brain hurts" - I actually lolled, innit. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha!

A month in, and your talk page is already full of interesting comments. I might change the Page Notice for my talk page to say "For all admin requests, please see User:Ritchie333, who will be happy to explain/do/serve". Get you a little more traffic. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Threesie joins the "mile high club"

Is this part of the standard hazing ritual for new admins? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just a fact of life. See the first item under "Things I've learned at Wikipedia" on my userpage. --MelanieN (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Becoming an admin is a mixed blessing. You get to do new fun things, but at a price. It does get a bit less fun over the years, and the price goes up as you piss off more and more people for blocking them. It's one reason we keep backlogs....admin get tired of closing ten "things" and having 12 people harass them over 6 of them. AFDs aren't so bad, but RFCs and the like are a huge pain because there is always a group of people to call you an idiot, even when consensus is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But doesn't this really call into question why anyone would ever want to be an admin? I mean, most of what I see is negative. It doesn't sound tempting. :( DBaK (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It is rewarding, and some people are just driven by the idea of a "free encyclopedia" enough to volunteer. It isn't for everyone. Serving at a soup kitchen isn't "fun" either, but it is rewarding. Kind of like that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess. And I certainly appreciate the service that I as an ordinary editor get from good admins. I just worry about the whole setup a bit and what a hostile environment this can easily become. But I should quite probably shut up now and do something productive! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Graham Chapman

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Graham Chapman 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 Onel5969 -- Onel5969 (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

GA criteria 3 and not having background knowledge about the subject

Hey. This is regarding your post at Talk:Babur where you mentioned about GA criteria 3. You said that one cannot review an article (i.e cannot verify criteria 3) if he doesn't know the article subject. I'm fairly new to reviewing myself and this has always bothered me. Is it really like that?

I've done articles where, not knowing the subject, I did a quick background search on the topic so that I could judge criteria 3. Honestly, I'm familiar with hardly any topic, if that was the case, there is very little I can review. Besides, aren't there so many noms out there about really niche and specific subjects? We can't really expect to always have a reviewer with background knowledge ready, right? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: The point I was making was more the reverse, which is if you think you don't have sufficient background knowledge to do a GA review justice, don't! For example, if LowSelfEstidle decided to nominate Fragile (Yes album) to GA tomorrow, I would have no problem doing a good review on it (was that subtle enough?) Ask me to GA review Pune, and I might punt on it to somebody with more experience on Indian cities. Ask me to GA review Israeli–Palestinian conflict and I'd probably run full-pelt in the opposite direction and cower under a table. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Graham Chapman

The article Graham Chapman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Graham Chapman 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 Onel5969 -- Onel5969 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! You might be interested in expanding The Duke of Hamilton I just started.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld, I don't suppose you could check that GA review? It looks very, well, brief. Now obviously I think it's close to GA (or I wouldn't have put it up) but I'd much rather I had a proper constructive critique of my work. Given the problems Sitush has thrown up on Talk:Babur I think it's worth doing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It certainly looks to meet the GA criteria. I think you expect too much from GA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs)

Eric has taught me well ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for doing the right thing, elephant trap though it may be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And echoing the above sentiments: many thanks Ritchie. – SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. In other parts of the Wiki-universe, the baiting recommences. But for the time being it's well worth ignoring. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought about saying "why don't you close this thread and work on The Duke of Hamilton" (the reason I went to Cass' talk in the first place since I saw Blofeld had asked him about improving it too) but that would be stirring the pot a bit too far. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to pop by and say that the protection of the page was just a practical action for me and that I was not emotionally invested in it. I am more than happy to defer to your judgement which in my observation is sound. Chillum 19:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

About deletion

Hello, Richie. I've never tried to put an article up for deletion, so, I don't know exactly how to do it. I found a few today that I thought merited a deletion (because of the circumstances concerning them), but aside from tagging them, I didn't know what else to do.
Would you please take a look at these?

2016_PGA_Championship
2016 Open Championship
2016 U.S. Open (golf)

Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: I think all of these can be safely directed. They might be deleted at a full deletion debate (probably per WP:CRYSTAL) or they might be kept. A redirect is probably best for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Elephant Trap

When you apologized for stepping into an elephant trap, was there already an elephant in the trap? If so, should you apologize to the elephant? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What elephant? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sia Furler

Renew PC or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sound

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I think the best thing to do is to file another request on WP:RPP. We have a few hundred admins bouncing about, so somebody should be along to have a look shortly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Audio sample

"Lisp is undoubtedly the greatest contribution to computer languages ever. Don't know Lisp - try Scheme? Don't know either, try shelf stacking."

"Yeah, but Paul, the last time I stuck a drumstick in the back of your Lisp mainframe it shorted a few circuits out and smoke came out. Great for "Rondo", but not so good for starting off "Pictures of an Exhibition" is it?"

Hey Ritchie, can you upload Metallica - The Four Horsemen.ogg from the YouTube link (5:14—5:41).--Retrohead (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Retrohead: Technically, I can, but (unless I'm mistaken) I would rather not take it off the audio of a copyright violation myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not violating any rules. The length is 30s (according to WP:SAMPLE), but you'll need to lower the audio quality using Audacity. I assume you're thinking that downloading from YouTube is not allowed, but 90% of the uploaded files are from there. Anyway, if you're not allowed, can you recommend someone who can? By the way, congrats on your new admin privilege, I'm sure you'll be productive as you are editing music articles.--Retrohead (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Retrohead: I think the best place to go is Media Copyright Questions, somebody will be able to sort it out. As long as you have a very good FUR (eg: you have a few reliable sources talking about the music, but do so in a manner that bores the casual reader to tears) you should get some help. The amount of stuff you can get on YouTube is incredible; after decades of searching I finally found a recording of the full 18-minute performance of Yes' arrangement of America, which makes me (and probably Martinevans123) a happy chappy, but I wouldn't use it as a source or sample here? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite happy to stick with "our Len" done by "our Keef", thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I learned the whole of The Nice's arrangement of America decades ago, and remember a drummer who wanted to give it a go at a jam night around 1996/97, but we couldn't find a bassist or guitarist who knew it. There's a pile of stuff I've learned but I will never get to gig, ever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you could always still climb on top of your Hammond B3 and stick knives between the keys... ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever noticed that Paul Graham and Keith Emerson could be related? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Haim

I am not opposed to the sentence. The way it's written is simply misleading. --Mimi C. (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ekki ekki ekki ekki ptang zoom boing

It's too bad I named an April Fool's Day DYK template "Throatwobbler Mangrove", so that title wasn't available for the Graham Chapman nomination. Oh, well.

I'm very skeptical about Chapman's ALT1. I don't have access to the source, but it seems to me that there's no way anybody could possibly state that with any degree of certainty. There are hundreds of thousands of British deaths annually; did someone monitor every British memorial service throughout the years? If you want to keep this hook as a possibility, it might be better to do something like saying that someone claimed it, rather than stating it as a fact. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're no fun anymore. I think EEng has the right idea, everyone throw their favourite hook at the nomination and we'll take a !vote on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think we shouldn't not-vote, rather we should yes-vote i.e. just a straight popularity contest (or maybe a queer one). EEng (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, EEng and I ganging up against your hook. I bet you didn't expect The Spanish Inquisition! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that the relevant passage in the article predates your involvement, but that you trimmed it. The original made sense; the trimmed version ... not so much. I'll leave it to you to decide whether to restore the original quote, trim the original in a more appropriate way, or just remove it entirely, but in any case, it shouldn't remain as it is now. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ni! Skyerise (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Efram23

Hi, I agree with your unblock of this editor, but as a polite reminder I (as the blocking admin) should have been consulted first per WP:APPEAL#What happens next. Given that the images were prominently labelled as under copyright and not for republishing on the source website, I don't see how this editor could have been confused about whether they could be posted here and at Commons. The commitment to not upload any more images should do the trick, but I'm glad that you're going to keep an eye on their contributions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Hi. Yes I probably should have pinged you first, I think I just assumed his pledge not to upload anything else met your original unblock criteria. I do try and get people unblocked wherever possible if I see any evidence of the editor making good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, but I try and do it carefully with a good consensus, and I'm not always successful (example). In this case, I've upped the ante by them agreeing that any file uploads can be met with a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Graham Chapman

Thank you for creating this article! I added it to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results (along with its quality symbol), a page used to track new and improved LGBT-related articles worked on during the month of June as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you happen to create or improve other LGBT-related articles this month, feel free to update the Results page accordingly. Thanks again, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I didn't create it, I just sourced most of it and improved it to good article status. There is now a Did you know? nomination here where you can add an interesting hook to see if it gets to the main page. One of those is that Chapman was one of the first people to come out of the closet and lead the way for the LGBT movement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah!, I see that now. Sorry, I failed to scroll through to the oldest edits of the article's history. Either way, your work is much appreciated! I also saw the DYK nomination and added the nomination to the Results page, too. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RFA

Is there really much to be gained from challenging supporters on an RFA currently running below 50%? HiDrNick! 17:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case, it's just a matter of stating an opinion I feel quite strongly about. I don't want the candidate to be disheartened or leave, and I hope they do consider an RfA in the future. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"St Marks"

Really? New sleeve notes? Could you add a comment at the Talk Page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: No, ancient ones. Sorry, when I see a tag I assume it's been in there for ages, not last week! If you've got Keith Emerson on the "blower", ask him if he can remember talking about the church organ in his biographies. A Google news and book search turns up nothing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made a suitably condescending reply at the Talk Page, ya schmuck. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the first time Emerson's Hammond broke down on stage, he phoned up their IT department, who said "Have you tried turning it off and on?" ... so he did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Main Street America Group page deletion

Hello Ritchie333 One of my colleagues created a wikipedia page for our company, The Main Street America Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Main_Street_America_Group), but I recently discovered that it's been deleted. It appears that the deletion reason was for language of an advertising nature. Can you tell me what specific changes I need to make to The Main Street America Group's entry to ensure it gets reinstated?

Thank you!

Sean 63.151.12.167 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have put the article into draft space at Draft:The Main Street America Group. Have a read through Wikipedia:Your first article and that will give you some ideas of what to improve. When you are ready for an independent review of the draft, click on the green "Submit your draft when you ready...." button and somebody will review it. If successful, the article will be restored to the main area. If not, you'll be given feedback on what to improve. As you are an IP, I cannot notify you that I have replied to this message, why not register for an account? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Red link

You have fully-protected Wikipedia:Red link in the wrong version. I understand that it is normal practice to do so, but I would like to remind you that WP:PREFER advises: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." May I ask why you chose to ignore this advice when the edit-warring you prevented was conducted by a sole editor against three other editors? I have now opened a AN3 report on the editor as I believe that in these sort of cases, it is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with edit-warring. Any further thoughts from you on either issue would naturally be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that's the "wrong" version. Before Richard took that part out in April (without asking), it had been there since at least July 2011. I'd say, page protection appears to have been quite sensible, given the circumstances. Besides, we've all got leaps of judgment from time to time; let's not hang anybody just yet. The other side should've also known better than to edit war their preferred version, while making accusations that do not appear to hold any water ("editor is editing guidelines to fit other guidelines then cross-linking"). Alakzi (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: The "wrong version" links to this page on meta: m:The Wrong Version ("This page contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally.") We all accept that the current version will be the "wrong version" for some editors, and I certainly did not expect the phrase to be taken literally. The current version is normally the one that is protected, but WP:PREFER does suggest that an administrator may restore an earlier version to avoid rewarding an edit-warrior. Although I have no dog in this fight (i.e. the content dispute), I believe that would have been a better course of action as the multiple edit-warring was done by one editor against three others. Such behaviour is simply inexcusable, and I am merely asking Ritchie to share his thoughts on his choice of protected version per WP:ADMINACCT. I hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not found in the oppression of the few. Montana and Softlavender could've joined the discussion on the talk page, which has been inconclusive. Per WP:STATUSQUO, Rob was correct in reinstating the previous wording. He was incorrect in edit warring, as they all were. Alakzi (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It's the version of the strongest edit warrior - simply by that it's the wrong version: 4 reverts of the same thing should not be rewarded by protection even IF it was the "right" version. Different approach: if somebody reverts an edit from April now, somebody was bold per WP:BRD, - a second revert is already a breach and should not be protected. - Thanks for closing the ANI thread, more on EW ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see it differently. It is not about who wins or loses; it's about avoiding conflict. It's OK if the "wrong" wording survives for another day or two, if it means people can get to talking. Alakzi (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see it differently. It's not about who wins or loses. The guideline was changed in April, and nobody objected, - looks like some form of consensus to me. Comes one person weeks later (out of retirement, who had caused the same troubles a year ago) and reverts: should that be rewarded? Several people talked to the one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Rob and Flyer22 objected, and Andy Dingley and DGG concurred in what was a very brief interchange. Alakzi (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is it so important to avoid conflict? Sometimes bashing someone over the head is the only way to get things done, no matter what Jimbo and his acolytes may believe. Eric Corbett 19:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what might merit bashing anybody over the head in this instance. Alakzi (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What you see and what I see may not always be in accord. Eric Corbett 20:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I've been winning the hearts of anybody here. :-) Alakzi (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of a rush because I'm in the middle of setting up a studio and breaking off for the night ... but I deliberately protected on whatever version I found the page in. I would have reverted if the previous edit was a WP:BLP violation or obvious vandalism, but as it was a good faith edit, I had to leave it. When I've seen edit warring coming, I know that discussing on the talk page with the WP:WRONGVERSION on the article puts me ahead.

If somebody shows me that the debate has ended with an obvious consensus, then I can unprotect the page. Or if any admin thinks it was a crap idea to protect, I don't mind them undoing it. I'm not going to wheel war.

Today has been a bad day for me because I've hardly got any article work done - still as Eric is back I'll be motivated to try and get 50 GAs done before the summer ends. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be quite some achievement. Eric Corbett 22:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Less ambitious, I try to have a GA for every occasion of Bach's liturgical year following the year, which means around 50 in a year, - I did 2, #3 is open for review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant 50 total / cumulative, which on current figures amounts to 6, 2 of which are already queued. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You can unprotect right now because a fifth revert is not likely ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Duke (album)

Materialscientist (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Programming in Android

Hi, I notice that you have deleted Programming in Android as a copyvio. I should have checked that properly myself and nominated it for CSD. I didn't, but I did start an AFD. I would be grateful if you would clean up my little mess and close it. I promise to be more thorough in future! Many thanks. Poltair (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD as requested. The easiest way to spot a copyvio is to cut and paste the opening two sentences of the main paragraph introducing the subject, and do a Google search for that around quotes. Check the results to confirm none are obvious mirrors, and if not, report it as a copyvio. Copyright is one of the most misunderstood topics for newcomers, and copyvios can easily be created by accident without anyone realising. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and the tips.Poltair (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for a WP:REFUND here. I edited the Programming in Android article after it was introduced, and while I will readily admit it was not at all appropriate for Wikipedia, it was a valid candidate for transwiki to Wikiversity. The article that you claim it copied is completely different than the version of the article that I had left. I had trimmed a fair amount of "what is android" material from the article as redundant based on the existence of other articles, but the instructional material that was left would have been useful at Wikiversity, and as far as I can tell, not yet covered there. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot undelete a copyright violation simply because one editor asserts the text is not similar. A direct word for word match of the opening paragraph is not "completely different" and I don't believe there's anything salvageable from it. You could ask for a deletion review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Red link

I think the consensus is perfectly clear that it's no longer appropriate to keep it locked in Sinden's version. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably, but the protection is (according to my clock) going to run out in about 11 minutes, so I think I'll just run its course for the mo. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Too funny

The minute they get reverted, they will fight back with "Don't revert for no reason"

And how outrageous would that be! Makes me sick to imagine it. Someone getting reverted for no reason having the temerity to complain? What scum. Ban the infidel! We must stop people who complain about reverting for no reason! The very existence of the encyclopaedia surely depends on it!

Do keep up your thoroughly good work, won't you? Improving articles while anonymous is such vile behaviour that there can be no measure too extreme to take against it. 200.119.246.254 (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You can selectively quote anything you like, which Cassetteboy take to an art form. In this case, you forgot to mention that immediately before it, I said "as ever they're probably useful copyedits". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect Seventeen_(band)

Howdy! I've got a WP:AfC draft here that looks ready to go. Draft:Seventeen_(band)_(2) Would you be willing to unprotect the mainspace article so I can go ahead and approve/move the draft? Cheers, I owe you an ale if you're in the NYC area. E. Lee (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Elee: I've removed the protection. I have family in NY state and CT, so I do plan to pop back there at some point. Sorry about the delay, I was on stage supporting The Kubricks when you wrote this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A+ - get me a signature and I'll buy you dinner =] Thanks again! E. Lee (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Food for Thought

FYI, another institution around the corner from Denmark Street is closing today. See Food for Thought (restaurant)... Andrew D. (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

La Caravelle

Preparing for GA. Can you delete the first image in File:La Caravelle (New York).jpg, it was the wrong restaurant!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Done! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that one, I uploaded a different one originally in the window at the bottom of the file! Don't worry I'll get We hope to reupload it with a license! Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ack, sorry! I think I need a short wikibreak, as I'm suffering from writers block. Actually I need a rest from life generally, though I did chuckle at the recent Cassianto threads on ANI. As Ian Dury put it, "What a waste". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking more "Dance of the Crackpots"! Cassianto^Talk 22:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Segovia Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of ankylosaur research

Ritchie333, could you please take a quick look at this nomination and see whether the concerns that led you to pull the hook from prep have been addressed? If so, and you feel you can tick the new hook, so much the better. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Graham Chapman

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I can't remember how to do the stats, but this got 6,560 views so I think it qualifies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It does. How about a deal: I enter it for you, you look at my belle wish? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

done - you find the STATS page off any DYK page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ooooooooh, matron, I couldn't possibly look at that! I've had a look, and I don't think I can do that as the main source for the hook says "There seems to be some confusion here in that some sources claim that Luther first used the melody .... The available sources are unclear about this ... This is a point that needs to be verified". I'd be crucified if I bypassed everything and went straight to queue; if another admin didn't catch that, WP:ERRORS would. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, less poetic. The source you cite is not "the main source", Bach-Cantatas has been found wrong ;)

Do we talk Luther or Bach? Bach composed for 24 June 1724, no "is believed to have". Do we need an extra source for that, from the cantata article? About Luther (about 200 years earlier), it only says "about baptism", for which we have several sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The hook says that "that Luther's hymn about baptism "Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam" is the base for Bach's chorale cantata". When I read the source, I get the impression that scholars do not have definitive evidence that this was so, at least based on reading the two sources that cite this fact in the article. If you know that what is written of the body of the text is definitely true (or at least widely accepted as true by subject experts), then you need a source saying that. What does Groves have? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I added another source, and could add more. A chorale cantata - by definition - uses text and melody of the hymn it is based on. At Bach's time, a contemporary poet typically changed the text for the inner stanzas, keeping the ideas, to make it more palatable for the listeners of the time. Still, the cantata is exclusively based on that very hymn. Bach wrote an (almost) complete cycle in 1724/25 of which BWV 7 is #3, - you could do the GA review for the cantata, how is that? - By now the next DYK set appeared, but it would not be the first time that a hook was added afterwards ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, tell you what, if The Rambling Man and Yoninah say we can skip prep and go straight to queue, it's in, I can't say fairer than that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You did a lot, I was too slow. - OTD is today not tomorrow ;) - perhaps better have it in two weeks than a day late? - I will be better prepared next round, promised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How about a GA review for the cantata? - it's an easy one, no ambition for FA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party, as ever, fending off the ever "helpful" Chillum who seemed content to sanction a racist attack on my talkpage while berating me for calling it out, plus a bonus trip to ANI! Anyway, back to actually improving Wikipedia. I've got a small amount of space in my life to do a GA review, if needed? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to snipe at me please do it on my talk page instead of doing it on a 3rd party's talk page. Chillum 19:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I did, I assume you can read it ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, it's just great to get you two together. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

ever seldom. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Now who in the party will do the review, grin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank for fixing, rambling man! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no worries, review forthcoming! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Heavy weather

Looks like we're in for nasty weather....

The latest appearance of our Sky weather friend from Oxford. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: User:Acroterion has blocked for 31 hours and protected articles. But I feel I can predict what will happen. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the drama. Sorry, I was on a bit of a wiki-break, but couldn't bear to leave Folkestone in a poorly sourced and confusingly written state. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I get the feeling, after seven blocked named sock accounts, that there's plenty more drama yet to be reported, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Seven? Christ on a bike, have you seen how many blocks the Best known for IP has evaded? Probably about fifty. And I've seen worse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mention bad moons, if I were you, or he'll probably try and add those in as well. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Phil Lynott reference

Just wondering why you changed the year of the first Byrne book from 2004 to 2006? Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's probably because the Google Books cache that I saw had that year, as a reprint. I saw the other book you mentioned, and converted the references. It's a useful way to make sure all the references are accurate and what's in the article is good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd very much like to get this to GA (I had an idea to get all Lizzy-related articles to GA but only got as far as the main article), and I'm sure we can manage it. A member of the band actually asked me recently if it could be improved so now's a good time. Philomena's book (bless her) is all about her and her relationship with Phil, and not so much about him per se, but I can manage page numbers as soon as I go home and fetch the book (soon). I can source anything about Phil or Thin Lizzy, providing it's true of course. I think it's currently a decent summary of his life, although he was the kind of guy you could be adding details about for evermore. He did quite a bit of production work for other bands, although many of them were not particularly notable, and he provided songs for a few other bands as well, like Wild Horses. It really depends how much detail you want. I'll also add a short note about Thin Lizzy spinning off into Black Star Riders out of respect for Lynott. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well do what you can, and I'll add any additional notes I can from Putterford's biography. There is some detail in there being amazed at what a hectic year he had in '78, as well as recording Parisienne Walkways and touring with Lizzy, he was doing production for Wild Horses and guest appearances with Bob Geldof for a punk band. One way or another, we'll get there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Will do. 1978, yes, just before he got stuck into the hard stuff. He was never as reliably prolific again after that. I should be able to expand the discography a little as well. We certainly will get there :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: I've gone as far as I can with the basics, but I think I'm going to have to shell out for a copy of his mum's biography to get the early details spot on. Putterford's book just guesses. Come to think of it, really she needs her own article as a lot of this stuff is more about her than him, and having seen the the eponymous film about a namesake, her life story is slightly happier in that she was in regular touch with her son and he continues to be a much respected and admired rock figure. PS: Did I ever mention I met Robbo once at a jam night in Brentwood, Essex? Crikey, I've heard some guitarists that are loud, but he kicked a Marshall 4x12' with a yell of "this wee bastard inn'ae loud enough" and cranked it up to ear bleeding levels. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Barking mad, but undoubtedly charismatic and oddly engaging, even in her 80s ... though is clearly more of a Deep Purple fan....

The later edition of his mum's biography is the one to get, as she only decided to spill the beans about her other children and their various fathers in that latest edition. She was economical with the truth on a number of points in the earlier editions... She might well be eligible for her own article, indeed! Met her once – barking mad, but undoubtedly charismatic and oddly engaging, even in her 80s. Putterford's book is very good, but being older, it still carries a few of the old myths. Haha! I might well have been at that same jam night. I managed to catch two nights at Brentwood with Robbo present and he was a total gentleman on both occasions. Very chatty and approachable (and loud). I shall never forget standing just a few feet away while he blasted out "Rosalie" on that Les Paul. Fingers crossed he decides to do it again one day! Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you saw a chap playing a Rickenbacker bass while (reluctantly) singing lead, that was me. That was a few years back. Anyway, back to the task in hand, I have created Philomena Lynott. I am perceptive to cries of WP:BLP1E (if you can call Phil "one event" that is) and WP:INHERITED but I think there is enough in sources that is more her story than his, especially the family, attitudes to racism and single parenting in the 1950s, other kids and the autobiography. Looking at photos, she does seem to be making a concious effort to look like a fellow octogenarian if you ask me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My memories are fuzzy, but if Robbo resurfaces down Brentwood way, you should bring that Rickenbacker back :) Good work with Philomena, I think WP:GNG is easily satisfied and we should be able to add all kinds of bits and pieces as we find them. I'll add links to the Lizzy article and template while I'm here. Hahaha!! Now you mention it, there is something regal about Phyllis. If we ever see Mrs Windsor in a Lizzy T-shirt, I think we might be on to a major story. Have they ever been seen in the same room?? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The article has passed a DYK review, so I would expect it to be listed on the main page some time soon. There is definitely room for expansion in the family and Clifton Grange Hotel areas. I can't find the source, but I recall reading she was the only hotelier who would put up the Sex Pistols following their seminal Manchester Free Trade Hall gig, though that may be second-hand apocryphal information via Phil (who was friends with them) and hence via everyone else. Back to Phil, we've got a bit of time but it would be very appropriate to get his article through GA and DYK onto the main page (with statue pic) on 4 January 2016 for reasons I shouldn't need to explain to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff. I recall reading that Sex Pistols tale too, so it may well be in one of my many Lizzy books. I shall get my hands on those next weekend. We need to add a note about the song from Nightlife that was named after her too. We'll certainly have enough time to build both up well before the 30th anniversary. Thirty years already, lord. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"He [ Tony Visconti ] has said, “It’s 75 percent overdubs.” What the fuck drugs is he on? I’d like some of them..... I don’t understand this bollocks that’s going on. .... I don’t know what drugs the man is on but he’s talking absolute shit."

Brian Robertson on Tony Visconti

I found the Pistols source. Also found some brilliant Robbo quotations about Live and Dangerous! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Why Cool Automation's page should not be deleted

12:24, 24 June 2015 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:CoolAutomation (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

The reasons we think that Cool Automation has important encyclopedic value: Cool Automation's products are actually new unique products in the HVAC world, which allow the automation of VRF air conditioners. Prior to the first CoolMater's product launch - there was no way for VRF air conditioners to automate the units and control them online. Another point is that CoolAutomation's products allow the connection of many air conditioning units from many different manufacturers with a single gateway. As of today - there are no other products in the world which allow the connection of a variety of manufacturers HVAC units with one gateway solution, and there are no other solutions that allow the smart connection of VRFs. Also, many of our partners have active wikipedia pages, and we think we should have one as well... examples: control4 Lutron Electronics Company

Please let me know if that sounds like a good enough reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imoreno (talk • contribs) 06:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Imoreno: I don't mean to pour cold water on your efforts, but all I, and I suspect many other people, are really interested when it comes to air conditioning is, "does it work?" and "will it continue to work?" You get nothing from writing about your company on Wikipedia except grief, and I have never seen a case where the presence or absence of a company's article has affected sales in any way. So why do it? The two articles you have linked to are of poor quality and are barely above the level where they could be deleted, and should not be used as any example of what to write. I have nominated Lutron Electronics Company for deletion and the debate is here. The technical aspects of how an aircon unit work could go in our article on air conditioning but that's about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Well, homes around the globe are being automated. The need to save on electricity costs makes many people around the world look for solutions that will enable them to control their a/c units from afar, and this has been a valid working solution for 6 years now. Technology develops, and so should wikipedia is how I see it :-)

The principal problem with the article (and, indeed the reason it was nominated for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted) is for an article on the company to stick, it would more or less need to be rewritten from scratch. One option is you can use the Article Wizard to create a draft that an independent reviewer can assess and determine suitability for Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333

I removed my edit because it was actually in the wrong section, it actually made no sense in that section. I saw your note, so is it possible for me to at least strike out my comment, as I understand removing it makes yours look out of place ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, just strike it. If you remove it, it makes me look like I'm responding to Dennis. I haven't supported Kww going to Arbcom, and I made a point of saying he does good work here (which he does), but when I make too many posts on ANI my brain goes "Right, stop that, it's silly" and I need to hide in a good article (not to be confused with a good article...) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1RR

Could you - seeing you active and speaking my mind - help with this? I would explain on a user's talk, but an IP would perhaps not find it. Sorry I misspelled in my edit summary, "note" was meant to be not" (which IP probably also didn't see). I am on a rather strict voluntary 1RR ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. I am on a self-imposed 1RR (not by enforcement, by active choice), but in this case a revert and an explanation on talk with a warning on semi-protection should do the trick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and for the term "self-imposed" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK that I wrote the DYK for the guy who is featured among my images? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Aah, the WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Or is it the WP:Slough of Despond? Who knows? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Search for his name, perhaps? I liked the hook for an article written by an editor facing to be banned a third time. - Thanks for going to the Great Dismal Swamp, commented (4th time), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblocking Eric

Hi, you've said a few times that you'd unblock Eric if it weren't for the fact that you're WP:INVOLVED, but are you aware that you risk being desysopped by overturning an AE block? I'd definitely not want to see that happen. Alakzi (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think common sense says anyone unblocking Eric in these circumstances would stick their head on a chopping block. I'm afraid Arbcom bores me to tears; pages and pages of quasi-legalese and infighting. As long as I can ignore and stick to articles, I'm a happy man. I do confess I occasionally lapse and post on ANI but it's usually because I'm procrastinating over something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Overturning a regular block on Eric you could probably weather; overturning an AE block requires conviction. Would it be better to do the right thing now, or would it be better to stick around as an admin to try to make a difference long-term? Of course, this is all a bit hypothetical, as you admit to being an involved party - but it might be a dilemma you'll face in the future. I might've read more into your words than you intended. Alakzi (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, just don't even think of it. Sense or no sense is not the question, - I took a few samples of AE: none of them improved the project. I asked GorillyWarfare to unblock herself, as you may have seen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about stuff is okay, as is expressing a strong opinion provided you don't cross the line into personal attacks. I have wondered what it's like to take cocaine and heroin and how it makes you feel, for instance. Doesn't mean I'm actually tempted to do it! I have explained to GorillaWarfare why I strongly disagree with the block and threw a few articles she could work on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Denmark Street/Tin Pan Alley

Hello Richie,

My only intention was to correct some factual errors on the pages. The phrase ″is also used to describe any area within a major city with a high concentration of music publishers or musical instrument stores″ is simply not based in fact as the term 'Tin Pan Alley’ is not used as such. It is only used, as far as i am aware, in reference to two specific places, namely West 28th Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, New York, and Denmark Street in London. Other places referred to as "Tin Pan Alley" in other cities generally refer to specific venues, rather than "areas". So my change from

This

" By extension, the term "Tin Pan Alley" is also used to describe any area within a major city with a high concentration of music publishers or musical instrument stores – an example being Denmark Street[2][3] in London's West End. In the 1920s the street became known as "Britain's Tin Pan Alley" because of the large number of music shops, a title it still holds.".

To This

"By extension, the term "Tin Pan Alley" has also been adopted for Denmark Street[2][3] in London's West End. In the 1920s the area became known as "Britain's Tin Pan Alley" because of the large number of music shops, a title it still holds".

Only reflects an interest in the factual as opposed to anything subjective.

Kind Regards, Robbie Prudence 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbie Prudence (talk • contribs)

@Robbie Prudence: Hi, thanks for getting in touch. Well the good news about Tin Pan Alley is that I tend to only revert things once, so provided you make a good case for your changes (which you've done here), then just undo my edit. I can't promise another editor will leave it, but that's the consensus model we use.

The edits to Denmark Street are a little more problematic, as you've asserted you're affiliated with Consolidated Developments, who are rebuilding the area between the street and TCR tube. That creates a problem with you editing, as you have a potential conflict of interest. As I think I said on your talk, the squatters who took over the 12 Bar Club's former premises also edit Wikipedia, and their opinion of what should happen to the street probably doesn't align with yours! As long as you say up-front your prejudices on your user page though, you should be okay. Only thing to watch is that Denmark Street is a good article, so the bar for what edits will be accepted is higher, as every fact in the article is (or should be!) verifiable by a good quality source. I do like popping into Denmark Street and looking at gear, and the one time I played at the 12 Bar when it was at number 26 was magical, but we've got to remember to keep a neutral point of view on articles here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And, as predicted... because neither the edit summary nor the article talk page alerted me to this discussion, I've reverted Robbie Prudence at Tin Pan Alley, for what appeared to be an unsourced and ungrammatical edit. But, I take the point... I'll revert myself and tweak the wording, for clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)