User talk:Ritchie333

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

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

A word from the special one:

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

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

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

Re: GA nomination for Inside Out (2015 film)

"Crying helps me slow down and obsess over the weight of life's problems."

Sadness

Hi, due to offline commitments -- & some concerns about the article's language not being stable -- I've let this review slide. (Although I feel these edits are improving the article, in general.) Since you've had a good look at this article, do you have any serious objections if I promote this to GA? Since I've taken it on, I'd like to resolve it quickly before something else from my offline life delays me further. Thanks in advance -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Llywrch: I've been away for a bit and it looks like the GA review has been and gone, but I hope I did make some positive contribution towards it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes you did. If you hadn't I might have overlooked some needed fixes. Thanks for your input. -- llywrch (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The film has the benefit of having its entire timeline played out in the era when most people are online and Wikipedia policies firmly established, and was a critical and commercial success, so it was in a pretty good shape anyway when I first looked at it, and there wasn't much of a cleanup that quite a few other GA attempts have. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

GA queries

Hi Ritchie333. As a novice reviewer, I still have incessant doubts about reviewing GAs. Considering you seem to be well-experienced, would you kindly answer some questions here I have regarding them in general? I am writing an essay where your answers will be summarised. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Sorry I didn't get round to answer this sooner. I'm not sure I'm going to get more than small fits and starts on WP these days, so I might not have time for GA reviews, but I can probably answer anything, unless somebody else has had a go since? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Yes, a few others have had a go but I'm trying to incorporate everybody's views. Here are the two questions:

1. Criteria 2c, 2d requires access to sources: should a reviewer fail it if the nominator has partial access to most of it themselves?
2. Criteria 3 requires subject knowledge: does that mean one being unfamiliar with the topic should not review it? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: I would say the following:

2c,2c : A reviewer should WP:AGF that offline sources exist and are correct to verify the information given; however, given the increase of print material that can at least be partially accessed for free via Google Books, it is becoming easier to spot-check information. Broadly speaking, I find those who have cited a book source, particularly using the {{sfn}} template, are more likely to be correct in their citations, though as ever, nobody is perfect. You can fail a review if you believe a source is made up (and hence part of a blatant hoax) but since we have public access to titles on Worldcat and the British Library, amongst many others, it's pretty easy to prove the existence of a source.

3 : Yes, I agree with this - you cannot do a good GA review justice unless you have some understanding of the subject. I have never reviewed any science and medicine GAs and probably never will for this reason; conversely many of my GA reviews have been on music and British architecture. In particular, the "broad in coverage" criteria requires you to evaluate what, if anything, may be missing from an article. In general, a good GA review will say something like "have you considered [link to source] and adding information about [subject]?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Deacon

The article John Deacon you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:John Deacon 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-retired

File:Senator George Mitchell Peace Bridge.jpg

Peace for all. DYK not pictured

Hello people, I'm going to have to wave a white flag and declare myself as semi-retired. I have been busy doing things in the real world (and I would say what except WP:NOTADVERTISING and all that, but here's a clue). I have not retired because of anybody here, or any disputes or problems anywhere on the project (I'm totally out of touch with them), but simply that I prefer to keep myself occupied by real world projects I might actually get paid for! If I still haven't come back in a few months, I'll arrange to get my administrator tools revoked. Have a nice summer, everyone! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the clue, nothing is as important as real music! Enjoy. My next (no advertising, nono): Rossini's last mortal sin. In the process of expanding the related article (any help welcome, only six of 14 movements were covered by those before me), - the next best thing to real music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking about this. You semi-retired were more active than some of us without restrain ;) - Thank you for the requested close (where I had commented ANI is not good for my health). Another request is open initiated on 11 April, if you still have time and are still bold, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just listening back to the final master of our latest album (it's being released next week) and it sounds rather good, if I do say so myself. Hurrah for mastering! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You'll be sadly missed. Please send me a demo by email!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, sorry to hear that, Ritchie. Although, I understand you need to take care of your career and financials and real-life interests. Best of luck in that! We'll miss you -- as an admin and as an editor you are refreshing and light-hearted and act from the heart. Don't worry about the tools; per WP:INACTIVITY, it takes an entire year of inactivity and non-use to merit mop removal. Best of luck and hope you may have more time for us somewhere down the line. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a sad and bitter blow. The loss of a great editor, as "Softy" says above. Why not just pop back now and again to block a few vandals? Better still let me hurl a string of obscene insults at you and then you can resign properly, in a fit of self-righteous pique. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is that a record for the shortest ever retirement?? Welcome back!! Ya schmuck. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC) p.s. can we have that gold watch back please?

I'll genuinely miss you and your humour!, (and I don't mean this in a dickish way) but your career/interests are far more important and at the end of the day editing this glorious place isn't going to pay bills and put food on the table so if you're being paid for it then good luck to you! :), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I was a big fan of Sithole. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll really miss you if you leave, Ritchie, but do wish the best for your real life endeavors! Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Good luck Ritchie, and I hope you'll pop in from time to time (or hopefully more than that!) You're a credit to this site, and your absence will sadly felt. Good with your off-Wiki stuff: looks interesting! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And ironically enough, as soon as I declare a semi-retirement, I find time to write an article. Of course, doing little bits here and there isn't really comparable with some of the marathon stints in the past. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Very ironic indeed Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, I'll miss seeing you around here Ritchie. You were/are one of the good guys around here and a fantastic editor. Be safe and keep rockin' Cassianto^Talk 22:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, I am "about", and sod's law would dictate that no sooner did I think "I've really got to say something as I haven't been on for two months and people are going to wonder if I've been run over by a bus" ... then I make time for little bits of stuff. However, look a bit closer and you won't see a frequent edit pattern I used to do when I had a full evening at my disposal, which would be 50-100 edits in a row on an article, either large scale additions of text with frequent additions to book sources, or extensive copyediting. That ANI close I just did though did take about 45 minutes' reading over breakfast this morning, but I can do that on a phone, which is impossible on regular editing marathons. Did you know I have got sunburn from spending over 4 hours handing out leaflets to passers by on Sunday afternoon? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I never had you down as a leaflet pusher, Threesie. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hah! I've got four Black Sabbath albums you know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocks stemming from James Ossuary

You may wish to consider unblocking the IP, as well. They discussed quite reasonably and civilly once they were made aware of the forum for discussion. The slow edit warring seems more of an ignorance of the rules than a deliberate flaunting of them. It's the IPv6 IP editor whom I worry might pursue further reverts, but I personally don't fault them for their prior reverts: they were in keeping with a rather large consensus established at this RSN discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Okay, I think I owe you both an apology as I forgot today's 2nd June, not 1st, and got the dates mixed up and misread it as a live set of reverts happening right here right now - otherwise I would definitely not have blocked. I think the request had languished at WP:RFPP for some time because it looked like complex situation that nobody else was prepared to resolve (which is why I tend to end up tackling the difficult disputes). I have dropped some advice on the talk page; I was hoping actually to make an opinion on the article and give advice on which version to use, but the sourcing in question is in a subject beyond my area of expertise and I really think an expert opinion is needed there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted, with no hard feelings. We all make mistakes! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

hasty close

Hi Ritchie333, as I have other things to do I was stil preparing an answer when I saw you already closed the Beck's promo case. I ask you to reopen it and to add and consider my reply:

@Beyond_My_Ken:

(1) your are creating false evidence buy linking a google search deliberately excluding "beer" and "brewery" and utf-8 variants. And even then you get the beer and company on the first page. And then just click on your manipulated Google link's image search - it's all green and beer over and over. Why didn't you link a search for "Beck's" or "BECK's"?

(2) Would you think the same of user:"Coca Cola", user:"Marlboro" and similar in huge company-coloured letters on their UP? By your arguments we would have to unblock user:Mountain Dew, user:Jack Daniel´s, user:CokeClassic, user:Bud Light, user:Schweppes UK, user:Google map, ... and many, many others.

(3) I never said this is about copyright. But right as you say, it is about a registered trademark - thank you for adding that further issue.

(4) The user has edited the brewery article several times as I mentioned (and even created es:Beck's)

(6) I suggest you refrain from personal attacks.

@all: I am really shocked what methods of IAR are used here to help Beck's to continue their year-long promotion. I didn't ask to block this editor, just to reduce the advertising and change the username. --Trofobi (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If @Beyond My Ken: wants to come here and continue the discussion, he can if he wants, but I don't think he will. The user Beck's (talk · contribs) has only made one contribution in the last 2 years, so this really is a problem that doesn't exist. Looking at the user's page, I see that English probably isn't their first language, so they may not be able to effectively communicate on talk pages. Also, "Beck's" can mean "of Rebecca" in English slang. I really think this is a non-issue, and the main reason for the close wasn't so much to shut out conversation with you as to stop others piling on with "+1" posts agreeing that this is a non-issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I see no need to continue the discussion. The close was justified. BMK (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [2]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Brains (web series)

Equal rights for zombies!

You realize, of course, that the "barrage of complaints" on Talk:Brains (web series) is likely the result of sock or meat puppetry, right? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I see a group of people making a self-financed film and promoting on the web, none of whom know anything about Wikipedia or its policies. Think of it as a polite version of Hanlon's razor. I've put the article at AfD, we'll let that run its course. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

RummyCircle

Hi Ritchie333 this is regarding the deleted page which is reviewed by you the said page is regarding online game RummyCircle not the organization or a company the game is about traditional rummy card game played in India now which played online the said game is top online game in card game so I like to create the wiki page of this game like other game page of candy crush temple run. I would like to request you again to review the page and make it live again Regards Bullus 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullus (talk • contribs)

@Bullus: I've restored the article and added an additional news source which confirms the site is big business in India. However, in order to do that, I have to rewrite large portions of the article as the text was too promotional. So even if the article did not qualify for CSD A7 ("no indication of importance") it might well have been deleted anyway per CSD G11 ("blatant advertising"). As it is, the article is now reduced to a stub with a few sentences, but I believe that should be enough to survive a deletion debate. Please make sure you don't add any additional overly-positive terms to the article, otherwise it may be at risk of being proposed for deletion again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

Per this edit, the block was for edit warring on Ken Ham, following the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Result: blocked one week). StAnselm (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it. I don't think negates anything I have written on his talk page, and my general gist was that the block was really for civility, which is justifiable in my view. He's got a choice of showing remorse or having a week's holiday, and I have no strong preference for either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's 1RR

I'm not sure about linking WP:1RR in the wording of the restriction, as traditionally 1RR is one revert per day (it even says sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" is replaced by "1 week" because this is apparently an uncommon exception). The wording you gave was fine in itself, so linking to the policy page, if anything, just clouds it up. Just my two cents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have just boldly changed the text at WP:1RR to "sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" is replaced by some other time period, such as "1 week"" which covers the one month in this restriction, and allows for further discretion, which these sort of drawn-out community discussions will usually require. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right, of course, and your close was a valiant effort. As we say in Japan, o-tsukare-sama. And in the unlikely event that anyone challenges your bold change to 1RR's wording, you can tell them I put you up to it and support the change. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Swanest

Hi Richie333 you recently deleted the page I put up on Swanest, I would like to know why this page is not suitable but Moneyfarm is? I am trying to make Wikipedia a more complete place for robo-advisory as its a new area. I will look to resubmit the page if you have no major pointers for how this can be improved as this is a notable company and is not advertising - purely factual information that I believe is suitable. Many thanks (Marcusw572 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

@Marcusw572: It turns out that MoneyFarm was put up for speedy deletion but declined by Appable as "one of the biggest digital wealth management companies in Europe", so it might be worth asking them. My personal view is that company articles on Wikipedia are a hard sell - I find the business will neither by helped nor harmed by having a Wikipedia page, and information for it can still be easily found on Google. We try to aim for content that is going to important for people in 10, 50, 100 years' time, and base articles around that level of knowledge. There is always the risk that the company may run into financial trouble or one of the directors may be convicted for fraud or embezzlement, and that sort of information can also go in the article. So it's worth considering whether it's actually a good thing to have an article in the first place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I do hope you're not just "feathering your own swan's nest" here, Threesie?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Richie333: Thats understood, as Swanest is a notable company on the Robo Advisory scene and is getting top level national coverage within its country of operation and is set to grow considerably over the foreseeable future I don't see why its not suitable for Wikipedia. If there are to be financial trouble or major news I believe it is of interest that it is recorded so don't see this as a point to work against it. I believe its a relevant feature of the very empty robo advisory section of Wikipedia, additionally the information in the piece (excluding some sources) are not easily obtainable via Google, its only because of my interest in this area that I can help fill in the blanks. I will resubmit the page and I hope it will not again be marked as advertising (which it is not), it would be great if Appable would be able to give his / her opinion having approved the MoneyFarm post. Thanks (Marcusw572 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

I would advise you to use the article wizard which will put the article in draft space where it can be kept for a greater length of time without interference, and reviewed by an experienced editor. In this specific case here, the deletion rationale wasn't for A7 (no indication of importance) but G11 (blatant advertising), meaning I would have had to rewrite the article from the ground up to ensure it was in a suitable state to be improved by others. I can restore the deleted article to draft space and add the relevant submission buttons if this will make life easier? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Too many false positives to the World Health Organisation

Let's rawk (crowd-sourced)

I understand your frustration [3] trying to find information on the Who. It reminded me of the WWF, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (see WWE#WWF_name_dispute). Why do these do-gooders insist on co-opting the brands of our most noble entertainers? Willondon (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, when I was growing up the WWF was the World Wildlife Fund, David Bellamy appearing on television to talk about world conservation etc etc, then a bunch of rasslers (wave to Drmies) hijacked the acronym. As far as the Who / Mandela concerts go, I'm sure there is a source somewhere but the article is pretty large (about 60K of prose) at the moment, so I tend towards taking any excuse to remove content that is not obviously important and cannot fit in another article (which this can, not least 46664's own article). I do admit I got confused with the late 1980s Mandela concerts which were (obviously) campaigning for his release. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• In my position as guitar overseer for AC/DC (ArbCom Decibel Control) I am making some edits to the article. I hope my edit summaries explain what I did. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It did, though I would qualify that Townshend was a Marshall pioneer, being one of the first people on the planet to use a 4x12 stack, but as you say he primarily used Hiwatts for the Who's "prime time" era of 1968 - 1978. (PS: The drummer in our band is related to the notable AC/DC's Chris Slade and got a free backstage pass when they played Wembley - as Slade's article correctly says, he also drums in the quaintly named Centaur Parting). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, maybe "pioneer", but the article is about The Who. BTW, 4x12? 8x12. Have you ever seen one? One of my friends has one, Marshall, 1960s. I tried to pick it up once. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A cursory mention in "equipment" should suffice, but there is one anyway, so I think trimming that stuff out of "legacy and influence" is probably okay. We have a 4x12 in the studio, and I have seen an 8x12, but we have sack trucks over here to deal with them. And even then, that's small fry compared to a Hammond C-3 with a pair of 122s - they have large amounts of solid metal and cause four grown men to weep when shifting it about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

"Oh, and, by the way, if you think that it's unprofessional to be funny, then I'm sorry, but you just don't have a sense of humor. (Don't deny it. People without senses of humors always deny it. You can't fool me.) And if you work in a company where people will respect you less because your specs are breezy, funny, and enjoyable to read, then go find another company to work for, because life is just too damn short to spend your daylight hours in such a stern and miserable place."

Joel Spolsky

Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Miss Grand Universe Canada that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Why are you an administrator? You call people names and don't understand Wikipedia speedy deletion A3 which says - "This applies to articles (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images." The article has no content but links. That qualifies as A3. Your conduct is appalling. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I'm sorry you think like that, however the relevant portion of WP:CSD#A3 here is as follows : Similarly, this criterion does not (my emphasis) cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet another speedy deletion criterion. Since the article is already under a debate at AfD, and since it does meet the criteria where it is vitally important to delete the content (such as WP:CSD#G10 - attack page or WP:CSD#G12 - copyright violation), there is no need to rush to delete the article, and it is better to wait the full seven days to give as much chance to see if somebody can save it. In answer to your first question, there is something on this talk page archives where I discussed criteria under which I would resign as an administrator, but I can't find it at the moment. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• WilliamJE, do you think "Why are you an administrator? .... Your conduct is appalling" is collaborative, polite, and respectful? It's you and Graham11 who are violating policy by removing a pre-existing AfD template. And I don't see Ritchie333 calling anyone names anywhere there (seriously, "Mr. Impatient" is not name-calling, it's descriptive of your policy-violations). I do however see you being very uncivil above. See also WP:DTTR. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Softlavender. You accuse me of violating policy and removing a pre-existing AFD. Neither of which I did. Put up proof otherwise. Of course you fail to know WP:Civil, where it is clear namecalling isn't justified. It also says accusations need proof otherwise you violated Civil yourself with your false claims above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• WilliamJE, if you think that User:Ritchie333 has acted out of ignorance, because he simply "doesn't understand Wikipedia speedy deletion A3", then calling his behaviour "appalling" is really not WP:AGF, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Martinevans123 and you didn't read his edit summary here[4]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I certainly did read it, and I laughed. You think that’s “uncivil”? But you’re now telling me what I did and did not read? That’s quite a gift. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)