User talk:Ritchie333

M-102

The sort of M-102 I'm more likely to edit articles about....

Speaking a bit candidly, considering your outspoken opposition against WP:USRD expressed here [1], your choice to review M-102 (Michigan highway) was probably not the best option, as it makes others doubt your neutrality; I foresaw that this review would be problematic for the above reason. For the record, as stated on my userpage, I monitor all USRD GANs nowadays, since we nominate so many articles, and thus have a high number of substandard reviews, so I'm not picking on your review unfairly. --Rschen7754 19:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I actually felt the article was pretty good, in as much as I found less problems than Talk:Sergey Brin/GA1, Talk:British rhythm and blues/GA2 or (especially) Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/GA1. I felt I should at least give the review a go to make a concerted effort to work together. Still, I concluded if things carried on, somebody (possibly me) would have shot their mouths off and dragged it into WP:LAME territory, so best to walk away from it and let somebody else have a go. It's not my Wikipedia or yours, it's all of ours together and we can't all win at everything. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  I'm wondering if you'd consider revisiting M-102. It has been a few days and I'm sure everyone has cooled off by now. –Fredddie™ 03:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I'm busy with other projects, so my time on GA reviews has suddenly become a bit limited. Plus, a third party looking at both sides of the argument in the GA review and making a decision is fairer all round. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Second opinion has been rendered. The ball is back in your court. Imzadi 1979 → 03:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• As stated above, I am stopping my involvement in this review, as I believe abstaining from it will be better for the encyclopaedia. The second opinion reviewer should make a decision on whether to pass or fail. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion and sources

Hello Ritchie. Could you have a look at this? Do you think it's worth keeping?

I'm thinking of taking Piper to GA. If you're not busy, and if you have the book near, could you expand the Mason refs? (I still need to get his book.) yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hiya. Some of the redirects are worth keeping, some aren't. I'm not fussed. Regarding, DSOTMoo, it's only borderline notable so I'll listen to arguments for a merge / redirect (but not an outright nuke).

As for Piper, well I'm busy with real life (again!) but I can source stuff out of Mason, Povey et al for it. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Ah, life strikes again, and alrighty. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I now have a working spinet Hammond and Leslie - just like the one Rick uses in Pink Floyd at Pompeii - more fun than editing WP articles. (And less arguing!) :-D --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Have you had it for a while? Or just obtained it? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 19:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not absolutely identical, but a layman wouldn't notice and it'll make the same sound. It's a Hammond T-402 (like the M-102 which Rick did use on Pompeii, but with a transistor power amp), going through a valve amp simulator box. That goes into the Sharma speaker, and if you look at that article, you'll see my photos of it. Had the Hammond for a month or two, got the Sharma this weekend. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Really awesome pics. Up for re-creating "Echoes"? :) I've got an electric piano (not sure what kind!) that my mate "gave" (at a price) to me, I can't play it though. However, it works well on tempo when I'm trying to play a song on guitar at certain pace. I've got Mason's book (2011 ed), so you've got less of a work(/ref)load. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I can play every part on every instrument (or at least the live Pompeii arrangement), though I've only started working out the drum parts recently. For what I do outside of Wikipedia, see this - it ain't Floyd but it's still fun. Many years ago, I played in a psych pop band and we covered Astronomy Domine on a regular basis, and did Lucifer Sam a few times. Never had the patience or stamina to do Echoes! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

article submission declined

Hello:

I submitted the article about The Kind (band). I am just a fan of this obscure band. You wrote, "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability." I understand what you are saying. However, I checked another band on Wikipedia -- De Film. They had no hits but the article was included. So I am wondering what is the difference between these two bands/submissions? Why was De Film accepted but The Kind rejected? The Kind was a Chicago favorite 30 years ago and did release a few singles on their own (independent) label, 360 Records. I have them!

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.23.219 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Basically the fact another article exists does not necessarily mean that that article is suitable for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. However, I can't see an article on De Film, which suggests it might have been deleted per Wikipedia policies. Also, just having singles released on your own independent label is not sufficient to establish notability - I have recorded an album on my own label for commercial release, and I (rightfully and per policy) don't have a Wikipedia article. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Pizza cheese merge discussion

There is a merge discussion in which you may wish to participate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ARS History

• Hey Ritchie, I saw your comments re ARS in the ANI. I stay away from ANI so won't comment further there, but if you are interested in the background of ARS, you can also see User:Milowent/History of the Article Rescue Squadron. There has been tension between the purposes of AfD and the goal of collaboratively building an encyclopedia (which can never be perfect) since the very early days of the project. This tension only erupts in a very small percentage of AfDs on the margins these days. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. I like {{User Article Deletion Squadron}} - that tickles my sense of humour. I think I'm on the ARS membership list, but I don't really participate in AfDs under it as I tend to only participate in ones where I've actually gone looking for sources and understand the topic material. Most contentious arguments I've seen centre on whether sources are significant enough to convey notability. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Very true, and in fact it would be easier if everyone admitted there there are a small percentage of AfDs where this happens and there is no "right" answer. People fought over high school notability for years and spent endless time on it (see my other history, User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs) before most everyone realized it wasn't worth it. But bright line rules can't necessarily develop in all areas.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing I've mentioned, and WP:EOTW kind of references it, is that sometimes you just need to say "is it worth the hassle", step back from an AfD, and do something else. Also, a lot of people don't seem to realise that "Merge / redirect" is an option - "Delete" in my view should mean "no random person would look for this article, ever" Justin Bieber on Twitter is a good example of both of these. If the article really is notable, somebody else will create it again. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• To give you the other side of things, there are some of us who find certain ARS regulars to have a massive battleground attitude on the "deletionism-inclusionism" debate. It has been common for the most devoted ARS members, such as Milo, to cry about "censorship" or "freedom" when confronted with determined criticism about canvassing or other issues with the ARS. Milo makes it seem like this is about deletion, but for me it has nothing to do with that at all. Too often I find the ARS members who go to the AfD of a tagged article are not offering anything in the way of compromise, are not addressing the actual concerns raised by an AfD nomination, are treating an AfD that is essentially a merge discussion like it is the same as a deletion discussion, or some combination of the above. Essentially they show up geared up for a fight and they then wage it without thinking of how their actions negatively affect the project or other editors. To go with what you mentioned, I actually voted to keep the Bieber Twitter article, but I was not annoyed by the merge votes as much as the delete votes as it seemed to be nothing more than an emotional rejection of the content that was not allowing for an obvious compromise. I see the same behavior evidenced in many of these ARS regulars.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oy! Squatters! Get orf my talk page!

• DA, you should know by now that my pizza jihadist claims and the like are not truly serious. I am trying to draw attention to certain problems at AFD, but I also find things like this userbox hilarious. When discussions get absurd, I can't help but get absurd as well. I do think the mentality that favors deletion over improvement (when possible) is very very bad, but that should be about as controversial as opposing the senseless murder of kittens.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• It took you all of one hour and a couple reasonable comments disagreeing with you to throw out the "pizza cheese jihadist" nonsense. The discussion was not "absurd" and that points to the problem I am talking about. You may have jokingly thrown out "heathens" and "jihadists", but you seriously accused people of ignorance. Obviously, the humor is just a more comical presentation for your actual opinion. You are the one who made the discussion absurd by lashing out, presumably because you were frustrated with people not agreeing with you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• When debating whether an article about pizza cheese should be merged or not, calling other people "pizza cheese fanboys" or whatever, even in jest, suggests that you may be taking things a bit too seriously. An AfD is just a discussion, not a fight. If an article gets deleted when there's no-one around, does it make a sound? If an article gets kept that's a bit stubby and might be better off with a merge, will it be of major detriment to WP? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do not recall anyone calling someone a "pizza cheese fanboy" and I know I didn't throw out such a comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Kind (again)

The band was De Film but you have to enter it as DeFilm in Wikipedia. The article is a only few sentences, band lineup, and a discography. So this article about this band somehow made it through. The Kind band is similar in that two albums were released. The Kind also had several singles released and received much radio airplay in the Midwest. Their record label, 360 Records, no longer exists, but you can still find their albums online. I have not researched other obscure band articles on Wikipedia, but De Film comes closest to The Kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.23.219 (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've had a look at the article, and can't find any evidence that the band is notable, so I have suggested it be deleted from Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Nice to meet you at the London meetup earlier today - I hope to see you at others in future! The Land (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, yes it's nice to put faces to names behind this project. It helps foster a more collaborative attitude. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I keep meaning to go to a London meeting, but I've not managed it yet..... SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited B.J. Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lulu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Van der Graaf Generator

Hi. How are you getting on with the GA review of this? I'm doing a bit of expansion on musical style, as suggested in the review, which will hopefully be done by this evening, at which point I think all existing comments in the review are accounted for.

As stated, I will be mostly off-wiki for about a fortnight starting next week, so if you've come across other problems or things that need improving / fixing, now would be a good time to suggest them! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's been off my radar. I'll take a look today and let you know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. By the way, I found a bootleg recording of Van der Graaf Generator at the Weeley Festival in 1971 online. Just been listening to it. I wonder if I can hear you shouting? ;-) --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi there, I see that you have shown interest in participating in the October - November 2012 BED for the AFC WikiProject. Because you have already seen the page you may think that the drive will begin on November 1, but due to the rapid increase in submissions these past few days, I am pushing the start date to October 22, 2012.--Dom497 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cheers Dom. I won't be online much after about 21st October through to the end of the month, so I probably won't make the top entries due to a severe late start, but if my wikitime picks up again, I'll happily pick up the slack. AfC is one of the best ways you can get new editors on board with maximum support and minimum hassle, in my view. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bauhaus Entertainment

Thank you for taking the time to review my article about Bauhaus Entertainment. I was sad to find it wasn't approved. I am a long time Wiki user and I finally got the courage to contribute something, but I'm a little overwhelmed with the different set of rules. In regards to the article, I'm afraid there isn't much written about the company. It's kind of a "ghost developer" (not too different to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tose_%28company%29) However, the contributions the company has made to other gaming companies is undeniable since the name of the company can be seen on the staff rolls and credits of their clients' products. I think that the reason that there is so little material written about the company is because it isn't known outside of Japan, which I wanted to revert with the creation of the article.

What kind of source should I need to find to get the material approved? Also, 90% of the material I can find will be in Japanese, does that matter?

Sorry for bothering you and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by San.ake.00 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• The best references are news or magazine articles, so if the company had a particular write-up in a videogame magazine, that would be an excellent source. Individual credits in games are useful to assert facts such as who they worked with, but might not be significant enough to count towards notability. Japanese sources are not a showstopper - while we prefer English sources, if that's all you have available, they can be accepted, though any direct quotations should be translated into English and peer reviewed. For what it's worth, you may have more success on the Japanese Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of List of Ghost in the Shell chapters

I just meerely wanted to ask what were the unreliable sources? Most of them were primary, so i don't see how it can be labeled unreliable. But if its just the lack of sources, could you let me know where it lacks? Thank you.Lucia Black (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, just read your review. The article isn't a stand alone it's merely a WP:SS. It's a sister article to the articles Ghost in the Shell (manga) (in which i'm planning to merge to Ghost in the Shell main article) and Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex.Lucia Black (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Barrack Point

Hey Ritchie333

My article for "Barrack Point" was declined as you said it already existed as "Barrack Heights". This is incorrect as they are both two different suburbs. Barrack Point is even mentioned in the Barrack Heights article.

I shall resubmit, and hopefully it is accepted :)

Cheers, Nikachu88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikachu88 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/As_Likely_As_Not_(band)

Ok. could you review the Article now? I put reliable sources now of this band. Thank you