User talk:Ritchie333

no problem just challenged u with my ideas abt Spectrum

suit urself n do what u wish abt those lines in the talk abt Spectrum pages :)

Re: Kayley Potters

My bad Ritchie, I always forget that A7 does not apply to fictional characters. I think we should send it to AFD because, as far as I'm concerned, there is no fictional character named Kayley Potters and she is making the whole thing up. The character is based on a fanfiction or something. Please give me your advice. Thank you. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 13:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• It looks made up. PROD it first, come back in a few days, if it's contested but no sources added, AfD it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twyford Down, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campaign for Better Transport (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) 11:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hello. The edit summary that you left in declining a speedy was that it has a news source. Are you suggesting that it is proper to delete a speedy solely on the basis of there existing one ref in the article that mentions the subject?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• You should only nominate things for speedy deletion if there is absolutely no chance that anybody could save it at an AfD, and it would be pointless sending it there. In this case, the presence of one news source means that the article's subject could pass the notability guidelines if others exist. These sources might not necessarily be online, and could take some time to find. So, in that case, if you are still confident that the sources found do not establish notability, you should send it to AfD for a full community discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe I've missed it, in which case I appreciate the education. Where in our policy does it indicate that the presence of one news source is reason to decline a speedy? One news source ref, of course, is not by itself sufficient to make a subject notable. And all articles, whether they have one ref or zero refs, could pass the notability guidelines if sufficient sources exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You are indeed correct, all articles could pass the notability guidelines if properly sourced, and AfD can be an excellent way to determine this one way or the other. In the case of Soutelphan, there is also this Allmusic source, and we've generally established that Allmusic is reliable. I suspect we'll find further sources in Arabic. It definitely doesn't, from my mile high view, look like the typical Vanispamcruftisement sourced only to itself and to irrelevant company check websites which do qualify for a db-corp tag.

Regarding policy, the key point I think that's worth mentioning here in WP:CSD#A7 is : "Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion." Also, User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes is an interesting essay to read, as is the old WP:NEWT project, and this discussion I had elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, your expanded rationale is all well and good. Your initial rationale IMHO was wanting. If it meets A7 it meets it -- whether it has one source or not -- unless you show that as you do here (but did not do before) credible claim of significance. "Maybe it could who knows perhaps be notable" is not enough.

As to A7, I think that rather than focus on an essay which may be a non-consensus view of one or a few editors, the key is found in A7 itself. It states: "A7. No indication of importance ... An article about a ... organization that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant ... This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." That "lower standard" is not met by an article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant -- even if it has one news source.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you're absolutely sure there's only one reliable source, it's probably a thing notable for one event and could go an article somewhere, just not a standalone one. Usually if I undo a CSD nomination, it's because I intend to take the article to a notable standard, or provide some big clues for somebody else to do it if I don't have time. Other CSD candidates I take one look at, put my head in my hands and say "kill with fire". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused where you see an obligation on the editor requesting deletion or denying that request to explore whether there is more than the one indicated source. It's a matter of "burden." At times, as at AfD, we have a burden on the nom. At other times, as in the addition of un-sourced challenged material, the person is on the person seeking to retain the information, and not on the challenger. Here, it seems to me the burden is certainly not on the person seeking speedy deletion. And to deny speedy on an incorrect rationale is perhaps less than helpful. If you were to deny based on "x and y show it to be important or significant," I would understand. But one source by itself does not make an article ipso facto important or significant. That small point is my only tiny quibble. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this! You do talk a good, sound argument and I respect your views. Happy editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

NZ bios

I see you also noticed. Is that a sock of a some kind of anti-NZ banned editor? Bit unusual first edits, and all following one editors creations. This makes me wonder what I have wondered before whether 1000 edits should be a threshold before using that template. If such a limit is even technically possible. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a sock of an editor who's been following Stuartyeates (talk · contribs) around and generally trying to delete stuff. I've asked Rschen7754 (talk · contribs), who closed the recent SPI case, to have a look. The trouble is, I can't hand on heart say he doesn't have a case at AfD right now without finding some more sources to support these bios, so I'm reluctant to just dismiss it as disruptive. I wouldn't put a hard limit on using the templates as I can see a legitmate use - say if a notable person stumbles across a badly sourced BLP of themselves and wants to argue they're non notable for a quiet life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, AGF or not I'll have a look at a couple of them. English language sourcing isn't really my forte. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also BourbonandRocks (talk · contribs). Looks like a blocked or banned editor socking - no new user would leap straight to an AfD and make policy backed arguments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your close at AN/I

I don't know if it was appropriate for you to close the AN/I discussion since you participated in it, but I'm glad you did. Haha. I think you should add to your closing comment so that it mentions that the editor also ignored numerous warnings on their talk page and bypassed proper protocol by going to AN/I (after his bad behavior) without ever attempting to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. I hope you'll add those things because the editor's edit-warring was only a part of their very inappropriate behavior; it was only one-third of the reason for the boomerang. Thanks. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Technically, it was a bit of ignoring all rules closing it, yeah - for which I give anyone full permission to reopen the thread if they so wish (that goes for any ANI conversation I happen to close, by the way). I don't think a giant list of what you think duffbeerforme did wrong is appropriate though - ANI is for stopping disputes that have got totally out of hand, and "naming and shaming" is not part of that. I had already subtly hinted at "take it to the talk page" earlier, and since the discussion had got the point where everyone was saying "we need to discuss this elsewhere" I felt it was time for a close. In future, if you see anyone edit warring on the article, use WP:AN3 or discuss on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if you're going to mention the boomerang, it should mention exactly why instead of just singling out one reason; not to shame the editor, but for accuracy for all editors who read why it was closed. And I've had no involvement in that article, so I would have no reason to ever take it to AN3 or the talk page. ;) And Duff didn't take it to AN3 because he obviously wasn't looking at it as an edit-warring issue, but ironically as an inappropriate-behavior issue. Haha. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'd be surprised if anyone is interested in the thread now beyond those who have already participated, if I'm honest. It'll be archived soon, we'll all forget it about it, and we'll all move onto other things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Matt from Tribunal Records

Not really sure what deems a record label "notable" but it seems you have something personal against me or else you would simply search this website and find all the bands I have worked with since 1999. The label has released 113 releases since 1999, I understand that is before internet took hold and most all coverage I had was in magazine form. Remember those? My reissue division has released 40 titles since 2008. So again, I suggest you do some research, even if only on this website to find out. But, regardless I have survived so much more in this industry over the years so whatever personal issue you have with me, enjoy it, because it's all you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.172.239 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've no idea what this is about. Could you provide some context? If you have magazine sources, providing they were commercially published and had wide circulation, they're pretty likely to be reliable sources, so can be used. Have a look at our instructions for how to cite sources, which shows you how to cite print material. Regarding research, the onus is generally on the person adding the content to have done this first, though I will try and cite things to a web source if I can easily come across one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

UKRD

The law of the NE Ents say : "Cause no drama"....
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You may wish to read my comments about UKRD at User talk:Rschen7754#Cap-Saint-Martin. --Rschen7754 21:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I have closed the discussion as it is clear that you do not understand the GA/FA processes, and your comments were descending into personal attacks. However, you are welcome to bring any USRD or CRWP article to WP:FAR or WP:GAR if you believe that it does not meet the standard. --Rschen7754 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC) You are also welcome to take any evidence of personal attacks, with diffs, to ANI and I will apologise and withdraw them. Just watch out for Malleus - he takes a dim view of this. Also, SilkTork would appear to have an opinion contrary to yours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not engaging in further conversation, but there's something I want to make clear from the getgo: I've never been one to play civility cop, even as an admin. I don't agree with everything Malleus has said for example, but I don't waste my time trying to write him up at ANI and file the paperwork - I have articles to write. If you look through the blocks I've made, you will find very few blocks related to civility alone. --Rschen7754 04:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

about my article submission...

i thought that my "list of firsts in major human achievements" would be very useful for people to know what significant milestones mankind has achieved during its existence and when. consider from the point of view of an extraterrestrial civilization- WHAT HAVE THEY ACHIEVED SO FAR AND WHEN AND WHO WAS THE PIONEER DOING THAT?

wouldn't it be great to list out all first major events important for us which changed our world like say "FIRST PHONE CALL", "FIRST TV BROADCAST", "1ST HUMAN ON MOON"! when Wikipedia has lists for some other game/ sport achievement/ records... isn't it more important than that?

i know my list is incomplete but that's why Wikipedia is there right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.77.220.17 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your list being an article is that deciding what can go in and what should be left out is incredibly subjective, particularly where we need to take a worldwide view. I appreciate your list isn't complete, but I'm not sure it ever could be - where might you draw the line at what's important and what's not? Lists tend to be most useful when they convey a clear and unambiguous set of information, such as (to pick a random example) List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones. Notice also that article has several paragraphs explaining to the reader what the article is about.

Now, on the other hand, a category titled "Significant human achievements", or something similar, would be able to convey the same information, and fit into a more acceptable format. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetan8945 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

InSystems Corporation

Hey Richie, I originally posted this to User:Drmies talk page but he said he wasn't too familiar with the AfC process. You had the unfortunate luck of being the first admin I recognised on the AfC talk page and now have been landed with this :)

I came across InSystems Corporation during NewPage patrol at Articles for creation/InSystems Corporation (in article space at that name). I moved it to the page it's at now but upon further inspection I'm not sure if it should perhaps be moved into AfC space. I can't find any evidence of it being in AfC space to begin with (looking at the authors contribs). I'm not quite sure what's happened but I suspect perhaps that the author has simply created the article and added the AfC tags to avoid it being deleted? I want to WP:AGF on this so I thought I'd ask an admin to take a looksee at it Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. The problem seems to have stemmed from this edit where it was moved to the wrong location. AfC submissions are stored in the Wikipedia talk namespace so that IP users can create them (since, post Siegenthaler, they can't create anything in main space). It seems Drmies and Mabdul have sorted this one out now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

edit conflictNo need to worry, all sorted now. Explained here if you're interested. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Straight Into Darkness submission denial

Hello, i've been fairly busy and didn't notice that my article had been reviewed. You said my song was not notable but it is. Also you said that songs on wikipedia, with the exception of Beatles songs, should be notable like a chart-topper, yet the song is not a single or album so it cannot be on the charts. Also i'm sure not many people heard of the songs Maggie Mae or Sexie Sadie by the Beatles, so what you said is purly an opinion, even though i'm working on an history related article about the beatles, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The History of The Beatles, if you could check it out and give me feed back I would be much appreciated. Thank you, and please look back into my article!

                           JoshBlitz (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)JoshBlitz