User talk:Ritchie333

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

The WP:UNPUTDOWNABLES

(Probably there should be an essay by that name -- I just don't know what it would be about...) I have to disagree with your assertion that Moors Murders is u.p.d.-able -- see the thread I opened on its talk page. (I've got a talk to give on Monday, so I'll have to get back to it then, maybe.) I think it's a prime example of an overwrought article needing a severe copyedit. EEng 23:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but the Moors Murders (more specifically, any suggestion that Myra Hindley was not guilty as hell and might ever be released from prison) were a regular feature of British news for decades, to the extent that I first thought Hindley was some sort of political activist when I was growing up. It's probably the most notorious 20th century British crime and many Brits have a significant knowledge of the case anyway. So I think it does deserve the full extent of coverage that's present in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

More notorious than Fred West? Anyway, it's not a question of "full coverage" -- it's the inclusion of stuff that's beyond any reasonable notion of full coverage. See the proposed "Smith agreed" rewrite in the thread already mentioned. EEng 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Incoming beer-carrying homing pigeon...

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mike1901 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, and Happy New Year! I never got a response to this - but just want to check you got it and lack of response was due to lack of interest and/or busy-ness (either is perfectly fine!) rather than the pigeon delivering it being drunk. :-) Mike1901 (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike1901: I did get your email, but for one reason or another I never got round to dealing with it, as I have a pile of potential RfA nominations and it takes me a while to get round to addressing them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Fuck off

"Fuck off" is not a personal attack, it is an uncivil way to say "go away and leave me alone". (Oh, and I mean to use undo, but misclicked on revert: I didn't mean to label your edit as vandalism, I just wanted to undo it). Fram (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would place more focus on Cwmhiraeth who seems to be simply in this to bait Fram. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Historically 'Fuck off' has not been treated by either admins or arbcom as a personal attack. It being an uncivil way of saying 'go away'. A personal attack has generally been treated as an attack on the person, not just mild incivility (which doesnt merit comment removal). 'Fuck off you *insert perjorative*' would be a personal attack. If everyone who has told someone to fuck off was blocked, wikipedia would be a much nicer, but emptier place. -Ninja edit- Ah I missed fram's response above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I have never seen a situation where an admin (emphasis mine) directly telling an editor to fuck off ends well (see User:Beeblebrox/fuck off and paging Beeblebrox for comment). All it takes is one diff to be extracted onto ANI, and we'd be having this conversation over there rather than here, with far more drama and silliness. That is the reason I reverted, not because I found Fram's comment offensive (annoyed - maybe, offended - no; this comment from Mr Farage is far more offensive without going anywhere near any of the usual "bad words"). I said up-front I wasn't going to complain about being reverted; rather I felt it would help keep the peace at WT:DYK a bit. TRM is right that there is a problem with Cwmhiraeth indiscriminately putting hooks into prep without understanding the subject matter, which is the more substantial issue that needs to be addressed; however, comments like this are not going to help resolve that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think something is a personal attack, then don't revert with WP:NPA as edit summary: such incorrect edit summaries also don't help to keep the peace or resolve anything (not saying that you didn't try to calm things down and prevent escalation, only that your approach wasn't the right one either, compared to what OID had already done; I do believe that your intentions were good). Fram (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind I dont think you should have told him to fuck off either, turn the other cheek etc. TRM's recent experience should show, you can get dragged down by it in the end. We already lost one decent admin in the area, and I would rather not lose another. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You're all good people. Please will you all accept a metaphorical hug from me and this ASCII asterisk as a token of my affection: * --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie, you wrote "TRM is right that there is a problem with Cwmhiraeth indiscriminately putting hooks into prep without understanding the subject matter, which is the more substantial issue that needs to be addressed." Not so; this is one of the many things that TRM says which are not entirely accurate. In this particular case, I promoted a hook about a carol but having used Google Translate, thought the wording in the hook was wrong and altered it. Gerda reversed this so I brought the matter up at the DYK discussion page for another opinion. And there the matter would have rested if decent, unbiased people had responded. But Fram is out to get me, come what may, and TRM tags along behind like a shadow, or even goes ahead as shadows can, and there we are! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be very little difference between "indiscriminately putting hooks into prep without understanding the subject matter" and "promoted a hook [...] but having used Google Translate, thought the wording in the hook was wrong and altered it." Fram (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I notice Cwmhiraeth again reopened the closed section at WT:DYK, to gratuitously drop a personal attack against me, and at the same time to post an incomprehensible defense of their own actions: "I did reopen the thread, but Fram reverted my action. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)" (in response to TRM complaining about Cwmhiraeth hiding part of the discussion including the very post they wanted so desperately to have my answer on!). Perhaps someone else can go to Cwmhiraeth and explain a few things to them about discussions, logic, personal attacks, and dead horses? Fram (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I reopened the thread to the extent that I moved the end of the archived section up a few lines to the position it had been in before you started interfering with it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

??? Let's see: you reopened an archived thread, I replied, Only in death archived again. I unhid a series of comments you inexplicably had hidden, but I didn't change anything about the archiving. You then reopened the archived thread. My "interfering" consisted of a terse reply to you (you did ping me after all), and re-establishing the visibility like it was before you meddled with the archived discussion. Again, I never interfered with the beginning or end of the archive, the only one that did that was you. At least take responsability for your own actions. Fram (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

But Fram is out to get me, come what may, and TRM tags along behind like a shadow, or even goes ahead as shadows can, and there we are! No, Fram is out to make sure you stop promoting errors to the main page, as am I. I don't "tag" behind anyone, in fact if you read the posts we make more thoroughly, you'll see we most often make different points, many times I let you know about your mistakes in preps on your talk page and Fram doesn't comment there, many times Fram posts issues about your failures to pick up mistakes that are heading to the main page at the DYK talk page, sometimes we both comment, for instance in this case where you somehow refused to accept that a native German speaker could speak German better than Google Translate. I think it's time you stopped digging. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Just another fun-packed, fluid-flinging day at Ritchie333's talk page

• I was going to take my seven-year-old nephew to the zoo, but instead I'm going to bring him to this talk page. This is better than a zoo. EEng 16:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• It's grim up north. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Better than an asylum, too. EEng 16:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yay!! "Moments of sadness, moments of guilt. Stains on the memory, stains on the quilt" Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Quotation from my User page: This user believes that fuck is the most versatile word in the English language. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

too far gone

Hands up if your article's still assessed at crap class!

What do you think could be done about this article? I feel like it's too far gone and if we pared it down, it would be as small as as stub: Hare Kkaanch Ki Choodiyaan. It has a section showcasing dialogue between characters. it's awful --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've trimmed a bit, but we generally keep articles about hit singles, as just confirmation of the title, artist, and track listing can be of use to somebody who doesn't want to wade through the artist's general article. On a related note, Lisa Scott-Lee's article has got a bucketload of unsourced rubbish around the 2005-8 mark, which I suspect has been in there for years. On a semi-related note, I'd forgotten all about Steps, did you have to remind me about them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a television show, or are you referring to a different article? I think you replied to the wrong message --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Jennica Ah, no I just thought you wanted me to look at the article Too Far Gone, a single by the aforementioned Ms Scott-Lee. As for that other article, I would recommend fetching the matches and dynamite and removing that massive plot summary (and if I didn't know any better I'd say that was a copyvio) as soon as. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the ultimate tragedy of any worthy encyclopedia, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. "Lee from Steps reveals the 'Tragedy' dance routine was inspired by Macaulay Culkin"

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Quviahugvik

Hello Ritchie333: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer Solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}

Oi!, Threesie me ol' china...

Martinevans123 ^{(Santa's Drop-in Centre)} ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...
Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

---

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you may find your true star...

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

An FAC

Hello Ritchie. If you have the chance, would you mind reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Lawrence/archive1? Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Ritchie333!!
	Hi Ritchie333, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, Ritchie333!

"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Redolta is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Redolta📱 ^Contribs 00:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coventry Street

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coventry Street 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings! R333

	Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
	Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Coventry Street

	Congratulations, it's a...
	Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coventry Street

The article Coventry Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Coventry Street 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ruth McCartney

Why do you persist in undoing edits [Abbey Road] which have been cited by Sir Paul McCartney himself in the Beatles' Anthology., regarding the genesis of the song "Golden Slumbers"?

Do you have some sort of personal vendetta against my employer Ruth McCartney?

https://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/golden-slumbers/

http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1158.html

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=204

https://books.google.com/books?id=K-8OhZhmoyQC&pg=PT450&lpg=PT450&dq=beatles+anthology+book+golden+slumbers&source=bl&ots=XNfFcw8Cqf&sig=Zh0fimP9VvBeIALrR3PjfwZcDu0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibsaKn-ZfRAhXLilQKHWrhBtsQ6AEIPjAG#v=onepage&q=beatles%20anthology%20book%20golden%20slumbers&f=false

She would like to speak to you about this

www.mccartneymultimedia.com

Thank you

Lucy@McCartney.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucyconlon (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC) 

@Lucyconlon: There are a number of issues here, so let's take them in turn:

1. Nobody is going to have a go at you specifically - we all assume you thought you were doing the right thing.
2. Multiple editors have reverted your edits as inappropriate and degrading the article's quality, but you keep restoring it, so the edit warring notice on your talk page is appropriate. As nobody else agrees that your edit should stand, you need to convince other people why it should. In particular, declaring a conflict of interest by working for Ruth McCartney is probably a strategic error, as some editors distrust any direct relationship to a subject.
3. One of Wikipedia's most important policies is the neutral point of view, which means we need to write a balanced account of everyone involved in the album, not just the loudest advocate. In my view, Paul McCartney has had a tendency for selection bias to kick in and rewrite history (after all, who's going to stand up and disagree with him?), most obviously with the book he did with Barry Miles. Memories from nearly 50 years ago tend to fade, and bad ones have a tendency to disappear altogether; although he has had the benefit of refreshing them through continual explanation to journalists ever since, it's still possible for unintended bias to creep in. I suspect if JG66 looked through his collection of George Harrison books, he'd come up with quite a different account of what went on in the Abbey Road sessions. So we need to consider all points of view carefully. Obviously, if there's a piece in the article that Paul directly says is factually incorrect, we'll fix that, but I don't think that's the case here.
4. Abbey Road has been assessed as a good article, which means the quality requirements for edits is higher than most other articles; in particular, so many books have been written about the Beatles, that just citing a book source isn't enough - we need to agree on a consensus of exactly what books we can use. I personally prefer Mark Lewisohn's "Sessions" and Ian MacDonald's "Revolution in the Head", both of which have been critically acclaimed in the mainstream media as excellent research; however I emphasis that that's a personal choice that has a general agreement and is not gospel. In general, a website is not a sufficient source for a GA, particularly one where book sources are in abundance. Walter Everett's book is okay, and I think it is used in places.

I hope that clarifies things; again I have to reiterate that it's nothing personal and is done purely to protect the integrity and quality of the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. Bit confused. The issue appears to be that at Abbey Road we don't acknowledge the Cheshire visit or make any mention of Ruth McCartney. But it's not as if we're offering an alternative scenario there – we're merely omitting details, which might be wise given that the song amounts to 1:31 in length, and the similarly brief description the other medley segments receive. The Golden Slumbers song article, incidentally, does include mention of the visit to his father's home (now in Liverpool) and Ruth. That doesn't answer the question regarding the reliability of this scenario, but my point is that this sort of detail definitely belongs in a song article, but not necessarily in the parent album's.

I do rate Walter Everett's book(s) very highly, btw. (Oh, and I've got a lot of books about Dylan, the Stones, etc. too you know!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right; I was talking more about general principles above (in order to calm down a new editor upset at having a seemingly good edit reverted). The issue was rather whether or not putting that information in the album's article was important or not; maybe Paul thinks it is, other sources seem to just mention it was inspired by Thomas Dekker and leave it at that. I don't think I'd be particularly against a cursory mention cited to Everett; the problem is there doesn't seem to be an easy way to integrate it into the existing narrative, which denotes a sentence fragment to all the songs in the medley. I'm also a bit suspicious of exactly how notable Ruth McCartney actually is, and while some McCartneys like Stella genuinely are by their own merits, other just seem to skirt a bit too close to WP:INHERITED for my liking. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the Abbey Road article that well – you do, of course – perhaps I'd be tempted to slip something very brief into a footnote, but I'm always reluctant to half-edit/hit and run. Up to you, R3.

Wow, it's uncanny how you've brought up the notability (or not) of some of those associated articles. I was just on the point of nominating an article I simply can't believe we still have: Jim and Mary McCartney. Plenty of rumblings on the talk page there, but I pulled back when I came across this. Hmm. JG66 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I came across that article this morning while researching, and I winced. It looks like a Daily Mail showbiz piece; common sense suggests this is not appropriate writing for a general purpose encyclopedia. It falls through all the cracks in our policies - Jim is a relative to multiple notable people (at least Paul, Mike and Stella), the information is cited to reliable sources (though the weight of those sources is totally off-balance) and it meets the letter of the GA criteria without the spirit. In all honesty, "delete per WP:IAR" wouldn't be too harsh. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with you – it's just astonishing. And I know there are others, for Category:Lennon family also. JG66 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have trimmed back the bucket loads of hagiography in the Ruth McCartney article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sabre Wulf FAC

Hi Ritchie, wanted to send a note that Sabre Wulf (an article you helped to review for GA) is up for featured consideration if you have the time/inclination to review against the featured article criteria: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabre Wulf/archive1. I'd appreciate your feedback. Happy holidays, czar 04:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Random question

You seem to be very knowledgeable about the RfA process and I view you as a respected, trustworthy editor. Have you ever considered running for crat? Lepricavark (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ... only made No. 20 in 1981, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I haven't. I do take part in a lot of RfAs, and usually vote the way it closes, but not always, and there are things the crats do such as approve bots that I've never gone anywhere near. I believe crats shouldn't serve on Arbcom, but the odds of me becoming an arb are zero so that's not an issue. I can close a contentious discussion, and there are numerous examples floating around Wikipedia, so that's one positive. The main problem with my RfA was, and probably still is, civility - I'm a nice guy most of the time and especially to newbies (see above discussion about Ruth McCartney, for example) but I don't see eye to eye with long-established admins so much, and serving a ban on Mike V probably hasn't endeared me much to them either. A handful of trips to ANI [1], [2] hasn't helped either. In my view, Kudpung and WereSpielChequers would be more worthy RfB candidates. What do my merry band of talk page stalkers think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd concur without hesitation on WSC, even more so since I've known him personally for several years and we have worked together on a few projects. As for me, well, although I'm never rude and never make PA, I certainly don't mince my words sometimes and I call a spade a spade, so I've upset a few trolls over the years. The bar for 'crat is very high. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The fake breasts will stay with me forever. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, I'd support you in a heartbeat, but because you've been so heavily involved at RfA for so many years, I suspect that if you did run it would get very, uh, interesting. I certainly don't want to push anyone into an unpleasant experience, but I don't like the fact that we've only promoted one crat in the last two years. There is nothing wrong with the current crats, but I think it would be a good idea to add fresh blood to the ranks a little more frequently. Lepricavark (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The "fresh blood" imagery is perhaps a bit too close to home in a discussion of RfAs and so on. Normally I discourage persons who value their mental health from climbing the WP bureaucratic ladder, but since Ritchie's already an admin, I guess I'll say "in for a dime, in for a dollar". I'd like to be notified of the nom discussion. EEng 23:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've thought of running for RFB and if RFA was healthier with lots of nominators competing to put forward the good candidates coming forward then I might run, but for now I think it more useful that I nominate people. Of course as a nominator I could simply recuse from my own nominees, but one of the areas where we might need crats it is in crat chats, and if I were an active nominator it would be a rare crat chat where nobody mentioned a recent RFA where I was the nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 09:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

RfA

It's time to really do something about people who serially disturb RfA. I've left messages at one voter's talk pge a couple of times over the years and three RfAs ago I said to myself: 'Just once more and I'll escalate. Obviously I keep putting it off, but even if the votes don't do much to sway the consensus, they don't exactly make RfA a warmer and more inviting place. We need to start making an example of such people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't such a tragic mess, RfA is almost as funny as Black Adder. Plenty of stereotypes to match some of the voters - no prize for guessing which ones, including a female for QE1. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes Kudpung, to you the Renaissance was just .... things that happened to other people. On a more serious note, Andrew D's latest oppose is being thoroughly humiliated, but people have picked up on points and agreed with them on other RfAs. So I'm not sure if a topic ban will gain traction. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the RfA nomination; that's much appreciated. But even more so, thanks for overall guidance, and for your open and frank opinions. I value that very much. Schwede66 19:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with the RfA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Hogmanay!

		Happy Hogmanay!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. --John (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ritchie333!

Happy New Year!

Ritchie333,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

GA Review mentorship

Hi I saw your name on Wikipedia:Good Article help/mentor and wanted some advice supervision as I have taken on Talk:Oakhanger, Hampshire/GA1. Although I have nominated over 100 GAs and am fairly familiar with the criteria etc I have not done a review before, therefore I'd appreciate any comments or guidance.— Rod ^talk 16:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rodw: I don't see any issue with the review as you've done it. You're right that 12K of prose is about right for a small village of the size and importance, so there probably isn't much more to expand. I think having a collapsible box for the landmarks is a bit redundant, and what is being presented as "British History Online" as a source should be A History of the County of Hampshire: Volume 3 (it's a common mistake that people don't seem to quite appreciate that BHO is simply an aggregate of out of copyright works). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - but re BHO - some of the works (certainly for Somerset) from VCH are still in copyright. I will point that one out & see how the response goes otherwise if there is anything else please just let me know.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ritchie333!

Happy New Year!

Ritchie333,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 18:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

4th GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December. This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points. We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules. In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, 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) 22:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ritchie333!

Happy New Year!

Ritchie333,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Norwegian Wood

Would you be interested, or know someone who is, in reviewing the Beatles song "Norwegian Wood"? This one should not take too long because it nearly passed the GA process the first time around. Let me know what you think, thank you!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

All done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"We can live in hope"

Posting here so as not to piss in the soup at the RFA, but regarding we can live in hope, we're talking here about someone who cites Chillum as his inspiration on his userpage, has WP:NPA linked (twice!) at the top of his talkpage and twice more in a massive garish editnotice for his talkpage, and boasts on his userpage about being a member of the #wikipedia-en IRC channel. Assuming this passes, do you want to start taking bets now as to when the first "I don't like you" block comes? ‑ Iridescent 20:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, he doesn't does he? Well my support vote was on a knife edge (if I'm asking questions at RfA it means I'm undecided), and hopefully you can read between the lines to see that it was a "can't quite find enough of a reason to oppose". Maybe I should have gone neutral. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

To be technically accurate, he doesn't specifically say the words "Chillum is my inspiration", but he does have a lengthy quote cut-and-paste from him about how admins shouldn't sully their hands with any involvement with content, quoted with approval. If you expand the collapsed userboxes, all the usual "I am the scourge of the unworthy" warning signals are there, too. ‑ Iridescent 20:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Just spotted it. I don't usually pay attention to anyone's user pages, so that'll be one thing to remember to check next time. That's a deal breaker, so a switch to oppose it has to be. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

6 RfAs?

I've never seen so many RfAs active at once, it's making me consider running. :p—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 22:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: I can only see five :-/ As I said in round one, you (probably) have a need to use the admin tools for technical abilities and you have shown no interest in using them for disciplinary purposes. I have to be honest and say you will still pick up opposition if you ran now, but given the previous run and the changes in RfA criteria, there's sufficiently leeway for you to pass now, provided somebody can write a convincing nomination statement. Ideally, I'd like to run with a trusted co-nominator; I'm just not sure who. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I miscounted. I know I will never fly through an RfA. I'm not much a content editor but my bot, InternetArchiveBot is what I would show for my best contribution to Wikipedia, though it is still an ongoing project. My previous nominators might be willing to nominate again, there's probably User:Kudpung who may also wish to nominate, but not sure. I am very familiar with the username policies, so WP:UAA would be a place I would start working too.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 14:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

TParis nominated you first time, so he might be in a better place than me to offer advice too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll make my decision to run, based on their comments, (they've been pinged), since they are very insightful when it comes to RfA.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 14:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678:, wish you hadn't mentioned it on RFA talk, though. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not?—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 14:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Better to come out of the sun on this one, loins girded and strong in mind and body (metaphorically); that kind of tentative hinting looks like you're looking for reassurance. Why would you do that: when you don't need it. OK? Mind you, bugger all people actualy read the Talk, so you should be fine  ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Not reassurance, I've already ran once before and failed at 74%. I have high self-esteem, and and RfA regardless of how it ends, will not change that. It didn't the last.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 15:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

67 RfAs? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would be glad to co-nom. I always thought Cyber got a raw deal at his first RfA. "Oppose because you need to fix some of your bots"? Come on! IMO this could be a really good time for Cyber to go for it again. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. Obviously, if he can recruit some longer-serving or better-known admins than me as noms, he should go with them. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 15:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to provide a nomination for Cyberpower, or will note my strong support if you already have enough people lined up (I may be old fashioned, but I think that 2-3 nominators is plenty!). WJBscribe (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have started two RfAs that are currently live, which is more than quite enough, so I will duck out of this and leave those who can write a more convincing nomination to come forward and kick the wheels in motion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely love to have User:WJBscribe as a nominator, and User:MelanieN as a co-nom. I'm waiting for User:TParis and User:Kudpung to respond with their comments.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You might ask MusikAnimal too; didn't he co-nom you in your previous RfA? Like Ritchie, I will gladly bow out if you can get another nominator of the calibre of WJBscribe or TParis or Kudpung or MusikAnimal. (I agree with WJBscribe about 2-3 nominators being the limit; there was recently an RfA with four nominators and some people criticized it for that reason!) --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny enough, I was thinking about this yesterday.--v/r - TP 19:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I think you do yourself a disservice. You are very well respected and highly active admin - I would be very happy to see a co-nom from you if you felt minded to add one.
If anyone does want to co-nom the page is now ready for you: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2. WJBscribe (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: Thank you for the vote of confidence. I have been thinking about some wording and will post something there shortly. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to be a 3rd co-nom, but if Kudpung or Ritchie333 wanted to do it, then I'd be happy to defer to them.--v/r - TP 02:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's good to see three trusted nominations on this; the only thing I might add is that CP is personally responsible for keeping the wheels turning on the RfA process; the summary charts at WP:RFA are driven off his bot. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

I see you protected the talk page at SchroCat (talk · contribs); are you by chance friendly with him, or was this just a request that you happened to see and oblige? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@TomStar81: He sent me a request to protect it via email after he had retired. Talk pages are not normally full-protected, so I won't object to any other admin lifting it if they feel it is appropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I ask because his name came up in an article audit for milhist in 2016. Stated more simply, he has some barnstars coming his direction, but I didn't want to unprotect the talk space to add the barnstars and thanks so I was curious if there was a way to send word to him for what he earned last years, or at the very least to say thanks for helping us. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've emailed him to let him know about your milhist awards page. As I understand it, he wants to avoid Wikipedia completely at the moment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. According to my list, he earned the Epic Barnstar, WikiChevrons, World War Barnstar, English Barnstar of National Merit, and Biography Barnstar for his work on Winston Churchill as writer and List of regicides of Charles I. If you could pass that along, I'd be grateful. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have passed it along, and the general feeling from both of us is we are both happy with milhist's continual progress as possibly the best project on WP. I would contribute but it's not my area of expertise, so I have to settle for smaller fish like Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Need Contents from delted page

Could you please be so kind to e-mail me the contents from my deleted page Draft:NUUP

Email ID: (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem - text emailed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ritchie333!

Happy New Year!

Ritchie333,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Diffs

I'll keep an eye out, but the problem is, every single diff is going to look like this no matter what the output happens to be. Also, the page revision coming out of that diff will look exactly as it would if you added the template now, even if at the time it was added it was obviously wrong (as that one was). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Basically I wanted cast iron evidence that Beatley was being disruptive; the diffs show he is adding data based on unverified content that may be wrong, and instead I think he should be trying to source the dates here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Cafe Royal Cocktail Book

On 5 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cafe Royal Cocktail Book, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Cafe Royal Cocktail Book contains one of the first recorded recipes for the 20th Century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cafe Royal Cocktail Book. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cafe Royal Cocktail Book), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Liverpool Street station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Liverpool Street station 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 Esquivalience -- Esquivalience (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential Revdel

Hi Ritchie333 - I just reverted an ip's comment on Talk:Grand Canyon. I saw you were on the list of admins for revdel, so thought you could take a look at it. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Eh, kinda tame; harmlessly juvenile, I think. I personally wouldn't dignify it with a revdel. Your (and Ritchie's) mileage may vary though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: (sorry about the RfA, I !voted support and don't really understand what the opposition was getting at) I agree that this isn't worth revision deleting. It's not a personal attack or a threat to you, and anything other than revert, block, ignore is asking for attention. Which is precisely what vandals and trolls want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That was my thought as well, but I thought an admin should take a look. (And thanks for your support). Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, do you know JavaScript?

If so, I have some questions for you. The Transhumanist 12:47, 6 January 20s17 (UTC)

I have written JavaScript code as a professional software engineer and for fun (quick ego trip); however I'll say this that knowledge of the language does not mean you know every single framework ever put on top of it (of which there are now many), and if the question is "can you write me a program that does 'x'", the answer is "I don't have time". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm in the process of writing scripts that work on Wikipedia, and the only framework that I know of that is relevant (loaded by default) is JQuery. I wish to become proficient at writing in JavaScript, and so having someone else write the programs for me would defeat that purpose. But I get stuck from time to time, and finding the solution can be like searching for a specific needle in a stack of needles, while the answer might be ultra obvious to a seasoned programmer. Also, it would be nice to have someone experienced look over my sourcecode to point out problems and better approaches.

The program I'm currently working on modifies the viewing of pages on Wikipedia with respect to lists (currently it processes bulleted lists only, regardless of what page they are on). I'll be adding functionality to the script over time, and it is currently called User:The Transhumanist/anno.js. Once I'm done with the present feature, which is hiding/showing annotations, I'll be adding a feature to collapse/expand multi-level lists incrementally.

At the moment, what it does is toggle between hiding and showing annotations, without having to add DOM elements to millions of pages first in order for it to work correctly on those pages.

The problem is that when you hide or show annotations, it changes the length of the content being viewed, and jolts the viewing port and the user from what was being viewed. So if annotations above the reader's location are removed, he is all-of-a-sudden looking at text further along in the document, and has to scroll up to resume where he left off. If he then toggles the annotations back on, annotations that are added back in earlier in the document push the text he is reading down toward or off the bottom of the viewport. So now he has to scroll down to see what he had been looking at.

Note that I'm not merely showing/hiding the toggled material. I'm actually removing/restoring it. This is so that pages don't have to be modified by an editor first to be compatible with the script.

What I'd like to do is have the top line of the topmost bulleted item retain its position on the screen when the toggle is pressed, with everything else being updated above and below it. If there are no bulleted items on the screen, then the topmost line of text should retain its position.

I don't have a clue where to begin.

This leads me to my second question: How should I proceed!? The Transhumanist 00:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm currently reading JavaScript: The Definitive Guide (Sixth edition), but it will take me awhile to get through it. Hopefully, I'll finish my first iteration of it by the end of this month. -TT

Some specific questions...

1. Are you familiar with JQuery?
2. What are the problems (if any) with the script User:The Transhumanist/anno.js?
3. How do you determine the current viewport location with respect to a regex match?
4. How do you set the viewport location relative to a regex match?

I look forward to your answers. The Transhumanist 00:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: I don't have much more than passing knowledge with JQuery, simply because the sites I have maintained were from a time when it was less established and we wanted as little dependencies as possible.

Regarding the specific problem, the first question to ask yourself is - "do any other sites do this?" Find another website that controls lists in this way, examine the DOM in something like Google Chrome's developer view, and see what the difference is. If you can't find anything suitable, that might indicate you're trying to solve the wrong problem and need to step back and take a completely different approach.

The closest analogy I've got is http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/tools/upload/ (don't worry, you can just browse the form without having a relevant file) which is similar to MediaWiki's upload form with a lot more bells and whistles. The div marked showGalleries starts with a style of height:24px; overflow:auto;, then when the "Show all galleries" button is clicked, it calls a function in http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/extensions/GalleryEdit/Common.js - driveGalleries(). This swaps the div's height to 400px, and starts loading data in via a HTML<ul>list, and if there isn't enough space for all the galleries to fit, you'll just get a scrollbar. I think this is conceptually similar to what you want to do, right? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't think so, because the DOM elements I'm homing in on do not have any properties specified. They are not divs, they are <li>'s. When the user activates the script's toggle, I want the script to do this:

1. Before it changes the content of the document being viewed (by replacing regex matches to null), find the first <li> in the view port and record the part of it that comes before its annotation (if any) and determine the <li>'s location in the view port.
2. Then, after the program changes the content of the page (by using regex to delete all annotations), adjust the position of the viewport so that the <li> it recorded is back in the same location in the viewport it was before.

Maybe I can dynamically insert a div, so that I have something to home in on later? But I still would have to identify which <li> is the topmost in the viewport. Then I could div it, and then I could determine the location of that div. Right?

But how do you identify <li>'s and their locations in the first place? Is there a way to apply regex to just the content of the viewport? If so, I can use regex to modify the first match only, which will naturally be the topmost match in the viewport.

I've never seen a website that toggles annotations in lists, ever. And I suspect I was very lucky to find a script that uses regex to modify the page content of DOM elements directly, so that I can physically remove content rather than show/hide the elements by their class names. The reason for this approach is so that I don't have to use AWB to markup up annotations with a DOM element in millions of pages just so that I can hide them with this script. So the script strips them out via regex. The script saves the state of the page (in local storage) before it does its content deletion, for restoration when the user presses the toggle again.

Finding a website that does something similar would probably be very unlikely, as almost everyone I've talked to has told me that modifying the html directly is taboo, and that I should be showing/hiding DOM elements (by their IDs or Classes). The problem with that is, that annotations are not the specific content of a DOM element, and there are perhaps millions of pages with annotated <li> elements on them. And millions more that may contain annotations in the future. Editing those pages to add DOM elements would be very intrusive, and time consuming. It would take weeks if not months to do it with AWB, assuming nobody complained, and this would also create a monstrous ongoing maintenance chore. So that's why the regex approach to simply nuke the annotations.

Almost everyone out there shows/hides content by specifying DOM elements by their IDs or classes. Inspecting websites via the console in order to find one that does it via regex seems like looking for a needle in a haystack. Is there a search engine that can search websites' javascript, that will also allow you to search for regex syntax? Or how about searching webpages' html directly so you can search their embedded scripts?

Pertaining to JQuery, I don't know JavaScript well enough to know when I'm using JQuery and when I'm not, because so far, I've mostly been hobbling together pieces from existing scripts. I just know there's some JQuery in there. I either fiddle with it until it works the way I want it to, or I google parts of the line of code I'm confused about, and the tutorial pages or forum postings this leads me to don't indicate whether they are talking about JQuery or not. They just speak in context, providing the answer, or clues about how to adjust the properties of an object, for example.

Thank you for taking the time to talk to a JavaScript noob. Talking it out helps with thinking up new search strings to better google the hell out of the problem with.

I very much look forward to your further replies. The Transhumanist 19:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Gammadyne Mailer

After you restored the article on Gammadyne Mailer, I rewrote it in an attempt to solve the problems that it had been flagged for. Soon after, another user deleted the article again without any discussion. Is there any way you can undelete the article so that it can go through a proper debate process? Grozo (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Grozo: There was a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gammadyne Mailer which was closed by Joyous! as "delete". I'll see if I can get their view on why they chose to close it, but while the AfD was sparsely attended, nobody voted "keep" so it seems inevitable that it would be deleted. The problem of restoring it is that another admin would then be perfectly within their rights to delete it again per WP:CSD#G4, so unfortunately I think we're a bit between a rock and a hard place. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

All of the comments in the debate occurred in November before the article was rewritten. Grozo (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

While that is correct, the article was deleted by Joyous! on 10 December. It is perhaps unfortunate that only one comment was made after that rewrite. The only other option is to raise a deletion review to see if the debate should be scrapped, restarted, or some other variation of the process. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Follow up

Ritchie. Away from the glare of Cyber's successful looking RfA, I want to follow up your action where you answered an additional candidate question of mine. You will be well aware of the long-running issues related to the atmosphere at RfA. I have been vilified by one of your good friends as a disruptive RfA editor, part of the so-called "anti-admin brigade". I have even been accused of having been blocked a dozen times. No matter that this is a wholly illegitimate & unfounded personal attack, it seems that mud sticks with some people with long memories. So put yourself in my position. Suppose I had the temerity to comment in a support !vote or attempt to answer a candidate's question for them, especially where one of your friends was a nominator? There is no doubt that certain admin colleagues would have kicked up a stink with the usual threats to run me off the project. So why was it ok for you to do the same, and then casually pass it off as an attempt to seek support votes for the candidate? Leaky Caldron 10:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: I think you're reading too much into this. AFAIK you're a mostly retired editor who has done lots of good work in the past, and who makes well-founded and legitimate criticisms of the admin corps. I do not have any issue with your oppose !vote, which is a civil and well-researched opinion.

I don't think any of my actual good friends are on Wikipedia much, most of them are either unaware of what I do on here or bemused why I'd choose to spend so much time on it. If you're talking about Kudpung, well we have a mutual interest in trying to get better admin candidates but we don't see eye to eye on everything, and I suspect if you asked us both on our opinion on Eric Corbett, you'd get a very different answer. (Mine would be to focus on things like this) A couple of my regular on-wiki colleagues (most obviously Dr. Blofeld and Cassianto) are very much in the so-called "anti-admin brigade", but they do good work for the encyclopedia, and it's more that they don't like admins who are up their own rears (naming no names but you can probably work it out from my posts to various user talk pages and AN / ANI threads). Indeed, the whole reason I got into long-term WP editing was because I was sick of complaints about how disruptive and abusive the admin corps were, and wanted to do something about it.

Bottom line is that RfA is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. At most, maybe 300 people are interested in it, nobody else in the world really cares. That's what I was trying to get at. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Fact is, I KNOW, that if I answered a candidate's question I would get short shrift and would not expect support for my actions from anyone, friend or not. Unless you are a nominator "assisting" as WJBscribe did, surely the ability of the candidate to answer questions is a critical aspect of forming an opinion and should be left to them. Thanks for answering anyway.Leaky Caldron 21:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• If you want to be liked by everyone as an admin, remain level-headed, fair, diligent, helpful, constructive, avoid ANI, write articles, and forget about WP politics; recognise those who improve the project, and those who hinder it; be able to differentiate between those who are baited and those who bait; be able to tell the diffence between those who are disruptive for the sake of being disruptive and those who come across as disruptive but who are actually trying to save a particular article from the disruptor; but above all, be normal and operate with an air of common bloody sense. Those admins who I consider to be friends are all of the above; those who I don't can be found on my shit list. Unfortunately, I've all too frequently come accross idiot administrators and their latchers on who have seen to it that I no longer write good content for the encyclopaedia. Now I just respond to pings, talk to friends on their talk pages, tidy up and protect those articles I have written towards FA, and defend myself when I get dragged to ANI (if I really must). Other than that, I hold everything else about the encyclopaedia in utter contempt. Cassianto^Talk 21:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael van gerwen vandalism

Hi how are you ?. I notice you have put a 48 hour ban on Gekhoor for editing above page. Can we get a full ban if he keeps it up he has been doing this for months now ?. Regards 31.200.165.180 (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

See my comment here. Also, while changing sport stats for no reason is a popular form of subtle vandalism, it might just be somebody who's confused, so better to assume good faith and not use the "V" word (hence why the block is for edit-warring). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

They are not confused at all. The person has only ever made edits on van gerwens page and nothing else. Can we keep an eye on them ?. If they continue will they be blocked ?. 178.167.145.149 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Per the comment I left at WP:AN3, if they continue to edit-war on van Gerwen's article, they will be blocked again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Gekhoor edited van gerwen's page again can you block again please ? 92.251.170.126 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry Ritchie, I did enflame Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2. Though I find the lack of AGF given to you to be horrid and have made a note of it on the page. It will be my last edit to that convo. I think somebody should hat it. Feel free to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I should have quit while I was ahead on the talk page upthread. Still, it did motivate me to think, "fuck it, I really have got to get some article work done around here", and lo and behold I have tossed another GA on the pile, which makes me feel better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Questions

I am inquiring as to why you deleted the Miss Black Universe Organization page. The organization is new, but there were several links that show the relevance and legitimacy of the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrisangelaW (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@KrisangelaW: The problem is that when I did a search for news sources, the results didn't seem to be anything about this Miss Black Universe, so I couldn't obviously improve it. We can't use official websites and Facebook pages to write articles; the information has to come from third-party news and magazine sources. In the meantime, I've moved the article to Draft:Miss Black Universe - since it is a new event, I expect coverage will appear over time, and as and when it does, we can move it back to mainspace. (PS: Is now a good time to confess to my talk page stalkers that I think Michelle Obama is smoking hot....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Keddie murders

Any good now? Also, was wondering about a page move- 'Keddie cabin murders, 1981' or the like? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't go running to FAC just yet, but it looks much better, properly sourced, no unsourced gory details which really weren't necessary. Hopefully that has put a lid on things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A picky point

I concede immediately that this is exceedingly picky, but I have a knee-jerk reaction to phrasing such as the following:

"...he now has a good score of about 83% called correctly,..." (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Primefac 2)

I prefer something along the line of "83% match to the ultimate decision" or something like that. While I'm a fan of our consensus based approach, it is consensus based, and not a magical identification of "truth". I have no doubt that either of us could track down situations where we feel the consensus decision was not the correct decision. Do you disagree?

On a more positive note, I do want to applaud you for the work you are doing tracking down potential admin candidates. I'm happy to see how many decent candidates have been proposed recently.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed this point at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Primefac 2#Thread started by Mkativerata. I'm surprised by the confusion, but then I have supported previous RfAs with comments like "even when consensus didn't go their way, they talked a good argument", and I have always taken the AfD "score" tool as a useful list of AfDs. Certainly when I looked at what the tool generated, and then at the debates where consensus didn't align with his !vote, I thought "those are all fine, no concerns". I didn't specifically mention this because Opabinia regalis had already demolished this silly belief that it's "all about the numbers" on the Optional candidate poll page. For that matter, my AfD "score" has been getting "worse" since I became an admin, as I tend to only focus on difficult debates that I can't easily close and feel sticking a !vote one way or the other will help.

In terms of admin candidates, I am researching some more now and reaching out to them, and I believe Kudpung is doing the same. If you have any suggestions for who might be suitable, I'll have a rummage. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Bir Tawil

Thanks for the semi-protection of this article. Given the two edits just made to it by User:Ryantheking (and reverted by Clpo), it may require some period of full protection, and perhaps a short block of Ryantheking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, probably not the latter, as he appears to be an intermittent editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave the block for now, as the last revert doesn't appear to have been disturbed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for FDT (song)

On 12 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article FDT (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that rapper YG claimed his recent song "FDT" prompted calls from the Secret Service? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/FDT (song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, FDT (song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Van gerwen's page edited again

Hi I am looking for a permanent block on our friend he has removed the same content front van gerwen's page again. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.170.126 (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. I still think this is a WP:COMPETENCE / WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue rather than any deliberate attempt to cause malice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The person has been repeatly told to leave the page alone 92.251.135.94 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody else cares, all things considered. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of Pink Guy

Why was Pink Guy speedily deleted and salted when it clearly passes Wikipedia:MUSICBIO criteria two? The performer has a album which charted at number 76 on the Billboard 200 chart. [[3]] A deletion discussed back four months ago when the performer did not pass Wikipedia:MUSICBIO criteria two, should never have been taken into consideration as the circumstances have changed considerably, infact Filthy Frank and Pink Guy should be unsalted and redirected to the George Miller (entertainer) article as the other two are characters played in an online series.Either way it should have went to a AFD if anything not speedied. Mind you i don't have any skin in this game but that's how i interpret music bio and it would be good to clean up this mess finally. GuzzyG (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Ask, and ye shall receive - Pink Guy is blue again in a stub version that states the claim to WP:NMUSIC up front but little else. Provided some experienced hands are keep an eye on it, that should sort things out; part of the problem is that so many different versions of the article have been put up and then taken down that it can be a little difficult to see the wood from the trees. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that settles it, got confused for a bit as i thought charting was automatic nobility, thanks for clearing it up. It is a mess that there's so many different names that this article and its past equivalents has had and i hope someone with more expertise on this matter then me will step up to clean it all up, what would you say with redirecting the other salts into Pink Guy? Thanks - GG GuzzyG (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Having a top-100 album in the mainstream Billboard charts does satisfy the criteria for inclusion; the problem is when such a claim is non-obvious or buried in a sea of red, and has only been made in the past couple of days. (Hey, at least I didn't send Mark Zuckerberg to AfD or speedy delete Twitter!) As for the other redirects, I'm happy to put a link in the basic George Miller disambiguation page, but I'll need a source for Filthy Frank and George Miller (entertainer) doesn't sound like a likely search term, so I don't see much value in it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree although in the Yahoo source in the article it does mention Filthy Frank "On the opposite end of the spectrum as his brash internet personas Filthy Frank and Pink Guy" [[4]], although i was going along more the theory of redirects are cheap and salts are ugly but George Miller and Filthy Frank can be sourced to the Yahoo link. I don't really mind either way. Thanks - GuzzyG (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well for now, I think that first revision needs to be beefed up more than anything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I will see what i can do the next time i am free sometime next week. Thanks again - GuzzyG (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Where Do They Go To

Although thought by many as a bit of a Cat-Stevens-who-never-really-escaped-the-60s, it seems Peter Sarstedt was still doing good work for many years. This 2013 video, with one of his last pieces, now seems particularly poignant: [5] (cinematography by Chris Connell, supervised by Peter Biziou). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, to cheer me I up, I've noticed Ravel's Bolero is out of copyright, so I can record my long-awaited progressive rock version, doing the melody on Hammond organ, Moog and Mellotron as if Keith Emerson and Greg Lake were there. When I'm done with that, I'll get a video made for it (not ice skating, that's been done already). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Ruddy Nora". Ooo, get you, so retro, aren't we. That's going back a bit ... may be a lost cause by now, I fear. But you still have Carl Palmer to reckon with, dearie. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC) p.s.

Speedy deletion nomination of Filthy Frank

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Filthy Frank, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wikishovel (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: Go take the dunce cap and stand in the corner until morning recess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Van gerwen vandalism

Hi Gekhoor is back under a new name henk Gekhoor and is editing van gerwen's page again can you block again please? Regards178.167.185.89 (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You're better off going to WP:SPI in that instance, I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Maryland Green Party

Thank you for the second change. However, I wish to point out Exemplo347 (talk · contribs) re-added uncited information to the above mentioned article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've advised Me-123567-Me on their talk page, the article isn't a Biography of a Living Person. If something needs a citation, they should add a Citation Needed tag, not just blank sections. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Any uncited info can be removed by any editor. The entire page was tagged as needing more citations. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Can" does not mean "must". Here is an example of what you can do instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As Me-123567-Me has not re-reverted your last revert in that article, I assume my final warning has had the desired effect. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Party probably wants to be closed, but I'd rather an uninvolved administrator did that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

CounterMedia Trust

Hi you declined my A7 for the above company and I wondered exactly why. As I said on the talk page the sources are about the People's Archive of Rural India which is notable and only mention in passing the trust that owns it. There is nothing in the article that suggests the company is important or significant above and beyond it being the owner of the archive and as notability is not inherited I don't really understand why this company passes the A7. There was one line in the article that says "CounterMedia Trust owns the People's Archive of Rural India. It was established by veteran Indian journalist P. Sainath". The mention of the trust in the sources are

• The site is run by The CounterMedia Trust.
• it is owned by the CounterMedia Trust, registered in 2011
• says the website which is run by The CounterMedia Trust.

And that is all nothing about the importance of the trust. There must be something I'm missing about the A7 for companies; From what I read about the A7 speedy delete is to ask is there a "Credible claim of significance" which is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely:

a) is this reasonably plausible? b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?

You suggest that I ask for a merge but I cannot see how to merge 1 line that says that the trust owns the People's Archive of Rural India when this information is already on the page in the info box. The author of the article has just added 5 more sources three of which do not mention the trust at all, and 2 which say

• It will be registered in the name of a trust we have formed for this purpose, the Counter Media Trust.
• The site is run by the CounterMedia Trust, which aims to rebuild the people-centered traditions of Indian journalism.

Could you please help me so I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks Domdeparis (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Domdeparis: You are correct that it is a two-part test. The two parts are the claim of significance, and how credible that claim is. Now an unsourced article is making a claim of significance; but the lack of sourcing dents the strength of the claim. But an article with some- at least a minimal- sources is thus making a more credible claim. The test of that credibility is then tested further, but that it's beyond the purview of CSD and into the realm of AfD. At which, by the way, and with the article in its current state, you are almost sure to get the result you want! All the best, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: Sometimes, deciding whether an article can be deleted as A7 is more an art than a science. I think language such as "notability", "importance" and "significance" gets in the way of understanding, and I prefer to think of it as follows - could any independent editor improve this article to an acceptable state? And in the case of A7, could it be redirected instead? Remember that "redirect" and "merge" are valid outcomes from AfD, and A7 is supposed to mean "there is not a hope in hell of an AfD closing any way other than delete". In this specific instance, I saw the opening sentence of "CounterMediaTrust owns the People's Archive of Rural India". The People's Archive article has been around for about six months and has not been tagged for CSD, PROD or AfD, and while it's not exactly going to be GA material any time soon, it is established enough for me to suggest CounterMediaTrust can at least be redirected there. That's it in a nutshell. As FIM says, if you want to challenge this it really has to go to a full AfD debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, @Ritchie333: thanks for your help guys, I think I'll be a bit more reluctant with the speedy deletes from now on as I have had a few refused recently and when I asked for explanations the reply was a bit like yours "more an art than a science" ;o). I get and understand that but recently I was refused New Page Reviewer rights because a couple of my speedy deletes were rejected and what i really wanted was to be able to mark good quality pages as having been reviewed and so avoid wasting the time of other new pages patrollers. I'll try again later. thanks again for your help. Domdeparis (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: Don't be discouraged mate. Can I say, that- with a few tweaks to tie it up with the applicable notability criteria- the reasoning you presented above would be a sound filing statement for the AfD, which most AfD watchers would probably follow? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: AfD nomination done. Thanks for the encouragement! Domdeparis (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

• Any thoughts? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It would have helped if the email hadn't gone into my spam folder, but my thoughts are - I don't think there's anything to worry about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I assumed it was my deoderant or something. Many thanks! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If you could check your spam folder again, that would be coefficient :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

It's not easy bein' Green.....

Hail and well met! I am dropping you a quick note because I have created a new Wikiproject - WikiProject Green Party to help expand and improve on the vast number of Green Party articles on Wikipedia! I hope you will consider joining so we can collaborate together instead of disagreeing. Have a great day! Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Caroline Lucas' article looks pretty good. Wonder who had a hand in that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@Montanabw: That's a lot to take in, I'll need to grab a coffee and sift through it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usercart&action=edit&redlink=1

You recently deleted and article written where you stated the reason for deletion was Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

The article was about Shopping Cart Software not a website. Please undelete.