User talk:Ritchie333

Keeping an eye on stuff. Meanwhile, here is some music.[1]

This user misses Dr. Blofeld

GA review?

I have a nom open for GA which I'd like to send to FA eventually, but for now it's still short: BWV 134a. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda I must apologise for the Jonathan Ross Fan Club turning up this evening and gatecrashing my talk page ... if nobody has grabbed this by the weekend, I'll see if I can have a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologize ;) - I consider a review for the fan club then ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mixed info: I had a GA on the weekend, but not this one. I have the vision that you will do it then, friend ;) - (I was told that I can't translate Freundliche Vision to friendly vision.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that was super-efficient and friendly! - Only now do I realize that "your" GA review came with bot assistance, while the other one looks more handmade, - and the article still lacks the little green symbol. Would you know what to do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The bot puts the symbol on, it also adds a revision ID of what the article looked like when it passed GA. So it's better than doing it by hand; you just need up to 20 minutes' delay while the bot comes round on its next run. Occasionally it trips up and just removes the review from the pile with a log of "maintenance", in which case you need to do everything by hand. I've never worked out precisely what causes it to barf, it just does. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The bot transcluded the GA review (or I would not have noticed, but didn't do any of the messages to my talk, nor add the symbol. The talk page is fine, so is the list of GAs, thanks to Figureskatingfan. I want to do nothing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, it's literally been years since I've regularly reviewed GAs (mostly because I've just submitted a couple myself, and believe in quid pro quo, even though it's not required at GAN), and you disparage me. When did I tell you you couldn't translate Freundlich Vision to friendly vision? All I did was tell you to stop confusing us 'Mericans with fancy-shmancy stuff like calling a song a lied and to use more refs that us mono-lingual hicks can understand without using google translation. The addition of that green button-thing was done on its own, and yes, I did update the GA list. That I can do, but tables [2]? No-freaking-way! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Christine, I'm sorry that you confuse two things (and that I was not clear enough), the question about how the GA bot works (which related to you and the GA process, so I pinged you), and the "friendly" question which had nothing to do with you, but you invited to look here. Moonraker said that "friendly" implies a friend, and a vision thus can't be "friendly", - can't find the comment, though. - How will the article get the green icon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda sweetie, did you not see the smiley emoticon? So much of my life is already full of Big Bang Theory moments, and you just made me have another one? Was I being sarcastic? Oh no, not at all. Actually, one of the ways that I provide BBT moments for others is to attempt to create humor, and I fall flat on my face most of the time. And the green icon question has already been answered. Or is that yet another social cue that I missed? At any rate, please forgive me for inserting myself into the discussion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Christine, teach me telling smiley from other. I saw it but thought it was for the last sentence. - Just yesterday, I saw a great opera on the difficulty of seeing what's real, what not, Lost Highway (opera). Nothing to forgive about entering a discussion to which I pinged you. Sorry about BB, and about repetition: the article still didn't have the little green icon when I looked today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

As my dear departed mother would say, "Heh." I went ahead and did it by hand for you, 'cause that's just wrong. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like your influence is spreading, Gerda ..... [3] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for review, mentioned in the FAC which is now open, - I added some, you will be surprised if you look again. Everybody: comments welcome, also imrovement of the ALT texts, - not what I can do well ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Arb

"Gosh, I think I just saw a blade grow a fraction of a millimeter ... OMG I can't get any more excited than this ..."

Arbcom: Conception

Arbcom: Reality

-EEng

Hope you and family are doing well. You must have been asked this before (I've not checked, but assuming so...); I'm wondering why haven't you considered running for arbcom? Given your experience here, I, for one, would look forward to having you as one of the arbs... Lourdes 05:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've been asked directly, but I find Arbcom work as about as exciting as watching grass grow, I'd just procrastinate over everything, and tell all participants to go and look at kittens. What was that screenshot Iridescent posted a while back saying "You have 793 unread messages"? That just makes me think "I don't get paid for this - forget it". Unfortunately, that means that Arbcom is a perfect example of the Peter principle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have indirectly asked Ritchie before. Arbcom work is flexible, as you choose your own workload; meaning that you can just stay inactive for the entire year while telling people to watch kittens in the background. That's entirely acceptable. At least for the sake that one of the critics would now need to think of a new line to critcise, eh? What have you got to lose Ritchie, other than 1 less GA a month (I guess that's a lot to lose though). Alex Shih (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There's little point in criticising Arbcom for anything. It achieves nothing at all. The latest episode where an IBAN was extended without appeal for six months just for asking if it could be considered to be removed sums up the futility of it all, and demonstrates that those individuals believe they run Wikipedia, not that they're a service who work on our behalf. Don't go there Richie, ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie, I agree. Better do GA reviews ;) - On the committee, all you can do is agree with Opabinia regalis. Alex, you could have done that, no? Instead of leaving them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can agree with OR (eg: "hey, aren't cats wonderful?") without needing to join arbcom to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Strictly for arb matters of course. I asked all these candidates if they could agree, most said yes, then I voted for some of those, then they didn't. Disappointing. - I'm happy that Joe returned, even after this waste of time of two cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a quick read through Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a now and see if I'm up for reviewing it. In the meantime, here is a lovely four-part fugue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the music! - I should probably not interrupt your reading, but now I typed it (ec): How about being a candidate, if only to prevent that another valuble content editor gets banned for 6 months? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not expecting her to say "yes" but I think with all of the management of Trump articles this year (what a masochist), MelanieN might make a good arb .... if we can keep WP:SQUIRRELs away from her, at least. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not expecting her to say "yes" Your expectation is correct. Thanks for the thought, but I'd rather drive bamboo splints under my fingernails. Flaming ones. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And that's very much the issue, isn't it; anyone who wants to be an Arb really badly shouldn't be one, and reluctance to be on ARBCOM is very much a feature of some of the best candidates (you included, MelanieN). Vanamonde (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Majik Ninja Entertainment

I was wondering why an entire record labels page was deleted by you? All company history information was deleted and was redirected the page of a band on the label (and founders) wiki page.

There are 24 current and active bands and artist on this label. and it is a subsidiary of Universal Music GroupI have read the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majik Ninja Entertainment and as I am not an admin, therefore I don't really understand the reasoning of "Absolutely no indication this endeavor meets WP:NCORP" so can you explain?

I am currently a member of the labels promotion street team and a major fan of this label. Maybe I can help with some of the information or conversation. At the very least, can you explain why this company and its artist don't meet the requirements for a page?

--Privitor (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Privitor: I didn't delete this article, the history is here. There has been a follow-up discussion here which you should read carefully first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok, I looked but didn't see other questions on your talk page. But I understand that this has been a continued conversation for you. I did see in the history that you didn't "delete" the page, just redirected it to the artist's page which then got redirected to a sub-header. My opinion on the matter is I know its hard to find a source of information for this and that is what is needed for wiki content. The primary source typically comes from interviews, live streams, videos, social media, and newsletters from the founders about the label so it's hard to pinpoint a direct source. Wikipedia was used as a collection place for most of the data making it the official source of content. I can attempt to add verifiable information about the company to the band's personal page if that's what we must do. and as for the now deleted Majik Ninja Entertainment Discography, maybe we can start adding the information in the individual artist pages. Just thought it was silly to delete (redirect) all content to an article when the band originally started the independent label. Would it be better to leave the formation info on the band's personal page and add a new header explaining the new status of the label and merge the old page into the band's personal page? --Privitor (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when an admin closes an deletion discussion, they can only go on what people asked for. It's a bit like blaming the returning officer for an election result you didn't like - they just did their job and did what people wanted. There are a number of options available that were discussion on the noticeboard thread; the most obvious is to use the article wizard to create a new draft article that can be independently reviewed and then put back into mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Old Street station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Old 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI

This may be of interest, or not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thanks for the heads up. I think the four threads at the top of his talk page right now are reason enough for me to think an RfA from that user would at best get no consensus, and at worst get SNOW closed, depending on how mean spirited the first opposers were. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. At least one of those represents poor editing judgement and it's too recent. It would become a lightning rod for opposition at an RfA. It doesn't help that they didn't admit the mistake although they did disengage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

On occasion, I have done a couple of WP:BOOMERANG blocks at AIV, where the user reported was not unambigiously editing in bad faith and where the reporter had continually reverted them to the point of 3RR. At that point I've got a policy backed reason to block, and I've used the occasion to explain WP:NOTVANDALISM very carefully. The minute they "get it", I unblock. It's a bit of a blunt instrument, but it can be a useful learning tool. I think one guy retired, but had about 2-3 other admins (who aren't particularly close friends of mine) telling him the block was good and he should have seen it coming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Old Street station

The article Old Street station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Old Street station 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

With sincerity...

	"Sunflower Award"
	Your work as an admin is not being graded, But it certainly is much appreciated, To know that you see with vision that's clear, A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear. Thank you for all do! Atsme✍🏻📧 14:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"ear, ear". Let's hope he carries on Forever. [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan block reduction

Block reduction

-EEng

Block reduction

What you've done here is quite risky, especially when the user just broke her promises shortly after getting unblocked. I personally would've kept that block indefinite. She is known for being deceitful (often through sockpuppetry) and her words should be taken with a grain of salt. It wouldn't surprise me if she breaks her word again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

She's young and excitable, and I can easily picture my kids being the same. She's still blocked, and that gives time for people to raise concerns on ANI and elsewhere. I have to AGF she didn't really realise she was breaking sanctions, and she did apologise afterwards immediately, and the content in question didn't look troublesome, and the blocking administrator was cool with it. I have spelled out exactly what the issues are, and short of putting in words of one syllable, I'm not sure what else I can do. Let's just chill and see what happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Age doesn't justify anything here. Regardless, I do hope the conditions you laid out there are actually obeyed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A number of people are complaining on ANI that the block is punitive, even when reduced to 24 hours. Anyway, age can be useful as a predictor for future disruption. Take a 15 year old who's being a bit of an arse. Come back in five years when they're 20, there's a reasonable chance they will have grown up and cringe at what they did back then. Now take a 65 year old who's being a bit of an arse. Come in back in five years when they're 70 - chances are they'll be exactly the same, if not worse. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. (But you can try and impeach them). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• I see this block reduction as in line with a reasonable assessment of consensus and, by definition, therefore correct. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been quite the day for me reversing blocks, hasn't it? :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You're getting good at it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Years ago, I first heard someone say "Anyone who doesn't believe they were an idiot as a teenager is still one." I've yet to see even the slightest hint of evidence that this aphorism isn't entirely true, and I've seen much evidence to suggest that it is. So my advice is to not worry too much about permanently banning the 17 year old (who will likely be reflecting on what an idiot she was at 17 in just a few more years) and worry more about whatever other pages are on your watchlist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Gone awry

-EEng

Let's hope it doesn't go awry. This episode reminds me of an incident years ago on the other website I am staff on where some young users likewise could not listen to requests to stop... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've run, or been close to the management of, several forums in the past. I saw a hyperactive 17 year old who basically lived his social life on the forums and annoying just about everybody by replying to every single fucking post with "that's interesting", "thanks", "cool" etc etc. IIRC he got put on a hard "no more than 5 posts per day or you get banned" limit, and two years later, he was a pretty good poster making insightful comments. Then there was a girl who ended every sentence with "lol", which backfired when another member was upset their dog died, to which she replied, "sorry to hear about your dog lol", offended about 10 people and got kickbanned. On the other hand, I have had intelligent and reasoned debate with people, and been very surprised to find out later on, that they were 15 years old. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

In my experience on that other website, there is little correlation between age and maturity, probably because what adults don't have in terms of immaturity they often more than make up with what I'll politely call Firmly Held Opinions. It also seems to me that teenagers tend to vary their maturity depending on environment, i.e if they are in a formal environment they'll behave like mature adults and when they go to an informal one like stereotypical teenagers. I believe that https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229707000536 may be related. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Would you be able to hide the IP edits on Lawrence O'Donnell 1 2 as they are BLP violations. GhostOrchid35 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like another admin with oversight privileges got to this already, but I can't tell whom. It sounds like the thing GorillaWarfare would do but I don't have access to the oversight log. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

China/Hong

Morning. I'll leave this and this with you. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

.... and as good as my word, both semi-protected for three months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the unsourced info, as neither countries have announced their entry yet. Hopefully that's not a blockable offense. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Waterloo East railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Eastern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Greg Herman / Fashion Designer: Page deletion

Dear Ritchie333,

We hope this email finds you well. It was brought to my attention by one of Greg's associates that his Wikipedia page was deleted. Per our research, we noticed that it was you that removed the page. We were shocked to find this out. We could understand if some edits were required, which have been done in the past number of years by your fellow contributors. But a full deletion of a page- we believe that was extreme. Your reasoning/ position for removal was sited as (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Please elaborate. Per our review of the copy, we don't see that. Instead, it is a realistic portrayal of our client. Greg Herman - both the individual and the brand has and continues to contribute greatly to the world of fashion- namely accessories.

We took a second, third, and fourth pass, as did others in reviewing the article- and while it could use some edits, none of us thought it was unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was a true and accurate depiction of Mr. Herman, his early life, career, etc., and feel that the deletion was unwarranted. I understand that Wikipedia must be filled with tons and tons of articles that need to be deleted, however, this is not one of them. Greg Herman, his history, this article, has been part of the Wikipedia community for many many years and he's been listed in the various Wikipedia lists. He has contributed so much to the fashion community- his philanthropy through design (which we were planning to add), his history, and groundbreaking work to help and spearhead a boutique designer market that is still struggling in a sea of imports, his TV accomplishments, etc., were all wiped away at a push of a button in the world of Wikipedia.

We are advocates of anything and everything community. We also understand the difficult task you have at hand in keeping it all real and honest. Greg Herman- the person, the brand, the fashion designer, etc., is a real and authentic voice that has and continues to contribute nationally and abroad. I appeal to you, our team appeals to you to please restore his page. We are not very knowledgable in the inner workings of Wikipedia, but (if possible), perhaps you can be the monitor of the article as the page evolves in the future. Thank you for all your help in this matter.

Best,

Robyn Davis

～～～～

The article was largely full of claims without any citations to high-quality, reliable and independent sources, which is an absolutely essential requirement for biographies of living people as it prevents libel and slander getting into articles. The prose contained unsourced text such as "While living in Impington, a village just north of Cambridgeshire, England, Herman became inspired by his weekend trips to London, where he immersed himself into the heart of England's fashion scene. It was at his home in Cambridge where he designed his first few bags, which were later sold at the very stores that helped to influence his creative vision." and if you cannot see how that is completely inappropriate prose for a neutral encyclopedia article, you should not be editing this article in any way shape or form.

If this person is genuinely important enough to be in a worldwide encyclopedia, somebody else will create the article as a matter of course. (Talk page stalkers - if you think you can create a BLP-compliant stub on this person, please just do it) I see that your request to restore the article on Requests for undeletion has also been declined. Therefore, I don't think I have any consensus to undelete this article, even if I wanted to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333,

Thank you for your prompt attention, along with the information and clarification. Both you and other Wikipedia members have been very helpful in this matter and it s very much appreciated. While I understand that restoring the existing article in it's current form is not possible, can we open a dialog as to how to establish a new one and/or could you aid with that. A conversation at the very least to establish his name back into the Wikipedia community. Whatever assistance you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again and have a wonderful day.

Best,

Robyn

～～～～

Hi Robyn; basically in this scenario I try and write a new article myself if I can. To do that, I have to start off with basic source material, and in this case that would be a google news search for "Greg Herman" fashion. If I could have got 2-3 hits from that, that were dedicated pieces specifically about him, I could have probably written something. Unfortunately, I need to have evidence of that source material presented in the article, so anyone else can fact-check it at any time, and they also need to be there to prove this is a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Without that, I'm afraid there's not much chance of being able to write a new article :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Ritchie333,

Thank you again for your help and I hope you has a great weekend! I was traveling and apologize for my tardy reply. I totally understand. I included below some links regarding Greg in this message. He has a number of articles on him, however, many of his published accomplishments predated 'Google' and are not avail online. Hopefully these are of some help, and at the very least could aid you in helping to establish a page for him and his name back into the Wikipedia world. If you need any additional info, please let me know. Again, you've been extremely helpful in this process and I thank you very much. Have a wonderful Monday!

Best,

Robyn

～～～～

https://books.google.com/books?id=_F0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=greg+herman+designer++los+angeles+times&source=bl&ots=5G6tYVCcAG&sig=Rzc1qMyBZ98oNCfIJpHnzrGkL1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiil9iMvd7dAhUBCDQIHQ-TAisQ6AEwA3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=greg%20herman%20designer%20%20los%20angeles%20times&f=false

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/30184

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/sep/03/news/ls-18970

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/23/business/fi-13336

DYK for Houses of the Holy

On 23 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Houses of the Holy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the cover of Houses of the Holy was designed by Hipgnosis and based on photographs taken at the Giant's Causeway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Houses of the Holy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Houses of the Holy), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Irn Bru. Made in Scotland. From Gerdas.

Congrats, + love the rabbits below! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you noticed how Gerda sounds a bit like Gertcha? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't. It doesn't even sound like Gerda as most Englis-speaking people pronounce it ;) - Guess what: all GAs that I nominated are reviewed! That hasn't happened since I started ;) - Time to write a new one, I guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

32 different ways! :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think since I started writing GAs in 2012, there has only been one instance where I've not had at least one on the queue, and that was during a 2-month wikibreak in 2016. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You can’t beat a good Gerda fork, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chas Hodges

On 23 September 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chas Hodges, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

rabbit rabbit rabbit rabbit

rabbit rabbit rabbit rabbit

yup yup rabbit rabbit

Not forgetting....

Fortunately, I have another bottle of beer tucked away in my piece of period furniture. --Arthur Negus 123 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. you put Sainsbury's to shame.

Gertcha When your talk page is vandalised by a sock

Gertcha When they come off a 24 hour block

Gertcha If they complain about breaking policy

Gertcha Cause the trolls dragged you off onto AN3 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Meh. You grumpy old admins are all the same.... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Now I don't mind having a chat. But you have to keep givin' it that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Beer flood? Now that's a nice way to go on the paper. Alex Shih (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Apoorva (actress)

Apoorva (actress) can you please move it to the user page ill improve it Iamheentity (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Done - User:Iamheentity/Apoorva (actress) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Rev-del request

Hi, I wonder if you could rev-delete the edit summaries left by Special:Contributions/184.175.102.29? The edits were nonsensical and appear to have been made with the goal of defacing article histories with swastikas, "Sieg Heils", etc. The user is currently blocked, but the edit summaries remain. I would appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Should all be scrubbed. That sort of stuff has no place on this project. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; much better! There are still two swastikas left; they are at the bottom of the page here: Special:Contributions/184.175.102.29. The specific edits are [5] and [6]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Vanamonde (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! @Vanamonde93. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent behavior

Your behavior as of late is becoming increasingly problematic and indicative of an administrator who thinks they are bound to a different set of rules than everyone else despite saying that admins should be held accountable for their actions. Recent examples include disparaging other editors in order to undermine their credibility (your comments about MelanieN in an RfA that was not about her and your comments about Widr when I echoed his concerns in a CU vote about someone else), hounding me at different RfAs and different pages (I can reasonably be assured that you will respond to any comments I make at any page even if my comments have nothing to do with you), and ignoring other guidelines such as WP:TPO and removing comments you don't personally like that do not violate any policy. I'm taking the liberty and letting you know my objection to your behavior as a response to this comment where you state Editors should be able to criticise the project’s administration and state their views provided they do no descend to personal abuse... Thanks. Nihlus 05:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Has this really been bothering you since early August ? That's quite astonishing and worrying, really. Nick (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Considering the level of day-to-day crap I see from editors and admins alike, Ritchie's comments seem to be little more than exasperation with blinkered incompetence. Have you tried to look at his comments with a gram of AGF, rather than accusing an admin of hounding (without any evidence)? Perhaps not trying to stir a dramah pot would be a better start to the day for most of us. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, Nihlus, is that in my view you don't really seem to like contributing to the actual writing of the encyclopedia very much, and don't have very good dispute resolution skills, and consequently you end up picking fights with people for no reason. For example, if I examine your mainspace contributions, the only content you have contributed to in the past two weeks is an mild edit war on One World Trade Center over the alignment of an image, whereas if you look at my mainspace contributions, you can see a huge range of articles worked on over the past 48 hours. In the specific instance you cite, you decided that TonyBallioni should not receive checkuser privileges and cited another editor's comments who said they had a "Terribly self-important, generally unpleasant know-it-all approach" and accused him of hat-collecting. You didn't supply any diffs to back up your argument, and I thought your wanton unwarranted criticism was an unpleasant cheap shot, so I asked you a direct question; "How on earth did you conclude that Tony was hat-collecting?". You did not answer. Elsewhere I see you templating a longstanding editor and having a go at a longstanding editor where I am not surprised that you felt you had to have the last word.

I think you should check your assumptions over what my working relationship with MelanieN is. We've worked together on several different articles in the past, such as Ika Hügel-Marshall, Beer in San Diego County, California and Laura Lee (sex worker) and generally had a good and congenial relationship. See WP:SQUIRREL.

My advice to you is to stop trying to be an admin; it won't work. Find a topic you want to work on, or monitor new page patrol for new articles, clean them up and improve them. You'll gain a lot more respect than just getting the hump every time sometime disagrees with you. Chill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Typical response at this point. You just cannot help yourself from trying to disparage others in order to make yourself look better while at the same time derailing topics and deflecting criticism. I suggest you stop thinking you're better than anyone on this site whenever you try to whip out your edit count or comparing whatever you've done lately. People contribute where they can, when they can, and how they can. You've developed a pattern of berating me for not being up to your level of content editing, and it's one of the very reasons I don't want to be. That kind of behavior makes content editing unpleasant with your haughty attitude and the way you look down on others who find enjoyment elsewhere. The next time someone brings up an issue with something you've done or the next time you disagree with something someone says, I challenge you to try to talk about why someone thinks that or why someone said that instead of going through their contribution history to poison the well. Nihlus 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You linked to Wikipedia:There is no Divine Right Of Editors. This essay includes the following: "They block without good reason and refuse to unblock. Bad cases may even WikiStalk the blocked userpage to weed out any unblock requests." I'd like some hard evidence with diffs that I have ever done that, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Way to cherry pick what you want out of that while ignoring the big nutshell at the top: Just because you are an established editor, you are not above the rules, nor are others below you. Nihlus 16:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You're like a Conservative MP, Nihlus! "Strong and stable!" "Leave means leave!" "No deal is better than a bad deal!" You don't answer the questions I ask, you just answer the question you'd like to answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You know what an encylopaedia actually is, I suppose? 90% of grief on this site would disappear if those unprepared or unwilling or unable to work on content (broadly construed) would go and find a social media site to play with. If you can't or won't "do" content, you should be asking yourself if this is a worthwhile hobby for you, 'cos it sure as hell is not improving the encyclopaedia in any way, shape or form. The dramah board clique who wouldn't go near an article if their lives depend on it are one of the worst blots on this site - sitting pontificating on others without an actual clue on how to carry through the core rationale of why we are here: to write a fucking encyclopaedia. If you can't do that, stop being a pain in the arse to those who can. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't appear to be finding enjoyment elsewhere though, from what I can see of your behaviour in recent months, the only enjoyment you appear to be deriving from Wikipedia is getting into bizarre fights with editors for no apparent reason. It's all very strange and disconcerting. Nick (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Another stalker here. This needs to decisively conclude, either with Nihlus putting money where their mouth is and seeking some kind of formal sanction against Ritchie, or with Nihlus avoiding making contact with Ritchie. All the preceding conversation demonstrates is a marked disagreement between Nihlus and Ritchie, and is (realistically) a complete waste of time and energy. We should all get back to making some more content for Wikipedia instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I do have to thank Nihlus for pointing me towards Wikipedia:There is no Divine Right Of Editors, it looks a lot better (and more amusing) since I improved it this afternoon. Meanwhile, I am anticipating that I will throw another GAN on the pile this evening, if I can finish tidying up and double check sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

What, do you think all your useful contributions to this site make you more valuable than anyone else?? The correct answer is "Yes." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

My contributions are awesome. I mean, they're like the best contributions evaaah. You're all getting sick of how awesome my contributions are, is the crowd with me? Yeah, this Podunk, Alabama Beer Hall Putsch is really great, you guys are so awesome! What are we gonna do with Jimbo? LOCK HIM UP! TheDonald333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, we get it, Donald. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

O clap your hands! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

.... or even just the sound of one hand clap. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Somewhere, on a corner of the internet, there is an argument about whether Jon Anderson says "This is a song call-ed Clap" or "This is a song called The Clap" immediately before the song. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

In the article, I thought I was extra correct saying The Beatles for their revolution, but no ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ps: should the revolution be mentioned in the lead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, which article are we talking about? I just mentioned The Wikipedia Revolution on another thread and like Tigger I'm all confuzzled. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The clap article (a little above) which mentions use by The Beatles in Revolution 9, - see Main page. Every now and then there's somehing hooky in classical music, - clap please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Michael Hardy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not your employee or servant

My milkshake brings all the gentlemen to the 0.9144 metres

Please avoid leaving edit notes like this in the future. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

What would you like me to do instead? If I don't think an article meets the appropriate CSD criteria (which are deliberately narrow as unilaterally deleting an article without discussion can upset people), I won't delete it. If I haven't got a clue what to do with the article (which in this case I don't, as I tend to stay away from medical-related articles as I feel I don't have enough subject expertise to edit them) I will suggest something to the tagger, who I assume has more of a clue what to do with the article than I do. I hope that all makes sense. On a related note, I'm surprised we don't have an article (or at least a redirect) on the phrase "I remain sir, your humble and obedient servant" which is commonly seen on civil service correspondence to MPs seen on files in the National Archives. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Hey Bitches!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Oooof. Just take a chill pill, CL-Threesie

I just got epilepsy. GMG^talk 22:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I got a sudden urge to put on some REAL MUSIC instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have deleted it. Your servant, Drmies (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is a phrase that marks out a gentleman, and is thus all but extinct in the modern world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"My milkshake brings all the gentlemen to the 0.9144 metres" ooof, even by R333 standards that's baaad - TNT ^💖 22:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

All the best puns are the worst ones. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for John Cunliffe (author)

On 28 September 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Cunliffe (author), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah blocking Congress

See [7]. Natureium (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I just get a subscribe message when I view that page. I just think blocking the Representatives right in the middle of an extremely controversial confirmation has a huge possibility of being misinterpreted in the extreme. A block like that is controversial at the best of times, but at this specific point in time, I think it should only be done by WMF staff, and only then with extreme caution. Sure, protect articles because of BLP, that's neutral and acceptable, but shutting out every Representatives IP from editing .... yikes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Jaw, hit floor. Is there already a discussion about this somewhere? - TNT ^💖 20:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it’s justifiable when someone is posting personal addresses and phone numbers of congresspeople. There’sNoTime, clearly you haven’t been on IRC recently. Natureium (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been on IRC ever, I don't even know where it is. Is everything there logged and accessible by anybody in the same way as diffs, so there is full accountability and transparency? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You can open that in a private window and you should be able to see the page. I haven't read it yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Or use archive.org GMG^talk 20:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarification, did someone actually block the entire US House of Representatives? Even given the very serious abuse, that's a pretty brassy move w/o any kind of discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Yes they did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

On simple merits, under normal circumstances, a 12-hour range block would be acceptable (but a week?) The block instructions for admins state "These ranges are allocated to major governmental organizations; blocks of these organizations have political and public relations implications of which the Foundation's press relations team must be aware. Avoid long blocks of these addresses, and be especially careful in formulating your block messages because your block message will probably be seen and commented on by the press." As an administrator, I can see some of the redacted edits, and believe me, if Trump got hold of those he could make the WMF's life .... unpleasant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe this needs to be discussed on one of the noticeboards (AN?). -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned it here on the CheckUser appointments threads. Okay, I'd already opposed Oshwah, but the question was more to make people who have !voted "support" double-check their view and make sure they're absolutely comfortable about doing it. I haven't gone to ANI yet because I've spent too much time on ANI today and have had enough. I'm not going to stop anyone else raising it there, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Um. What I see on Special:Contributions/143.231.0.0/16 does not exactly sound all constructive and libel law compliant. Perhaps it's indeed better to keep them blocked until the charade blows over and not just a 12 hour block with a high recurrence risk. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to that cheeky DYK hook that names someone called Brett as an expert in the Devil's Triangle (drinking game).... oh no, hang on .I think we have just done that one for someone called Donald...?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kama_Chinen_(2nd_nomination)

The keep arguments were WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, someone bringing up a mention in an article about someone else and a WP:PERX statement, while the Delete votes cited policy (BIO1E, GNG and others). Please reconsider. » Shadowowl | talk 20:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am at a complete loss to understand why longevity articles cause more heat than light, but they do. As I said in the close, I could have relisted it for another week (and if you're unhappy with the close, that's the option I recommend) but I just felt we'd end up in the same place; plus the arguments were getting heated, and would probably stay that way for any remainder of the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am at a complete loss to understand why longevity articles cause more heat than light. Thats because most of them aren't notable. I've relisted. » Shadowowl | talk 20:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Essay directory

I have been trying to find an essay which says something similar to "don't invent the problem". But I can't recall the name of that essay. Do you know what essay is it? Any TPS? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it WP:AINTBROKE? Or WP:SLOP? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks a lot! I was looking for WP:AINTBROKE, but SLOP is a little similar too. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeking some advice

Greetings,

so after Tutupaca, Taapaca and Ubinas passed at FAC I was thinking of going back to articles which I wrote earlier and bring them up to FAC readiness, which often would require a total rewrite. Some of these articles such as Coropuna are currently GA and if I were to rewrite them for FAC there would be a period where they bear a green star despite being very unlike the version that passed GAN. This issue has held me back, any advice. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly possible for a GA to change substantially, while still meeting the criteria. Have a look at this diff which shows the differences in The Beatles (album) between when it passed GA four years ago compared to now; it still meets the criteria despite numerous changes (although not really a significant amount in my view). I don't most FAC reviewers just take the article as they see it, and would only complain about it being a GA if it very obviously did not meet the criteria eg: too short, too much unsourced content, obvious spelling / grammar errors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

RevDel Request

Can you RevDel the edit summary for this IP edit under RD3? [8] funplussmart (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

IAdmin

Hello Ritchie333, per your request I've added temporary IADMIN access to your account. Please keep in mind this is a stop-gap process, and getting Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators to closure is still important. Please follow that page for developments, I expect once done there will be a period for temporary grants to get processed to permanent ones. Regarding your specific request, please thoroughly review Wikipedia:Gadget regarding the expectations of adding new gadgets before adding a new public gadget. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Geoffrey Hayes

On 1 October 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Geoffrey Hayes, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"Aah ahh aaah I want all the credit for improving the article!"
"Bu bu bu Zippy, that's not very nice, all you did was nominate it."
"I didn't just nominate it, I AM A VERY HARD WORKING WIKIPEDIAN!"
"Oh, stop talking like Trump, Zippy! And where's Bungle got to with the shopping?"

An ITN rainbow for you! -- Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It is a little known fact that a namesake of mine actually named his band after this TV series. In particular, he found Zippy a key influence on his personality. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought it had something to do with that lovely curvaceous Sonja Kristina?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I should trout you for that, Martin! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Bungle with the shopping?? I think he ended up stacking shelfs in Tesco?? Govvy (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I recall a long time ago (it was either on Radio 1 or one of the London commercial stations) hearing a brief extract of Rainbow Vibes by the Sons of Bungle, and decades later wondering if I'd just imagined it. Nope, it really was available to stick in your hardcore set at the Electric Ballroom, Camden Town; imagine Zippy, George and Bungle with a Roland TR-808 and you're pretty much halfway there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Pls note: Questionable behaviour by Philafrenzy

Hi Ritchie, since you've been the sponsor of Philafrenzy's failed RfA, I'd like you to take note of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alessandro_Strumia Imho this daringly unencyclopedic stub raises dire concerns about the author's attitude towards Wikipedia. And he even dares to lie about it - “hijacked“, huh? Also, still no summaries. Grrr. But pls make up your own mind. Best regards Gray62 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The version as written by Philafrenzy here is a short stub, but there is a claim to WP:PROF, and there are numerous book sources here to use as a starting point for expanding the article. The primary contributor seems to be DanyelCavazos. I'm not going to !vote "keep" just yet as I'd like to expand and add citations to the article first. Andrew Davidson and Whispyhistory may be able to help in that respect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Also, my complaint was based on an embarassing mistake by me. I must have screwed up when comparung versions. Philafrenzy's stub was ok. I apologized. Sry for raising a lot of brouhaha about nothing, Ritchie! Gray62 (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but you raise a legitimate point that the article is (currently) lop-sided in neutrality and needs sourcing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Err...out of curiosity, why didn't you call me out for this?! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, because I like to leave talk page discussions up and let all you lot comment on them. Either a thread is suitable for viewing, in which case it stays up for ~30 days until it's automatically archived, or it's completely unsuitable for WP full stop, in which case it gets blanked and revision deleted. I like free speech, even if it means I might have to leave up a message like "Excuse me Ritchie333, I'd just like to let you know that you're a total libtard fuckwit - TRUMP FOR 2020!!!!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know. Please answer the question Mr Howard. So why didn't you say anyting to me about it?! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's dealing with the relevant point of what I was instructed to do, what I was not instructed to do, what I did do, what I did not do, but I did not overrule him ... I assumed you'd have "got the hint" from the edit summary, and starting a thread was superfulous, and likely to lead to off-topic conversation. Of course, if you'd like me to start an off-topic thread on your talk page.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you had, I would have been able to say "Gosh Ritichie, thanks, as I didn't even know I'd done it". Know what I mean? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you threaten to overrule him? Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's dealing with the relevant point of what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do. I gave SerialNumber54129 my opinion. I gave him in my opinion in strong language. But I did not instruct him. (On a related note, how on earth did we get from Zippy and George to Michael Howard?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to block him Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There's something of the blight about him , to be sure :) sorry R333 for polluting your page with Messrs Howard and Widdicombe; all I meant was, was that your original edit-summary made it look ike a misjudgement rather than a misclick. But, no: I make few of the former, many of the latter. Hence the (attempts at) clarification. Right! 13:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me Ritchie333...

Fancy using the word "total". I'm shocked.

I'd just like to let you know that you're a total libtard fuckwit - TRUMP FOR 2020!!!! 123.456.789.101 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

For the talk page stalkers, Mike W has rangeblocked 123.456.789.0/16 as a sockpuppet of Put In The Putin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Good. This is the same guy that keeps posting on my talk page, the jerk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Fancy using the word "total". I'm shocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC) ... I wouldn't want to add Fuel to the Flames here....

@Ritchie333:. Not an expert here but appreciate your call for suggestions. A search on his work on neutrinos and physics would be a good starting point. [9][10]. Does that help. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I was able to find quite a few more sources including that NYtimes piece, which I mentioned at the AfD Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I wasn't really sure where to start on Strumia's article, but there's definitely more than just the recent kerfuffle in the news. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and say thanks to Galobtter for providing those references in the deletion discussion. I was able to use them to expand the article a fair bit. I'll be away from it and WP in general for a while thanks to deadlines at work (which is probably a good thing — I don't want to get too snippy), but at least now it reads like a fairly ordinary academic bio and makes a decent case for passing WP:PROF even without the recent dust-up. XOR'easter (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think Galobtter needs a medal of service, or something, for all the queries he's fielded at Talk:Donald Trump. Rather him than me! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN deserves it, not me; has 4 times the edits to the talk page and had to deal with the talk page during the height of the election Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red invitation

Hello. I was wondering if you wanted to join WikiProject Women in Red. I've seen your great work on Did You Know alongside other WIR editors on Catherine Kerrison and Renee Powell. You are not obligated to join, but if you are interested I would love to work with you for this WikiProject :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: (are we related?) I have to give credit on those two articles to Megalibrarygirl (with a side helping of SusunW on Kerrison), whose prowess at working on BLPs like these two just leaves me feeling like Wayne and Garth bowing down saying "We're not Worthy!" I am conscious that at times I feel like I have become the Official Megalibrarygirl Fan Club ^(TM), but it's because she is always eager to help, and so I am happy to bounce things in her direction. In terms of the project, I obviously support WiR, and do help out where I can, but writing new articles on women just isn't my area of expertise. I have joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green, which takes existing articles about women and improves them to GA, which is more of my "bag", so to speak. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That's even better. I did see your GA nominee on Carol Kaye. I would review it but I have a vested interest in it cause I read a book about the Wrecking Crew. And no we aren't related (I don't know what you mean by that lol). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 methinks he meant your surname (333) LOL. Ritchie is a valued ally and he doesn't recognize always how much he really does contribute. I'm happy to let him delude himself, because he haunts places I would never go and says, hey, this needs work. SusunW (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well what we do (and by extension, what WiR does) is teamwork. We all club together, with our different specialities. I put my admin specs on and look for things we can rescue, you do the rescuing. Everybody's a winner. Nobody ever gets yelled it, nobody's edits get reverted, and we look back, and think "job well done". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, while I'm here, I spotted Draft:Elizabeth Alker earlier today. She presents the BBC Radio 3 weekend breakfast show, so she's got to be notable; I'm just unsure of what sources to arm myself with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

While I'm here! I'll have a look. It can be surprisingly uneven which journos have any secondary source coverage, relative to their real-world significance, but a music journalist sounds like an incredibly pleasant subject to turn my attention to just now, so I'll be glad to dig in as best I can. Thanks for the flag. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

If you're around, may I please trouble you for a revdel? Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, where's the beef? Er, diff? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Oy, missplaced link. Here it is (edit as well as edit summary). Innisfree987 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RD2 (isn't that a droid?) dispatched. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha indeed. I thank you both for the help! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Annoying vandal

207.236.93.210 is obviously not here to help build the pedia. Surprised they've been allowed to keep on keeping on. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've given them a week, given the previous blocks and the apparent lack of constructive intent. Atsme The issue is we very very rarely indef IPs, given the possibility of collateral damage. Ritchie (or anyone else), if you feel comfortable upping the length, go ahead. Vanamonde (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh oh...collateral damage?? Wasn't aware, and afraid to ask...but I do have a vivid imagination. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Other individuals who might be using/might want to use that IP address for legitimate edits. Vanamonde (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ohhhh...I get it. Thank you for explaining, Vanamonde. I just learned something I should have known; i.e., to look at the bottom of the TP. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

A cheerful view of the Scottish countryside. From Top Places to Assassinate Trump, Amberley Publishing, 2017 p.14 ISBN 978-1-451-62171-6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A719 road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnberry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Well would you adam-and-eve it, we don't actually have an article on Tunberry the village (although it doesn't help that maps sometimes call it Milton). Despite the constant disambiguation notices covfefe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roksana Ciurysek-Gedir as no consensus

First, including the nomination, it's 2:1 for delete, and that's counting the single weak vote (week keep) as a regular one. Second, while thee was no consensus after first week, each subsequent week generated delete votes only. Third, while this is of course my biased POV, I think delete arguments where more policy-based than the keep ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally, a no-consensus close means there is no harm in re-opening another AfD at a later date. If you're still struggling to improve the article after a while, that's an option. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

G5 is not silly

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"G5 is not silly"

C5, however....

I dispute your claim that G5 is a "silly reason to delete" and suspect JamesBWatson and many other admins would feel the same. Is there any reason for you unilaterally overturning it? IIRC this isn't the first time (apologies if I'm wrong on that). SmartSE (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

In this specific instance a G5 was inappropriate because it was, as the old saying goes, commenting on the contributor, not the content. I was looking at another article by this user after reading the Quartz piece about Donna Strickland, did a quick news search and thought "hmm, this might be notable and certainly possible to improve". I think an AfD would have been preferable in this instance, hence my suggestion of sending it there, and while I appreciate Geert Wilders isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea (including mine), creating a significant documentary about him does take the biography out of the bounds of speedying. Remember, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to destroy one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleting a spammy article created by someone who regularly sock puppets to create spammy articles seems abundantly appropriate to me, WP:NOTPROMO and all that, being an encyclopedia we aren't supposed to be used for native advertising, and keeping it that way is also part of building an encyclopedia Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't care who creates articles, and never have done, and in 10 years' time when the article has been improved, nobody else will either. Might sound a bit harsh, but you can't see who's written an article when you read it; you have to do to the history and look at diffs, which takes forever. In this case, there is a draft at Draft:Stephen Robert Morse, and I don't think that's the only one; that was another reason to think the deletion was an accident. The result of an AfD could always be to return to draft or a redirect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

.... and dagnammit, if I'd just recreated the article from scratch, I could have had "Did you know .... that Stephen Robert Morse describes himself as the Ryan Air of film-making?" Harrumph. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

G5 implicitly means that it is a decision based on the contributor, but commenting on the contributor, not the content is about personal attacks, not whether we should delete content added by long term abusers of the community. If you thought they were notable then why didn't you just create the article yourself? That would have been fine, but as others have said below it seems that you just did this because you just didn't like it. Sure, there are times where despite articles qualifying for G5 they maybe shouldn't be deleted, but you shouldn't act unilaterally to reinstate content added by a blocked user, especially without cleaning it up first. Now we will head to AFD because there are don't appear to be any decent sources and we'll all have wasted plenty of time for nothing. SmartSE (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Robert Morse. SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Smartse: Thank you for drawing this to my attention.
• Ritchie333, this is perhaps the most blatant example I have yet seen of something which you have being doing for years, namely knowingly acting contrary to policy because you personally do not agree with the policy in question. That is abuse of your administrative powers. You are free to argue your case for changing the policy if you wish to, but as long as it is policy you are not free to use your personal disagreement as justification for flouting that policy. Although, as I have said, this is perhaps the most blatant example I have yet seen of your doing this, there are plenty more cases in your editing history of your openly and unashamedly putting your personal view above policy. There are various aspects of policy that I personally disagree with, but I accept that they are policy, and never intentionally act against those policies. Is there any reason why you should not be blocked for deliberate abuse of administrative powers? Indeed, is there any reason why you should be allowed to continue to be an administrator while expressly stating that you intend to continue acting against policy? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with James here. Disliking a policy is not a reason to ignore it, particularly in this case when it's directly against the TOU. It's unbecoming conduct and given your propensity to push things for discussion, this is hypocritical, at the very least you should have started one. G5s are not subject to WP:RFU like most criteria and for an administrator to unilaterally overturn a policy based deletion months after the fact with absolutely no comment or request from the community or deleting admin is absurd. There was no request from a third party to overturn this, publicly, so far as I can see, so what prompted you to go against long standing consensus and policy? If you felt he was so notable, why not create an article on your own instead of restoring the work of someone who has repeatedly shown disregard for the work of an encyclopedia? Also since you seem to think that this policy in particular is silly, do you care about the integrity of an encyclopedia or do you only want to make sure every topic under the sun is covered by Wikipedia? Praxidicae (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I also have to question your judgement, you repeatedly brought up a draft from 2016 as a reason G5 couldn't/doesn't appropriately apply. How? Praxidicae (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

All out of trout, but double the rainbow, halve the hate!

PILE ON HATE!!!! Wait, wut? Don't all these other admins have better things to do with their time? Shurely? We should be told... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was that supposed to be constructive? Are we not allowed, as a community to ask questions of an administrator elected by said community when they unilaterally (and without discussion) overturn a long standing policy and community consensus because they don't like it? Grow up. Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"I'm sorry ... grow up!" Wow, srsly? You need to work on that hate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, "work on the hate"? I guess the community should bow down to our Dear Sysop Leaders, since you're all infallible and not subject to any sort of criticism. I guess we should delete WP:NOBIGDEAL too. You're a paragon of professionalism and what we should all strive to be as editors and administrators. Good to know. Praxidicae (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. You've clearly mistaken me for someone else, some I suggest you do some research before going off the deep end. Do try harder. And smile. Alway smile when you type. It brightens things up! PILE ON RAINBOWS! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you implying your account is compromised or are you just trolling because you're an administrator and know there will be no consequence? Also good to know. It's totally a good look for you. Praxidicae (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not, but you're still not getting it!! But the personal attack(s) are noted. Those are a great look for you! I suggest MOAR RAINBOWS! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, my mistake, you're (thankfully) no longer an administrator. What is it that you think is a personal attack here? Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Applause! You may return to your regular hate pile-on! I got your PAs logged now, cheers, have a great day! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You realize accusing someone of making personal attacks, unfounded, is in itself a personal attack? Please show me where I've attacked you, per WP:NPA. Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Grow up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You telling me to grow up or implying that grow up is a personal attack? Please define how it is. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It's self-explanatory. Now back to your regular program. I have other things to do here, like improve Wikipedia for our readers. Bye now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this: if you don't substantiate your accusations of a personal attack, I will take this to ANI, which ironically is where this entire discussion should have started. Praxidicae (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase, you definitely did not personally attack me. Definitely not. But before telling people to grow up, you should take a look in the mirror. Now, honestly, get back to your regular pile-on program here. I have better things to do than keep answering your inaccurate comments and insinuations. Those are, regardless of your threats, on record now. (P.S. Next time you accuse people of "trolling", just think if that would fall squarely into the personal attack category... just think...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Then take me to ANI, please. And while you're at it, please explain to me how your edits were not trolling when several editors expressed valid criticism of an administrative action and your response was to belittle them and tell editors, me in particular, to smile because they've expressed a concern. Though given your history here, administrative conduct isn't really your forte, is it? Praxidicae (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, it's descended to that has it? I give up. Perhaps you're unaware of humour here, particularly around Ritchie's talkpage, but take this advice, don't stomp around telling people to grow up, don't accuse people of trolling, don't make false assumptions and assertions, none of that's a good look. Why are you linking me to that article in the Huffington Post? What does that have to do with ANYTHING? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, could you be any more condescending TRM? This is crappy behaviour, especially seeing as it looks like you came here just to stir the pot. Go back to ERRORS - TNT ^💖 21:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm just intolerant of people who make a series of false statements based on erroneous information, including accusations of trolling and then attempt to take the high ground. And in actuality, you'll note that I was referring to the actual admins who piled on here, no-one else. It was this other user who suddenly stepped up and told me to grow up. So if you wish to discuss and berate people for being condescending, start there. And sure, I'm all over ERRORS, the real one, not the fake one of course, thanks for the advice! I might also add to my 110+ FLs, 200+ GAs, 10+ FAs, etc too. We'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) WP:G5 was not applicable because other editors had worked on the text. In any case, per WP:OWN, the text is now CC and so anyone is free to reuse it as they see fit, provided they make attribution. If people want to enforce some sort of damnatio memoriae, they should use some other mechanism which does not deprive the encyclopedia of such valid content. And, of course, see WP:IAR, which is still policy, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". Andrew D. (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

G5 applied at the time of deletion. No editor worked substantially on it and if you read this thread and Ritchie's restoration, in no way does he imply that G5 didn't apply but that he doesn't like policy. Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in the scrict enforcement of G5 camp, if it is concerned with UPE or that the master was blocked for falsification of references and all that stuff. But, this particular case, (though technically qualifying for G5), does seem rather innocent to me...... So, unless I miss something, I guess at the end of the day, the encycloepadia has improved.At best Ritchie's unilateral overturning might be trout-worthy:-) ∯WBG^converse 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please define how socking is innocent in a case such as this where the original creator has a ridiculously long history of socking, combined with several new somewhat unrelated accounts creating the content, nearly word for word. I'm not sure if you're familiar with WP:UPE, but this is a textbook definition of it. Praxidicae (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Now hold on, WBG did not claim socking is innocent, he claimed Ritchie's actions are innocent because the encyclopedia is improved. There is no doubt that this article was created by a bad-faith actor who deserves to be blocked, but in this case it appears a bad-actor created an article on a notable subject. I don't agree with Ritchie's assessment of G5 as a "silly reason", not even in this particular instance. It would be a problem if he had restored it and left it as it was when deleted, but instead he has been devoting time to make it an article worthy of an encyclopedia. So the end result will probably be the same whether or not it was restored or re-created. I really do think some of our best editors have better things to do than to tear into each other. The bad guys are THAT way. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

What happens when an admin tries to improve the encyclopaedia... which is, apparently, what we are all here for...

(edit conflict)x3 (talk page stalker) From what I see, all Ritchie did is saw an article that was deleted just because the creator happened to be a sock, and restored it so that he could work on it and improve the encyclopedia. I don't see how instantly calling out "admin abuse!" is helpful or necessary. After all, WP:IAR is a policy. I feel like this whole thread with so much drama is unnecessary and extreme.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

+1 on that. Is the encyclopaedia better for Ritchie's intervention? If so, then the rest is all moot, and the dramah unnecessary. - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Can we wrap this up? GMG^talk 22:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protection

You sprotected List of Chinese submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, but the exact same anon sock abuse/edit warring is still going on at List of submissions to the 91st Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film [11] [12] [13] and Angels Wear White [14] [15] Ribbet32 (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Both semi-protected for a month. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Led Zeppelin III

On 6 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Led Zeppelin III, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the release of Led Zeppelin III was held up for two months because of its volvelle-based sleeve design? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Led Zeppelin III. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Led Zeppelin III), 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, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers for the AFC WIR biographies

		The Beer Barnstar
		Thanks for making the AFC WIR biographies rescue page. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a dig through that lot and see what you can unearth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Kudos as well. I haven't had the time to look as closely as I'd like but it sounds promising. I was initially disappointed by some of the reactions, as it seemed like there was more emphasis on taking pot shots than discussing solutions. Your initiative is exactly the type of thing we need.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Euston mainline to Euston Square

Nearby???? Evidently you have never dragged a heavy suitcase from EML to ESq! :-) Though I suppose the trek up down and across Green Park tube station between the Victoria and the Piccadilly might even be worse. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well I have legged it with luggage from the WCML at Euston to the HS1 platforms at St Pancras in 15 minutes train to train; there's no point getting on the tube if you know the back streets that run parallel to Euston Road and put you in the side entrance by the SouthEastern platforms. EML was marked as nearby to Esq on the standard tube map at one point, but I just looked and it's gone. :-/ The most deceptive interchange, in my view, is the Victoria line to St Pancras HS1 via the signposted route - it's about half a mile and I can recall running through the tunnel at full pelt and bombing it up the escalators to make a connection because (as I believe is documented in our article), you can save a bit of time changing at Stockwell to go north instead of just saying on the Northern Bank branch. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

When stations are marked with white line connectors on the tube map, that doesn't mean TfL is trying to trick you into thinking they're nearby, it means an interchange there doesn't count as a break of journey for ticketing purposes. (The actual proximity on the map doesn't have any relation to proximity on the ground any more; Lancaster Gate to Paddington is a walk of a couple of minutes, for instance. The only geographic relationship they try to preserve now on the map is that only stations near the river are shown near the river, and even that isn't as a convenience to passengers but to minimise the necessary changes if and when the riverbus is added to the map, in the same way that there's a broad white northeast/southwest diagonal of empty space between Tottenham Hale and Parsons Green in anticipation of Crossrail 2.)

The worst offender by a mile for a deceptive interchange is Lea Valley Line to Jubilee Line at Stratford via the signposted route (down the steps, turn right, left and left around three sides of a square, along the long corridor, right, up the escalator, left, down the escalator, right, left), with Bow Road to Bow Church (a 500m walk through a violent crime hotspot) a close second. Honorable mentions to Upper Holloway→Archway and the ever-popular Monument/Bank interchange; in a few months when Crossrail opens, Canary Wharf is undoubtedly going to take the title.

@John Maynard Friedman, for Green Park just get the escalator from Victoria or Jubilee to the ticket hall, walk the ten feet to the Piccadilly escalator, and back down. Hey presto, you've interchanged with no dragging and no steps at all. ‑ Iridescent 13:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

"Norralorrapeople know that!" One to file away for future use. TYVM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Unjustified AfCs

In connection with your development of User:Ritchie333/AFC WIR biographies and your recent comments on Wikipedia talk:Notability, you might be interested in my recent proposal on user talk:TonyBallioni.--Ipigott (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

recreation

Hi.
An article was recently recreated after almost an year old AfD. The article is still valid for AfD as it fails the criteria. But is it valid for G4? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Usernamekiran, sorry for talk page stalking instead of letting Ritchie reply himself, but per WP:G4, G4 does not apply if the previous version was deleted via soft delete, which according to the AfD was the case here. Therefore, I'm pretty sure G4 would be ineligible here, so I think you'd have to take it to AfD again.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: lol, there is no need to apologise, at all. Its actually good thing, and also getting the answer of the question is the point; doesnt matter who answers it :) —usernamekiran(talk) 04:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it's nice to have a WP:FANCLUB fielding questions for you. I need to repoint that link somewhere else; here we have an example of a fan club being helpful and productive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

On the whole "talk page stalking" subject, does anyone know of a talk page stalker userbox? I looked through the userbox gallery and wasn't able to find one. Otherwise, I'll just create it myself.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's at WP:TPS/userbox Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks, I thought I had seen something like that somewhere.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin III art cover link

Ok, I reckon I should have talked here, not in the edit section. But the sentence is about French pressing, the vinylmania link refers to Italian pressing. Do you really think it is accurate ? Why don't you want to show the right images of the original French pressing ? Plus, how am I supposed to reach the AV media notes ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.159.49.140 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There's been a whole discussion at cross-purposes. To go back to the beginning, I added the reference to the original LP ie: Led Zeppelin III, Atlantic Records (France), id 940 051. A source only has to explain where the information can be verified; it doesn't have to be an online source. Indeed, many of the best sources are printed books, and given that Led Zeppelin III is a good article, it behooves us to adhere to the best quality source material available, which in this case is the extensive work of Dave Lewis, who has been acclaimed by at least one band member as being an authoritative source. In lieu of that, there can't be any better source for an LP's artwork than the original LP. It is not original research to simply observe something and write it in words!

Anyway, the vinylmania link was added by Martinevans123 here outside of the GA improvement process, and no, it's not any more or less reliable than discogs, so we shouldn't have it either. I've removed that link. The problem with making drive-by improvements without registering it it's difficult to start a discussion in a place where it's going to be picked up, which means unfortunately we need to use big sticks on occasion to get things going. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A more interesting link here. ——SerialNumber54129 18:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, WP:LED ZEPPELIN has a note under "sources" eagerly awaiting the arrival of that source, so we can see what it's like. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to put in a few hours' paid editing before I can afford that. Any defunct 15th-century noble families want articles, hear ye, hear ye, you know where to come...of course, with luck and inflation, the groat will soon replace the duck's egg as the currency of choice, although I can only take bitduck and bitegg for security purposes. ——SerialNumber54129 19:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes the GA improvement process. I had hoped that my edit summary there: "difficult to find a non-commercial source which has an image, but I think this mighthttp://vinylmania.net/?4838,led-zeppelin-led-zeppelin-iii be useful?" might have suggested that a second opinion, or even a third, was more then welcome. I think commercial sources are still readily available if one wanted, or needed, to go down that route. My rationale was just that A picture is worth a thousand words. And I'd still like to hear of any supposed difference(s) between the Italian cover and the French one. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I surely agree sources and references don’t have to be online all the time, and of course there's no better source than the item itself. I also understand that written statements and facts have to be related to standard and praised books and articles.

But here we talk about the visual difference between regular and an odd, old & maybe rare LP pressing. And if someone can’t have this very item, and if he’s curious to SEE the difference, it should be useful to deliver some illustration in an encyclopaedia tending to be comprehensive. He eventually can find some on the Internet, but on marketplaces, and less detailed than the ones in the link I put. Ok, a Wikipedia page is not the place for exhibition of all the angles of a LP cover, but isn’t one of the purposes of a link to give further information ?

So Discogs cannot be reliable for its overall written information, ok, if you like. But what about pictures, do they really have to be edited in books first ? Discogs is user-generated, so is Wikipedia ! There were just a bunch of pictures, even one with the “Imprimé en France” label, which is somehow the crux of the matter. Then, because it came for Discogs, it was fake, photoshoped, or inaccurate in anyway ? If I’d log into Wikipedia and put on the page one of these pictures, or one of my own, sourcing something like “Derived from digital scanning of the front cover”, I think you’d might let me do it depending on some details as the place and the key I’d put. But it seems that assuming honesty or good faith of editors is restricted to the ones of Wikipedia...

I’ve seen lots of unsourced pictures in Wikipedia, starting with the Bron-Yr-Aur cottage picture whose source is “Own Work” which doesn’t really prove or mean anything. Will you remove it too because the source is not referring to any books, magazine, or reliable website ? Why don’t we put the geographic coordinates instead, claiming that it can’t be any better source for a cottage than the cottage itself !  ;)

At least the edit warring you’ve begun was of some use, as you removed the other link so it is now consistent with the sentence !

By the way, you use “ big sticks ” only because you want to, as any contributor I have a “ talk “ link too…

Well, for Martinevans123, there are minor differences, mainly writings and typo, plus the cross on Plant’s chest is orange in the French version. You can compare http://vinylmania.net/?4838,led-zeppelin-led-zeppelin-iii with https://www.discogs.com/fr/release/1221017-Led-Zeppelin-III/images and https://www.cdandlp.com/led-zeppelin/led-zeppelin-iii/33t/r119307986/ https://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=79739 https://www.cdandlp.com/led-zeppelin/led-zeppelin-iii-french-original-1st-press-plum-label/33t/r117644709/ https://www.cdandlp.com/led-zeppelin/led-zep-iii-original-french-press-1970-fleeback-cover-tag-top-biem/33t/r118348048/ https://www.popsike.com/LED-ZEPPELIN-III-ORIGINAL-BIEM-FRENCH-LP-940051-HARD-ROCK-BLUES-/171367302874.html https://recordmecca.com/item-archives/led-zeppelin-fully-autographed-led-zeppelin-iii-album/ http://ledzeppelinpat.pagesperso-orange.fr/histoire.html https://fr.shopping.rakuten.com/mfp/192510/iii-led-zeppelin-33-tours?pid=1854708. You can also read “Prodotto e distribuito in Italia”, “Edizione straordinaria”... or “Imprimé en France”, “Clichy”, “33 tours”, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.159.49.140 (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking more about the image, not the words which say "“Prodotto e distribuito in Italia”, etc. But thanks for mentioning the colour of the cross on Plant’s chest. I wonder why that was. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The best discussions to have a look at are Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171#www.discogs.com, which in turn leads to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, and explains here why you should avoid citing user-generated content such as discogs. The most notorious example of this is a long-standing urban myth that Robert Plant played bass on Led Zeppelin's first album, which has appeared over all sorts of user generated websites and wound its way onto Wikipedia. I can't find any evidence that this is the case from more authoritative sources, such as experts who base their research directly off band and associate interviews. And more to the point, an experienced session musician like John Paul Jones ought to have been able to record the bass lines for every song in a single take, as he had previously been paid to do exactly that. So for a good article, we have to aim for things we have a high chance of being factually correct; sometimes things repeated on fansites are not actually true, but just taken as gospel.

In regard to another point, we can include a picture of Bron-y-Aur because it's a photograph of a public building, which is acceptable. It's no different from me taking a photograph of Big Ben or the Palace of Westminster and uploading it here as "own work". Or, if I was in Regent Street watching a protest against Trump, I can take this photograph because a sign with six words does not meet the threshold of originality. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Robert Plant?? Are you sure it wasn't Bob Holness on saxophone?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The source usually given is this one. I think Bob did a fine job on Baker Street; after he'd played the sax, he didn't want to listen to the playback, but Gerry Rafferty disagreed and said, "I'll have a P please, Bob". Did you know he also played the lead guitar part on "Layla" as Duane Allman was too stoned to get up and do it, and Eric Clapton just wanted to play rhythm. Holness asked Clapton if he wanted anything as a token of his appreciation and Clapton reportedly said, "I'll have an H please, Bob". And that was Blockbusters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cissy Jones

Umm, you're suppose to leave the AfD for a week before deciding to keep or delete, not three days. Govvy (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The AfD was filed on 2 October, so the week's discussion is up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, o, I read the wrong date, it only had one post, I read the date on the vote, I was actually thinking it should of been relisted, but wasn't going to say that. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like meeting the criteria for a soft delete, which obviously means the article can be restored immediately on demand. I looked for sources but couldn't see anything that obviously leapt out to make me !vote "keep" instead of closing it. Having had a closer look, I think I could probably write a decent article on this, unless Megalibrarygirl wants a go first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

O well, I think it's just my stupid dyslexia and confusion. I did try to find sources on her a couple of days ago but nothing really helped. Govvy (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Well she's won a BAFTA so that kind of suggests notability! Yeah, I really should have !voted "keep" instead of closing this. I'll have a look and see if I can rewrite the article later today. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Right, I've recreated Cissy Jones pulling in a pile of sources and mentioning the BAFTA award up front, which I believe qualifies her for WP:ANYBIO #1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Chitty

I'm stumped

No consensus? ∯WBG^converse 10:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Disappointing. I thought the delete side made by far the stronger arguments, and the discussion was definitely trending towards delete after a consideration of the actual contents (or lack thereof) in the article, after all the WP:CRIC people had breezed in, gone "Meets WP:MILLIONSOFEMPTYPRETTYSHRINES, no nergh" and breezed out again. But good luck getting anyone to listen. Reyk _YO! 10:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't Shoot Me, I'm only the closing admin. I've known about this article for ages, and suspected that when it went to AfD you'd get both the "but our policies and guidelines say this article meets the criteria" camp and the "this is a silly idea for an article that imparts next to no useful information whatsoever" camp. The two clashed, with equally valid arguments from both sides, and so a "no consensus" became pretty much inevitable. I think you make a reasonable point, Reyk, but I can only go with the arguments presented, and I suspected if I had closed it as "delete", we'd have 3-4 people here complaining. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we scrap NCRIN? (or whatever it's called). We have an article on a cricketer whose name we don't even know, don't know any of his cricketing performance, all we know is he played one match for Surrey in 1800. Brilliant. I'll never be able to !vote delete on a biographical article again, for as long as that sham of a notability guideline exists. To think I !voted delete on the BLP of a young American girl who might (though equally might not) have made history in her sport, but we're keeping tripe like Chitty (cricketer). Just brilliant. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And people, including myself, wonder why there's a gender imbalance on the encyclopaedia. Female BLP: I made history. Wiki: Nope, not good enough. Male BVDP (Biography of a very dead person): I played a couple of innings 218 years ago. Wiki: Right this way my good sir. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, closing as NC does not mean it closed as "keep". There were heated arguments from all sides, which led me to believe a relist would not have been appropriate as we'd have just got a repeat of the same. This is like one of those longevity bios, which end up with the two polarised sides yelling and everyone dropping out of exhaustion. I did, in particular note Llywrch's suggestion to merge the article somewhere else. That sounds like the ideal compromise to me, and something that might sound acceptable on all sides. However, not enough other people supported the merge, so I couldn't close in that manner as it would look like a supervote. I think, ultimately, that NC was pretty much the only option left. Don't forget, that NC also means there's no reason you can't start a fresh AfD at a later date. As for "Female BLP: I made history. Wiki: Nope, not good enough." - if this is related to Isophene Goodin Bailhache, well I don't think it should have been deleted but the community said otherwise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see the discussion sooner so my suggestion could have been given more time for consideration. But the problem of permanent stubs is not going away soon, & will continue to crop up.

Merging such short articles is not a new idea: back at the dawn of Wikipedia, when I used to edit here using dial-up (true!), there was a fierce squabble over "Pokemon stubs" which was resolved by merging all of the short articles into a list. It appears that this is not done more often because too many people equate "notability" with "this subject must have its own article, no matter how short it is", & a lack of experience or maturity to know articles combining several related subjects work perfectly well. Bending the rules, if you will. But that problem -- of editors who aren't comfortable or confident to know when to break the rules to make a better encyclopedia -- is one that will never go away, as long as we continue to attract (& need) new volunteers. -- llywrch (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Nobody wants to get the cricket wikiproject's dander up. Start making a concerted effort to clean this junk up, and they go around to administrators' talk pages campaigning to get you banned from Wikipedia. Easier to give the same weight to "keep- meets my pet SNG" as a careful and detailed examination of the article and its sources, than risk a harassment campaign. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel your pain. A while ago (actually years now) I suggested that a whole bunch of articles like Texas Recreational Road 255 probably shouldn't exist, let alone be GAs, as they're basically duplicating what you can see on a map in text, which went out of fashion with John Ogilby's strip maps in the 17th century. Yet I still managed to get my head ripped off for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) This is a pathetic close and I am charitable, as to my choice of words. Even not discounting Accescrawl's blatant trolling and not including SN54129, there are 18 Delete/Merge! votes as compared to 9 for keep. I mean,....... ∯WBG^converse 11:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

^^^Ditto, my 2p. ——SerialNumber54129 11:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you go with the suggestion above and merge / redirect the article as Llywrch suggested at the AfD? That would get us out of this logjam, and can be done by normal editing without requiring an AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd back that idea. Would you support it as well? Reyk _YO! 11:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. As I said, I only didn't close it as "merge" because not enough people asked for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And post that redirect, when Davidson will revert that, with an emphasis on the fact that a NC, by default, equates to keep (which is correct), will you try to restore the merge/redirect? Or will you advise me as to why don't I open a merge-discussion? ∯WBG^converse 11:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we'll look at that if and when it actually happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Given someone's adulation for the subject, that is quite expected. Let's see:-) ∯WBG^converse 11:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Boldly done. Now to fetch my foam ear plugs so that the shrieks aren't quite so ear-piercing. Reyk _YO! 11:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Wow! How much time did the redirect stay? ∯WBG^converse 11:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say. I'm not going to get into a revert war over this; once should be enough to make my point for now. Reyk _YO! 11:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I've done three reverts, so wondering if I continue if that's a 3R rule violation or just reverting vandalism, which is allowed. When an RfD is closed as no consensus doesn't that mean kept (for now at least) and reverting the page blanking or page redirect is just plain ole reverting vandalism? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no vandalism. Even if Godric had reverted with a summary of "why the **** are people edit warring over this, **** off all of you", he would still be doing it under the impression he was doing the right thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

So any number of editors can overrule an AfD close by just reverting in-tandem until the editor who must then either stand down or sit on the bench per WP:**** OFF, and cannot put the page back anymore due to 3RR, is given a red card or sent to the showers. Since I cannot revert again I can only watch sadly as the spirit of AfD is given a kick to see if it is still conscious, and no movement is detected. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

A great comfort to know that his bowling was "unknown (but underarm)". At least he didn't go swanning around on Strictly Come Dancing like cricket stars these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't even know if he had both arms or was the cricket equivalent of Pete Gray. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

...awaits Ritchie333 taking administrative action against edit warrior" 😂 ——SerialNumber54129 12:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean a boomerang? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Er, no. I've made my one admin action on this, which was to close the AfD. If somebody wants to take anyone else to town for edit warring, then WP:AN3 is thataway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If all the 30 participants of the AfD wish to use their quota and no admin decide to spoil the fun (either block or page-protection) , that will be quite fascinating, to say the least.I am eagerly watching the page-history for a new name to crop up! ∯WBG^converse 12:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, tandem page-blanking or forced merge after an AfD is the new solution to AfD results we don't like. I won't revert again because of 3RR, and won't take this to AN3 because I've never done that to any editor. Is this "solution" now acceptable policy? Signed, Confused in Cambodia. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The page has again been blanked and redirected, directly contradicting the close. Is this now new AfD policy, because deletionists are going to love it, party, and balloon sales will go through the roof. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

"An admin's lot is not a happy one" (happy one)

Hello, Ritchie, I recommended inclusion of the data in a list like the one User:Reyk has selected so I am happy with that, except it has now been undone. While I understand your decision that there was no consensus, I am at something of a loss on this GNG v SNG issue. My reading of GNG makes me think that it overrides SNG and that the latter is a preliminary step, but there seem to be inconsistencies within both guidelines leading some editors to justifiably believe that notability rests on either GNG or SNG. As an administrator, can you give me your views on it to try and help me understand better?

In addition, I have been reading the cricket project page which includes their SNG, called WP:CRIN. This has come in for a lot of criticism and I think it is deeply flawed, especially as it contains a completely false statement about a fictional important match classification that has never existed and is original research based on the title of a handbook by one of the cricket project members. I notice above that Mr rnddude recommends scrapping WP:CRIN. I suspect his main concern is the one match qualification and I think he is right because there have been countless players worldwide who played in a single match and nothing more is known of them than their name on the scorecard. I would suggest that WP:CRIN's bar is raised from one first-class match to more than one first-class match played over more than one season. That way, they would be getting rid of the one-time guests and suchlike. A player who is active over a couple or more seasons and plays in at least two matches over that timespan is bound to have much greater credibility and, one would expect, wider coverage enabling him to meet the GNG notability as well as the SNG. I do not know if that would be acceptable because obviously I assume there would have to be compliance with other sport project SNG wordings but it does seem commonsense to me looking at things through a fresh pair of eyes. Thank you. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Scribbles by The Scribbler: Closing AfDs isn't an exact science; all you have to do is look at the arguments and see who is saying what. In this case, opinions include Godric "we need significant coverage. Is the word significant so difficult to understand?", Reyk "I could support the creation of list articles where these bare statistical entries could be included.", Cullen328 "I would switch to "Keep" if any source emerges that provides biographical detail allowing for even a very brief biography to be written", Andrew D "Some good improvements have been made to the page in the course of discussion per WP:HEY and so we see that such improvement is feasible", SportingFlyer "am giving a benefit of the doubt to the SNG and due to the historical nature of the encyclopedia entry." and Llywrch "IMHO, there is no point in having separate articles on these poorly known cricketers, ignoring that they are sportsmen". Many of the !votes, both for "keep" and "delete", were challenged by people on the other side, and not very many people suggested merge (and mentioned above). In a discussion, my thought process generally runs along the lines of "what's best for the encyclopedia in this scenario?" followed by "does policy back it up". Going the other way round, trying to shoehorn policy into what you want, regardless of whether or not it fits is back-to-front. It is, after all, why we have WP:IAR. As long as people are making reasonable arguments not in the list of cliches to avoid (and I don't think anyone was), then the views have generally equal merit to others at the same level. Given reasonably expressed opinions were expressed from everything to keeping the article as is to killing it with fire, with shades in between, it seems that a fair outcome would be "no consensus". "Merge" would invite accusations of a supervote, "Keep" would be like this discussion only worse, and "Delete" would have a similar volume of complaints, just from different people. I don't really mind anyone starting a discussion to raise the standard at WP:CRIN, but that can't be applied to a single AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It's difficult but I think you are approaching it in the right way by prioritising the benefits to the encyclopaedia. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Your suggestion of raising the bar from "single first-class match" to "more than a single first-class match, across more than a single season" would, I have to imagine, cull many of the worst cricketing biographies here. If it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing, than I'm willing to support it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the AfD. I appreciate it was a tricky one in lots of ways to close, so I appreciate you shouldering the responsibility by stepping up and doing so! Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• I went away for an hour and see that a new name has indeed cropped up. Shall I join the party and wait unless it's get sysop protected? ∯WBG^converse 16:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I've formally opened a merge proposal at the article talk page if anyone's interested. It would seem best to work this through there first. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

IP pretended to post as me

An IP that is not from my country posted a false comment during this discussion pretending to be me. [16]. What do you think is the correct course of action?--NØ 16:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think reverting it is the correct initial course, and if you see them doing again, it's block-worthy. The chapter and verse is here and here which basically says it's a complete no-no. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the help!--NØ 16:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Frogmore Paper Mill

On 11 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frogmore Paper Mill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Frogmore Paper Mill (pictured) is the oldest surviving mechanical paper mill in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frogmore Paper Mill. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Frogmore Paper Mill), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy decline

Hey Ritchie333, a query for you. You declined my speedy nomination of Osvaldas Jablonskis because it has a source. However I didn't list it as a speedy under BLPPROD, which would have required a source, but under WP:A7 no claims of notability included. There is no CAT:A7 criteria regarding sources but is purely based on whether or not the article makes any claims of notability. The article in question does not make any claims to notability, in fact it consists of a single statement saying they are a Lithuanian painter and that is its entirety. So I'm not sure why you declined the speedy as the fact it has a source is not relevant to the A7 speedy deletion criteria. Canterbury Tail talk 01:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: It's right there in Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance - "Article contains an assertion of coverage of any kind in at least one independent reliable source" and cites four discussions in the WT:CSD archives as evidence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah that's why I couldn't find a policy on it. So it's coming from an essay and some talk consensus that hasn't made its way into the policies. I'm okay with that, I just wanted to know where it was coming from as the policy pages make no address to that point. If we're declining speedys because they have a source and it's not in the policy, even though there's a consensus, then I think we should migrate that into the policy to avoid such confusion. Otherwise this will keep coming up (not from me.) It's a rather important piece of information and it's at odds with the actual policy on speedy deletions for whom it is purely that they lack a claim of notability. Cheers for the time. Canterbury Tail talk 12:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's only true most of the time, which is why it isn't policy. SoWhy would probably know more about the specifics. The most notorious case where I wanted to speedy something but policy kind of prevented it was Kimberly Lee Whyte, which was stereotypical Sun and Daily Star type tabloid gossip (to the extent that I don't even want to summarise the deleted content), but which had one source to The Independent which prevented it from being an out and out BLP violation. I deleted it per G11 instead, was challenged, restored it and downgraded it to AfD, then another admin deleted it per A7 anyway. And that was that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(pinged) @Canterbury Tail: for whom it is purely that they lack a claim of notability Actually, it isn't. If you read the policy, it does mention notability only to explicitly state that A7 only requires a claim that the subject is "important or significant" which is a lower standard than notability. So logically, if notability requires coverage in multiple sources, coverage in a single source usually means the subject meets a "lower standard" than that. A7 serves as a first line of defense against the clearly irrelevant. If a reliable source deemed a subject important enough to dedicate coverage to it, it's no longer clearly irrelevant because where there is smoke, there might be fire (or where there is one source, there might be more). So even if it's not explicitly mentioned, the whole point of WP:CSD is to only apply to the "most obvious cases" as stated in the lede of the policy and these are not such cases.

As for why it's not included in the policy, additionally to what Ritchie says, we can't include all previous "case law" in the policy because that would expand it to the point of not being readable anymore. It's common for policies to have supplemental pages for that very reason after all.

Also, in this case, lt:Osvaldas Jablonskis contains plenty of claims of notability and potential sources. This also leads back to the spirit of most policies: If it can be fixed, fix it. If one wiki has sufficient information to likely establish notability, we should translate that information from there, not delete it here. Regards SoWhy 13:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Appreciated. Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Kor-Lay singer page

You have recently deleted the Kor-Lay singer page. The fact is that I have been working for Wikipedia for a long time. Mostly in the Russian section, but I accidentally mistakenly changed the Ko Lay business policy page. Can you cancel the deletion of the singer page Kor-Lay? I would be grateful to you. Since I am his fan. MentosLava (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kor lay hasn't been deleted; it was declined in August by Theroadislong as not having sufficient independent sources. In particular, writing "He stated that he completely agreed that gay and lesbian marriages and other orientations were forbidden." without any citations to reliable sources is unacceptable and will need to be removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/A719_road

"I respectfully propose you strike your original hook in favour of A4."

I respectfully propose you strike your original hook in favor of A4 (A4 the hook, not A4 the road). This is too good to mess up. EEng 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona unstruck it for some reason. I agree it's got to be ALT4. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think both ALT0 and ALT4 are good, which is why I unstruck ALT0. But I have no objection to using ALT4 if that is what others prefer. Catrìona (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

ALT4 is much better, it's got just the right mix of words and links for maximum pun-ness. It's what Half Man Half Biscuit have based their entire career on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

On squirreling

[17]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Another case of Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

POCBS. Christ. Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

[18] Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, this gives The Lotus Eaters new meaning. Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: Sprout Social

"For starters, there's sprout soup, followed by sprout salad, and for dessert - a little unusual, but I think you're going to like it .... sprout crumble." "Rimmer, you know damn well sprouts make me chuck!" "Well this is terrible, I've got you down for sprouts almost every meal ..... hah, tell a lie ... it is every meal!" click

Hi,

I wanted to see if we could get the Sprout Social article you deleted restored to a draft so we can make sufficient edits so it has the correct factual tone and isn't considered advertising. I am employed by Sprout and we were in the process of trying to update for accuracy but we want to follow wiki guidelines accordingly (WP:SCOIC etc). As we are a midsized SaaS company similar to Zendesk, Hootsuite and others it would be great if you could point me to a few guidelines so I could ensure the article is not considered advertising. Thanks for your time on this!

Liz at Sprout (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Liz at Sprout: I've restored it to User:Liz at Sprout/Sprout Social. Looking around for independent sources, the only obvious one that leaps out is this one from Martech Advisor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Try Google books, google scholar, high beam research, dog pile and bing.com. They are not all simple regurgitations of google.com. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:Thanks so much. To clarify, are you looking to identify additional independent resources? We have a number of articles on prominent and independent sites so please let me know if you need me to share any of those. Additionally, I'll be sure to pass this as well as WP:NOTADVERTISING along to the team creating the copy. Thanks again for a speedy resolution. Liz at Sprout (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Liz at Sprout: The best way to write an article is to start from the most well-respected and independent sources you can find. Start with high-level publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, that sort of thing. Then work down to specialist publications. The source must have written about Sprout independently off its own back without being motivated by the company (that's what a "conflict of interest" usually boils down to). As a general rule of thumb, if you can write about 500 words just from at least five completely independent and reliable sources, you're probably okay to have an article. As far as prose goes, Words to watch is a good first essay to have a look at. If you need any further help, let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

We ought to

expend some serious thoughts about changing AFC to a GA production-brigade.

Somebody thinks that this is a poorly sourced BLP where some random sources were thrown haphazardly unaffiliated with any content. And, that was the textbook example of something to be draftified.

If that was not enough, a subject which has been amply covered, (in detail), by the most-circulated daily of a nation ought be declined with a vague note (nothing specific) because the creator was stupid-enough to insert some additional unreliable sources.

Sigh........∯WBG^converse 16:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hah! THIS is a GA production brigade! As I said on the Women in Red talk page, I'll do an audit of improved and rescued AfC submissions at the end of the week, and see how many we've done. They're not all masterpieces, but AFAIK I wouldn't !vote delete on any of them if they turned up at AfD. If someone is notable but has unreliable sources, you remove the unreliable sources, not delete the article! After doing a summary, I'll see if there any repeat offenders making too many mistakes, give them a head's up, and if it still continues, remove their reviewer rights (with consensus, of course). That'll light a fire under them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Greg Herman / Fashion Designer: Page deletion

Dear Ritchie333,

Apologies for sending this again in another section. I hadn't seen a reply and wanted to make sure it did not get lost in the chain/ sea of topics. Again, thank you for your time.

---

Thank you again for your help and I hope you has a great weekend! I was traveling and apologize for my tardy reply. I totally understand. I included below some links regarding Greg in this message. He has a number of articles on him, however, many of his published accomplishments predated 'Google' and are not avail online. Hopefully these are of some help, and at the very least could aid you in helping to establish a page for him and his name back into the Wikipedia world. If you need any additional info, please let me know. Again, you've been extremely helpful in this process and I thank you very much. Have a wonderful Monday!

Best,

Robyn

～～～～

https://books.google.com/books?id=_F0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=greg+herman+designer++los+angeles+times&source=bl&ots=5G6tYVCcAG&sig=Rzc1qMyBZ98oNCfIJpHnzrGkL1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiil9iMvd7dAhUBCDQIHQ-TAisQ6AEwA3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=greg%20herman%20designer%20%20los%20angeles%20times&f=false

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/30184

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/sep/03/news/ls-18970

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/23/business/fi-13336