Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sabrinap2015 (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 9 April 2015 (→Thanks!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Adminship

A prehistoric administrator spots some complete bollocks and breaks out his banhammer.

Ritchie, have you ever thought about becoming an admin someday? Given how you've had lots of editing experience, quality article work, and good judgement, I don't think you'd have too much trouble at RFA should you decide to run. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snuggs. Well I suppose the cat's out of the bag, I have been having secret talks with MelanieN and we've dug through my contributions. What's stopping me from being an admin? Well, I have a few skellies (I believe I told an admin to fuck off once), a lot of my experiences aren't logged (it would be interested to capture AFD / CSD "saves" though) and I need extra work and responsibility like a hole in the head. Still, I've been doing forum moderation on / off for about 20 years and have seen it all (hence my involvement today at ANI trying to find a resolution that doesn't involve WP:NLT banhammers at 12 o'clock), so I dare say I might well have a shot at the bit at some point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The most versatile phrase in the English language Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you know what you're doing, things should be fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you ought to know that "skellie" redirects here, haha. But you must be joking! I'd see telling any admin to fuck off a necessary trophy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie has done his best to wiggle out of it, but his excuses have collapsed, one by one. His destiny awaits him. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about a little test: what would you potential admin say at arbitration enforcement where I was called today? - I once linked to Bollocks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A long time ago, I wrote It's not the end of the world and my rose-tinted opinion of what I'd like to see at AE is contained therein. And for what it's worth, I linked the current picture in Wikipedia:Complete bollocks after the old one got deleted. PS: A number of off-wiki friends like that last page, but wonder why the "is" was missing between "Wikipedia" and "Complete" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently told what AE stands for which is unprintable. Now to the specific instance, how would you potential admin comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Test passed: quick, to the point, giving people not too much to read, with a twist of humour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hey, this is good news; I agree it sounds like a good fit; let me know if you need me to testify as a character witness at your trial! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, or were you speaking to Ritchie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You too? You dear thing, yes I will testify how annoying you are and how I see you EVERYWHERE. ;-) Ping me on that day. Prhartcom (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood, sorry. - I don't mean admin (one of my ardent admirers phrased: to offer me to be admin would be like proposing the princess to become janitor, LOL, - and he reviewed an article for GA today), no, I mean the unprintable above, but thanks to Ritchie I think this cup passed. The next will come, I bet, you heard it here first, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Please excuse our friend Gerda - she thinks she's trapped in a Kafka novel...) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trapped ;) - Recently, I reverted the addition of Cat:Surrealist to Kafka, thinking that he realistically wrote "the story of a [wo]man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his her crime revealed neither to him her nor the reader". Excessively proud of that most successful TFA so far, look for Kafka in my user's infobox, just above criminal penalty ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Sorry Gerda, only joking. I thought I might hit a nerve with that one! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You simply nailed it, or should I say "revealed"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't emphasise this enough - for an outside non-editing reader's point of view, a GA beats the mop hands down. Ich danke Sie für sein gut artikel. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel a bit bad now; I seem to recall you and I had a chat about this ooh, years ago now (can't even dig up the diffs), and I said I'd look into it and then sort of... didn't. Sorry. Still, if you need a co-nom, give me a shout, I'd be very happy to sign my name under your bid for the bit. Yunshui 雲水 14:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did, but to be honest I focused more on writing content, and the "prize" I really had my eye on last year was getting an article through FAC single handedly, but I think that's going to have to be dropped for now. As I said to Melanie elsewhere, at the moment the timing is not good - I am planning to give up some long standing mod / developer roles on other sites to accomodate this, which is scheduled to happen at the end of April. Then there will be full on band stuff for quite a while. So, WP:NOTNOW, but conversely, not never. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So not "full on banned stuff", then. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the workload .... definitely looking forward to the Lifeboat gig on 23 April as the owner is happy for me to use his refurbished Hammond C3 with Leslie 122. Ding dong! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Give my regards to Mandy. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, I found myself doing considerably more content work once I had the admin tools; most of my GAs and sole FA were cobbled together after I had the mop in hand. They made a pleasant distraction from the less-enjoyable aspects of administration... Yunshui 雲水 14:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the peace bell with pleasure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry sorry - something got lost in my last edit, and then more was added, cant restore properly, help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie's just too cool to be an admin!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GA congrats from GA, - our day today ;) (signed late, sorry, - DYK that Ika was the first GA in outcomes 2015?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a very appropriate article to pass GA right now - one in the eye for systemic bias, I hope. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of equality and countering systemic bias, I plan to block all accounts beginning with "A" on the first day, then "B" on the second ... moving on, though I might get into some bother when I get to day 10 and block Jimbo ... seriously though, I've booted people off forums and wikis before and been called everything from a nazi to an anal retentive jerk - even with the full support and weight of consensus behind me doing it. It's not fun to find people you've never talked to suddenly declare you as a sworn enemy. Booting people for personal or political reasons is a particularly nasty bit of cowardice - "I can't come to terms with your views so I'm going to throw you out of the door and stick my fingers in my ears singing la la la can't hear you...." (In your specific instance, I would have dropped a note onto the IP edit warring on Mohonk Preserve pointing out what vandalism isn't and that "2 hours" is POV depending on whether you are in a car, a pushbike, a 44 tonner, a Segway, a Sinclair C5 or a fire extinguisher-powered wheelchair and if they reverted again, I would probably sigh, say "whatever" and go to bed. Just sayin'....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Walnut tree?
- you must be nuts"

In blocking, will you go by account name or last name? - My admin of choice wrote a good-bye note, - your service may be needed soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh who knows ... tell you what, it might be easier to just block everybody in the whole world. Would keep the traffic at ANI down a bit. And noooooo, she can't leave, please, next thing you know Drmies will call it quits and then I'll just feel depressed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, per nom. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

GA's latest Bach GA is on the Main page, DYK? Ending on "final grant us peace", quite intentionally so. Before you proceed direction admin: ask yourself: Am I passionate? In case of yes, I warn you. Am I passionate about justice? In case of yes, stay away, or you might end up in a self block. I saw two, and that's two too many. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I silently cheer from the sidelines when Wikipediocracy fires both barrels at an admin doing silly things, that's good enough for me. I have occasionally commented on the blog eg: "Long-term editors and admins can get so caught up in what they do that they gain a false sense of self-importance, not realising that they may never read important criticism and feedback" [1] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good quote but no consolation. But then I quote "He who speaks a word of consolation ..." on my user page. - Did you know that yesterday someone mentioned readers as the most important people of Wikipedia? Imagine!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When an admin behaves like a complete arse, all I really want them to do is realise they are behaving like a complete arse. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What if an admin only looses patience and explodes? Did you follow the link to justice? How do you like my translation? Approved for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are worse things to explode. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should go on your talk page too

Your GA nomination of Ika Hügel-Marshall

The article Ika Hügel-Marshall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ika Hügel-Marshall 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 Rosiestep -- Rosiestep (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was this your first AfD-rescue-all-the-way-to-GA case? --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's my second - see the brand new User:Ritchie333/saves Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie, I see you as the new Mr Neutron... "swoon". Martinevans123 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right! Stop that!
It's far too silly!
Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

Sensibility? Oh, Mr Willoughby, you're so dashing ! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Your GA nomination of Woolwich Ferry

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Woolwich Ferry 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to pop out now, but I'm certain we can finish the review off this evening. Eric Corbett 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for what you've done so far, some really interesting insights, and for the copyediting. I've got to pop out in about half an hour to go here - not sure if there's enough to make an article on that pub but it was Steve Marriot's local in the 1980s and Jamie Oliver pops in from time to time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Woolwich Ferry

The article Woolwich Ferry you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Woolwich Ferry for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerest form of flattery?

You have an imitator. They look like a short-lived sock of somebody, and I doubt they will ever make any more than that one edit, but thought you would like to know. --MelanieN (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are several "Ritchiexxx" accounts on here - I think it's just a random co-incidence. How would they have known about me? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Woolwich Ferry

Been there, done that, got the....

The article Woolwich Ferry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Woolwich Ferry 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know my reviews can be a bit gruelling, but it's all for the sake of maintaining the integrity of that little green blob, which I fought so hard for. Eric Corbett 18:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well other people might think that but I welcome people doing a good and thorough job. As a software engineer, you won't survive in the trade very long if you take bug reports personally! Crisco 1492 has done a similar level of quality reviewing (he would have pounced on that map image as the first thing, probably) and the opening gambit of Hammond organ's GA review (which more or less started off as "what kind of section layout is this and would you care to explain all these technical terms while you're at it?") made a far better article at the end of it - which is exactly the result we should be aiming for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Missed it, congrats! Also had another little green ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a little bet with myself which I'll reach first - 30,000 edits (currently on 29,500) or 40 GAs (currently 38, plus 2 queued). Hmmmm... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Naomi Sager

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High five, my friend! Another one taken from A7 to DYK! --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even better here, the tagger apologised for the mistake and approved the DYK nom! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kewl, I missed that! --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, do you think that Charlotte Johnson Baker has a shot at GA? I was trying to think of notable women to write an article about (Women's History Month and all that), but found she already has a well-developed article here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems quite brief. I appreciate there is no size limit on GAs, but 3K tends to be at the lower end. That said, writing about 19th century figures does generally turn up less in sources unless you look carefully. The large quotation needs an inline citation (that's a deal breaker for GAs) and I would paraphrase it anyway. The "Positions held" list would sit better as prose. Watch out for POV in prose such as "a noted suffragist" (noted by whom?) I'm not entirely sure what year the events in the "Political position" section are (1888/9)? There's nothing about her life in the 20th century (if she was a notable suffragist she ought to have still been reported in sources in the 1900s and 10s, even if we can't immediately find them) and no information on when she died other than the "1937" in the lead. In summary - needs a bit more work and beefed up to reach GA, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the suggestions! --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaford GAR

Hi Ritchie, I just wondered whether you are still interested in reviewing Sleaford at GAR. It's been up for a review for well over a month now (during which time it's received a copy-edit) and I have just finished my term at University, so I should be around to make changes for the next few weeks. I appreciate that you are busy both on- and offline and may well be burnt out after the GA Cup, so if you can't do it, let me know and I can put it back up for review. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten all about this, but I hope I can get around to it in the next couple of days. And yes, I did go GA-review crazy in the cup, doing 50-60 reviews from memory, and needed to take a break and go back to writing. Still, I think I'm over the hump and J3Mrs is a good editor, so hopefully it should be a relatively brief job. What's 95.145.204.226 been doing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's great to hear and your need for a break is very understandable (that's a lot of reviews!) As for the IP, it's not me and as far as I can tell from these diffs, they have been copyediting by adding/removing links and de-capitalising (?) certain words. All the changes are minor and I can't see that there's anything untoward, though I think the wapentakes ought to be linked, even if they pages don't exist yet (following comments from Rodw at its PR). Many thanks for taking this on, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
A very brief perusal through suggests this is a borderline FA! But yesterday I said Revolver (album) looked like a GA but then reviewed and discovered it was some way off. Still, I know the fingers that have been in the pies for this one, so we should be alright. I've got to nip out in a mo and I can't remember what I'm doing tomorrow evening, so I'll have to get back to you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once again, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

About Alliance of Women Directors

Look all these blue links! Far too many! Let me grab my copy of Newnes Dictionary of Arcane and Bizarre Wikilawerying Policies and Guidelines and nuke some articles!

Hi Ritchie333,
Oops. Yeah, I did prune it down very harshly. A result of my own personal opinions about the WP:BLP and WP:VER policies. It's the nature of this beast, I guess.
So: shall re-write the article? We could discuss it on its talk-page.
Or maybe at the talk-page of your and my favourite copy-editor. He's often open to copy-edit requests.... --Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: I don't think Eric will touch an article like that at the moment as it involves women's rights (broadly construed) and he's fed up of people pouncing on him and tripping over themselves to serve arbcom enforcement blocks :-( .... @MelanieN:, who I seem to be pinging about 4 times a day at the moment might be up for rescuing it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, Ritchie, but I don't find this organization to be notable so I won't be attempting a rescue. I doubt if there is enough significant coverage to support an article. You can try, if you like; I would be happy to be proven wrong. Re: the original version: I would have chopped out almost everything Shirt did, except I would have kept (and suggest re-adding) the qualifications for membership. I think that is important to define what the group is. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would have left the history (all one sentence!) and the affiliates, gone looking for sources for both and either plumbed sources in or slapped [citation needed] on them depending on the result - but I think I would have probably ended up in a similar state to Shirt58's version. I suppose we could always send it to AfD and see what happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to add a bit of pre-emptive firefighting on the AfD before an angry mob turns up from Twitter with torches and pitchforks calling for my head on a plate for having the complete and utter chuzpah of nominating this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you mean "complete and utter chutney"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
That would put me in a right pickle.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in here, I saw your post at the AfD and am wondering if you would mind taking a look at Alliance of Women Directors#Possible sources and see if any of those links might be helpful. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Don't worry about "butting in", Martin does it all the time ;-) ... I haven't looked at all the sources yet, but I looked at three and all were on the general subject of women in the film industry, rather than specifically the AWD. I'll pick through the others if I've got time, but as things stand I can't see a good reason to switch my !vote from "delete" at this time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ritchie333. I was just searching for anything that might possibly help establish notability, but to be honest I don't think I found anything that would cause me to change my mind as well. The irony is that many people get frustrated with Wikipedia when their articles are deleted or not approved for lack of notability, even though Wikipedia's function is not to make things notable. If such people were only as feverent in getting their groups, etc. significant coverage in reliable sources, there would be hardly any need for AfD at all. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like this (or indeed many comments trying to contest a CSD, particularly A7 or G11) make me want to bang my head against a desk with a sigh, saying "you just don't get it". I've had this discussion with people off-wiki, where I've patiently explained the basic core of verifiability and no original research only to get the response along the lines of "Why do I need to get The Guardian / Telegraph / Independent / Times / BBC to write about us - everyone knows who we are and that's of no benefit to us!" It's frustrating, but at the end of the day all I can do is suggest that if an organisation is truly notable, getting a major news outlet to cover them independently should be a reasonably easy task. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technical question. Why did you format the O'Neill book as a source and not simply cite it using "cite book" like any other reference. I think this is the first time I've seen it done that way. I've used sfns before, but always just cited the book like any other reference. Is this something that comes down to personal style, or is there an actual formatting reason for doing it that way. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real reason other than it's just the way I've got used to doing things, if you're expanding an article towards GA / FA (as I have a tendency to do), then I'll frequently want to cite multiple pages from the same book, and shortened footnotes save time if you're referencing lots and lots of pages. I also hoped I'd be able to cite more than the two pages given (and one of those doesn't actually tie directly to the AWD, so somebody might consider it OR and pull it), though that doesn't seem to be the case. Actually, there is a political reason, when you add {{sfn}} with Harvard Referencing, people immediately think you're an experienced Wikipedian and are much less likely to revert you. That's a double-edged sword, as it means you have to check your work and referencing far more closely if nobody else is going to do it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Harvard before (I think). I just never break the references section up like you did. I always wondered why people did that, and you're the first person I've had the chance to ask. Something for me to work on for future articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ephemerals (band) notability guidelines

Hi Ritchie,

I write in response to your comment on my edits to the article on Ephemerals (band). Below is your original comment:

I've had a listen to the album and had a good look around and tried to see if I can save this article, but the basic rule of thumb is you need at least a chart hit (verified by any Official Charts Company source) or write-ups in national magazines such as The Guardian or The Telegraph. I hope it's only a matter of time before this happens, and if the album gets picked up and covered there, we might be able to fit you into Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)'Italic text

Wikipedia's guide on notability does not require a chart hit and my submission references playlist rotation on BBC 1Xtra (very trustworthy source), national and international magazine coverage (DJ Mag, Mixmag) as well as featuring as the subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network (Loose Ends on radio 4.)

Of the points on notability as per wikipedia's guidelines the article satisfies 1, 10,11 and 12 so I don't understand why it has been rejected on these grounds since it fullfils 4 of the criteria guidelines. Please can you rereview your comment, the article and the guidelines and respond appropriately.

Many thanks,

AlexM171087 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexM171087 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexM171087: It looks like I declined this with regret, which sounds about right as I do try and approve and pass band articles wherever possible. The problem is that the guidelines say you need sufficient coverage, and I thought, all things considered, that there wasn't quite enough. If I passed the article and another editor took it to a deletion debate, I would struggle to defend it. My comments about typical sourcing are a basic rule of thumb. Just about any band, chart hit or otherwise, has a write up in The Guardian. Much of what I found via an online search was very scant coverage, really that Radio 4 "Loose Ends" appearance is the main thing at the mo, that didn't really suggest there were enough sources to write a really good biography.
A serious question to ask is - do you think having a Wikipedia article (or not) will benefit the band, and if so, how? I did notice this comment in Chicago Now that says "This band is too new even for Wikipedia", which I find worrying. Wikipedia shouldn't be a "benchmark" for any band to obtain as it's a general purpose encyclopedia that's generally behind the times and reports things after they happened. The best thing to do is wait .... your draft isn't going to be deleted, and if the band is good then other sources will start to write about them, we'll notice, and then we can have an article. It won't hurt to wait six months. After all, Things May Come and Things May Go but the Art School Dance Goes on Forever, which is nearly 45 years old, only had an article created last month!
Finally, just because I declined the submission, it doesn't follow that I don't like the band ... in fact I seem to recall they were quite good and align with my musical tastes. I'll have to have another listen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited If I Could Do It All Over Again, I'd Do It All Over You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bongo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Finn

File:OlNigey.jpg
"Right wing you say? Come off it mate, my party's as squeakly clean as Barry Scott! Oh, wait.....

Thanks for your edits.

By the way, next time I edit BLP pages on "Wiki" I'll make sure to check Page 3 in The Sun for reliable information. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aronzak: Nooooooooo .... anyway, all I was really getting at on Bernie Finn is that if you add lots of content, and another editor reverts it for no obvious reason, then it's better to discuss things. The stuff you added is mostly okay and compliant with WP:BLP (if it wasn't I'd have done something like this), but just because you could break out the banhammers on somebody being non-communicative and disruptive, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a good idea. Anyway, now the article has been broadcast on ANI and BLPN, I suspect more eyes will come down and improve it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rtichie333, the user has blanked sections again by Pmesiti, he's stated on User talk:Dsprc "Please leave my editing of Bernie Finn's page along. As his media adviser, it is my job. I will continue to delete your views and if I am banned I will take it further"

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Pmesiti using SPA declares he is paid media advisor of politician whose page he keeps blanking.

-- Aronzak (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Translated into Wikipedian that means "I am a paid editor with a conflict of interest and I intend to edit war and issue a legal threat if blocked." Indef 'em. However, as I said earlier, you should not restore content cited to the Herald Sun without good reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to make that comment on COIN? I'll try to raise source quality, though the more that this lady Mesiti cuts the more I feel like putting back.
Also, happy with my diff putting some content back? -- Aronzak (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should have left the article alone and started a discussion on the talk page. You've forum shopped your way round various noticeboard but missed out the one place that really matters. You might not like Pmesiti's actions but he does have WP:BLPSOURCES to back him up. IMHO you must be on very solid ground before you accuse a person of homophobia or racial hatred. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for H to He, Who Am the Only One

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piccadilly

This year, the traffic on my talk page has been like, well, this

What a shambles of an article on a prominent road...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Yeah, ridiculous that "Idaho State Route 666" (or whatever) can reach FA status while this far more important road languishes in Crap Class. I'm on it. Charles Lethbridge Kingsford has a brief summary of the history I'm working on, and Faithorne maps have early layouts. Should easily be possible to get a GA out of this, time permitting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disgraceful isn't it! Even if we got it to C or B class that would at least be an improvement! I definitely think it's one worth getting to GA though. I'll try to help out as I work on the Ritz.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "big WP:INDISCRIMINATE looking list" style reminds me of Denmark Street before I attacked it, but I had the advantage of knowing that street very well having visited the music shops for several decades, whereas I'm not too au fait with Piccadilly, as the Green and Hyde Parks nearby are a nicer alternative.
By the way, since you're here, I have had an idea for an editathon / meetup. In Broadstairs (at the arse end of High Speed 1 from St Pancras) there is a bookshop turned pub on the site of the Shrine of Our Lady, Bradstowe. They welcome drinkers and diners to look at the huge collection of books still there provided they are careful, and it strikes me as it's a rare opportunity to have food, beer and offline sources all together in the same place! I'll need to check with the owners that we're okay to just read books all day without buying them, but other than that I wonder whereabouts I could plug this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I've done a bit more on the article, mainly history and bit of traffic. @Modest Genius: has done quite a bit of work on it in the past, so we can hopefully get him on board and have a 3-way GA / DYK out of it, like we did on Denmark Street. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's an incredible start! One thing though, can you use this to draw up google books. It places the last name first so is easier when you list in the sources to alpha order them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help but notice this and wonder whether you've looked at the Survey of London? There are two works by Sheppard which may be useful: Piccadilly, South Side, the Early History of Piccadilly and the Rebuilding of Piccadilly Circus. I don't know whether Pevsner covered London, but that could be useful too. There may be more and I imagine that a lot of this is too detailed, but they could be helpful nonetheless. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I rather like the list of notable buildings, if only because it demonstrates how many significant things are located on the road. A better way of establishing membership would be welcome, but I doubt you'll find a source that's comprehensive and up to date. A note on pictures e.g. in the infobox: they should really reflect how the road looks today. It was extensively re-modelled in 2010-11 and now looks completely different to photographs taken before that time. Older photos may be of historical interest, but should really carry the date in the caption. Modest Genius talk 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Piccadilly Circus Public Lavatories: "On a state visit to the toilets in 1998 Prince Charles praised their 'wonderfully quaint and authentic charms' and when their closure was announced in 2001 he led a campaign to keep them open by attempting to have them declared a World Heritage Site": [2]. Can this possibly be true? I guess we'll find out soon enough.... Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started going through the British History Online sources, and there's a heck of a lot we could include. (Go on, I know you all want to help - it's not my job) There's quite a bit of work to do in a short space of time if we're going to meet the 5x expanded criteria for DYK (I think it's about 30K - that's a lot!) but I think Martin has given us the hook right here, right now. About the buildings, I think it would be nice if the list had number, current business, date built / opened and description. The problem with the list as is it's got no frame of reference. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would take anything written at that blog by Paul Herringshaw with an even larger pinch of salt than you need for my ramblings. "I'm afraid that since I crossed the line that divides truth and fiction I no longer know where it lies." Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The BHO sources do look useful. The Early History one provides what appears to be a complete account of the land and its successive owners down to Robert Baker. I may well have a proper look over it later or tomorrow and do some editing, but it does appear promising. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks - they do look comprehensive, I'm having difficulty thinking about what to cite and write about, as there's an awful lot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac? He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used to read about necrophilia, bestiality and flagellation, but then I dropped the stick and backed slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're just no fun any more, Ritchie. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
A tourist is walking through the red light district in Amsterdam when he sees a fine looking lady. He approaches her and taps on the window.
"How Much?" he asks.
"1000 euros," the woman replies.
"Wow, that's quite a lot isn't it?"
"Yes. Well it is double-glazed."
Man, I am probably the only person I know who would go to De Wallen and be more interested in the layout of the traffic signals, or asking one of the, err, locals if they have a reliable source for when the A4 motorway is finally going to be completed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Request

Could you please help me with the article, Stephen Dawson. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid footballers aren't really my expertise - I have done the odd GA review for things like Paul Gascoigne but he's well known outside the field. Your best bet is to ask for help on WP:FOOTY I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Park has been nominated for Did You Know

Hi, Ritchie! The reason you got this repeat notification is that the DYK nomination has been sitting there for weeks without action. I originally nominated it, but both of the things I had used as hooks were removed from the article in later editing. I don't offhand see another good hook, and I am about to withdraw the nomination - unless you want to suggest a new hook. I see that Giano felt the article wasn't ready for the front page anyhow. If it eventually becomes a GA it can go to DYK at that point. Is it OK with you if I withdraw the nom, or do you want to try to revive it? --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Melanie. I think we should just pull the DYK nomination for now, as the article has been improved far beyond my capabilities I think. I have several other DYKs in the queue, and have had many featured before, so it's not a problem at all to leave this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Plenty more where that came from. What are you working on right now? More rescues? --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of stuff away from Wikipedia, but on here, just a bit more writing articles. Having a go at improving Snake Pass, a favourite driving and cycling road of mine. Couldn't find anything to rescue from the A7 dumpster today :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Selling England by the Pound

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Selling England by the Pound 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ICAME

I see that two of you are busily improving that article where I declined A7. Glad to help with your dumpster diving. BTW I told that editor who keeps re-adding the A7 tag to cut it out. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two major sources, and a further book search suggests this is not even AfDable. I'll nip round to Tesco and buy some seafood for the tagger. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: - there seems to be an issue with the history. The earliest revision I can get hold of is this one, which would suggest that @LingLass: created the article complete with A7 tag to go, which doesn't sound right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had trouble figuring the history out too. Here's what I think happened, based on the history log [3]: I saw the article earlier, before much work had been done on it, as I was patrolling speedy nominations. It had been tagged as A7 by Obi-Wan, and I felt that was justified (i.e., it didn't make a credible claim of notability). So I deleted it as A7 at 15:43 on March 28. But literally the very next minute, at 15:44, LingLass seems to have recreated the article, speedy deletion tag and all. I don't know how she managed that, she must have been keeping copies as she went along. The article still had its A7 tag, so an hour later I came across it again. But by then the article was in much better shape and no longer qualified for A7, and I declined it (not remembering that it was the same title I had deleted an hour earlier). So it looks like I both killed and saved the article, in the space of little more than an hour! Sometimes I don't know my own strength! (Or maybe my own mind.) Then after I had declined speedy, Obi-Wan tagged it again, and you removed the tag - quite properly since A7 had been declined by an admin. Anyhow, the article looks safe now, at least from speedy deletion. Advice to User:LingLass: In the future, create your new articles in your sandbox, or in a userpage such as User:LingLass/ICAME. There you can take your time and get it into shape before you move it into the encyclopedia - and you won't have people tagging it for deletion just because you aren't finished with it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Thanks! I’ll definitely do more of the citation work offline next time. The timing on this one was very frustrating, as I was adding in citations just as it was being patrolled. Then the whole thing got deleted just after I filed my deletion dispute. Lots to learn.--LingLass (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC) And @Ritchie333:, thanks for the help in making the case for not deleting the ICAME article. I still have lots to learn in editing. I appreciate your support.--LingLass (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review advice

Hi. I just picked your name out of Wikipedia:Good Article help/mentor and I wonder if I can ask your advice. I put a question at Good article help, but it doesn't seem hugely active and no one has replied.

Yesterday I reviewed two GA nominations for the first time. I'd really appreciate knowing if I've got it right! The two articles are Atlanta Flames (nom) and Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary (nom). I notice in particular that a bot so far hasn't added the GA icon to the pages...

Many thanks for your help.

Relentlessly (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Relentlessly: - The apparent problem I can see at a first glance is that these reviews are probably too short. What I do is generally the following :
  1. Run the "external links" script to see if any dead links pop up
  2. Estimate the page size and determine if the lead is long enough
  3. Start reading the lead, and mention any time the prose could be better or just different
  4. For each facet of the lead, ensure the body of text repeats it, and mention if it doesn't
  5. Read each section in the body, again mentioning prose changes
  6. For each citation, check as best as possible if it verifies the information immediately before it. This tends to take the longest - book and journal sources can sometimes be estimated against a Google Books source, but sometimes I will say "are you sure about 'x'" regarding an offline source
  7. If a claim is unsourced, or looks like it may be unsourced, flag it
  8. Check all images and check the fair use rationales
  9. See if there's anything missing in the article that should be included to meet the "broad in coverage" part of the criteria, and if so, suggest it

That said, I looked at Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary and it doesn't seem to be too far off meeting the GA criteria. I would note the following:

As for bot activity, it was taken off the queue in this edit, but the bot couldn't match up the review with its internal data structure for some reason. I've seen this problem before and raised it on WT:GAN but not really had a satisfactory response.

So there you go, some ideas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's enormously helpful; thank you. It's much more helpful than the official GA guidance, actually! I'll have a good look through it before doing any more nominations, etc. Very much appreciated. Relentlessly (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:54:56, 30 March 2015 review of submission by Jim.henderson


Early this year I improved the intro, which was originally made for use in a photolithographic context. Apparently the original submitter has lost interest, but I hope my adjustments are adequate. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim.henderson (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim.henderson: I just checked, and this does now seem like a legitimate topic for an encyclopaedia, so I have passed the submission. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker audit

Now, it seems I have been around here long enough to pick up some talk page stalkers. You're all welcome, and as long as articles are the main topic, feel free to natter away. Martin's a regular round here, and so is Gerda, who else? It may surprise some of you, but this page is the only user talk page on my watchlist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know me: I am the one whose user page shows "general hostility, stirring and accusations", I am also the pone too proud to protest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, you are officially an awesome Wikipedian and were you ever to bump into Rhonda, your common ground of classical and operatic singing would mean you would have much to talk about. Und auch, sie kann ein bisch Deutsch sprechen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) See also: Rare
(after ec): thank you for your trust - I was called awesome by an outcast, I pass it to outcasts. An operatic singer is linked in the see also above. See also. Will love to meet Rhonda! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Rhonda put it, "Wikipedia needs diverse voices to truly represent the world we live in". She is the best safety valve I could ever ask for on WP, if I started acting like an abusive admin, she'd play devil's advocate and call me out on it - making such an act totally undesirable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I told her that it's nice to meet her. That has been dangerous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I stalk your talk page. I admit it. I stalk everyone's talk page. I'm bored at the moment. User:Gerda Arendt the Kafka article is a joy to read. Irondome (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - What is the meaning of that word: "bored"? Last day of women's history month, and several nominations open for a review. A few more done by tonight would be great! As my hostile user page shows, I did 24 reviews and wrote three articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You always inspire me Gerda :) Irondome (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I just un-A7ed Victoria Coeln and found some news hits in German and Italian newspapers, I'll have a go, but if we can cite what's there in an article, I dare say a DYK can be made out of it. And I have been familiar with that opera singer, who is obviously sadly missed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two singers are sadly missed, one opera, one Latino. The review looks like the Latino. - I have rehearsal for Easter now, Halleluja! Will look later, but am less available these days. Did you see my poem translation request on Eric's page? Anybody out there to review my Easter DYK? This year no hymn title, after the scandal that Wikipedia proclaimed last year DYK that "Jesus Christ Is Risen Today"? I was the unhappy reviewer who found it cute ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Selling England by the Pound

The article Selling England by the Pound you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Selling England by the Pound for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Show me that I'm everywhere, and get me home for tea …"

Hi Ritchie. I wonder if I could borrow you and your copy of Lewisohn's Sessions for a couple of refs at "It's All Too Much"? You may remember I'd intended to work on Break-up of the Beatles – problem was, the more I looked into factors contributing to the break-up (McCartney's often-unwelcome assertiveness; Harrison's growth as a songwriter; Beatles post-Epstein, MMT, Maharishi/TM in India; Apple, Northern Songs, Klein, etc) and the relevant album & topical articles for the period back to 1966, the more … Well, let's say the more distracted I became. For now I seem to have settled on a pretty straightforward acid freakout: "It's All Too Much". There are some points made there cited to Beatles Bible currently, but they clearly come from Lewisohn. So I'd be very grateful if you could check with his book for statements such as:

  • "The track had the working title of 'Too Much'."
  • "Referring to the relaxed nature of the De Lane Lea sessions, Mark Lewisohn writes that Lennon and McCartney's backing vocals "started to waver a little, the chanted 'too much' eventually becoming 'tuba' and then 'Cuba'. It was that sort of a song."
  • Also, MacDonald gives 26 May for the second session, yet it looks like Lewisohn goes with 31 May?
  • Any mention of when handclaps and Ringo's tambo were recorded perhaps?

Sorry to lay this on you, R. Quite understand if you're thinking: "Mañana, baby." (No no, not the seminal 1972 Bay City Rollers hit …) JG66 (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I am ploughing through Selling England by the Pound at the moment, but when that's done I'll put out my Lewisohn (oo-er) and have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Big thanks, no rush. JG66 (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, @JG66:, here are the answers. All the information you require is on Lewisohn's Sessions on page 112. The track sheet refers to it as "Too Much", the "that sort of song quote" is the last thing on the page, the second session was 26 May, and the percussion (it doesn't specifically say tambourine but everyone knows Ringo overdubbed tambourine on Beatles tracks more times than I've had hot dinners) and handclaps were recorded then. The third session on 2 June is on page 116, with David "High note on Penny Lane" Mason on trumpet, three other trumpeters, and a bass clarinet (and a partridge in a pear tree?) Harrison ran the session. So there you go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're a star – thank you so much. At the risk of really trying your patience, I don't suppose Lewisohn has anything for those currently unsupported statements regarding the song's mixes? Or any comment about "too much" being a then in-vogue term meaning mind-blowingly good? No probs if not. With that last item, I can always cite this about.com piece – somewhat undistinguished as far as sources go, but the author, Robert Fontenot, has been identified at our Album Sources as being RS among the many contributors to about.com. Big thanks again. JG66 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JG66: - This isn't trying my patience, if you want to do that, try changing the genres in The Beatles (album)'s infobox yet again ... but seriously, Lewisohn p.112 says take 10 was chosen for mixing, and that George Martin wasn't around, Geoff Emerick assuming de facto production duties. Meanwhile, MacDonald 1997 (first revised edition) p. 228 says Harrison was "drug-mesmerised" and "under the influence of LSD". Then Lewisohn p. 128 talks about the 12 October mixing session at De Lane Lea by Martin (while the Beatles were doing Magical Mystery Tour background music), then p.162 mentions the 16 October 1968 remix to go on Yellow Submarine. Does that help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh, I'd seen that start up again at Talk:White Album. (Have to say, "rock, pop" seems kinda bland when one thinks of the obvious developments from the Pepper era – eg, blues rock, folk/country. But then I saw the caped crusader arrive at the album talk page, so …Moving on, people, moving on.)
Thanks for those Lewisohn dates for the "Too Much" mixes, that's great. I'd always suspected that the other mixing info given in the article was OR-ish – and it'll have to go unless something comes to light (maybe about the 2009 reissue). Seems that you and I have the same edition of MacDonald; from what I can see he's talking about the song/recording being "drug-mesmerised" – I've included his (always generous!) opinion under Reception. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is a bit strange I've carried on citing the 1997 First Revised Edition rather than the 2003 Second Revised Edition that's on Google Books, but it's because the second edition specifically states it revised things from (amongst other places) Miles' Many Years From Now which in places reads like McCartney trying to rewrite history. And even then, McCartney has still said stuff is wrong. In any case, McDonald's POV is blatant, so it's easy to dodge. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran PR

Hi, I am Ssven2. I had recently taken this film article starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai to GA status and nominated it for FAC, but it was withdrawn due to WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues, most of which have now been resolved. Do let me know if you are interested in leaving additional comments about any prose issues and any copyediting left to be resolved at the article's 2nd PR. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note. To be perfectly honest, GA is about the extent of my writing capabilities, I've given FA a go from the sidelines but that's about all I can handle, and I try and get MOS issues right but they just seem too much like hard work when you don't know how to use Visual Editor. Anyway, @Dr. Blofeld: might be able to assist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson Perry memorial Easter Egg section

Was the President of the United States a cross dresser? Or not? ... well, at least he wasn't Welsh, eh?
Please use in case of extreme cases of sense of humour failure. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never have a slanging match on ANI, onlookers will not be able to tell you're not a drama whore. Did you know that I'd quite like to take Rhonda to the Rhondda ... just to get a shot of us having an ice cream on the top of the A4061 (either the Bwlch-y-Clawdd or the Rhigos Road, I know them both well), then I can upload it with a caption "Croeso y Rhonda" or something like that. Sorry, I'm mistaking Wikipedia for Facebook again... stop it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And who are you calling a whore, you great slapper?! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see your Hee Haw and raise you an Argument clinic. (No you won't, yes I will, no I don't) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see your Hee Haw and I'll raise you a Haw Haw. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is this, Storage Hunters? Scary people Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as more akin to this cultural gem. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a dog's breakfast! Radio Luxembourg (English) should be merged with Radio Luxembourg (DRM) and become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Snake Pass

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Snake Pass 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Selling England by the Pound

The article Selling England by the Pound you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Selling England by the Pound 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a user who may need a friend

hello Richie (if i may call you that) this is dfrr. i would like to imform you about this user named User:Trimethylxanthine. he has not been getting messages from anyone but me. in fact he has only gotten one message from one other user. User:StuRat User:Davejohnsan User:Conifer User:MrWooHoo and many other users have gotten a message like this from e. so lets not send this user messages out of pity. lets send hi messages like barnstars and wikiloves to make hi feel welcome and make sure that he knows that other users know about him. thank you and have a good aprilDfrr (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you have good intentions, but I don't think this was a good idea. Fundamentally our main aim is to write an encyclopedia. Trimethylxanthine hasn't done much recently other than make a good edit here on Reverse Polish notation. People may be busy with jobs, family, friends etc etc and not be able to commit to Wikipedia much. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to catch newbie-biters

Delete your talk page. Some folks revert anything by a redlinked username. That's why I don't maintain a user page :-) Guy (Help!) 10:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is a good example of that. I'll admit I was a bit snarky in the edit summary (sorry!), but I knew the information added was factually correct (or at least verifiable) - how many other editors would have just gone "rv - unsourced" and walked away? And that's from a user who's not particularly a newbie, and (from their edit summaries) who understands at a real-world level what verification is, even if they don't know the magical voodoo incantations of <ref>{{cite web|url=blahblah.com|title=This|author=That|complexparameternobodyunderstands=TheOther .... }}</ref>. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A question to the floor, though - am I a bad Wikipedian because some vandalism makes me laugh? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, the institution, has no sense of humor, as has been demonstrated many times. Wikipedians, the people, are human beings (thank God) and do have a sense of humor. (So does God.) Now that I am an admin I sometimes find myself laughing even as I hit "delete". --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Same here, Melanie. Ritchie, you are by no means alone or a "bad Wikipedian". Vandalism IS sometimes funny :P. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But most of the time it isn't nearly as funny as the vandal thought it was. Truly witty vandalism is rare. But when we do encounter it, there's nothing wrong with enjoying it (and then deleting it). --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What ticks me off is people adding vandalism for the express purpose of then posting an image or embedded imprint of it on Twitter or other social media. It then spreads around the internet before anybody can revert it. Urgh. :-/ (Of course, it also alerts Wikipedians who happen to see the posting to fix the thing [hopefully].) Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit isn't vandalism, merely POV pushing ;-). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but it still made me laugh! --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since rescuing articles to do with women in film seems to be a passtime of mine recently, could one of you lovely talk page stalkers (and Carl Henderson) please have a look at Anya Camilleri and see if you can give it a boost? It's barely an article but I don't think a "delete" at AfD would stick - we need a proper drive for sources first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few things and tidied it up a little, but film articles aren't really my thing so I'm not sure if she meets the notability criteria or not. Borderline, I suspect. (What, are you saying Carl Henderson isn't lovely? 0;-D ) --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a weak keep now. Hopefully the creator will come back and write some more. I'm sure Carl is lovely, but hasn't stalked this page enough yet to be included in the "club". Paging Martinevans123 for obligatory bacon sandwich pun.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not any sort of expert in the topic of women in film, but I will be happy to take a look at the Anya Camilleri page and see if I can dig up any more useful references. (I'm also afraid no one other than my dog considers me lovely). Carl Henderson (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to add some content, including her earlier BBC TV movie "Two Golden Balls" and more information about "Satisfaction"—and the fact that it was never filmed, and on her marriage to her NY-LON and Satisfaction collaborator Simon Burke. I've found a bio at her agent's site, but am not sure if that would be considered a reliable source for basic biographical information. I'd appreciate some advice on that question. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant bit of policy is WP:SELFPUB, which is what I would think her agent's official biography falls under. You can add basic facts, such as what films or TV shows she was involved in, or schools attended, but not much else. A good way of looking at it is if you've ever been asked as a reference for a former co-worker, the sort of things you'd be allowed to say there are roughly the same as my interpretation of this policy - basic, uncontroversial facts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will limit any use of it to that level. Carl Henderson (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today's articles for improvement

You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 18 of 2015. Thanks for your consideration! North America1000 19:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Snake Pass

The article Snake Pass you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Snake Pass 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

HI, just got your note. Thanks for your help. I will take a look, and keep an eye out for further messages from you.

Best always,

Sabrina

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&oldid=655738035"