Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.164.161.42 (talk) at 21:34, 14 October 2017 (→Hi Richie, Please reconsider Joel Levine: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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


Michael Wollny

... played a great concert with friends, so I translated more than a stub from German. I am not too familiar with jazz terminology, - please check. I'll add, and translate the refs, later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Sorry, I've been busy with getting GA #100 passed (nearly there now, touch wood) and finishing off Mick Jagger's GA review (ditto) - what did I miss? I see you've got the Grauniad reference already.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the time, you could check the translation, and meet great music! I called you to a deletion the other day, but that seems to be over. What's 100 GAs for you is 888 DYK for me, - didn't count my GAs, had problems with one the Yash! started, - could you - or a friendly watcher - perhaps take over? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A funeral day, - sorry about the revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am certain you know I was being honest and straight up, not mean - it's like Mhairi Black calling a spade a f***ing shovel. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who said "mean"? How about AGF? How about this approach? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated Wollny for DYK, and will be away for 3 days, preparing Der Messias for a concert 3 Oct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no .... my point is, I could create Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gerda Arendt this afternoon and write you a glowing reference about how you are a prolific content creator with numerous FAs, GAs and DYKs and an excellent track record in civility and being nice, and you would be able to work in areas like the DYK queues and ERRORS (such as finding classical music events to go on the OTD queue) .... I predict you'd get about 60 - 65% support, and some of the opposes would upset you (and, you know what, I'd probably wince at them too). Why am I telling you this? Well, to coin the saying from Harry Potter - "It takes a lot to stand up to your enemies; it takes even more to stand up to your friends". Still, if you want to run, and you pass with flying colours, I will happily concede that I was wrong. Have a good concert. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said in 2013 that I don't want to be an admin, and I still say the same. Why contemplate what might happen if I felt differently. (Did you follow the links, including my friend's RfA?) - Can we just stop using the "or no supper"-word? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I was an admin, I'd promote (overdue) DYK prep to queue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I was German, I'd be ticking the "anybody except the AfD" box round about now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That box - sadly - wasn't available, - no veto-voting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civanism

Hello, I would just like to ask why you deleted the page. It asked me why it shouldn't be deleted and when I clicked submit the page was already gone.--Siberix (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a web search, Civanism appears to be some sort of in-game plot, or something like that, so there was no obvious way to see how anyone could write an encyclopedia article around it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes

all of those useless articles were tagged fro AfD when I did the New Page Patrol. I have no idea why you didn't delete them. What should I do next. Roxy the dog. bark 14:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: They were all relisted by CAPTAIN RAJU yesterday so in theory they had a week to run. However, via a combination of WP:SNOW and WP:IAR, and particularly since not a single person wants to keep the articles, I've deleted them per the original AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I confess I was angrier than that post above conveys, and I should not have been. I've handed in my user right, as it obviously doesn't suit me at the moment. I saw that you had deleted them all before I arrived here. Thanks again. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully now that WP:ACTRIAL is up and running, NPP should give people less of a sore head - the CSD queues seem to be right down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of London Paddington station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Paddington 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of London Waterloo station

The article London Waterloo station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:London Waterloo 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter

Hello. Perhaps a filter to trap IP socks of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stylized_as_%22stylized%22_currently;_formerly_%22stylizeD%22/Archive could be launched as well? Regards,   Aloha27  talk  14:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aloha27: You're probably better off asking at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard - more edit filter writers hang out there, but I can take a look if you want. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of London Paddington station

The article London Paddington station 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:London Paddington station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chewing Gum Lock

Hey for the chewing gum page can you please add a lock at the upper right hand corner? Thanks. Hummerrocket (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value of these much myself outside full-protection owing to a content dispute, but I've done this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of London Paddington station

The article London Paddington station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:London Paddington 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles on OTD

Looking back through the OTD archives, it appears Beatles-related articles have made a lot of appearances this year: The Quarrymen, the 1964 tour, Imagine, and now Hey Jude. I know you tend to put music articles in for OTD, but I think it would be best if we lay off Beatles for the remainder of the year. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 21:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Howcheng: In this case (as it has been with several others) it was simply a quick fix to swap out an article with multiple {{refimprove}} tags with a GA, to showcase higher quality content in OTD with minimal effort. That was pretty much it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah I totally get it. I'm just saying let's try to refrain from Beatles-related articles for a bit, that's all. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 15:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication request of MrBossFTW

Hi there, per the AfD discussion, could you please either userfy MrBossFTW or move to draft space? Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Done, restored to User:TheSandDoctor/MrBossFTW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protest

Hey, did you even read my contest before deleting a page of my creation by translation (Murder of Atena Aslani)? It took some time and effort to translate that page and your action was utterly unnecessary. Where can I protest this action? Sinav666 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinav666, read WP:BLP and WP:G10, then seriously re-think your actions before you end up blocked. No reasonable administrator will allow you to protest Ritchie's deletion. Patient Zerotalk 12:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patient Zero, I am aware of mentioned policies and rules and I still am sure this action is unfair, and without sufficient reasons. At very least, I demand to recieve a copy of my translated text, and if this remain unjustified, I shall never participate in wikipedia as protest. With regards! Sinav666 (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinav666 - you cannot create an article about a murderer without citations to reliable sources as it may be considered libellous and open the Wikimedia Foundation to a potential lawsuit. I'm normally comfortable with restoring deleted articles to userspace, but I cannot do that for libel. Consider the murder of Joanna Yeates - the article has multiple citations to respectable sources such as BBC News, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph all of which reliably confirm Vincent Tabak was responsible and Christopher Jefferies was completely innocent and had an undeserving character assassination by the tabloid press. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (sorry Ritchie - I've just come back after two months and I didn't know there was a new EC tool!) Sinav666, you are clearly not aware of those policies. Put it this way: G10 applies to BLP violations. So the article you created was about a real person, which was completely negative in tone, not written from a WP:NPOV, probably libellous, and with no sources. Yes, any reasonable person could see that this might not be allowed on Wikipedia. I'd also stop with the demands if I were you. You won't get anywhere - Ritchie and I, as British editors, value manners and politeness above a lot of things, I reckon! Patient Zerotalk 13:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Patient Zero and Ritchie333, I apologise for my attitude, I understand your worries, but I assure you, the original article (in persian) was fully​ refferenced to the most reliable sources in it's own language. So if you would please return this article to me, I can transfer those refferences​ to the translated article. I accept my error, I will perform better on my later translations. Sinav666 (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sinav666: I have emailed you the text of the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld Well I might be able to get a tenner out of this, but if I'm up against Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl I've got no chance - what happens if I get distracted by a mini-project to create articles about bus shelters? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, well I'm also putting in a grant request to WMUK for another £250 prize for most Oxford dictionary women bios, I don't think Ropsie and Mega work much on UK so always a good chance to win!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely I'll will as I'll be on international travel through Nov 8th, Ritchie333, but I will try to keep up with your contributions! Win or lose, it's all for a good cause. Hope you go for it! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Hear, hear! Let's all do our best to support these articles. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music for thought

I like the header

Chicago (Graham Nash song) We hope (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to me to listen to it, improve the article, or both? ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you please-it just seems quite pertinent as of late. ;) We hope (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like the header. Posted to AN one more time. That exceeded my chosen limit of 2 comments per discussion (which would be kind of wise for anybody any discussion) already, so I can't be one to discuss that protection of a talk page - never a good idea if you ask me - should end. Not even talking TPA. Among grown-ups, to tell someone that I know better than he what is good for him, seems so - lacking a word. Kafkaesque. This made Wikipedia better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved (but not involved) with Mick Jagger's GA review, but I didn't have anything to do with the DYK, and I'm certain that had TRM been around, he would have seen it, we would have pulled it, and it would never have got as far as the main page. And yes, you are right about Kränzle too. And in a discussion, if you're not agreeing on stuff it's a good idea to duck out after two shots at the conversation; I do that a lot. Saves disk space on weighty ANI threads. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I try to stay away from AN and ANI, period. Once, I requested talk page access to be restored, and got it. - I wasn't blocked ever (but with an IP range), so don't know exactly what I'd do if I found myself blocked. Probably not waste time appealing. Same for arb, - I felt like giving up my pride when I gave in and did, and would not do it again. Experience gained. - What do you think about Der Messias. (Different topic, same feeling). - Sitting in the sun on a boat and trying not to let any of that disturb my peace of mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hope in red silk, feel free to copy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to go and sit in the sun on a boat and try and not let any of this disturb my peace of mind, but pragmatic circumstances means I'll have to settle for a cup of coffee and a Mr Kipling apple pie instead. And listening to the derange warblings of the bonkers but loveable Thijs van Leer. I do remember you criticising somebody for leaving a barnstar like this once. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for having critizized. Yes, Hawkeye, I remember. We are on good terms again, and I asked for a cat to illustrate ignore ignore ignore. Waste of time to take any barnstar to heart, - see, I'm learning. Had another good day in Berlin, just - in the train back - checking the watchlist.
That AN close is the next thing one can only ignore. I really need a good icon for that. Let me see if I get the logic right: an arbitrator made a trout-worthy block, but protection of the talk page needs to be kept because she's an arbitrator. How can we prevent such a thing from happening again? Abolish arbcom seems the most promising solution. If you ask me: an arbitrator should NEVER block for arbitration enforcement, - those powers should be strictly divided. End of ignoring. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the admin barnstars: they bother me more by a member of the cabal of the outcasts. I updated that list for some other edits that I found are not compatible for members (by what they do) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of my favourite diffs is this : "Really, no one should cheer after a block in the first place. Doing so trivializes the most powerful tool in our toolbox and celebrates a power that should be handled with care." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree fully. That would be a nice addition to some barnstars, instead of saying that I'm easily upset ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also note this comment from Eric seems to be quite insightful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by the other notable victim of that kind of blocks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made a redirect He was despised for the victims, DYK? Working today on its German equivalent, concert tomorrow! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention I got roped into a chorale church concert to sing bass on the "Hallelujah" chorus from Messiah a few months back. Talk about a fish out of water.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm ... nice
No ;) - The first time I sang that chorus was for a memorial service. The deceased, a tenor in a choir, had expressed the wish to have it there, I was asked to help out, and much needed, because those who had known him could barely sing. I struggled only with the English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dress rehearsal went well, concert later today, Halleluja! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different style: the tandem of Vincent Peirani and Michael Wollny, pictured on my talk. Looking for links, I found Jazz in France leaving much to be desired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least it name drops Quintette du Hot Club de France, though Django Reinhardt was Belgian. As is Philip Catherine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More work: Klaus Huber died. I'd normally ask what needs to be done to make him appear on RD. Huber received the Nobel prize of music, studied Arabic music, set texts by activists from Isaiah to modern ones, ... but the article is rather silent. Help? No time today, naturally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With some help, namely Martin and Francis, he is on RD the third day, with amazing statistics. - Different question for you GA expert: It never happened to me until today that an article was changed right after becoming GA. What do you think, you and watching experts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, people don't notice that an article's been improved to GA, and only catch it when it's on the list. And because a GA is normally only two people's views, there's always room for more work. Same reason DYK can be used as a device to improve an article, in order to get more eyes on it to put in the improvements they think are needed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, blimey! I just realised the significance of those initials: ". ."!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC) " ... ere I 'ad that Bog Scratch in the back of me lido cab the uvver week, an' all.[reply]

Help with a GA nomination

Hello Ritchie,

I noticed that you have a lot of experience improving articles to GA status. I would like to do the same, starting with memory cell (binary). Before nominating it, I would appreciate it, if you could give me some advice or point me to someone with experience that could. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon: Firstly, I'm wondering if the title should be "memory cell (computing)", just a thought. It may be seem obvious, but possibly a sentence explaining why computer memory was necessary would help the nontechnical reader. You should put the "Description" section up front, explain how memory can be built (I know it's a combination of NAND gates but can't remember the rest) so the reader isn't staring at a circuit diagram and scratching their head thinking "what does this mean?" You've jumped straight into jargon like "flip flop", which for the layman reader is something you put on your feet when going to the beach. Elsewhere, in prose, use the third-person wherever possible; "we" is good for the Open University and interactive courses, but not really for encyclopedia articles. So while you've got the source material, I think it needs quite a bit of restructuring before it can be considered ready for a GA review, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your insight. That's exactly what I was looking for. I will get at it and if its not too much bother I will ask for your advice again once I'm done. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wymondham

Was going to start an article on the manor but couldn't find enough and added to this. Such a poor article, I've proposed nuking and restarting from scratch on the talk page. You're probably not interested in working on it but feel free to comment on what you think we should do with it. I think it would be easier to rewrite from scratch in a sandbox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you like, I know some people like to work on stuff in sandboxes and then move the whole lot over. The article as it stands could certainly do with some sources, but I'd have to go and look around to see if I can find anything. I generally work piecemeal; currently I'm slogging through The Carpenters, and it's probably going to be 50K when I've finished. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent choice! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good old We hope has pointed me towards a huge corpus of images. I see the article has had several does at FA, and maybe now's the time to actually give it a serious push. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Eric Garcia (basketball)

You deleted this article after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Garcia (basketball) with the reason "Consensus is that the source supplied are not sufficient to show notability of this person." How is this the case? I had added more sources to the discussion - three articles with significant coverage of the subject specifically and from independent reliable sources. After I added these, the discussion was relisted and one user voted delete without a sound, policy-based reason and the another voted keep in light if the new sources. This was done too quickly. I also find it ironic that the article is being deleted literally hours before he makes his debut in the ABA League, which is a league listed in WP:NBASKETBALL, and failing to meet that guideline was a major reason given by many of those chiming in early in the discussion. I would ask that this be allowed more discussion and that any arguments stemming from meeting the SSG be struck once he does so later today. Rikster2 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rikster2: You did add additional sources, but not enough people thought they were sufficient to meet the notability criteria for a standalone topic. The article had been listed at AfD since 6 September, so it was time to close it one way or the other. If you think he's more likely to be notable in the future, from now starring in the ABA League, I can restore the article to draft space so you can work on it - then if circumstances change, the approved draft can override the result of this deletion debate. That's probably your best option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
only two people chimed in on my new sources, so that is not correct. Dammit_Steve voted keep based on my sources. DJSasso took issue with one which was a blog on a newspaper, which I replaced with a full article and he subsequently said this was acceptable to him (he didn't comment on the other two, because those were clearly acceptable). JohnPackLambert's !vote should be discounted as "college and semi-pro is not enough for notability" is not accurate or policy-based. It is true that college career only (without meeting GNG) isn't basis for notability, but many, many American college players meet GNG based on the sport's popularity. The basis of the initial AfD and a number of the votes is that the subject didn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL, which won't be true in 5 and a half hours. This feels like a very clear case of WP:COMMONSENSE. The article wouldn't have been up for AfD if he'd played a game in the ABA League, and in reality he probably met GNG already (if barely). Why the process for process' sake? Rikster2 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A salient point mentioned in the AfD was this : "With football players, the solution seems to be delete-and-recreate-when if they're on the books at a team in the relevant league and just haven't played yet, so that suggests this is the same process here as well", which seems like a good solution that will please all sides. I've just said how you can get your content back, so I don't see the value on rehashing the debate here. I have no opinion on the article, if I did, that would be bad. Do you want the article restored to draft or not? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I will offer that to the article creator. I think that football policy is great for players months away from their debut, but hours? That completely rubs me the wrong way and sounds like the opposite of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Rikster2 (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie - if the offer to recreate the content as a draft is still open, I would like to take you upon it. Part of my frustration with this process is that we are working with a new editor who created many articles that didn't obviously meet GNG and didn't meet the SSG for basketball. He voluntarily deleted those that wouldn't meet the SSG when informed of guidelines, leaving just 2 who were signed with clubs meeting NBASKETBALL and had imminent debuts (this one and Daniel Jansen (basketball). I have communicated with the editor and he is willing to recreate the article after he debuts, but it would be a nice gesture to save him some work. I worry that jumping through process hoops can turn off new editors that come in good faith and are learning the rules. As an aside, I never thought you showed any bias in closure of the article and apologize if this is how I came across. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I know that once an article is deleted, nobody can look at what was there again until an admin restores it somewhere, which can be frustrating. Anyway, it's now restored to Draft:Eric Garcia (basketball) and can be worked on without the threat of deletion. Hope that helps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. D. Curlee

Hey Ritchie,

I'm a bit puzzled about this speedy decline. Your summary says A7 doesn't apply to guitars which is indeed correct but the article is about a company which makes guitars not guitars themselves. I also tagged it for deletion per G11 which your summary didn't address and whilst your copyedit has improved it a little bit I think G11 could still apply - any thoughts?

Best,

DrStrauss talk 14:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can turn an article on a company that makes guitars into one about the guitars. You can't do that with your local mayor, bank manager, best friend, pet cat, local garage band, YouTuber or any of the other stereotypical A7 candidates. And it doesn't meet G11, at worst case scenario you can trim it down to a basic description - I've just done some copyediting on it and added a source. What you've got here is a classic case of systemic bias of a company that had widespread news and magazine coverage in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but pretty much nothing beyond that, so you go to a web search and turn up a blank. Or you see the article asserts that Rick Laird played a Curlee, well that's got to be some sort of claim of notability, then you do a web search and find plenty of mentions, but nothing in what we would normally call a reliable source. I'm just going to ping Jackiekoerner in on this conversation because she's doing a lot of research into bias on Wikipedia and looking at the well-known facets of it, such as biographies of women in science and academia, or people in high positions of office in Africa, but I wonder if she's considered 1970s guitar manufacturers? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd be happy to do a collaboration if needed. DrStrauss talk 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Mandalay (poem)

Hi Ritchie, I wonder whether you'd like to step in and resolve this? Many thanks, Ericoides (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not vandalism, it's 3RR, so they're blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, thanks. Would it be OK if I were to restore the material I added, or would that be 3RR as well? As far as I can see the material belongs on the page given the multiple WP:RSs that have reported it. The phrasing of the material is neutral and in no way partisan. Ericoides (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave it for now - go to the talk page and start a discussion. The IP does make a valid point that the Boris incident might be kind of off-topic for the article, and there's only one really good source (The Guardian) reporting it, so it's worth talking about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good advice, I've responded there. If the story gets more widely reported I will put the information back, but will wait for now. Ericoides (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)I'm really not sure Johnson is worth quoting when it comes to Kipling. That fact that he had an Empire poem drilled into him at prep school and can recite it forty years later, is not a huge surprise, is it?. The fact that he's Foreign Secretary just makes the incident embarrassing. If he actually had got the Buddha lines out, I guess it might have been more notable! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the story, it looks like he might have been reading it from his phone (although that can only be inferred...). Ericoides (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now does that inference make the story more or less notable in your book? So it seems I've mistakenly credited Johnson with mental qualities he doesn't really have. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC) p.s. and really not sure why The Guardian describes this poem as "colonial era"![reply]

Philippines at the 2018 Winter Olympics

Actually yes it is a hoax. It was made up by someone who did not understand the qualification process. I left it until there was no longer a reasonable chance that it could be true. What, it your words, is "probably likely to happen"? Do you have some kind of private inside scoop about a qualified athlete that is going to withdraw, it has not happened in the male competition in the last 3 olympics.18abruce (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't look like an obvious hoax to me, hence the downgrade to a PROD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Grand Prix (disambiguation)

Usually when a discussion is closed in favor of a minority, it's wise to leave an explanation as to why it is being closed that way. Could you please do so on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Grand Prix (disambiguation)? Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've added my thoughts in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I thought that's why you closed it the way you did. However, none of the particpants advocating for deletion agree with the notion that WP:TWODABS is no longer relevant. If I thought that way, I would have changed my !vote, but I didn't. If you need that to be explicit, would you mind relisting so I can state that (and ping the others who weren't explicit after the relist so they can do the same)? That might help clarify things a bit. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion has run its course on this page for the time being. Maybe give it a week or two, and then if you still feel the DAB page is problematic, file a fresh AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Maria Kanellis

Thanks for your note on my talk page regarding this edit by me and your fix here. It was not my intention to add back in the information about pregnancy that was cited by The Sun...I was actually only trying to add back in the part about a previous relationship that was cited by a different source. Somehow the part with The Sun got by me. It was a mistake, and I'll be more careful in the future. Quick question...was it your intention to also remove the part about dating CM Punk that was cited by [1]? Nikki♥311 14:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikki311: I'm don't know much about slam.canoe.com, so I can't advise you about putting that back in or not. The specific problem with The Sun here is - is Kanellis' pregnancy important to the career? We can't take The Sun as a good source for that. Anyway, since you said it's a mistake, then we're on the same page as to what we think of the UK's most controversial tabloid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"deep, lasting disgust"

Re: discussions in other places, my "deep, lasting disgust" is for the gravedancing trolls who leave petty little barnstars and pour petrol on flames. Particularly true when TRM has done a damned sight more for this encyclopaedia than the peanut gallery trolls who spend more time on talk pages, thinking WP is a social media site, not a fecking encyclopaedia! - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)↑ -Wot he said. — fortunavelut luna 14:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Talk:A82 road/GA2 (and the previous failed GA and FA reviews) - who did the work (aside from me) to actually improve the article to the desired status? TRM of course! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because - and this is unlike the contemptible gravedancing trolls active elsewhere - TRM knows that this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. Quite a few people forget that, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inayatullah Faizi

Hi,Ritchie,

I was a bit surprised to read your assessment of consensus at the afore-linked AfD. I am unsure as to why you wrote and were not challenged in your explanation.L3X1's !vote was well-challenged and so was the first !vote.And I don't find the number of source(s) and covg. shown by Mfaraz to heavily tilt the axis either.Thus, a better call would probably be a No Consensus?Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All it talks about is the "number of citations", not the quality or appropriateness of them. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Carpenters pix

"Say cheese!"

The author on these should be A&M records because they paid for the advertising special section. ;) We hope (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, dodgy copypasta again :-/ Still, things are taking shape, 11 {{fact}} tags to nail now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holding out for a cheeseburger. :-D We hope (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some nice quotes here, even one from Karen herself re: her voice. We hope (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying now to add some variety to the refs. If there's anything you don't agree with, please remove. This 1976 People Magazine article has more on their private sides. I added refs to The Carpenters article from it using <ref name=act> Probably have more to dig from the musty cyberstacks. ;) We hope (talk)
That's fine, many hands make light work and all that - I trust you not to cite the usual tabloid trash! Meanwhile, I am having a go at some multimedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We hope (and Cassianto, SchroCat, Dr. Blofeld, Sagaciousphil, and old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all) - I am done with the initial improvements here and have stuck the article up for peer review here Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I give FAC another go about once a year, and this seems like a suitable candidate :-) I do mean to comment on Aberfan's PR, but it seems everyone else has got there and said it all before me again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Petty

Can you unlock the fucking page ! - FlightTime (open channel) 19:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, follow instructions I left on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlightTime (talk • contribs)

1) That is not what I asked you to do. 2) That's a tabloid newspaper (rough equivalent to the Daily Express IIRC). A litmus test for all musician deaths is a report in BBC News and The Guardian, and they are pretty on the ball. BBC News' "Entertainment" section has got nothing - a confirmed death would have a "breaking news" entry. So just have a bit of a patience. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:CIVIL. There are two edit requests on the Tom Petty talk page which need saying no to as well. Ref (chew)(do) 20:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone We hope (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
O'oh.. in case you haven't seen this yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your instincts were spot on, Ritchie! Page is now re-protected due to the retraction of CBS's report. Interesting developments. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I should not make black humour out of an obviously upsetting time for his family, I can't help thinking of this. And well done BBC News for not taking the bait. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UPI We hope (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems CBS have changed their tune. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plummeting admin standards

Plummeting standards...
Please take care of the bungee cord as it could come in useful for the next ArbCom candidate. Thank you.

Is it me, or have half the admins gone for trolling lessons? There has never been a golden age, but I remember when admins used to decrease the heat, not stupidly raise it unnecessarily. It's a shame admining is a job for life - sadly idiocy like this won't lead to a striking off the list, but it really should do, even if temporarily. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple cause behind this, that I'm sure you'll appreciate. It's harder to write a good article (not to be confused with a good article) than it is to do basic and rudimentary admin activities. You can delete expired PRODs with your brain turned off and most AIV reports take about 5 seconds to evaluate. On the other hand, once you've exhausted all the topics you know about already, to write more articles you've got to read the sources, understand them, digest them and then use them to write the content. I don't know about you, but stuff like Charing Cross railway station took about a week from grabbing the sources to submitting to GA - and that was lightning quick. The trouble with "community desysopping" is that everyone's got their own ideas about who shouldn't be an admin, and I dare say there'd be a few queuing up to get rid of my bit by now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right Ritchie, the vast majority of administrative tasks are by far much easier than writing a well referenced article. Thank you for hatting a "discussion" I caused with a needless comment -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man... I’m at the front of this queue if you don’t mind!! And it seems it’s lot longer than we expected. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC) ...."Threesie Isn't Working"... [reply]
Ahem... We're just "BUIL ING AN EN YCLO EDIA THA WO KS OR EVE YON".....cough, cough, splutter... Martinevans P45 (talk) 18:18 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Can I interrupt...? - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
lol Schro, ur such joker. innit. Martinevans G4S (talk) 19:46 4 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. Don Ritchleone333 he always say "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

Ekaterina Gorokhova

You deleted the page Ekaterina Gorokhova not long ago per G11. The page has since been recreated by the same editor (who seems to be acknowledging to being a paid editor in edit summaries). Since I can't see the deleted version, I don't know how similar it is to the existing version, so can you have a look and see if the page again qualifies for speedy deletion? Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deli nk: It's an exact match (or near enough to be non-obvious) of the version I deleted. If an article has never been to a full debate at AfD, you can just respeedy if the new version meets the criteria. In this case, it does, so I have re-deleted and salted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Help on Article Deletion

Can you help me understand how to improve my article, which you closed/deleted? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rushika_Fernandopulle)

I thought I had compiled good, relevant sources, but it was deleted for not being notable enough. But when I read the guidelines, I feel like I followed them. What would make this article more acceptable? Zapfdingbats (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zapfdingbats: Essentially, nobody thought there was enough information to be able to write a substantial and neutral article on this person. The detailed breakdown of why your sources were felt to be insufficient was dealt with adequately by Ravenswing in the AfD (in my view), but essentially, we need to see lots of dedicated pieces about someone in prominent and national media, such as newspapers and magazines. What "lots of" is open to interpretation, but essentially you shouldn't have to struggle to find the relevant source material. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one, because I felt like Ravenswing cherry picked a few slight sources and ignored some of the bigger ones that justified the entry. A profile in the Financial Times and articles in the New Yorker and Atlantic seemed pretty substantial to me. Certainly as much as or more so than any other health care CEO in the category. Do you think there's opportunity here to improve and try again? If so, any tips would be appreciated. I'm still learning the platform. Zapfdingbats (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking back at the AfD, I addressed all the cites that were in the article. The FT article you cite later on in the discussion's behind a pay wall, but the Atlantic article you claim here as being "pretty substantial" isn't. It is, indeed, a pretty substantial article ... but it's not about the subject. Everything that article tells us about the subject is contained in this one sentence: ""Medical care is dangerous," says Dr. Rushika Fernandopulle, the co-founder and CEO of Iora Health, a leading practitioner of a more holistic approach to health." It is a longstanding and explicit element of BIO/GNG that a source consisting solely of quotes from the subject cannot be used to bolster the notability of the subject, but beyond that, a source bolstering notability needs to provide "significant coverage" TO the subject. Fernandopulle is mentioned in six paragraphs of that article, none of which tells us anything about him other than that one sentence given above. What they consist of is him telling anecdotes about patients, about this particular health care situation, and about his company. It's one of a piece with the other sources. I'm not saying you didn't include several in-depth citations from reputable, reliable sources. I'm just saying, as I did in August, that they're not ones that meet the GNG when it comes to Fernandopulle. Every other editor who put in his or her two cents' worth agreed. Ravenswing 22:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a threat?

Hi Ritchie. Bit concerned about a post on RolandR's Talkpage here. It sounds threatening. Didn't know whether to delete it or leave it if deletion would piss RR off, but in any case I thought I would inform you. Don't know what you think on the tone. Simon. Irondome (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody's been trolling RolandR for years and years. Blocked, reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one Irondome (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern, and for deleting this. However, it is unlikely to be the Runtshit vandal, since the person many of us believe to be behind that account died earlier this year. Feel free to delete any future such stuff that you see on my talk page.RolandR (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever it is, it's the same behaviour as this account from a few weeks ago, so as far as I'm concerned it's quacking through the Grateful Dead's multi-channel PA system. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...who'll be in the Mouth of the Beast...? ;) — fortunavelut luna 18:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Ritchie, thanks for info on formatting sources - I didn't know how to do it. For the 'unknown' streets I am hoping that the Gillian Bebberton book will help with some of these. I doubt that they are really 'unknown', it's just finding their etymologies would take a lot more intensive research using local history books etc. which I don't have the time for atm. Hopefully someone with better local knowledge will be able to fill in some of these blanks. Thanks again Sdrawkcab (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)sdrawkcab[reply]

@Sdrawkcab: Well, I started Cranbourn Street yesterday and it is a piddly little stub at the moment awaiting expansion. Also, I can't recommend the London Encyclopedia enough, it's a 1000+ pages of rich information (and that's over a thousand densely-packed pages too!) that if London streets are your topic of interest, will be an absolute treasure trove. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! I'll have to check that out :) User:sdrawkcab
discogs.com has got lots of them, and https://rarerecordcollector.net/ is brilliant for late 60s / early 70s rock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Express

Hello there, Ritchie333. Please note tha the creator of the article is persistently removing the deletion tags from the articles they created [3] [4]. I've renominated the article for deletion.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jetstreamer: You've actually restored a proposed deletion (PROD) tag; since those are only for uncontroversial deletions, you can't restore it. You need to raise a full debate at WP:AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the heads up. I will wait a while to see the outcome of this [5] and then will move on to the AfD process.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFA clerked

Hello Ritchie333, part of your response on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 4 has been moved from Question 8 to the talk page. Your response was stating an opinion on the entire RfA, while this may have been in line with an Oppose statement, or in the general discussion area, placing it in the questions section gives it undue weight to others reading the RFA. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you wish to withdraw your support, or even your nomination statement you are welcome to, with strike-though marking (withdrawing your nomination support will not stop the RfA). — xaosflux Talk 02:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maurício Abreu

Hi - you intervened on this article but the portuguese version likewise has no sources beyond the authors own. Highly questionable inclusion. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Contaldo80: All I did was remove the {{db-person}} tag, which just means I didn't want to unilaterally delete it without getting a full consensus at WP:AfD. I'd suggest filing a discussion there. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has more info. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Marvellous Spider-Man 14:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If you're suggesting I nominate that editor for RfA, the first thing I looked at was a WP:CSD#G12 notification from six months ago, that was upheld and deleted. That's an instant "no". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query about GA review

Hi. I started reviewing India national football team (at Talk:India national football team/GA1 on 2 September 2017. Initially the nominator did not respond to the comments (even though he was active) I wrote. First, I pinged him on the review page which he replied. Then I gave a reminder at his talk page. Even though the nominator responded to some of the concerns raised, he has again ignored the review even though he is active (evident from his contributions page). I just want to know provided that the review is open for such a long time and the nominator seems to be ignoring it, would it be correct for me to close the review? RRD (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Royroydeb: Essentially, it is the nominator's responsibility to do the work required to make the article meet the GA guidelines, and while it's great if the reviewer pitches in and helps, if you think the article is nowhere close and the required work is not being done, and you're well over the 7 day limit, I would simply close it with no prejudice against a renomination in the future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenters

In all the kerfuffle there, I became third highest contributor (in terms of edits) to that page, so I demand at least two barnstars, one for the typically awesome review and one for the copyedits. I even fixed a few piped redirects (but don’t tell anyone!!) My mum used to sing “On Top of the World” to me when we drove home from school when I was about six, so it was a pleasure to help (assuming I did, of course). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been very helpful indeed; I will get to the remainder of the issues over the next day or so. Unfortunately, I have been suffering from a bad overdose of RfA-fatigue this week, which means my motivation to do what we're all supposed to be here for has taken a bit of a nose-dive. This is not good. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. Might keep you quiet for ten minutes — fortunavelut luna 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad revision

Hi.
In my mobile browser there was an open tab. It must have been there since a lot of days. The diff must belong either to a deleted page, or to a rev-del. special:diff/801864615
The contents arent necessary, but would you kindly tell me the name of the page? The curiosity has been bugging me. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 17:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page was Vicky Kadian and the diff was you putting a {{db-person}} tag on it, which was obviously upheld and carried out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is appreciated a lot. Actually, that might be the reason why the tab was left open. Socks had kept on removing the templates. A sys-op (I think Alex Shih) deleted the article when he saw the SPI. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to this diff, and conversation; two more socks have been spotted lol. See you around.
—usernamekiran(talk) 20:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just worked out why I can't find any matching socks when I get dressed in the morning, half of them have ended up on WP :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason-

I'm beginning to feel ed re: the 2 Carpenters articles-what about you? We hope (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Wikipedia way - everyone's nice as pie working on articles, then a bunch of people turn up doing silly reverts and everyone starts going loopy. Are people just following The Rambling Man about and trying to get him into trouble? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still have the feeling. ;) We hope (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A puzzle from a vandal

Do you know someone who would be interested in figuring this out? I'm a bit stumped as to how to find the offending pages and edits. --Slashme (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue (plus there's alway the possibility they're just lying). WP:AN is probably the best place to go in the first instance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slashme: (talk page stalker) I had a look through Category:15th-century Russian people, but only two of the articles had any mention of "Cardinal", and they were of notable people. Looks like I'm back to square one... Adam9007 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the edits. I've posted a thread at AN as there will apparently be more such hoaxes soon. Adam9007 (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking! I've also done a PetScan or two now that I know about the tool, and I've posted the results at that page. I'm also slightly skeptical, but I'll see the investigation through as well as I can.. --Slashme (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Comic Con Baltics wiki entry

Hello sir,

may I inquire why you deemed the information on the page not relevant, by that standard you can delete most of pages about different Comic Con events happening around the globe.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovaras (talk • contribs)

@Jovaras: Pages are generally deleted when they are left in a state where no independent editor can improve them to an acceptable quality; in this case, the problem is talking about an event in the future. While some future events can be immediately important to an encyclopedia, such as the next Olympics or World Cup, most others are not. In the meantime, I've restored the article to User:Jovaras/Comic Con Baltics so you can retrieve the content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovaras (talk • contribs)

Happy Friday 13th

Happy Friday 13th, Thirteensie. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's spooky in here, watch out for Android trying to hack your phone. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 22:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How very app-ropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or should I say it's Apple-roprite :P KGirl (Wanna chat?) 22:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that Steve is not right behind you. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Megyn Kelly is behind you who has the iPhone X while she thinks Android is the worst. lol 😂 (personally, I love to sneak in my phone during the the night to edit WP. But I don't have a phone yet. -__-) KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A blues?

Incoming dumb question: is it grammatically correct to call a song "a blues"? The context is in a GA review (my first!) for "Red House": "...it is a slow blues with lyrics..." and "'Red House' is a moderately slow blues...".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: I think so. In the first Back to the Future film, just before playing Johnny B Goode, Marty says to the band, “Okay guys, this is a blues riff in B, watch me for the changes and try and keep up.” Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Looks fine to me, as it does to Ernie. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basshunter

Hello. I think sources from deleted content were okay. Is The Sun problematic? Eurohunter (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google for “stick it up your Junta” and “justice for the 96”, or see the many threads on the reliable sources noticeboard. The Sun is a sensationalist tabloid trash paper that is in complete violation of WP:BLPSOURCES. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The very small Barnstar
For calling Kernow by it's proper name without being prompted, or it having mentioned just before on the same page. Sensitivity to all peoples is a great thing, so here is a very small barnstar made of Cornish tin to show gratitude. Dysklyver 19:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yma encyclopedia rydh nowydh hag yw as tasty as ("Jimbo - the Cornish for encylopedia") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richie, Please reconsider Joel Levine

Hi Richie, I check my Wiki page every once in a while. I did not create it. I don't know how to create a Wiki entry but did appreciate the page. I am not using this as a web host. I'm using GoDaddy and here's my website link: http://www.joellevineesq.com/ Please take a look.

Perhaps I don't qualify but I'd like to point out that the Section 351 Roll up was the first of it's kind and changed the way billions of dollars were invested in real estate. The company was sold to Sam Zell, one of he richest men in America and extremely well known. I've won multiple awards as you can see and my peers have chosen me as best or one of the best mediators and arbitrators. Actors in the 12 movies I produced include Colin Firth, Billy Zane, Eric Roberts, Joanna Cassidy, Beverly D'Angelo and others. My tv show, shot in Africa featured Eddie Albert, Janet Leigh and Steve Kanaly. Please see IMDB. My company, Gibraltar was one of the most successful independents in the early video years and our movies won many awards. My partners wrote and produced Valley Girl and several of our movies. I've had a unique and successful life (I call it the "Miracle of Plan B") in 4 different fields. My first book "Getting In" was a successful Random House publication and used by many college applicants in its day.

In 2003 Harvard Law School invited me to speak to the student body about law, business and the future.

Please reconsider allowing the Joel Levine Wiki entry to remain. If you'd like to contact me directly, my email is joel2121@atlanticbb.net

Thank you for your time. 184.164.161.42 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&oldid=805361783"