User talk:Ritchie333

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

If it makes you feel any better...

This kindof thing bugs the living crap out of me when I visit a metropolitan area and I'm trying to spot things that would be educationally useful images, but wouldn't violate some esoteric copyright law. It's stupid to the level that only Parliament or Congress could manage to come up with it in the first place. Heaven help us if they ever get together. GMG^talk 01:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so but you're complicit in the stupidity. The idea that some third party might download Ritchie's photograph and use it to make their own Trump Baby balloon, thereby infringing on the copyright of the original artist and somehow making Wikipedia culpable, is one of the biggest loads of bullshit that I've read on Wikipedia. By that rationale any photograph of almost anything could be deemed a copyright infringement. Charlie Brown, Papa Smurf, Pikachu, Ronald McDonald and Angry Birds are all copyrighted works, to name but a few, not to mention the designs of countless other commercial products that have been photographed and uploaded. It's pretty obvious that the only reason the Trump Baby photographs have been targeted is because of people getting all uppity about people making fun of Trump, who's proven to be even more divisive than George W. Bush. If it really bugs the living crap out of you then stop doing it. I can only hope that someone who has the power to stop this sort of bullshit realizes that people are subverting the rules of Wikimedia and deliberately misinterpreting copyright law for their own agenda. It's particularly pathetic that people are quoting Commons:Freedom of panorama, which is about copyright exceptions, then asserting that because FOP doesn't apply the images cannot be kept!

Cuckoo! … Cuckoo! … Cuckoo!

Adding to what User:IP:146.198.129.210 posted above, and what User:Alanscottwalker said in that AfD, then:
I'd say that "Delete" is inane because it goes against the interest of the balloon creator.
It's furthermore insane, because the attempted argument (photographs of non-permanent 3D objects) implies that it's then near impossible to take pictures in the street: Someone is likely to wear clothes, a hat, a piece of jewellery, ... which they created, and therefore have copyright to. And even if they don't themselves, then the manufacturer likely do. - e.g. Some guy in a Hugo Boss suit: Is that "Sorry, no can do, no photo unless showing permission from Hugo Boss, or undressing completely; Yeah, that include taking of your underwear that says Björn Borg".
-- DexterPointy (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

All these images have also now been nominated for deletion on the same grounds. I wish it wasn't a reality we had to deal with, that of answering emails from people who've been threatened by a lawsuit because they've reused content from Wikipedia, or Wikimedia Commons, but it is, I've seen it, and that's the world we live in. If you want to stop it, then call your PM or Congressman and encourage them to adopt common sense freedom of panorama laws. Until they do, we have to do our due diligence to comply with them, because a lawyer with dollar signs in their eyes doesn't much care for your or my opinion on whether copyright laws are bullshit. GMG^talk 22:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: What about this? : That dress, worn by the woman holding the sign, certainly look like a 3D work of art under copyright.
And how about this 3D work of art?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Clothes are a utilitarian item, and so have little protection under copyright. That's why cars are not copyrighted but toy cars are. Liquor bottles specifically are also utilitarian items.

And that's pretty much the problem with these discussions. It ends up being a lot of people who don't understand copyright, telling people who more or less actually do, how incredibly stupid they are. The law is often stupid. I completely agree. But it does no one any good to go 200% Fox News on the issue, about how Obamacare will euthanize our elderly, because you understand neither euthanasia nor the Affordable Care Act. GMG^talk 23:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@GMG: For the record, I wasn't telling you how incredibly stupid you are. In fact I don't think you're stupid at all. I notice your contributions from time to time and you strike me as very reasonable and thoughtful, which is the only reason that I thought it worth appealing to your better judgement.

Let's pretend for a moment that you are correct and that taking photos in a public place, such as the one in question, is a violation of copyright law (something I find utterly unconvincing, but let's pretend). There is still no requirement for you to be complicit in any stupidity. Remember, laws are not immutable. Even a police officer who witnesses a crime has the option of using their discretion, depending on the seriousness of the crime. If somebody sees a person collapsed at the side of the road and pulls over to help, a traffic warden isn't forced to issue a ticket for parking on a double yellow line. To do so would be asinine. Conscientious objection is a real thing, even during wartime.

A traffic warden saying "It's more than my job's worth" may have a point, but you are a volunteer. There's no requirement for you to do anything here whatsoever, and everything you do do is by choice. So when you say words to the effect of, "I know what I did was stupid but I did it anyway, we're still cool though, right Ritchie?" it doesn't wash with me.^{[I do not speak for Ritchie]}

The only way these Trump Baby photos are going to be reused is by people posting them on their own websites, or maybe printing them on T-shirts, mugs or whatever, all of which are Fair Use. Nobody is going to take the photo and use it as a blueprint for making their own balloons, undermining the original artist's right to make money (it was a crowdfunded, not-for-profit public protest!) and even if they did it would be impossible to implicate Wikipedia, since there are hundreds of similar photos available. I see that you've now marked all the other balloon photos for deletion in an apparent attempt to appear evenhanded. Personally, I think you're just doubling down on your own foolishness.

I'm not saying any of this just to be disparaging. I'm trying to urge you to think twice before doing something which you consider to be stupid in the future. Nobody forces you to vote, or to nominate images for deletion, so if you genuinely believe the law is an ass find something worthwhile to do instead. It isn't rocket science. And if you choose to make dickish decisions and admit that you knew you were being dickish don't be surprised if people call you out for that. 146.90.174.128 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

PS. But it does no one any good to go 200% Fox News on the issue, about how Obamacare will euthanize our elderly, because you understand neither euthanasia nor the Affordable Care Act. Not the most ridiculous analogy I've ever read but definitely a contender. I don't think anybody here is actually as foolish as you seem to be implying. Please, just take what we're saying on the chin like an adult and don't react like you've had your ego bruised. You were the one who pointed out the stupidity of the law which you purport to be applying, so it's probably not a good idea to retaliate by calling other people stupid.

Sorry anon, (and sorry to Ritchie for clogging up his userpage with this), but we can only plead prosecutorial discretion in as much as we're willing to admit to ourselves that we actually don't give a legitimate shit about our mission: to make more knowledge more free for more people. Part of that service is that when we say something is free, we mean it's free. We didn't cut corners, and we didn't blur the lines when it was convenient and intuitive. Across the various Wikimedia projects we help primary students learn about geography, as we help undergrads with their term papers, as we help first time authors with images from Commons, as we help post-docs with primary documents from Wikisource, as we help researchers with structured data from Wikidata, as we help lots of people doing lots of things that they would not otherwise be able to do without us. Because at some basic level, some basic access to free knowledge should be a human right. And we are the first line of defense for that right.

But if free doesn't mean free then there's no reason for people to utilize and have confidence in these resources that hundreds of thousands of people have put millions of hours into making, because we're willing to cut corners when it's convenient, and there's no way of telling when those corner have been cut and when they haven't. Fudging the specifics doesn't help that mission; it undermines it at the most basic level. GMG^talk 17:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That was genuinely rousing. You're absolutely correct, Mr MeansGo. What the hell was I thinking!? I nominate Thomas the Tank Engine. Down with that sort of thing! 146.90.174.128 (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

How to include images from non-WMF sources?

Having followed the AfD for File:Trump_Baby_Balloon_at_Parliament_Square.jpeg, then comes the natural technical question
: How can images, hosted on non-WMF platforms, be embedded in WP-articles?
I've read Help:Visual_file_markup which suggest that it can not be done, but is that really true?

Also, I don't understand why your photo got so much flak, when seeing articles like e.g. Ron Mueck
- Am I missing something (other than naively to suspect trumpanzees at play) ?

BTW/FYI: Google's Picasa is long gone. Google's "replacement" is Google Photos. (Note: I've never used the Picasa app/client, I only ever used Picasa Web Albums.).
-- DexterPointy (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not technically possible to embed third-party images in articles. The reference to other websites was simply a comment that there are better and more user friendly places to host your photographs online, and publicise them so people know about them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Despacito/GA2

Hi Ritchie333. I found you listed as a GA mentor at WP:GAHELP, and am wondering if you'd mind taking a look at Talk:Despacito/GA2 when you have a spare moment or two. I'm not really familiar with the GA review process and did not review the article myself, but I only came accross it as explained in User talk:Fhsig13#Despacito. Tbhotch's comment about needing a WP:GAR at the end of that discussion thread in particular makes me wonder whether a review of this GA review might be needed. Since you seem to have lots of experience doing GA reviews of music related articles, I though you'd be a good person to ask for additional feedback. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Sorry about the delay in this. The GA review doesn't appear to have covered issues in depth to the level I would normally expect. Even when I have done reviews where the reviewer has said there was little wrong with it (eg: Talk:London Victoria station/GA1, Talk:The Carpenters/GA1), there is always room for feedback and suggested changes. From a cursory glance at the article, it doesn't appear to be far off the GA criteria, or at least there's nothing that would suggest a quickfail, but I'd need to look at the prose and sources carefully, and also check for copyvios, before I can make a definitive decision. I admit I am not exactly up to date with music these days (somebody asked me to play "New Rules" at an open mic evening recently, they were surprised I'd never heard it before and mildly offended I dismissed it as "a simple three chord trick" and ripping off the chord sequence to the closing section of Camel's "Lady Fantasy") but it does seem quite lengthy for what's just a pop single. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for taking a look at this. I've never done a GA review before myself, but I did think some of the comments in the review might have indicated that it wasn't checked a closely as it should've been. Then when Tbhotch (who's seems to be a pretty experienced GA reviewer) commented in the aforementioned user talk page thread (about some of the things I had noticed) that maybe a GAR was warranted, especially so soon after the GA review was completed, I thought it might be worth having one of the GA mentors look at it just to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I think the main problem with the article as I see it is that it's too long. At 43K, it's longer than Good Vibrations (39K) and while I'm going to admit my musical biases again, I can't see anyone arguing that the latter is less significant than the former. It probably needs a bit of a trim. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Do you think the upgrade to GA was warranted given the problem with its length? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Carpenters

"I'll say goodbye to lunch"....

There's a kind of thrush....

We've only just begun....

The article The Carpenters you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Carpenters 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 Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It's been 24 hours since this message, and not one witty pun from Martinevans123 has graced this thread. What's going on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

C'mon dude... Don't rush me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ...forget about your Physical Graffiti and Close to You, this is the sort of album that is crying out for a GA [2]

I don't suppose Southern Gospel translates well on the "correct" side of the Atlantic. Actually, that record label is on my to-do list as highly significant to the genre. If you like that cover, there's a hundred more where that came from! (Namely, Sing Records). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I'd go quite as far as the l-word. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

heh, even if you don't, I can still find them. Y'all better behave now, bless your hearts, I have now discovered more resources at my disposal than the block button. Not that I'm threatening anyone, noooooo! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, on a more serious note, DYK hooks anyone? I'm struggling to find anything that's not a) boring or b) rather sad. The best I can think of so far is being fired from a residency gig for being "too radical", but that pre-dates the Carpenters by a few years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Some suggestions, since I might as well try to be of some small help around here.

• ...upon meeting The Carpenters, Herb Alpert stated "Let's hope we can have some hits!"?
• ...when signing The Carpenters contract with A&M Records, Karen Carpenter's parents had to sign for her?
• ...Rolling Stone's Sue Cummings wrote that the 1990s acceptance of The Carpenters' work was "a renewed ironic appreciation"?
• ...The Carpenters received hate mail because they combined a soft ballad and loud electric guitar?
• ...From spring 1976 onward The Carpenters' tours would include a drum medley for Karen?
• ...one of Michael Jackson's favorite bands was The Carpenters?

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That's great - I've added a bunch to the DYK nomination. I can't call you a "music nerd" as that would be the pot calling the kettle black. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Karen did vote to legalize it. Shame that's not stuck in a footnote! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's Barnstar time!

		The Original Barnstar
		Dude, you're just rad and such a necessary asset to the WP project. Thank you for swooping in and saving me on some major article milestones. It's very much appreciated! — Miss Sarita 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Carpenters

I have a query for this entry. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS In return, I have for you (and everyone else reading this) a query for something else here. (I don't think that talk page has much traffic). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not familiar enough with the million award to really comment here. Hopefully someone else can help out soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

admin candidate?

When you suggested they run for adminship, I'm guessing you also didn't know MBL was coming off an indefinite block for sockpuppetry, right? [3]. Vanamonde (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I did see that. Simply saying somebody might want to think about adminship in the future doesn’t mean they’re ready now; I have asked this question to a few people about 2 years ago but they’re still not quite there. So yes, he would need to think very carefully about how to manage that. (“I was young and stupid” is a good starting point). I think my point was more that I was disappointed that I could get an initial favourable impression of MBl, only to have it crushed by a load of unnecessary drama. I am always on the lookout for admins in India, Pakistan and anywhere else in that area that has English as a formal or de facto language; as I (briefly) said, Indian sockfarms are big business here (as you can testify from your own RfA). Somebody who can do GAs and AIV is a bit of a rare find. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In five years, yes, possibly. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I don't know if you read the AE request from which that t-ban came, but the unfortunate fact is that multiple folks involved there, on both sides of that conflict, could be good admins; but editing content related to religious and nationalist conflict they seem to lose all good sense. The broad ARBIPA area needs more admins, to be sure. Both Doug Weller and myself have been trying to get Ugog Nizdast to run for a while, but he's been on wikibreak for some time now. Kautilya3's content work is solid but he has no interest in adminny things, and a few others I have my eye on are still too new. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I may be "interested" at some point, but I don't have time at the moment. Before Vanamonde became an admin, there was a dire need of admins in the ARBIPA area. But now it is more or less adequate, even though I realize that the load on the existing admins is quite heavy.

WBG is an obvious candidate. So is Adamgerber80, who has a balanced view of things and has managed to keep his head above waters. Saqib may be ready for adminship at some point, though becoming a public persona may have its draw backs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Godric might sound like an obvious candidate, but I've seen too many AfDs and discussions where he's been over-cocky and said things like "OMG this is a complete load of COI crap, kill it with fire before I feel my IQ dropping". (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Roman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Political Graveyard). That's not going to be endearing to the RfA crowd. Then there's the whole fisticuffs with Coffee; even though I think WBG was right and Coffee was wrong, it won't sit well with those who like admins to be super-civil. I looked at Saqib a few months ago; when I checked, I thought he had started too many AfDs that closed as keep. However, I think he might be able to pass at some point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My assessment of Godric is similar, and I've frequently asked him to tone it down a bit, and/or not to be cute. The situation with Coffee may not help, but at least that's over. He needs to keep his head down and stick to what he's good at; if he does that (Godric, if you see this, I suggest you take Ritchie's advice very seriously) he may be ready in a little while. I admit I am less well acquainted with Saqib, though I've seen him around, of course. That I cannot readily recall our interactions is probably a good thing. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As for "public persona", both Cullen328 and Megalibrarygirl have had their Wikipedia work documented in reliable sources, but that didn't stop them from being the two most successful RfAs ever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

WBG would make a terrible admin, given his lecturing about "the flimsy pretense" without "knowing the circumstances", his poor knowledge of wikipedia policies and behavioral issues. WBG does make productive contributions, tries to, and I admire him for that. He is not an admin material because not only is he can be uncivil as Ritchie333 notes above, to me, he can be uncivil when he has not done the homework and is wrong, and he comes across as naive of our policies, their intent and as someone misinformed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't honestly see anything in that diff from Godric that would fall foul of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA - he was simply advising you on how to reduce the risk of you getting permanently booted off the site (and given you can edit here, it seems the advice worked). Indeed, recently I've wondered what on earth is going on regards civility, and needed to refer back to the policy page, which states clearly, "First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification.". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That diff supports WBG advising without "knowing the circumstances" part. Not the uncivil part. I agree with your last highlighted sentence, but it really does not apply in WBG and my case. The illustrations for my WP:Civil comment is covered by Vanamonde93 and you above. With some dozen GAs, numerous DYKs and some 30,000+ contributions to wiki sister projects, I have come across WBG's comments and contributions now and then. He is not admin material, not yet, and he is far from it. I must say, I like some of the work he does and hope he continues and learns from the advice others note above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

The sole reason, I mentioned myself to be supposedly not aware of the issue was to reduce the chances of your's indulging in any discussion with me about the block and allied stuff, so that any comment from your side might not adversely affect your t/p access, courtesy a bunch of folks, who were too keenly observing your moves amidst a parallel ANI thread.

As much as I reverted an oppurtuinstic mudslinging attempt at your t/p, what you were doing equated to casting random aspersions in an on-wiki medium and thus, an abuse of t/p access.Pretty many admins would have been willing to revoke your TPA, shall you persisted and you might also wish to see Swarm's (who is a sysop and might be non-naive in policies) closing statement at the ANI thread consisting of if frivolous talk page editing continues.

I chose to comment at the ANI thread against a t/p access removal and alerted you, because I disliked seeing a productive contributor getting dumped to the trenches but your response over here is stunning, to say the least..Whilst many folks have accused me of many things/issues, naivety in policies is certainly a new feather and will be a reminder to avoid trying to help others.∯WBG^converse 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: While I appreciate you sharing your perspective, I feel you have either not understood Wikipedia:Casting aspersions or ignored what it actually states. That page summarizes what ARB Committee has repeatedly stated. It is not "casting aspersions" if evidence in the form of edit diffs is provided for the first time. I hope you are not alleging that I did not provide numerous edit diffs... as that would be baseless. Our policies do allow compiling evidence that would be filed in a timely fashion (which I did successfully). Never ignore evidence, please demand evidence and edit diffs in good faith and seek clarifications about the evidence that has been provided. If you are unwilling to check edit diffs and evidence, then you should reflect on what you are doing, are you helping this place or are you making things worse here, are you helping build this encyclopedia and are you helping create a work environment necessary for building an encyclopedia based on community agreed content policies and a collaborative effort based on peer reviewed RS? I am sorry WBG but my concerns go beyond your one time behavior on my t/p. I have a lot more serious concerns about you given what you write on ANI and other noticeboards, concerns others outline above. Yes, at times you come across as constructive and well meaning. I hope you do more of the constructive things, strive to be neutral, be attentive to the edit diffs and seek then review the evidence, in your future contributions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

MSW: I've already commented on WBG's tone, but please do try to remember he was genuinely trying to prevent further trouble for you, and his views on your talk page content were supported by other admins later; just something to reflect upon. Furthermore, might I suggest you both take your differences elsewhere, as they are not germane to this discussion, and we let Ritchie have his talk page back? Vanamonde (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As to Ritchie's assessment, I can but only concur:-) Whilst, IMO, I don't find anything uncivil in the AfD about Roman and would rather describe my behavior at the other AFD as un-neccesarily terse (I, OED, Rusf10 and Sitush all appeared post RAN's disruptive activities as to the site, which precipitated his ban), it might be because that my boundaries are pretty extreme (unless it comes to some form of behavior that can be aptly described as being an *#$@%^ for the sake of it ) and I've found many folks (I'm not taking any names......) to be quite civil, contrary to the reputation they carry-about in the wiki-sphere. But, yeah being less blunt and snarky would certainly help:-)

The Coffee-saga was well........

Anyways, an RFA is not anywhere in my priorities-list for a long time.......And, GSS and Ugog Nizdast might be impressive candidates to vet for an RFA:-) I also think Saqib and Adamgberger80 would make extreme good candidates in the near-future.....∯WBG^converse 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

GSS was actually one of the editors I was referring to at the top of the thread. The problem is, every now and then (and it really is no more than that) I decline one of his speedies or close one of his AfDs as "keep" and think "dagnammit, back to square one". I'm looking for six months with a squeaky clean CSD log to pass RfA, which is silly really as in my personal opinion he's perfectly qualified to use the delete button right now. However, I know not enough people agree for him to pass easily. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Once, he emailed me, (as to this admin-stuff) and I asked him to contact you along with advising that it's much prudential for him to drastically conform to a rigid SoWhy-ian interpretation of CSD policies, for at-least a few months prior to the dunk. Basically, using G11 and A7, only in clear-cut cases, which are no-brainer(s) and AFDing, even in cases of slight doubt. He was a bit apprehensive about the tricky (and sometimes plainly, ........) questions asked in RFA but (as I said) it's more of the nom's headache than the candidates' :-).

To be fair, I think GSS will manage to wield the mop (polite demeanor + good-policy-knowledge + sock-detection-skills + non-volatile-areas (less editorial combatants)), shall he run now but a few months afterwards, combined with some good content creation, will probably lead to a landslide. ∯WBG^converse 15:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There are certainly editors who I would support at RfA, but not nominate - the standard for the latter is way higher and relies on you have a general idea of who might say what. Even then, every time I have started an RfA I have pretty much had no idea whatsoever it would actually pass when I transcluded. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As for civility, several times recently I have compared the excellent atmosphere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to other parts of the site, and wondered why every conversation I have seen with editors like Rosiestep and SusunW has been civil, polite and productive (both with my own discussions, and those from other parties) and a model level of conduct that I would like to see everywhere, and yet I seem to be incapable of having a conversation with some editors without tearing my hair out, thinking "why the **** can't you understand what I'm getting at?" I would love the whole of Wikipedia to have the same level of civility as WiR where everyone treats everyone else respectfully, but it just doesn't happen. It does match what I see in the real world, where some people (and it generally tends to be women, but not exclusively) are just able to communicate better without the other party getting annoyed, fed up or cross, whereas if I said exactly the same words it wouldn't happen. I'd love to figure out why this is, because it makes my head hurt trying to understand why. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

With women, social skills are innate. With men, they are aquired. Irondome (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Occasionally, any way  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

I don't why, but I can relate to this comment. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As to the above discussion with the people mentioning me, I'm honoured by your encouragement. I can start my RFA technically since I'm mildly active here but real life still calls me. I don't like the idea of passing it and again keeping my activity on hold like this. I would rather do that when I come back here more regularly after my real life issues are addressed. It may take years but I have my fingers crossed. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey

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

_ Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) About bloody time too. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I don’t think I’m the best person to deal with that. If you want to prove sockpuppetry with off-wiki private evidence, try BU Rob13 or Bbb23. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was more hoping for your assessment of the strength of evidence, but if either want to Rob or Bbb want to hear it I'll forward the e-mail to them. It's a bit long and rambly, kind of built together on the fly from fifty or so open tabs. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking through it, it seems like a reasonable argument. However, the two admins I mentioned above are both checkusers and look at this stuff day-in, day-out, so I would trust their judgement on semi-complicated sockpuppetry cases over mine. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it Ritchie. I singled you out for this because you're sensible, rather than any perceived expertise. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lamest Edit Wars

Even though I'm an administrator, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.

Regarding humorous style, you wrote:

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. While "tightening phrasing" on a general article is a good idea (because it allows the reader to understand the topic faster), that doesn't really apply to humorous essays, where being more verbose can be funnier.... I seem to recall reading once that one easy way to be funny is to be specific and verbose when you don't need to.

I think the key tool of humor, both written and spoken, is timing. The audience has to "get" the surprise of the punchline at exactly the right moment, neither too soon nor too late, and an extra word can be as dulling as a missing word.

This obviously depends on the audience, and someone who has read the text over and over will have a hard time judging the reaction of a new reader. I didn't think the punchlines in the intro were worth the labored windups, and I tried to make them more in the style of throwaway lines.

I think we can agree Wikipedians are about as funny as computer code. (That some of us find computer code funny just proves my point.) The real question is, can we be funnier collectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magyar25 (talk • contribs)

The general set of regular Wikipedians covers a huge array of different cultures, upbringings, thoughts and ideals. It's impossible to find something that's funny for everyone; I'm certain the editorial staff for Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1011 thought the front page was funny, but not everyone else did (to put it as mildly as possible). Similarly, the image and caption to the right has turned up on talk pages and EEng got a block for it, later described as "hand's down the worst block I've seen, and I've seen some whoppers". Personally, I think the best humour is as close to the truth as possible and only just the "wrong" side of sensible and factually accurate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A bundle of leeks just for for you...

A chopped and plated leek for you

1911 German variety

Appearing at Cardiff tomorrow..... Welsh folk super-group Pendevid!! ... who remind me a bit of one early version of The Albion Band, or maybe Malicorne, and perhaps even a few prog-rock outfits before and since then. Just for you, here's a fully copyright-compliant "Lliw Gwyn". At least Calan have a Wikipedia article, even though Gwilym Bowen Rhys, Iestyn Tyne, Jordan Price Williams, Aneurin Jones, Jamie Smith, Iolo Wheelan, Greg Sterland, Jake Durham, Ted Smith and Aeddan Llywelyn do not, yet, alas. Well, enjoy the video anyway.... me ol' Welsh china. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty cool track. Some of the strings stuff remind me of a celtic rock band from Cardiff called the Blue Horses who I saw live quite a few times about 20 years ago, who were basically Led Zeppelin with two female fiddle players. The group leader, Liz, grew up about five miles down the road from where my mum did and their speaking voices are identical (except my mum's has been diluted from living in England for 50+ years). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, The Bluehorses, very much. I never saw them. Quite a bit on YT, e.g. "Bluehorses - Waes Hael", posted by bluesky miner, on 9 Dec 2007. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Name scrambled but some references remain

Hello, back in 2013 I had requested that my account deleted/name scrambled however it's still searchable and I would like to have that amended please along with any other other instances, thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2013_October_15

The username with Uttaranchal University. For web crawler avoidance reasons I am not writing the username here.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.230.198.72 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that's technically possible - accounts can be renamed to "vanished user abc123", but their account has to remain for attribution purposes to comply with our Creative Commons licence. Do any other admins know more on this? Even if we removed something from Wikipedia, it takes a long time to disappear from Google and all the associated mirrors. I'm happy to revision delete any personal information related to your account, but I don't think there is any. Per WP:BEANS I'm happy to take this offline if required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, allow me to clarify, I am not asking for the account to be removed, that's already scrambled so that's good enough, I'm asking for the text of the name from the title to be removed User:S___\Uttaranchal University on that page or at least changed to be the same as the scrambled name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.230.198.72 (talk • contribs)

Okay, I've done as requested. I don't think anybody would be looking at that page, to be honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Karen Carpenter | Promotional shot, 1973

It's great how you've craftily found this pre-'77 image, unmarked by A&M, promotion from a November 1973 Billboard magazine. I'm sure you're aware of the distortion/marks throughout the image - in that same book/magazine, the same image [cropped slightly], can be found on page 20 without quality issues and in higher resolution [cropped and brightened myself if you're interested]. I wonder if you can replace the file [and link to immediate source [link]] with this otherwise identical image from page 20? This is only to make this near-perfect thread closer to perfection! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 'Seán754 (talk • contribs)

It was We hope who found the Billboard reference; I just clipped it out of the advert. In terms of improving the image quality, you're probably better off asking someone like GreenMeansGo who works more in this area (or at least knows people that do). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry 'Seán754. I'm not really an expert in restoration. I restore images the same way I build a deck: I have a general idea of what I want to accomplish and I watch youtube tutorials until I figure out how to do it. As to the image, since it's a fairly unquestionably higher quality version, you can simply overwrite the previous version if they're the same file extension. As to that copyright rationale...phew boy. That's a doosey, and complicated enough that I wouldn't feel confident uploading it myself. But if you think you have a good grasp of it, then go for it. I tend to stay away from mid 20th century copyright...because it's bonkers, and tend to hang out in the late 19th century because it's too easy. GMG^talk 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"That's a doosey, and complicated enough that I wouldn't feel confident uploading it myself." - my thoughts exactly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

My point was that using the same Billboard magazine, and file name/template, on page 20 there is a high quality, improved version of this image already. [I cropped it out of the page as you would do, which I linked above]. The file could simply be replaced with a png of the image on page 20 of that very same Billboard magazine in place of the [current] lower-quality image from page 24, and only the page reference/link to the 'immediate source' would need changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 'Seán754 (talk • contribs)

Oh sure, I wasn't dismissing your request; rather I'm just busy doing some other stuff and will get round to it in due course, unless one of the other editors I've pinged can handle it. There was a bit of a debacle with one of my images recently and I'm just a bit cynical about uploading any more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)@'Seán754: I've grabbed that Billboard photo at 629X1094 (you can see it here), made it greyscale and lightened it a bit. I don't want to upload it to WP till the last minute (and after I reduce the size), as this looks like it could be fair use, not the "no copyright claimed" rationale used in the original. If I'm wrong about that, we can then use the larger version. I could probably do a little more work on it to improve it, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:WEEE Forum

Hello, Ritchie333. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "WEEE Forum".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Sam Sailor 22:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I think you meant to post this on User talk:MagdaChary - I just removed the copyvio and moved it to draftspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The culprit is in Special:Diff/824129876/824129915 where you added {{subst:submit}}, and then became the submitter, but should have added {{subst:submit|MagdaChary}}. We really need a little script for this if we do not already have it. I find myself manually typing {{subst:submit|whoever started the draft}} on a daily basis. Sam Sailor 22:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a follow up to say that I again learned something new: Yet Another AfC Helper Script does directly support submitting a draft on behalf of someone else. The big blue "Submit" button offers the options "Submit as page creator/yourself/someone else." Sam Sailor 08:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think in this specific instance, I was probably clearing the CSD backlog and quickly moving it into draft so I could get to the next one in the batch. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Women in Red barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to Ritchie333 for repeatedly supporting the Women in Red wikiproject, in particular by helping to resolve issues with our members. Your assistance is warmly appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. I have to be honest and say I wish the camaraderie and good collaborative spirit in WiR would spill into topics that I am more of an expert at writing (eg: classic 60s/70s rock, railway stations, musical instruments, British upper class oddballs), but hopefully if the WiR ethos of working spreads, it may happen yet. Actually, I shouldn't be so cynical, there are some editors like FunkMonk and Rodw who do great work without going near WiR-related topics, but since they never have cause to appear on the WP:Dramaboard, you won't have heard of them unless you've done a GA / FA review with them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

With regard to both of those named editors, I very warmly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone at WiR being sorry that Sexual Desires in the Ladies' Restroom: Dripping! has now been nuked, though EEng's talk page stalkers may think differently. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Polish supercentenarians

Hi Ritchie, as the admin who closed the AfD for List of Polish supercentenarians, would you mind weighing in on developments since then? Newshunter12 has removed a large section of the article saying consensus exists that it violates BLP, V and OR. I have disputed this because I think the AfD supercedes the previous talk page conversation. They have since re-reverted and commented to reinforce their position. I'm not sure how best to proceed, and thought you might have a view on what the current consensus actually is. › Mortee _talk 01:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I hope it's not too late but may I discuss with you your recent close as keep for the List of Polish supercentenarians (2nd nomination) deletion discussion. There were four votes cast, two keep, one redirect, and one merge. I think it's clear both the redirect vote and the merge vote were on substance votes to delete. As I stated in the discussion, there is essentially nothing to redirect to the List of European supercentenarians page because the only person on the Polish page at the time old enough to be on that page is German woman Augusta Holtz, whom left the German Empire as a small child for the United States, long before Poland even existed. She is already on that page as a European emigrant. For the merge vote, there is nothing to merge to either the list of List of European supercentenarians because the three Polish women in this article are too young to be listed there or the List of oldest living people which already has the one living Polish supercentenarian. They used different words then delete, but it is clear on substance that is what such actions would mean. Only one person gave a substantive Keep vote and counting the nominator, there were three substantive delete votes. I believe based on the merits and common sense, the discussion should be closed as delete or the article otherwise deleted upon review. On a side note, I started editing the article to clean it up, but realized I had not pursued appealing your verdict. Despite the edits, I still solidly support deletion and believe that is what the consensus was to do. Sincerely, Newshunter12 (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"I think it's clear both the redirect vote and the merge vote were on substance votes to delete" You might think that, but our deletion policy says otherwise - if nobody explicitly calls for deletion, an admin will not delete the article. While there was certainly no consensus to keep, merge or redirect, none of those activities involves administrator action and can be done outside of the scope of AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If you feel there was no clear consensus to keep the article, then why wasn't the Afd closed as no consensus instead of giving the false impression we agreed to keep it? Also, on the edit summary page, the person who voted redirect labeled their vote edit as delete, so it is clear there was open pushing for delete, just using a different word for the actual vote. Deletion was their intent. Did you miss that before you made your closing decision? Does this fact change your closing decision in any way? Newshunter12 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"No consensus" means no consensus to do anything (keep or delete), where there was clear consensus to not delete at the very least. The strongest counter-argument to deletion was the "keep" rationale from Mortee, and the only opinion that was agreed by another editor. Since it materially makes little difference over "keep" versus "no consensus" if the article is retained, I don't think there's an issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The redirect and merge votes both explicitly wanted this article's content to end up or be discussed on the List of European supercentenarians. By their own words, they didn't think this article should exist and there was an explicit push for deletion by one editor besides myself. How is it that, including myself, three people wanted to get rid of this article and two wanted to keep it (one of whom said three words) that we are keeping it as is? The redirect voter also said per my nom in their response and described their actions as delete in their edit summary, so they explicitly agreed with another editor's opinion (me). Newshunter12 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well you can take this to deletion review and overturn "keep" to "no consensus" if you really want, but ... what's the point? Sometimes AfDs don't close the way I'd like them to, but that's just the way things go sometimes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Is there any time limit on when it can be re-nominated for AfD in the future? If there is none, I might have another go someday with a more concise argument. It's funny though that I'm the one who wanted to delete it, yet I'm the one who took the time to follow polices and consensus, and took the time to clean up the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any set time. For anything that closes as "no consensus; no prejudice against renomination", you can pretty much start a new AfD immediately. For everything else, it's a balance between believing you'd get a better consensus next time round against annoying people who will say "aww jeez, we just had this discussion". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

But what about List of Polish supermarkets?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ask the staff at Cafe Polski, Islington : "Gooden morning sir", "Ah yes, umm good morning", "Nice to see you, I have been away seeing family in Poland", "Oh ... I missed you", "WHAAAAAAT???!!!!!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Houses of the Holy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Houses of the Holy 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A303

Stoned.....

Further to Sunday's discussion, just read the whole article, and it is fascinating stuff. Perhaps you should be Ritchie303. Did not even know we had an A333. Edwardx (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't call myself that, as LP records don't run at 30 1⁄3 rpm. The original A333, for what it's worth, was at the notorious Hockley lights with the A33 Winchester Bypass, the history of which is documented most appropriately in Twyford Down, and what was the most god-awful frustrating source of congestion on the road network. People were so fed up of it they ultimately turned a blind eye to the government carving a huge chunk out of the nearby countryside for the sake of everyone's sanity. (WP:NPOV? What's that?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How very mundane. And we all thought you were quadruplex fly-by-wire. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I got on the bus instead. (I guess that's the one that goes via Jade's Crossing). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"All human life is here" (?) [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh gosh, that brings back memories .... I think during the mid-90s, just about every British woman in their late teens and early twenties thought The Divine Comedy was the best band in the world and fancied the absolute pants off Neil Hannon ... or at least that's the way it seemed to be at the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Have all the albums. He's a pretty talented guy. Pants or no pants. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help Ritchie333, I appear to be able to edit now. Have a great day.A.kenney (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@A.kenney: No problem. Are there any particular articles you want to work on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, I want to add to the pages of Sean Fine and Andrea Nix Fine with info from interviews they have given. I think I can figure it out, but any advice would be much appreciated.A.kenney (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As the late, great, Richard Whiteley might have said, that's "Fine" by me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A7 decline

Just curious why you declined this as "sourced", when A7 has nothing to do with sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 and User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes - in short, anything with a vaguely reliable source should not be speedied, but given a chance to see if it can be improved first, then taken to AfD if not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I'd have declined this too. With multiple reliable sources about the topic already present in the article, it has a plausible argument for meeting GNG, which is a higher bar than "credible claim of significance". Vanamonde (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Aretha Franklin

On 16 August 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aretha Franklin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Strikerforce^Talk 16:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article talk (Big Les)

Hey man! I had written an article for a rapper, Big Les and you had deleted it. I was wondering if it was possible for you to restore the article and move it to the Draft stage and help me in getting the article improved and approved, if possible. Thank you!

Thekiddl (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)thekiddl 8/16/18

@Thekiddl: As the article was soft deleted, most certainly. Restored to Draft:Big Les. Follow instructions at the top of the page to see what to do next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Content Creation Question

Hey Ritchie, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable in the realm of content creation and I wanted to run an idea by you for an article. I was thinking of starting an article for the California Peace Officers' Memorial. From what I can see there appears to be quite a bit of information on the memorial, but I was hoping to get your opinion first? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: I would start off by seeing if you expand its mention in California State Capitol Museum first - it's currently an unsourced sentence. If you find you can write several paragraphs from 3/4 sources on it and it starts to dwarf the rest of the article, that would be a good time to create a spin-off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ritchie! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The Who/Tommy

I decided to remove The Who/Tommy from the August 17 OTD. One of the rules is that the date in question should be especially relevant to the bold article(s), and it doesn't seem to be the case for either one. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Howcheng: No problem. I did think (as you did) to save it for the next year when it'll be the 50th anniversary, but there were plenty of other notable performances at Woodstock on the same date. In any case, it was simply a "quick win" as I thought it would be easier to swap a problematic hook for a simple one linked to two GAs. Getting Aretha in the top spot on ITN is enough main page excitement for the minute ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Houses of the Holy

"I know you're all bored senseless with me just randomly banging the guitar with this, but half of you lot are bootlegging the show and I'm going to make you run out of tape by making the solo extra long. Ha ha ha ha ha!"

The article Houses of the Holy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Houses of the Holy 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK anyone? I think I'm going to plump for "...the cover art for Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy was inspired by the ending of Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

....anyone .... anyone ... Bueller? ..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Way to piss of the Zepheads by sneaking in a Floyd number :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

When I went to see Floyd in Earl's Court on the Division Bell tour, the programme had a short quiz. If you got 0, the result was "You really like Led Zeppelin, but they aren't touring this year". :-D Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How about a DYK about the title? It could be something off-the-wall like "...that Houses of the Holy was Led Zepplin's fifth album, but the first with a title? Or somesuch. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"'...that Houses of the Holy's "Rain Song" was inspired by George Harrison complaining that Led Zeppelin never did any ballads?"--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That was the story that jumped out at me, reading it. › Mortee _talk 14:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

... that the cover of Houses of the Holy was designed by Hipgnosis based on a photograph taken at Giant's Causeway? - Mysterious enough? - Having said that, I'd appreciate an admin swapping one hook from queue 4 (for tomorrow) for The Little Nigar, to honour Debussy's birthday. It's in the special occasions on the approved hooks page, and discussed on dyktalk, look for Debussy, but so far without response. I believe that any other day would be a mistake. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Venting

This is amusing. 81.2%, that's reasonable. 81.3%, oh now that's just too far. I know, I know, 17.4% vs 8% in the other department (or whatever), but still... are you serious? Where's da consistency? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin III

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin III 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request to edit summaries on Dave Rubin article

Hi Ritchie. When you've a moment, could you take a look at the recent edit history of Dave Rubin, and consider whether it's appropriate to redact the series of edit summaries made on 21st August by an IP user? The repeated edits and reverts themselves don't need to be removed, but I'm of the view that the very visible edit summaries are akin to shouting "Jew! Jew! Jew!" in a grossly offensive and highly visible manner on the View History page, and should be removed. I've reverted the edits, of course, and have warned the editor at User talk:67.1.130.20. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Revision deleted and blocked. There is absolutely no need to say those sort of things in a global encyclopedia project that encompasses all cultures and ideals. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I completely agree. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Wikiasian2408 (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikiasian2408: You don't need to email me unless it contains personal or private information that would be problematic to talk about on-wiki. Keeping discussion here also allows talk page stalkers to comment if they wish. In the case of K. Hari Prasad, it was originally deleted after a full debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Hari Prasad (2nd nomination) by Joe Decker, and then again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Hari Prasad (3rd nomination) by Xymmax. I made the most recent deletion because it was re-created without a review, which is applicable per the policy for deleting re-creating content previously deleted via discussion.

There are a couple of options here. Firstly, with the agreement of the original deleting administrators (which is not required, but still generally a good idea to do), I can restore the article to draft space and you can submit it via the articles for creation process. Secondly, you can open a deletion review if you think the deletion process was not followed correctly, although in my personal view it seemed process was correctly carried out even though it gave you a result you didn't want, so I'm not sure this would be successful. The third, and possibly rather cutting, option is to accept that Wikipedia does not believe it can maintain an article about this person at this time, and you should look at one of the many other topics on the encyclopedia instead, most of which need improvement. Sometimes, the participants at deletion discussions "get it wrong" and we need to correct the decision; however, if this article has been the subject of two full deletion discussions, it seems unlikely any restoration of it is going to be taken well by the community as a whole. Indeed, looking through the debates, I can't see a single person who wants to keep this article except you. Sometimes, when you're in a minority of one, you just have to accept things aren't going to go your way.

I hope that addresses your concerns; if not, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your details reply. May I humbly request you to adopt the first option? Will really appreciate it if you can do it. Also, I apologise for sending the email, and I will not do so going forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, can I please get an update on this. Thank you.

Unsourced info

How is tagging unsourced information "not constructive"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it's trivial and easy to find a source in two minutes, as I did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)