User talk:Ritchie333

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

This user misses Dr. Blofeld

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs)

As neither deleting administrator has responded, I assume it is okay to restore to draft, which I have now done. Follow instructions at Draft:K. Hari Prasad to see what to do next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've had to delete it again, as another editor pointed out that the prose has been copied and pasted from another website, so it cannot be restored at all. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for restoring the page. I understand that you have moved it to drafts due to copyright issues. I have addressed the issue, and have additionally added 55 references - I request you to go through it and restore it to a normal page. Thank you so much. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:K._Hari_Prasad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Salt Jaiden Animations

Salted

Hiya. Can you also salt Jaiden Animations as it's been repeatedly re-created. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ritchie, I am looking to close this discussion at RFPP and wanted to check with you whether you had a strong preference as to whether you wanted to downgrade the page to ECP. I honestly don't think it will make a big difference in the long run but just wanted to check in with you. If you have no preference, I'll go ahead and downgrade to ECP. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 14:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You can downgrade it to ECP if you like; I became an admin before ECP existed and before it became standard practice (and not Arbcom required) so I guess I just need to bone up on current practices. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool, done. And yea, I wasn't aware that this was SOP until a few days ago either. Airplaneman ✈ 15:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

kittens are so lovely

SmokeyJoe has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

I guess you have never experienced the scenario where you are happily typing away and composing something on the keyboard, when suddenly ... *whumph* .... you get a very bad case of what is technically described as "tail in face" and "cat on keybodfg34t09t89u6y98u5t98u5t094t90utr09tu09t" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

"Admins know your limits!" We'll have less talk about returning to the Gold Standard, if you don't mind.....Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

BURMA! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"PawSense is a software utility that helps protect your computer from cats." EEng 01:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, you buy a desk where the keyboard can be easily slid underneath the main part out of the way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Advice for a new GA reviewer

Hello. I was wondering if you had time to look over my first GA review. I saw you specialize in music articles as per the GA mentor section. The review is at Talk:The High Llamas/GA1 if you are interested. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I had a quick look, and it looks okay to me. You've covered the prose, balance of detail, and checked the sources to some depth. The only other thing, if you haven't done it, is to check the images are properly licensed (I didn't see any problems, though I question the relevance of the 1994 Stereolab gig picture) and check for copyvios (there's a little close paraphrasing from http://claythescribe.com/2016/03/04/interview-with-sean-ohagan-of-the-high-llamas/ - mostly quotations). Other than that, I think you've got the idea of what GA reviews are about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I did mention some issues with the quotes in history formation first para and 2000s-present 2nd para. I'll look at the images more closely. Thanks for the advice :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin III

The article Led Zeppelin III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin III 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Woo-hoo, calls for a little celebration!

"Threesie's face is cracked from smiling, all the fears that he's been hiding,

And it seems pretty soon everybody's gonna know.

And his voice is sore from shouting, cheering winners who are losing,

And he worries if their days are few and soon they'll have to go." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Save me from the gallow's pole! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review mentor

Hi, I just created the GA nomination review for USCO (here). It is my first GA review, perhaps you could take a look at it. My main concern is that I have not included a lot of positives: the article is good, but I thought writing "I like this part" a lot was redundant and didn't find a lot of places to specifically highlight where a certain criteria had been met well (i.e. to say "this sentence is written well, it hits criteria X well") - are there other ways of showing where you think an article is good? Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I had a quick look at the review and the article. In general, I think you've got the idea of what a review is supposed to be about; look carefully at the article and check it's well-written, factually correct and verifiable as such, on topic, sufficiently detailed and properly formatted. A couple of specific points:

• In terms of how to present the review, the whole purpose is to give constructive criticism, so by definition most of the points you bring up are going to be things that need improvement. Although I've written nearly 120 GAs, I still expect work to be done on each one I put up for review and wouldn't pretend otherwise! The only comment I'd make here is that I wouldn't directly say "This article does not currently meet all the criteria to be a good article" myself, as that's kind of stating the obvious. I'd say something like, "There are a number of issues to resolve here, but they're all fairly minor so I'm putting the review on hold pending resolution of them."
• The GA criteria does not mandate infoboxes or require any images (for the latter, see criteria 6). You can suggest both, but if the nominator disagrees and gives reasons for not having them, you can't fail the review on that alone.
• A couple of the sources don't look obviously reliable to me and I would ask questions like "What makes warholstars.org a reliable source?" (If the nominator gives a reasonable explanation eg: it's a convenience link for accurate interviews or transcriptions that are possible, but difficult, to locate in their original publication, then that's generally okay).
• I don't understand why the article needs 4-5 citations to verify something. That generally means something's wrong somewhere.
• Some of the book sources don't have page numbers. The GA criteria doesn't specifically mention this, but 2a says "enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source", so it's a de facto requirement.
• Have you checked for copyright violations? The earwig report comes back as "Violation Suspected 76.5% confidence". For established articles, reverse copyvios or mirrors make it difficult for this figure to mean anything on its own, but it does highlight some serious close paraphrases of quotations. You have suggested trimming this down, but you really need to address the paraphrasing - passing a GA with even suspected copyvios in it will cause you problems down the line.
• Finally as a minor point, "External links" needs to go below "References" (see criteria 1b).

If you have any other questions, feel free to drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll add to the review, and keep all of this in mind. Kingsif (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The only other thing to consider is that the nominator, James James Morrison Morrison hasn't edited since June, so you may not get a quick response to the issues. If you're still waiting after a week, pop a note on WT:GAN and explain the situation, to see if somebody else can pick it up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2 up 2 down with central staircase.gif listed for discussion

It took me less than slightly over an hour. While I was distracted. Without my usual Acad workspace, and with none of my usual custom scripting.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2 up 2 down with central staircase.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Any chance of leaving a personalised message here next time? Say, MjolnirPants, GreenMeansGo, I can knock up my own line drawing in AutoCAD (if I can work out where my copy at work has gone) unless one of you has got time to have a go at it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've saved a copy in case it gets deleted. I could whip one up in Acad that would use the same basic floorplan but obviously be a new work. Gimme a few days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Here you go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Does that little house really have two kitchens and no bathroom? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Lavatory opens to the "Kitchen" without any features in it. Which should be the "Yard" and will be in a moment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Ritchie. Sorry MP. The UK is dumb. I agree that no one with any common sense would create or approve of UK copyright law wrt TOO. But the courts literally ruled that this image was copyrightable. It's really hard to draw any line that's lower than that. It's hard to see that as anything but vested interests protecting the intellectual property of...four letters. But stupid gonna stupid. GMG^talk 02:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't WMF abide by US copyright law? That's where their headquarters and (primary, at least; I don't know what kind of cloud serving en.wp does) server are. In any case, it's a bit of a moot point now unless there's some problem with my newer one that the older one solves.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You are correct; that's why I haven't uploaded my rock rearrangement of "Boléro" as it's still in copyright in the US for a few years. Anyway, just to nitpick a little bit - the yard should probably be marked as a thinner line as that would be a fence, not a wall. And there shouldn't be any windows on the sides, as you wouldn't get that in a mid-terrace, though it might appear on a corner house on the end (where you might typically find a shop, as made memorable in Open All Hours). Anyway, Mr Pants you are a gentlemen and a scholar and I tip my hat off to you for doing this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I presumed the example was an "end cap" for the sake of "that fireplace really needs some framing windows or my inner architect will strangle me". The placement of the fireplace in the original file suggested the same. But I can remove them if you really like, and swap out the North-facing elevation for a pair of East/West facing ones. I decided that, since I'm doing it, I'd go ahead and make something that could be copyrighted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fence around the yard would very likely be a low stone wall, correct? If not, then what kind of fence? Wrought iron seems a bit extravagant for what this is, but then cheap wrought iron was once a thing, so I'm not sure. I mention that because wrought iron would look fucking epic on that yard, and for no other particular reason.

For the record, now that I've started, I'll likely end up drawing the whole row just because I enjoy that sort of work. If you like, I can upload it all when I'm done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well a better idea would be to keep that one as an end of terrace, and then create a mid-terrace duplicate. No reason we can't have both. As for stone walls vs fences, right I see where you're coming from, I did a google image search for "terraced house yard" and got a mix of walls against fences. Horses for courses, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I'd do a more or less mirror image for the north end unit, although I'm thinking I might put a shop in there as you mentioned earlier, then use backing side stairs and backing fireplaces on the internal units. Then publish the whole thing as a series of PNG's, maybe put a PDF collection somewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes. Sorry. Full disclosure, we've been sick sick all weekend. Like laying in bed and playing Detroit: Become Human twice through in between coughing fits. So not exactly running on all cylinders here. En.wiki and Commons are hosted in the US. I'm not sure all projects are. I can't swear to it, but I remember thinking that fr.wiki or de.wiki or something was hosted locally. Not that that matters.

If it was clearly below TOO in the US, then we could host it locally with nocommons until the public domain date if we knew it. Not meeting TOO for the UK means it's a no-go for Commons, because home-country plus host-country. But I'm not super warm and fuzzy saying that it is below US TOO. Maybe if you could show that this was a standardized floor plan. So...if there were 100,000 homes built to this exact specification 100 years ago. Then the plan itself could be shown to be PD, and the representation of it would arguably involve minimal original creativity, and thus TOO.

Obviously the new image is better in pretty much every way. The image is however, even more visually complicated than the original. So in this case, I think it's probably better to go with a CC BY SA license (which we can easily do), and that way we end-run any potential future discussions by unequivocally licensing it freely, rather than trying to argue TOO when we don't have to. Maybe that discussion doesn't happen for another 20 years, but there's no reason for it to happen ever. GMG^talk 12:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: The new image is just about the bare minimum I would consider copyrightable. There's some minor creative elements in the compass decorative knots, and the "scroll" border. Even then, the layout of the rooms (while contributing to the overall work) would probably not be copyrightable, in and of itself. Consider: a straircase in the middle divides each level into two rooms. That's it. The exact width of the staircase is up for grabs, but other than that, it's all mechanical. A computer could design this floor plan from a footprint and the description I just gave. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the Mjolnir + Pants logo might want to be copyrightable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet still, if you can explicitly license something freely, you should, rather than relying on a legal standard that itself may change. Consider that some time in the next 50 years the US changes its legal standard to sweat-of-the-brow because...I dunno...if we're being honest, probably because Disney parked six truck loads of free speech cold hard cash in front of the Capitol building. Now your image isn't free any more, even though your explicit intention was to create a free image, but you neglected to use the right template, and some poor admin in 2041 has to delete it. GMG^talk 12:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's not forget the orange goon in office that is a total loose cannon and, if he could, would probably turn around and make all copyright last indefinitely (unless it was created by Mexicans, Muslims, North Koreans, transgenders, climate change supporters and people with the surname "Clinton", in which case it would be PD). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

climate change supporters...I just imagine angry people with signs protesting the EPA yelling "Yeah! Screw Tuvalu! That's what they get for being a low lying island nation! More climate change!" GMG^talk 13:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the Mjolnir + Pants logo might want to be copyrightable.Naah. The runes are just elder furthark, and the hammer is taken from File:Mjollnir.png which is PD.

Yet still, if you can explicitly license something freely, you should, rather than relying on a legal standard that itself may change.I tend to agree. This is one of the reasons why I release my own work into the public domain when I upload it here. Sure, the CC-by-SA is good enough, but under that license, the creator still owns the copyright, and might not consider the tiny text "courtesy of Wikipedia" at the bottom of your page to be sufficient attribution and sue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the attribution bit is a pretty low bar. Re: The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner, and the standard so far upheld by the courts to define "reasonable" is whether it was attributed in a manner consistent with the use of other similar works. But there's not a huge body of case law there AFAIK, and there are lots of people (myself included) who wish more people would lawyer up and sue over it, so we had more available precedent. GMG^talk 14:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Does that little house really have two kitchens and no bathroom?" There's only one kitchen, but yes, in 1900 a typical working-class terrace house had one cold tap, an outside toilet was luxury, for more basic places you made do with an outhouse that got "empties" collected by a horse and cart (that's why there's always a connecting lane at the back of the houses), and no bathroom (you put a tin bath in the lounge, and filled it with pots of water heated on a coal fire). All outlawed by the 1950s after way too many cholera-related deaths. If you look at a run of old terraced houses, (random example) every one has had a bathroom retro-fitted on the back (houses are now legally required to have a bathroom, but the law doesn't say how it should be designed). So yes, Americans, downstairs bathrooms are far more common over here than you may think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...downstairs bathrooms... <shudders> And they say you Brits are the civilized ones... I refuse to take more than 5 steps (with no more than 1 of them being up or down) from my bed before I expect to find a toilet in front of me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"We were evicted from our hole in a ground. We had to go live in a lake!"

• "Two kitchens and no bathroom?? You were bloody lucky!".... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Adjusted prejudicial Northernist joke to comply with one-nation post Brexit agenda....

I use to live in a 3-up 3-down terrace with back bathroom extension; seriously, going from my room, across the landing, downstairs, through the dining room and kitchen in order to take a piss at 3am was not that big a deal. If you were lucky, there would be something in the fridge you could snaffle on the way back up again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Knowing me, I'd grab a beer. Then make the trip again in ten minutes... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ten minutes? I don't know if you've ever been to Clacket Lane services on the M25 (it's not exactly somewhere you'd want to go, I admit), but the gents are full of adverts for incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Never been, but it sounds like many a truck stop in my neck of the woods. I do have to say though, the ten minutes thing is fairly typical for someone like me, who is of the opinion that "a" beer is generally served in 4-6 individual bottles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There's only one way to drink beer - in a pub, served draught, in a pint glass. (Unless you're Serial Number 54129 who drinks in stereo). Everything else is .... meh. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You can drink ale that way, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin (album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin (album) 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) 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Friends Party

Grateful if you could give me a copy of this deleted page - the information in it may be usable in an article on e.g. minor political parties or within those articles in which it is mentioned (or even for re-creation if they contest 600 seats at the next election|) Emeraude (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Emeraude: Done - User:Emeraude/Friends Party Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Emeraude (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

While you're here, and since we're talking about fringe political parties can you (or indeed, anyone else) remember which constituency "Ginger Grab" from the "Jam Spreading Party" stood for in the 1997 election? I thought it was Enfield Southgate against Portillo, but it wasn't, nor was it Putney against David Mellor. Not Kensington and Chelsea either. A search for the party on Google returns no hits. Where was it? (And no, I am not making this up!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Heathcote Williams

Changing IP repeatedly removing sourced content. May require protection? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What is this, WP:RFPP2? There's only one edit today, and one could make the argument they are adhering to WP:3RRBLP and protecting the children's right to privacy. Perhaps. Anyway, one to watch for the minute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I've counted three reverts so far over the past few days. No explanation in edit summaries. But you're right that children do not need to be named if not notable. I was more concerned with the wholesale removal of the only source there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Understood; however if the edit war is slow-burning it generally requires a higher level of disruption before administrator action is taken. If you trimmed out the children but left the source, maybe the reverting would stop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I'll do that, thanks. The previous source, which I replaced, was our favourite Daily Mail. As his son Charlie was named I figured the daughters should be also. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool. And now Ritchie333's talk page will explode. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm...

"I'm pretty sure that women who like to publicly exhibit themselves in a state of undress can become popular without needing self-promotion."

I am inclined to ask as to how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rozlyn Khan was a NC? Post the relist by V93, both me and Saqib agreed that the coverage was not sufficient to muster passage of GNG/NACTOR.So, I'm a bit perplexed......∯WBG^converse 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, your arguments were weak. "Typical gossip-style-coverage" doesn't really tell us much except your opinion on the article, which is mostly covered by WP:RUBBISH. As the AfD had already been relisted three times, and nobody had really successfully challenged Oakshade's argument to keep, which I thought was the best and most comprehensive contribution to the debate, I concluded we'd run out of time to get a good challenge on that, and thus a no consensus was appropriate, in my view. Remember that AfD is about the quality of the arguments, not just counting heads! You can always start another AfD later if you don't think the article has improved sufficiently; but I'd recommend waiting a while first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm.....Typical gossip-style-coverage is about the quality of sourcing, (as argued by GSS and Sakib).So, WP:RUBBISH is a non-starter.(I agree with that and seldom mention it as a stand-alone deletion-reason, ever),And, I regret for not making myself clear-enough.

One of the sources by Oakshade at SpotBoye fails RS.In general, the entertainment sections of TOI, Amarujala et al are heavily un-reliable and mostly a variety of gossip-blog.See this and this for some example stuff, they are into.

As Saqib and GSS can attest, paid-promotion is too rampant in these circles. We had a case where an article creator of a subject (which was borderline A7) was sent to AfD and there was a near-vacuum of sourcing.Out of nowhere, he brought a TOI piece, published in the midst of the AFD and painted the subject, in the choosiest of epithets.{{U|GSS}, can you link the AfD, please?∯WBG^converse 16:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The whole article reminds me of Micaela Schäfer, which I unilaterally deleted as a total and utter BLP violating mess, but which was subsequently restored and cleaned up. I don't think it's a paid-editing piece (or if it was, it had been cleaned up by time the AfD was due to close), and I'm pretty sure that women who like to publicly exhibit themselves in a state of undress can become popular without needing self-promotion. I'll have a look at sources later and see what I can do about improving it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look:-) And I am not commenting about UPE (neither I have viewed the older revisions) but rather that much of the entertainment-related-coverage in certain media-units is in exchange of payments.But, then I agree as to the case of not needing any self promotion! ∯WBG^converse 17:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Premature Priapus AFD close

I believe that you misinterpreted the consensus at this AFD. In my opinion, it should have been relisted in any case rather than closed, because there was no clear consensus over keep by way of merge or deleting, and the keep votes didn't make strong cases. Also, no one suggested a redirect, so why was that the closing consensus? Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I could have relisted it, but there didn't seem to be much activity, and to be honest I'm not really a fan of AfDs lasting a month simply because hardly anyone turns up to the debate. Given the comments, I concluded that most people would be comfortable with a redirect. It preserves the history, so those wanting a merge can do something about that, and also stops us having a full topic, which the delete voters would be comfortable with. So essentially, it works out as a good compromise to all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. AfD closing is a bit of a black art, and it's inevitable if you do a lot of closes, they aren't going to go the way everyone wants. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I hear that a priapus going away too soon is a common problem, and that there's a pill for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and have you got a WP:MEDRS for that? Have ya? Have ya? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I've always been more prone to having Priapus show up at inopportune moments. Such as once when I was getting smoked by a DI in basic training. To say I was never allowed to forget it would be an understatement. That bastard still calls me up from time to time to remind me of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin (album)

The article Led Zeppelin (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin (album) 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) 21:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Who's for ... that the first pressing of Led Zeppelin's debut album used a turquoise typeface instead of orange? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Most of this album was regularly played in late 1968 on LA radio from a white label promo. Don't remember turquoise/orange. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a good link for the label. The white label promos were sent out to promote the group's first US tour before the album was released, so lots of people would turn up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK ineligible

Dazed and confused

Hey Ritchie, unfortunately, the article you recently nominated for DYK (Led Zeppelin (album)) has previously been listed on the On This Day section of the main page. Per DYK rules, it is therefore ineligible to appear on the DYK section.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Aughlisnafin GAC - deleted

Hey there. I created the Aughlisnafin GAC page to mark my local football club, but you deleted it. Fair enough - it didn't have a lot of content (yet).

However, → Almost every club in my county has a page, and Aughlisnafin GAC should be no different → There are plenty of local historians in the Aughlisnafin area, and plenty of historical emigration too, meaning plenty of ad hoc interest.

I would like the page to be restored so I can input more information about it, as well as the local area in general.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billdoesjudo (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Billdoesjudo: The page read, in full, "Aughlisnafin GAC was a small, rural Gaelic football club located in the eastern side of the parish of Kilmegan, bordering with Dundrum.". I would recommend using the Article wizard and create a draft page for the club first - articles in the main portion of the encyclopedia ("mainspace") are assumed to be possible to improve by anybody, and if nobody can figure out how (as was the case here) they get deleted (as otherwise they have a tendency to sit abandoned forever). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion about User:CheekyboyOli

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by User:CheekyboyOli. — bieχχ (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaving you a notice about a discussion about behaviour of a user that you have blocked a few days ago for edit warring. — bieχχ (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Rachael Bland

On 5 September 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Rachael Bland, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect of Magik Ninja Entertainment to Twiztid

You are the one who chose the final decision to make a redirect form a company to a single group , so I am writing to you. I submitted a semi protected edit request to get the page restored with evidence of how it fits the WP:NCORP standard. The issue is the label is a smaller one that is not anywhere near mainstream, so articles wont be as plentiful as say Universal records articles. What other information do I need to supply to get that page restored? Froggyfixit (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Froggyfixit: I think John from Idegon has given you the appropriate advice - you can challenge the deletion debate at a deletion review, or file a retargeting request at redirects for discussion. As the closing an administrator, I don't have any strong views on the article - if I did, I would have a conflict of interest, which would be bad). Looking at the page's history, I see a huge amount of disruptive back-and-forth editing, which is what led to the page being semi-protected. I think at this stage you're probably best of forgetting about this topic and looking at one of the other 5 million articles on Wikipedia to improve instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: So if you as the closing one shouldnt have any conflicts of interest, should the nominating one not have any? John from Idegon was the target of verbal harrassment due to his repeated deletion of linked content (not from me, I saw those last night) before he proposed deleting the entire page; and relenting to the redirect. I feel that may have created animosity there. I will challenge in the other spots you have mentioned, but if the final decision cant be biased, why can the one who initially proposed it have bias? Froggyfixit (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply put - nobody who participated in the debate said they wanted to keep the article. That's pretty much the extent of my involvement. For the record, John from Idegon should not have violated the three revert rule on 27 August, and had I been around at the time, I would probably have blocked him for it - but blocks are not punishment so doing it retrospectively is against policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Restoration of Majik Ninja Entertainment Wikipedia

Hello, one of the readers of Faygoluvers.net, a website that I have owned and operated for nearly 20 years, brought to my attention that the Majik Ninja Entertainment page has been unpublished due to unreliable sources. Most of those sources are from my website, and attributed to myself (Scott Donihoo aka Scottie D). I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that we are unreliable, as we work directly with Majik Ninja Entertainment, as well as other artists and labels that we cover.

This is the link in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Majik_Ninja_Entertainment

Please respond or feel free to contact me directly at (Redacted) with any questions. Thank you.

04:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Scott Donihoo (aka Scottie D) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.179.232 (talk)

As stated above, I have no opinion on this article, I simply closed the Articles for deletion debate. See the above reply for suggestions of what to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the level headed response. I see in the admin chat that I was accused of a conflict of interest, or being a sock puppet. I dont really like that, and it appears I was away too long ot be able to respond there. is there a way I can clear that up or should I just let it go? Froggyfixit (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Subway Challenge

Buckets of fun!

Hi Ritchie333. Regarding this edit, wouldn't we have the diffs of the legal threats as evidence if this issue were ever taken to WP:ANI? Legal threats on the talk page were already removed on four separate occasions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=858232688&oldid=858154856
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=747464268&oldid=747449238
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=736873757&oldid=736870094
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=708968328&oldid=707682616 epicgenius (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, possibly yeah. I didn't realise the text I was re-inserting was full of "fuck you I'm taking fucking legal action you fuckity fucker", (yes, I've been watching this again) so reverting probably wasn't a good idea. In general, if somebody doesn't want to be mentioned on WP, and there's no conflict of interest, and it doesn't harm the article to take it out, it's simpler to just do it. I know some people dig their feet in the ground and say, "no, it's reliably sourced!" but when push comes to shove, people are reasonable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Just another comment, the five names were originally sourced to the Guinness World Records (ref #13, immediately after the sentence in question), so that's where these names came from. I don't really care either way if the names are included or excluded, though. epicgenius (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you and have dropped a note on the talk page. I saw the report at AIV (it's definitely not vandalism), but by the time I came to write my note on the IP's talk page, Dlohcierekim had already blocked. My primary motivation for this is I believe the IP is used by a wide range of people, possibly a public terminal in a hospital. I think the semi-protection was sound, (though I would have preferred "edit warring" or "disruptive editing" over "vandalism" for the protection reason) and "legal threats" is a fair reason for a block, but 3 months just sounds like too much collateral damage, though I can't prove it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"D'ya want fries with that, luv?"

Subway Challenge? I don’t know about you, but I can never manage more than about 10 Double Chipotle Chicken Melts in under 5 minutes. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That's 'cause you're not a student, Martin. Back in the day, we had a challenge to demolish a KFC Bucket in ten minutes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

KFC and Subway? Ha! Here in NYC we have "down as many buckets of hot dogs as you can in 10 minutes" every July 4th. epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't celebrate July 4th over this side of the pond, nobody likes to be reminded of a war we lost and caused the British Empire to shrink. :-P If you're not familiar with British cuisine, when you go into a typical chip shop and ask for a "medium chips", they typically can easily go round to two people. If you ask for a "large chips", they'll probably be sufficient for a small family. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We also have the proud British folk tradition of "Nek-Notting-Nominate", which involves running to cram onto an over-crowded train while pouring a bucket of ice-cold Costa Coffee all over one's head.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Ritchie333: You closed this deletion discussion as delete, but did not delete the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like the script didn't work. Fixed now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this has happened several times to me lately. I have to double-check every time I close as "delete", which is an awful thing to do to a lazy person like me. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for being an admin who seems to genuinely care about WP (noted especially after your contribs to AfD discussions and reading your user page)! Redditaddict69 22:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Indef block, community ban

First of all, out of 14 support for block, there were 8 votes for siteban/indef ban (same things) since 2 indef blocks have been already applied on his past accounts before. Either way it is WP:CBAN and should be stated that way. Secondly your message on his talk page,[2] shows that he can be unblocked by any admin contrary to WP:CBAN which is appealed only to the community. Please fix this and also fix the blocking rational in the block log. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN: "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"." This shouldn't be treated as a normal admin action, especially when over a dozen of editors in good standing supported indef block or siteban. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: Here's my thinking. Everyone who wanted a site ban would not complain about an indef block; but everyone who wanted an indef block may not be happy with a site ban. So I do not see consensus beyond a block at this point, and since Nauriya has never been blocked before, I took the view that we should start with a lesser sanction first. I realise that all the support is being made through a profound sense of exhaustion and frustration, and that persistent copyright violators should be blocked, but I don't think we need to run straight for the ban just yet. If he doesn't appeal the block, or no admin is willing to accept any unblock request (which would almost certainly have conditions attached such as a topic ban on creating articles, uploading articles and agreement for a reblock on the first sight of any copyright problems), then it becomes a de-facto ban at that point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

He has been blocked 3 times on his 3 past accounts, indefinitely all of them still remains in the place. I am amazed that you missed such important fact because of which people supported "indefinite ban". To say "never been blocked before" is misleading.  Your explanation equates to WP:SUPERVOTE and you should instead consider turning your closure into comment if you share such a non-policy based rationale and unblock nauriya for the time being, otherwise just turn it into a siteban as already clarified by me above. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I did notice that, but I also noted that the SPI came back as "inconclusive"; if it had come back as a positive result the account would have been indefinitely blocked anyway. As we now stand, the guy can't edit, and hence can't add any more copyright violations, and it would be helpful to work with him during the CCI, which obviously as a banned editor, he can't do. I don't think Nauriya is malicious or aggressive; this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue and should be managed carefully. For now, I think our main focus should be to get the CCI underway and go and get rid of all the copyvios. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the SPI's conclusion since Nauriya admitted those "3 accounts" to be operated by him. Even on ANI, "Yes I created those accounts in 2013 and moved on with this one"[3] He was unrelated to some other sockmaster (International Shah Editor) but not his own 3 accounts that he admitted. Why one should not siteban a already 3 times indeffed editor? CCIs are well handled without the violator who is proven to be well disruptive for so many years. None of these actions are valid per WP:CBAN. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• "since Nauriya has never been blocked before, I took the view that we should start with a lesser sanction first. I realise that all the support is being made through a profound sense of exhaustion and frustration, and that persistent copyright violators should be blocked, but I don't think we need to run straight for the ban just yet.": isn't this the textbook definition of a supervote? Voting "indef block, don't ban just yet" would have been fine with this reasoning (although you would have been called out on the "never been blocked before" in that case), but closing the discussion with this reasoning, and partly based on your incorrect reading of the socking / previous blocks situation, makes this IMO an invalid close. Fram (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Opened for review now: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issues with closure. GenuineArt (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

blocked sock

Tyranny imposed You people don't realise it. These people like DBigXray, Lorstaking, Accesscrawl are eliminating their Pakistani opponents like me to spread their agenda. They done the same to NadirAli who is in a long line of list they've done it to. Many of the people in their group have been blocked in past for various reasons including socking. Accesscrawl is already suspected of socking.

Give Ivanvector's claims about Fram being aggressive, you should take their admin priveleges. Also RaviC harassed Ivan and Simonm223 over their friendship, which had already been discolsed years earlier and Simonm223's editing with Ivanvector's account as an accident. If someone's involved in meatpuppetry it is these people who had Nauriya and NadirAli banned because they show up everywhere including University of Chicago Law School where 1990'sguy and Accesscrawl supported Lostaking. Another opponent they have endlessly targeted is User:Son of Kolachi with SPI by Sdmarathe (who supported banning NadirAli) and strong claims of DUCK by DBigXray and Accesscrawl. Lorstaking continued to claim he was a sock of another user on Abecedare's talk page. Have a look yourself.

These people will start uttering they're being targeted with bad faith but don't hestitate to have bad faith on others themselves. They clearly don't come to support each other by coincidence and are doing nothing except trying to take control. Can you take any action against them or will this keep going on like a circus? Glitcher1 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

And don't listen to these people, they'll want that reports against them are removed or not paid attention to so their behaviour can continue. Glitcher1 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC) harassment Sock now blocked

Well the ANI thread is now closed; so let's move on. When things get aggressive, I like to listen to music and chill out, then think about improving an article. I've done a bit on The House of Fine Art which Accesscrawl started, and might do a bit more on it this evening. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it just me who thinks that using terms like "tyranny", "fascism" and the like to describe what may or may not be improper behaviour (I didn't investigate) on a public open-access website that is in no way essential to the life, liberty and health of its participants is inappropriate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not a joke guys. Don’t you see why multiple admins and non-admins have pointed out the strange behaviour of these people in past? Do you really think these people are coming out of the blue to support bans against people or edits on article they don't even interact with? It's not a coincidence that they’re all showing up for eliminating opponent editors, especially the Pakistani ones.

If you're not going to do anything, then I suggest you keep an eye on them. Because people like Ivanvector or Vanamonde aren't making it up that their association is suspicious. I have no personal rivalry with these people, but what they’re doing can't be ignored. Glitcher1 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC) harassment Sock now blocked

::::Richie333, re improving The House of Fine Art, this may be useful. Although slightly puzzling, as this claims to be the first to use crypto-currency..[[4]]. Irondome (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC) This [[5]] may be more useful. Irondome (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

New article notability

Hi Ritchie333. I recently created Luitpoldpark. However after reading the geographical notability essay I’m beginning to have doubts that this park is notable. What do you think? I personally would like to see this article stay and be developed, but I welcome your experienced view. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I have added information two books sources, and there is a more well-developed article on the German Wikipedia. I definitely think we should be able to expand this to at least 1500 characters to get a Did you know? nomination. SoWhy may be able to help further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I will add more to the article Monday or Tuesday and propose a few hooks. I’ve never done a DYK before so I’m hoping you can walk me through it. Cheers! Mr Ernie (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I've expanded the article, fleshed it out, and nominated it for a DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Luitpoldpark. Have a look, and if you've got any alternative hooks you think would work well, throw them into the mix. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article "Naveen Bawa'

Hi, I want to ask you why you deleted the article "Naveen Bawa" inspite of adding sources which prove its notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful14 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Helpful14: There's a simple answer - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Bawa, three people asked for it to be deleted, and nobody challenged them. Unfortunately, we can only go with the result that people ask for, so it had to be deleted. (It's kind of like that episode in The Simpsons where Mrs Krabappel reads out the student president votes - "One for Martin; two for Martin".) I can restore the article to draft space if that would help. The draft could then be reviewed at Articles for creation; if it is accepted there, that can generally trump a deletion debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bloody Mues

I see our antipodean belching friend has now branched out into some incredibly cunning and deceptive sock puppetry. Yours AuntieJean123 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel a nice tune coming on.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I roll my eyes
At all the socking (wooah-oah)
They all need blocking (wooah-oah)
Page protection too

Nice poetry :D --DBigXrayᗙ 12:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. These days we all call him "Threesie Rice". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that good sense and justice has now prevailed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Charro outfit

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Warren "Slim" Williams AFD

You closed it as no consensus. There was agreed that the page should be either merged, redirected or deleted. First keep voter User:duffbeerforme said it was OK to merge, because it does not meet GNG in this state. The other vote was a WP:PERX vote by a person who always votes keep. I think the appropiate closure here is to merge it into Tchukon. » Shadowowl | talk 09:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like much of an agreement if there are still three decisions that people want. A "no consensus" result means you can merge or redirect outside of the scope of the AfD, or start a new nomination if you think deletion is the answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I redirected it, because there was little to no content to merge. » Shadowowl | talk 12:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizna Waqas

With due respect, but I'm considering a request for a deletion review, because I believe the "no consensus" was not justified. --Saqib (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: There were few !votes, opinion seemed to be split between "keep" and "delete" and the debate descended into parties yelling at each other. That's usually a good reason to close as NC. The "Created by a sockpuppet" argument does not appear to have held, otherwise it would have been deleted per WP:G5. Looking at the article, the appearance in a notable television series suggests that deletion wouldn't be right answer. Ask the regulars at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to see if someone can help improve it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)--I don't guess a DRV will lead to a change in the outcome.NC was within Ritchie's discretion.A306 is at his usual nonsensical-best but Davey's !vote seemed a bit weird (A ping with an explanation might have led to a change... ).Renominating after some time is probably the optimum way-out.∯WBG^converse 16:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And, are we having a backlog of to-be-closed AfDs? ∯WBG^converse 16:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I asked on WP:AN about clearing the AfD backlog, and a couple of them have chipped in and done it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

inna widddly-diddly styleeee, mi bredrins

I was just wondering if you were at all familiar with this 2003 classic? A real treat for dub-wise Floydians everywhere (and full available on YouTube, of course, in case folks are curious). It's pretty cosmic. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC) widdly-diddly

Are those iron butterflies flying around this thread title? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

.... ooooh, I'd never thought of it like that before...! -- Interstellar Teapot Traveller 123 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC) " According to drummer Ron Bushy, organist/vocalist Doug Ingle wrote the song one evening while drinking an entire gallon of Red Mountain wine.

September 2018

Wilful tickling, or other uninvited titivations, may result in a loss of your editing privy ledges

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly tickle a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at this madhouse. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you think I just go and tickle anybody? Good grief, do I look like I have enormously long orange arms? I think not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not long? Are you 'avin' a turkey, or wot?? After all, you are known as the orangutan of the Hammond organ, are you not?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

...always reminds me of, 'Threesie Kings of Orient are, two in a taxi, one in a car  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

'ere mate, strike a light! I 'ad that John Henry Hopkins Jr. in the back of me Yuletide-rip-off cab, the uvver nite. ... and 'e left me a pair of is sandals an' all!" Blimey Charlie! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's created the Cockney Wikipedia. "Awight mate, you can edit this parsley and sage!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

But of course, a folk classic. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Blou (band)" article AfD closing

Greetings. You closed that AfD with a "no consensus" decision. Yet there was only one dissenting suggestion against two opposite ones. Moreover, you justified the closing with this: "Since the pre-copyvio version was restored, nobody has commented on a definitive option for the article." However, after Michig restored the pre-copyvio version, I commented extensively on the sources Michig provided, as well as other sources out there, and I believe I refuted all claims for notability. So, it's surprising to see the proposal closed like this. Do you think the closing should be somewhat revisited? -The Gnome (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The principal problem was there was so little participation in the debate. If one other person had said "delete per Gnome, who has summed up the argument well", that might have been an argument to delete; if two people had, it definitely would suggest a "delete" close. I would see if you can improve the article, then re-nominate after a suitable period of time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the informative response, Ritchie333. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

italics in page title

Hi.
I recently created Alright Now (film). The "Alright Now" in title is being shown in italics (but not the "(film)"). I was why this is happening. Do you have any ideas? TPS are also welcome to discuss. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Sup. The reasn for the italic is per MOS:MAJORWORK, and for the mechanics of it, {{Infobox film}} commits the italicization autmatically. Hope all is well. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My understanding is that Template:Infobox film automatically italicizes the title, which it takes from the "name" parameter in the infobox template. If that parameter is not supplied (it is, in this case) the template would default to using the page title as the film title, and the entire thing would be capitalized. Vanamonde (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Both of you are right. Some clever person included the mechanism in explained by Vanamonde, into the infobox so the policy gets followed automatically. Thanks guys. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

YGM

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

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Victoria line

Hello sir! Here is something I happened to have saved on archive.org. Might be useful for the Victoria line article — https://archive.org/details/op1265392-1001. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I wasn't planning to improve Victoria's article so much, but in the words of MelanieN, "Finding an article that is lacking something or needs work - well, that is like a dog seeing a squirrel, I am immediately distracted from whatever I was doing." (WP:SQUIRREL on standby). I did do a search on "London Underground" on archive.org texts, but didn't find anything useful. Day & Reed's The Story of London's Underground and Woolmar's The Subterranean Railway seem to have most of the facts; for individual stations and tidbits, M.A.C. Horne's The Victoria Line: A Short History seems like a good detailed source for everything else, but I don't have a copy. DavidCane has done a lot of tube GAs, so he may be able to advise on these. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. I must get my hands on a copy of those two books. Prog on. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Horne's Victoria line is very good on specialised history. I used it quite a lot on my recent update of Green Park tube station which has just been made a good article and is currently a featured article candidate. The others in the Illustrated History series are also excellent. Unfortunately, they are mostly out of print and hard to get hold of. Day and Reed and Wolmar provide good broad coverage of the Underground's development. I've used both extensively as sources. Antony Badsey-Ellis's Building London's Underground, is a recent book which provides a lot of technical information about the actual processes of construction for the tube lines. If you have a membership to your local library check to see if they subscribe to Gale Databases. This has digitised archives of The Times newspaper and Illustrated London News both of which contain articles that show how developments were reported at the time. The free access The Gazette website contains the London Gazette archive in which all of the private bills for new railways were published. For early lines the published bills often describe the plan line in some detail.--DavidCane (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I do have Gale access through my library card and it's invaluable. I don't think Victoria line is too far off GA; it's been there once before and had a PR since, so it was in reasonable shape when I got to it. I've got most of the history done with Day / Reed, Wolmar and the Times archive, which (once I'd gone through the relevant search results) managed to verify a lot of the unsourced content in the article. There are still some {{fact}} tags, and the technical / rolling stock information needs revising, which really isn't my area of expertise. It strikes me though, that armed with Horne's book, it shouldn't be too hard to make Victoria line a good topic, given several station articles are GA or could be without too much effort. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerda, it's literally been years since I've regularly reviewed GAs (mostly because I've just submitted a couple myself, and believe in quid pro quo, even though it's not required at GAN), and you disparage me. When did I tell you you couldn't translate Freundlich Vision to friendly vision? All I did was tell you to stop confusing us 'Mericans with fancy-shmancy stuff like calling a song a lied and to use more refs that us mono-lingual hicks can understand without using google translation. The addition of that green button-thing was done on its own, and yes, I did update the GA list. That I can do, but tables [6]? No-freaking-way! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Looks like your influence is spreading, Gerda ..... [7] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have created an article. You know about these things

"SQWIWWEL!"

Hi Ritchie hope all's good. I seem to have created my first article. Well it's now a blue link anyway. It is Saturday Zoo (TV Series). I think it's notable and will not get wiped. I did not use the article wizard. Should I just beaver away at it, and will various bots sort it into categories etc? I've only been a regular since 2012, but better late than never I s'pose. Irondome (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's already got ominous-looking tags all over it. Looking for sources now. Irondome (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it meets WP:TVSHOW : "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)". Was this the show where Nirvana went on and played "Territorial Pissings", trashing all their gear at the end? That's a DYK hook and notability right there. Let me see what I can find regarding sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah! It was also Steve Coogans very first TV break and it had John Shutteworth giving Danny DeVito and Christopher Walken some of his music tapes. I still remember DeVito's face lmao! It had some A list guests. Cheers for any help mate! Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah no, Nirvana was two years earlier on Tonight with Jonathan Ross. But yes, it was Coogan's first TV moment ("bag o' shite") and Shuttleworth, and I've got a source here that said Madonna was on it too. Give me a mo and I'll beef it up a bit more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It was Coogan's first outing of Paul 'bag o shite' Calf yep. The show is also strongly mentioned in this bizarre little spat [[8]] from 2009. Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the help Ritchie. You are a great colleague. I am just a bit paranoid that the speedy delete crowd would trash it, which would not be good for my content creation confidence :/ I owe you several dozen pints at the next London meet up. Si. Irondome (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As stated in a recent above, things like this are like a dog spotting a squirrel. I've got some admin stuff to attend to, and shopping in real life, but no - one look at that stub, and .... "SQUIRREL!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been trying to give up shopping in the real world. But I know just what you mean about squirrels. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry Martin, e/c):::::::::Glad it got your interest Richie! I love odd little things like that. I have ideas for other stuff in pop culture and other areas that has not been touched by WP. My age I suppose. I am just too bloody slow, and I suppose I should prepare my sources before creating a stub. I dunno. Now I am aware of why there is the schism between deletion and project growth. Anyway, it is scary to think something may be wiped. Gotta get my head round that. Really cool how you (and others) immediately pitch in and improve when you see something worthy. Really restored my faith in WP. Ta. Si Irondome (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry Domey. We all get fits of paranoia now and then. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Did I see a volcano mentioned here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Did you know .... that I've got an even more garwish jacket than this one?"

Well, we've done the hard work of getting it past stub-stage, so now let's think of a good hook for Did you know so we can get it on the main page? And yes, the rumours are all true - when you get a team working on an article and pulling it together like this, it makes you think that WP is something worth persevering with! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's actually quite moving. Don't laugh now! I am now reading up on DYK..Thanks everyone. Sydome. Irondome (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Am pleased to say that there are some gems on YT, including the magnificent John S aka "The Shuttmeister" with the enchanting "Pigeons in Flight". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Used to like it when we used to put up YT to express a point or just for the lulz. But we can't now, I know. (Sigh) Si. Irondome (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No, we still can if we're planning a little holiday from Wiki and want to stir up a little mini drama. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Right then ..... Template:Did you know nominations/Saturday Zoo Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow so those are the 'hooks'? Cooool! Si Irondome (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Curmudgeonly commentary - I was going to review this to encourage Irondome regarding how much fun and profit there is in article creation, but I've run into a little snag regarding the first hook. I can access Easily Distracted via Google Books, but it says that his first television appearance was on a show called First Exposure in May 1988. Am I missing something? I can't give you a page number, because Google isn't kind enough to provide me that information. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the "It was also Steve Coogans very first TV break" comes from this talk page thread, not the source, so I obviously got the two things mixed up. I've adjusted it to say it was the first TV appearance of Paul Calf, which is what it should be. The source is here if you can access that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting much deeper into curmudgeon territory than intended, but the source says that it was the first TV appearance of Pauline Calf, yes? I don't want poor Irondome's DYK experience to end up at ERRORS. <shudder> 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That was also debuted on Saturday Zoo but after Paul Calf (who had been first tried out at live shows). AFAIK, the source means the first appearance of Pauline full stop was on the show. Or we could just cut out the middle man, ping The Rambling Man and send the whole shebang to WP:ERRORS2...... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Got it. By context, I gather it appears on one page I can't access via the link. Alright, I'm going to do the review now. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, enshrined at YT, I'm glad to say (published on 31 May 2012, 70,057 views), but it is possible that "eurochrissy2" is not the true copyright owner. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A throwaway source here, but it does show some of the characters - "Simon Day and John Thomson play Bruce and Larry, with news from Hollywood." .... "Penn and Teller rodent roulette etc " (... their first time in the country? - now that might be worth a DYK hook?).. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I get that you have to source hooks, and I don't know if they were in the same episode, but how about 'DYK a rodent and a calf both appeared on Saturday zoo?' Irondome (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That's much better than the starter for two I put in - if you can get the sources, we'll have that. In the meantime, I'll run off and create WP:SQUIRREL..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Haha, what a cool hook. Not real rodents alas, only rat-traps, but at least Lazy Susan gets a look-in.... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bugger. If only we had YT, it's like we are working blind. This is a three pint problem Dr Evans...Irondome (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, I expect the high-priced lawyers over at Sue, Grabbit & Runne, acting for the penniless Mr Ross and Channel X, are even now waiting to pounce on the slightest link to a copyright infringing clip of a 25-year-old show that most people had forgotten about..... but, as you know, policy is policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bag o' shite Irondome (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that somebody once got Jonathan Woss deleted without even going to Wediwects for discussion. Witchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You are cowwect. It was the well-meaning Anthony Bwadbury I believe. Irondome (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Dilly dilly!

In case you can't get yours... here's a damps quid just for you... and don't "Dilly Dilly on the way!"

Sir Ritchie333, you are hereby awarded the Diffusing Conflict Award of Extreme Merit (with Gold and Silver Stars) [9]. EEng 13:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed I managed to find a diff of "civil and constructive manor". I see this sort of mistake more on what youngsters call "social media" (and I call "arguing with random strangers on the internet"), along with things that really get my goat like "wouldn't of done that", mixing up "were" to "where" (as Aleksandr Orlov said - "DON'T EVEN SOUND SAME!"), and "damp squid". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Damp squid?!? Allow me a LMFAO on that one. Never heard that abomination. Irondome (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's right there with 9 others! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's there! Its all true! Nip it in the butt!! That is my favourite now. Nip it in the butt hahahahahahahha!!! (snort) Sigh. Yes. Irondome (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Resign

I'll resign when he does.
Does impeachment count? What about if he resigns to avoid impe-BWAHAHAHAHA Sorry I couldn't spit it out with a straight face...

I cannot read this. Please resign.

-EEng

This is past its prime. Time for a re-sign.

This nonsense explanation is evidence that you have no business being an administrator. That "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)" repeatedly inserted unsourced, contentious content into a BLP, which you would have quickly discovered yourself had you taken just a minute to look at the recent edit history of the article. I did precisely what Wikipedia expects in this situation with a BLP: removed the unsourced content and explained why via edit summary. It wasn't a subjective matter; it was obviously objective. So when the "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)" repeatedly inserted the inappropriate content, I issued a warning on their talk page. The editor then immediately (one minute later) retataliated by issuing a warning on my talk page, even though I had done nothing improper. But she knew that a biased admin like you would see what was going on, jump in, and take the side of the editor with an account and go after the IP editor, even though the IP editor was completely correct. You took the bait. And after all the ridiculous battling, the "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)" finally admitted that she knew all along that there was no source for the content she kept re-adding, but that she just assumed it was probably true based solely on her her own beliefs and logic. And when I asked you why you issued me a block but not her, you said you didn't want to "whack (her) over the head with a silly block!" because she's been around a long time. Did you even hear yourself as you typed that? Talk about gutless. Well, guess what, I didn't ask you about blocking her. I didn't even say a word about a block. I simply asked why you didn't warn her on her talk page, as you did me? Although it's amazing I have to explain this to you, what you should've done to immediately put the dispute to rest was to simply tell her, "Stop re-adding unsourced content to that BLP. The sources do not say that!" And then you should've thanked me for protecting the article. But you took the easy, cowardly road by using your powers to go after an IP who was clearly right, and protecting an editor with an account, even though you knew damn well what that editor was doing was not only disruptive, but a clear BLP violation. Finally, you said, "And 'I am right and the other party is wrong' never gets you off the hook with a block. Actually, that's total bullshit and is obviously completely wrong. But you already know that. Do you think when there is a dispute between two editors on a noticeboard, and one is determined to be right about the issue at hand, and the other wrong, that the editor who is right is "not off the hook"? So, when you say, "the job of an admin is to try and reduce disruption and defuse difficult situations," is that what you accomplished in this situation? Think long and hard about that. Grow a spine. An admin's job is to protect the encylopedia, not editors. That is the most basic tenet of being an effective, fair and competent administrator. You did the opposite. You should resign. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered the merits of a nice cup of tea and a sit down? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

More evidence showing why you should resign. You posted your response literally within 15 seconds of my comments appearing on your page, which proves not only your immaturity but also your inability to be trusted to do what's in the best interests of this project. Resign. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The current version of Edgar Snyder says "After 32 years of marriage, Snyder and his wife Saundra (Sandy) began divorce proceedings in 2014." which I believe is what you wanted the prose to read. Regarding "Finally, you said, "And 'I am right and the other party is wrong' never gets you off the hook with a block. Actually, that's total bullshit and is obviously completely wrong" - the remark is part of the examples of bad unblock requests, which in turn is part of the appealing a block guideline, which in turn is described as "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". Furthermore, the edit warring policy says "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." - so far from being "total bullshit and obviously completely wrong", it is actually "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I timed it at 15.8 seconds. I think a resignation is called for only below 15.3. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

15.3 is the bright line standard. It's still up for debate whether 15.8 seconds calls for a resignation. 15.9 seconds is pretty much in the clear, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, hang on, 15.9 was done in the Suzuki Liana, didn't they all change when we switched over to the Kia Ceed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's true, but until you manage to up your drifting game, you can expect editors to continue to call for your resignation. How can you mop if you can't float, bro? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

But please don't be quite so waspish with the passive-aggressive and petulantly condescending tea advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You are the prince of red herrings, sidestepping the real issue: your behavior as an administrator. But you know exactly what you're doing by this tactic. It's classic trolling. The content as it stands now is completely irrelevant to this converstation. When you issued that bogus warning, you completely disregarded the fact that an editor was repeatedly inserting unsourced, contentious content into a BLP. A quick look would've shown you that. So you're either incompetent or lazy. Or you just didn't care; you saw a named account vs an IP, and you went after the IP, regardless of what the edit history was showing. You still have yet to acknowledge that what the editor did was an indisputable violation and that she was fully aware when she did it that no sources existed for that content (even though she subsequently admitted it). And you keep blabbering about blocks when no one, except you, has ever said a word about blocks. It's clear that you're afraid to even mention the edit-warring exemption for contentious, unsourced content in BLPs? Why didn't you stop it from happening? Why didn't you address it with the editor who was doing it? Why did you choose to issue a warning to the editor who was removing the bad content, but not to the one who was adding it? We already know why. Because she's a "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)". Your words, not mine. Regarding "Hang on, hang on, 15.9 was done in the Suzuki Liana, didn't they all change when we switched over to the Kia Ceed?", again proves your inability to act fairly and professionally in your capacity as an admin. You've proven yourself to be a childish little boy, afraid to directly address any criticism. I guess you'll need more help from you little friends to protect you. Resign. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Going off topic a minute, if you haven't watched the brilliant Rules for Rulers, watch it now. As you can see, the best way for rulers to optimise a democracy towards their needs is to gerrymander and bias the voting system so that your popularity is super-duper low, but your electability is, if not super-duper high, just enough above everyone else. (And, oh look at all those tax cuts, straight out of the "how to make democracy play into your hands" handbook). And that's where we are. So impeachment is still a very long shot, and heck I'm not even sure about the Dems (or even a Republican who's not a total nut-job) getting in in 2020, because I'm fairly confident that Trump will play his "the establishment are out to get me WAAAAAH" card, and he's only got to get one vote above the competition and no more. Still, unlike Brexit, it's statistically likely there will be a time when I am still alive but Trump is dead, so that gives me a ray of optimism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

One issue I take with these sorts of videos (though I'm watching it now) is that each one presumes itself to be 100% correct (Yep. It's that tired old problem again), even when they contradict each other. It's really not something that we can say "Do X, Y and Z to succeed as a ruler" and be accurate with any certainty.

That being said, the claims here seem to have some meat to them. It's describing pretty much exactly how Trump won; he got the Electoral college votes by taking advantage of republican gerrymandering and low Democrat turnout. Remember, Hillary lost that election as much as Trump won it, even though she carried the popular vote (by quite a margin, no less).

I haven't given up hope, and the current trends seem to back my optimism: Republicans in much of what was Trump Cuntry two years ago are not only getting more critical of Trump and his broken promises to bring back the manufacturing jobs they wanted, but some are even switching sides. On top of that, Democrats are mobilizing in record numbers. The "blue wave" seems to actually be a thing at the moment, though of course that might change.

The South might still be 90% Trumpsters, but the midwest is changing from a slightly purplish red to a solid shade of lavender. It's actually rather shocking.

Despite my inability to give up hope, I'm actually resigned to another Trump/Trumpesque term, though I would bet good money that an impeachment would happen before 2024.

Honestly, the best hope for America is for Trump to have a heart attack and die (which is quite likely, all things considered) before the end of his term. That, or an impeachment, because Trump would almost certain screw himself over during impeachment proceedings. Pence could never run that election against any decent Democrat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I hear he does like a burger. Rather puts our puny UK politicians to shame. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, after events of the last few years, I have kind of given up hope in the democratic systems we have being able to insulate us from stupid people. Sample comment from a forum yesterday when I complained about Brexit being economic ruin and a house price crash was "money isn't everything" (except if you're homeless and starving to death, when it does mean something). Democrats might be mobilising in numbers, but they mustn't make the mistake they did last time of putting up a candidate that is "eh" at best, and the "Trump killer" (who is basically going to get all the moderate Republicans and Libertarians to switch without losing any Dems, which is what you need to win) has not turned up yet (or if they have, they're not making enough noise about it). As far as dying of natural causes, it's possible and could happen at any moment. I'm wondering if his (current) wife is going to leave him before he dies - if you saw all that misogynistic groping and affairs over the news, and you were spending lots of time apart and not allowed to stray from the party line, you'd feel like jumping ship wouldn't you? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I never had any hope in Democracy insulating us from stupidity. But I've noticed that the level and type of stupidity is fluid, so I push for the nicer, lesser stupid.

I like you example. It reminds me that America doesn't have a monopoly on astronomically stupid political arguments. I'm still chuckling over the sheer vapidity of that.

The lack of the Trump Killer is not as much of a problem, I think. Or rather, I think most people have set their bar for whom they would consider a Trump Killer too high. Any charismatic, centrist politician who's not afraid to take on Trump's level of bluntness can do it, and Trump has certainly been making politicians more blunt. The main problem I see is the Dem's rush to push progressive candidates. Yeah, I want the Dems to move to the left, but that's not gonna win over republicans, except for a very few who feel completely disenfranchised, like minorities and women. But that's always been the case: the Republicans have been bleeding women and minorities for decades, a slight uptick won't change anything.

As for Melania, I bet there's a prenup standing between her and the door. Or possibly (just speculating here, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit) the actual threat of violence. But I would laugh my ass off if she filed while he was still in office. Maybe that would be enough to set his fatty black ticker off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're going off-topic. Because that's what you do; run from criticism and questions about your actions. It's what children do; change the subject, try to bury it, and hide. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If I wanted to run from criticism and questions, I would have deleted your edits and blocked you, yet you are still here to tell the tale. I've given you an answer; it's just not the one you want to hear. If you feel hard done by, you can raise a complaint on WP:ANI. I would suggest that the light ribbing you have received from other editors on this page suggests that nobody else actually cares about your complaint. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I dunno about that. I know I would show up at such an ANI thread and having something to say about it... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. First time a sitting Arb blocked! EEng 17:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih isn't a sitting Arb. Softlavender (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Our dear friend EEng is late with the gossips. Alex Shih (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess so. OK, well, let me rerun a similar joke from the past. [10] EEng 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the best hope for America is for Trump to have a heart attack and die (which is quite likely, all things considered) before the end of his term. That, or an impeachment, because Trump would almost certain screw himself over during impeachment proceedings But then we get Pence and honestly I think, if I believe in Satan, he may actually be him. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That reminds me of a joke. Trump and Pence are sitting around the oval office talking about Trump's critics.

Trump: The less people talking about this latest scandal, the better!

Pence: The *fewer*.

Trump: Shhh. Don't call me that in public yet.

But in direct response; like I said above. There's no way Pence could win an election against any reasonable Dem candidate, especially if he'd had a few months or a year in office already. He's further to the right than Trump is, and has none of the buffoonishness that some people interpret as "charisma". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to say it took me a while to get that joke - if you read it in a British accent it doesn't scan as appropriately as a Deep Southern one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to read it in one of those funny London accents, *tee-hee*. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Pence is the human embodiment of this scary guy. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure he's not this guy? I mean, if Pence turned up in the sewer outside my house and said he'd found the paper boat I lost as a 6 year old and that life down in the sewer was good for the economy, well ..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, clowns, even killer clowns smile too much to be Pence. Also he'd probably catch fire if he were caught in rainbow. ;) Besides, blood sucking secret vampire seems right up this administrations alley. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Chrissy. Trump himself might be a stupid version of Pennywise, but Pence is more like this guy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My new campaign slogan, thanks MPants at work!I've been reading this book and in my head it's a dystopian novel but then I remember it's real life. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Leadsoprano

Hi Ritchie333, regarding this, Leadsoprano1 (and Leadsoprano2) are not socks of Leadsoprano - it was Nsmutte being disruptive. He has created quite a lot of pretend socks of people who've been reported to WP:3RR over the past couple of weeks. --bonadea contributions talk 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

+1. These two numbered accounts are Nsmutte. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a checkuser (waves to BU Rob13) to confirm this? If so, I will reduce the block accordingly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Compare [11]. I guess I got the "simple and obvious" wrong! Bishonen | talk 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC).

Checkuser needed and endorsed, fwiw, to expedite loosening the block (I can't comment for certain that Leadsoprano is not Nsmutte, but I'm very certain of the others) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Not too familiar with the technical markers of Nsmutte and haven't looked into whether the accounts are them, but I can say they definitely aren't socks of Leadsoprano. Completely  Unrelated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP address 119.94.158.55

This IP keeps on adding fake content, for example changing names of contestants on the polish show to those from philippine version, or changing them to names of movie characters, such as Fluttershy or Frankenstein. This is obvious vandalism. Lupus28 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There have been no edits for 12 hours, so I'd leave it be for the minute. If they start up making rapid-fire unexplained changes, we can block then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ritchie. Just a question that's been bugging me. Was there ever formalised admin coaching on WP? It came up because I checked out the essay WP:TTR and it has a couple of rather enigmatic references to it. Just wondered what it's history was, and does it have a place in today's WP RfA scene. Cheers mate Simon Adler (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think admin coaching was popular back in the old days when we had 10+ nominations every month. You basically got somebody to tell you when to !vote "keep" at AfDs and up your "AfD score" and which noticeboards to post on, in order than everyone would support you. Nowadays, people can spot when you're trying to game the system, so it doesn't really apply anymore. Instead, we've got Request a RfA nomination which is more or less the same thing, adjusted for the fact we now have about 1 RfA a month, and it can be contentious and unpleasant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah right. Yep that would account for the references to it. Appreciated. Simon Adler (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Arb

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

Arbcom: Conception

Arbcom: Reality

-EEng

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Band notability

I'm not able to find evidence of notability for Thieves and Villains, but I was wondering if you could take a look before I send it to PROD or AfD. Thanks in advance, Vanamonde (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The litmus test is to type "site:billboard.com <band name>" into Google. If you get nothing back (and I didn't), then it might be an AfD candidate. A genuinely notable band should at least trip up on one search hit there, ideally showing a chart position. The nice thing about WP:NBAND is that having a hit is an easy bright line that you either have or you haven't, so it tends to stop arguments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, good to know! I'm confident in my ability to search for conventional sources, but there are obscure but reliable music sites I know nothing of. Appreciated. I've sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thieves and Villains. Vanamonde (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Majik Ninja Entertainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Old Street station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Old Street station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Old Street station

The article Old Street station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Old Street station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

With sincerity...

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

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

MaranoFan block reduction

Block reduction

-EEng

Block reduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gone awry

-EEng

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

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

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

Revision deletion

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

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

China/Hong

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

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

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

Greg Herman / Fashion Designer: Page deletion

Dear Ritchie333,

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

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

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

Best,

Robyn Davis

conversation8studios @ gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.134.91 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)