Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeni (talk | contribs) at 09:44, 4 March 2020 (→Fakenham: rp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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


The Who tour articles

Is there a reason why you redirected the articles about the Who's tours and performances before 1979 to List of The Who tours and performances? Additionally, The Who Tour 1969 was awaiting a peer review, so I don't know why you redirected that article. Chrisnait (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of merging / expanding the articles together, so I have added an "under construction" tag. The Who Tour 1969 seems to be a copy / paste of the "Live performances" section of Tommy (The Who album) - I can recognise parts I wrote for the latter article. We don't need two articles saying the same thing. A list of every single gig played is probably overkill for a general purpose encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@R333 fair enough. But I see you left a reminder for Chrisnait to H:FIES earlier. No offence, but if you had done the same when you redirected that nine-year-old article, the I wouldn't have had to find out on the bloody PR page. Wot gives?! Perhaps you are on the 5.15 :p ——SN54129 20:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the tour articles are mostly rubbish (the 1969 one having been expanded by Chrisnait is not bad, though as I've said, splitting it per year doesn't make sense) and had been bugging me for years, so this evening I decided to sit down and do something about it. I didn't realise one had been expanded and put up for PR! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not putting an {{under construction}} template at the top of the article while expanding it, because I didn't know of the template's existence until now. Also, I'll admit to using sections from the "Live performances" section of Tommy (The Who album) during the expansion, because I couldn't find a way to write certain sections of the article in a good way. Additionally, I do agree that most of the tour pages were pretty bad, since they lacked citations and were short. I was actually in the process of a long-term project to update all of the tour articles before 1979 with more citations and information, beginning with The Who Tour 1969, but now I can't, because most of the info in the pages are being moved to List of The Who tours and performances. Chrisnait (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, I apologise that I had an idea to do something about these articles about 4-5 years ago and never bothered to get round to doing it or telling anyone about it. Great minds think alike! Anyway, we now have the Tommy Tour article which has all your work. Also, the work on the other articles is not lost, and if you don't think it should be a redirect, you can follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, revert the redirect, and we can discuss it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. I'm currently in the process of expanding the Tommy Tour article. Chrisnait (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, could I please make an article about the Who's 1967–68 tour supporting The Who Sell Out? Chrisnait (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't really a "tour" in the conventional sense; it was just the disastrous Australian tour followed by months and months of just gigging without being any sort of planned tour. When you've got a band that's not making any money (because the receipts from gigs get cancelled out by the smashed guitars) then just gigging indefinitely is what you have to do. I don't think I've done much work on The Who Sell Out article itself, so that could be one to improve to GA, if you've got the source material. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the band's Who by Numbers tour? The Who by Numbers WP page barely mentions the tour. Chrisnait (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 1975-76 tour could do with an article. It was one of the longest, resulting the band getting back to their '69-71 peak, and was the first to be a typical "greatest hits" set as opposed to all previous ones which showcased new material. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the article right now. Chrisnait (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adewale Aladejana

You recently deleted the article Adewale Aladejana on the basis of been recreated, I want you to know that there is a lot of improvement on the article from the previously deleted one and the article has a lot of qualified sources which shows notability. The article was recreated with improvement and modification from the previously deleted one and as such should not be deleted on that basis. And if I did something else wrong, I would love to know how to correct it and get your advice on what to do to create the article again.Kojomo (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kojomo: In my view, the article as present in the deletion debate and the one recently deleted had roughly the same amount of content and the same level of sourcing (the original version in fact had more sources). The best option would be to restore to a draft page where it can be reviewed independently, which should surpass the original consensus to delete. Do you want to do this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I would prefer that as it would give room for improvement on the article. Thank you. Kojomo (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kojomo: Okay, that's done - see Draft:Adewale Aladejana Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Thank you. Just so you know I am open to learning, I will like your advice on the necessary things to do to put the article in order, better still, I would appreciate if you can assist in helping to improve the page whichever way you can. Thanks for your effort thus far.Kojomo (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke

Kathryn Grayson in Seven Sweethearts. Good for Dr. Blofeld's list of articles to improve, not so good as a social activity chez Vanamonde.

Hi. User @Krish990 is edit warring Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke television series since a long time stating Kaveri Priyam and Rithvik Arora also as main leads along with Shaheer Sheikh and Rhea Sharma while they originally play pivotal role as stated by many reliable sources while the sources he uses to prove his point are non reliable ones. Despite discussing in talk page Talk:Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke with reliable sources as a proof for it, he is just editing back again and again, being stubborn in his point itself stating the former two also as lead of the series. Despite him being blocked for some time by you earlier, it again continues. Could you help in this matter? Noobie anonymous (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Noobie anonymous: I'm trying to think of an editor with a good knowledge Indian romantic comedy dramas, who can go in with some authority and tell everyone to stop edit warring and chill out. Vanamonde, have you got any ideas? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ritchie, I avoid film and tv articles on Wikipedia, and I avoid romcoms in RL too; not to mentioned I'm dreadfully busy in RL at the moment...RegentsPark, do you have time to spare? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much, I just don't know who on earth is interested in that sort of thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Vanamonde. I have absolutely no clue about Indian film and tv. User:Shshshsh might have been able to help but they're not around. @Dr. Blofeld:, perhaps, has ideas?--regentspark (comment) 18:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Thanks for letting me know - I took TFFfan at face value as a new user. I'm not sure what Women in Red is and I'm still undecided as to whether I'd have time to properly carry out admin duties, so please don't rush into any nomination. Katharineamy (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Katharineamy: To cut a long story short, I can see you have semi-regularly contributed to Wikipedia for about the last 15 years, but not really in any back-end areas, and most of your recent edits seem to be tinkering around with categories, without much participation in the project space or things like deletion debates. So I don't really think adminship is a good fit. I have to emphasise that it's not a trophy or status symbol and nobody will think anything less of you as an editor if you don't go for it. A brief synopsis of Women in Red is probably better given by one of the project regulars such as Rosiestep or Megalibrarygirl, but essentially it's a grass roots project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women and correct some of the systemic bias in the project. I do the odd article from time to time (see Mollie Hughes above) but there's plenty to do. The other nice thing about the project is everyone tends to work in harmony together towards a common goal, and there's not much evidence of the typical fisticuffs and argy-bargy you see on other project space. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Katharineamy. Women in Red is a wikiproject (in 24 different language Wikipedias) which addresses "content gender gap". The scope of our work is creating new articles regarding women (biographies, women's works, women's issues). We also upload photos of women and their works into WikiCommons, and we have a strong social media presence (@wikiwomeninred). You don't have to be a member of Women in Red to participate in an event (e.g. #1day1woman), or to join the mailing list, or to voice your opinion regarding some topic. It's not everyone's cup of tea, so no worries if this isn't for you, but it's nice meeting you on Ritchie's talkpage, and I hope to see you around! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Rosiestep! We're a friendly group of people and if you'd like to join or just contribute occassionally, we'd be glad to have you, Katharineamy! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Very collegial atmosphere at WiR. --valereee (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your AFD decision reverted?

Just wanted to point out that it appears DGG reverted your closing of the Mindless Ones AFD, which resulted in a bot restoring the AFD template to the page. I'm not sure if there was a reason for this that I'm missing (hence why I've pinged DGG in case he has an explanation) but I wanted to bring it to your attention... — Hunter Kahn 04:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my error, I had not realized it had been closed. I reverted, of course. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Ritchie333,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting for AA20 (2020 film) as a draft

Hi Ritchie, you have closed the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AA20 (2020 film). The film passes notablity. We shall have to create a page in future. So can you please recover the page as a draft. I intend to work on it. Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saichaitanya4496: The consensus at the debate is that is not notable yetand consequent we should not have an article in mainspace; however I have restored it to Draft:AA20 (2020 film) so it can be further worked on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental duplication

Hi Ritchie I seem to have accidentally duplicated an article. Le Concert d’Astrée was a redirect to Emmanuelle Haïm until a few days ago, when I removed the redirect and wrote a new article. The trouble is it shows twice in my watchlist, once with no talk page and language links, and once with. Should I put one version up for deletion? I’m not quite sure how this happened (I’ve never ended a redirect before) so if I’ve done something troutworthy please let me know. Many thanks Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected the duplicate. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks and sorry for posting on the wrong page. Still half asleep. Mccapra (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest Belgian families

it looks as if no one but the article creator argued to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest Belgian families, against delete supports by Piotrus, myself, and Eggishorn, and a comment by Peterkingiron stating in part " Basically this is families recorded in a certain genealogical dictionary, I am not sure that is an adequate basis for a WP article". Wouldn't a "delete" be the more logical conclusion from this than a "no consensus"? Fram (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Sandstein’s relist on 4 February, the debate stayed open for a further nine days without comment. I therefore closed it owing to a lack of interest. A NC close like this does not prevent a second AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've started a DRV instead, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 14. Fram (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a second AfD would have been simpler, wouldn't it? Now it'll need to be delayed while we discuss this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This way at least we'll have some guidance whether the closure was correct or not, and no one can complain about rapid renominations or "why didn't you take the other one to DRV instead". Fram (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Mentor

Hello, I'm a pretty new editor on wikipedia and have just completed my first good article review (On the nominator asking me to do so directly). I saw your name listed on the good article help-mentor page which states that you're keen on geography/place reviews. It also recommends that new reviewers should contact one and therefore I'm here asking if you'd like to take a look at my first review (for the article for Mangalore). I've gone through WP:GAI and WP:GA? and tried to be as thorough as possible. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: I've read the article, but not in depth. There's nothing that would obviously cause a GA view to immediately fail, and the nominator has worked on it extensively over a significant period of time. Provided the issues you have found with wording, verification and reliability are addressed, I don't see an issue with this passing. You mention "May have WP:UNDUE weightage in the Sports section" - I think this needs to be more specific. The "Sports and passtimes" section looks quite concise and appropriate. Or was this addressed during the review? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was fixed, the sports section used to contain subsection dedicated to each sport (cricket, football, golf, etc). The nominator did fix all the issues that I had mentioned so I've given it a good article pass. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alte Liebe

Did you know ...

... that Elke Heidenreich,
two-time winner of the Grimme television award,
wrote the book Nero Corleone
featuring a tomcat
as the bullying protagonist?

15 February 2020 (her birthday)

I brought a cat to the Main page ;) - thinking of yours on the harmonium - a late Valentine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and today a bird: a bird that is normally only heard, acting on stage (well, it was the right balcony, to be precise, for most of the time, until she walked with Siegfried, carrying a little backpack) - the last reminiscence of the impossible made possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, today I have been listening to File:Ralph Vaughan Williams - English Folk Song Suite.ogg, which I recall trying to play the clarinet part in the school band when i was about 11ish and making a ham-fisted job of it. And unlike my rearrangement of Boléro with electric guitars, Hammond organ, Mellotron and Moog synthesizer, it's out of copyright so I can do a similar take on this and upload it here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes

Here in the tropics we don't often wear shoes. Mainly flipflops and never any footwear in houses or buildings. It's got to the stage that I don't care much now whichever way the cookie crumbles, not that by saying so I want to make their job any easier. When I said anything, I was accused of doubling down. Where I chose to turn off my watchlist for the rest of the vindictive tripe and turned to my piano and drum kit, it was called "no comment = guilty = desysop" by an arbitrator. Take your pick. There is no knowing how equitable the committee can be - or not, either this one or its previous composition, but they do appear to have a predilection for desysoping. Boing is very happy since he turned in his tools, so I guess I'll get along fine without them if I have to, I've handed them in a couple of times already for health related issues, and back in 2014 I took an entire 3 months off Wikipedia and no one noticed - not even the witch hunters. They only notice when you procedurally ask for for the tools back, and then they'll try to crucify you if they can. Sadly, there's a lot of truth in Money Emoji's statement. Now it's back to watching some of this - which I wrote, or this - which I wish I could play or even jazzing around some Bach and Chopin, which I can!. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely amazing how such a large, relatively new Committee can be taking so long. It wouldn't be so bad, but those who are uninvolved but who try to make it look as if they have an axe to grind, despite the pages being closed, are using the delay to keep piling on, even including the one who has become the major complainer. What a mess! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to respond to this. I don't think anyone can deny the huge impact you have made on the project, not least for persuading me that I should give RfA a go in the first place. I did say some of the comments that sparked the Arbcom case off were out of line and not acceptable for an administrator to say; however, I don't think any of them rose to the level of a desysop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Oxford Circus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Oxford Circus 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 Pkbwcgs -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thetford

Just nuked a lot of this, mainly unsourced, typical haphazard bloat. Interested in working on it sometime this week? No worries if you're busy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I have not been pulling my weight enough recently with GAs, so this looks like another one to have a crack at. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Oxford Circus

The article Oxford Circus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oxford Circus 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 Pkbwcgs -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Elham Valley Railway

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elham Valley Railway 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 Pkbwcgs -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of John DIliberto Page

Hi- I'd like to know why the page John Diliberto was deleted? And I'd like it reposted please. I am John Diliberto. There's about 500 mentions of me in Wikipedia. I am an international figure, albeit a minor one. Thanks. John Diliberto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdiliberto (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdiliberto: As the deletion log says, John Diliberto was deleted because : "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of echoes.org/about/people". See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios for more information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for A1206 road (Great Britain)

On 18 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A1206 road (Great Britain), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the names of several side roads and buildings along the A1206 (bridge pictured) in London relate to the Isle of Dogs's connection with the shipping industry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A1206 road (Great Britain). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, A1206 road (Great Britain)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Elham Valley Railway

The article Elham Valley Railway you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Elham Valley Railway for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pkbwcgs -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I don't suppose you could give this a quick review? While I'm reasonably confident I know what a GA is, I'm sceptical that a couple of underlinked sections is the only thing wrong with it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to take a look, for sure. Not sure about what happens if two reviewers conflict over sentencing, but we'll cross that bridge in due course. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wincheap

Maybe it’s the heat here in Brazil but I don’t understand — how is it obvious that the road gave its name to the suburb? [2] EEng 14:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A search for local sources (for local people) brings back Wincheap Park and Ride and Wincheap Morrisons and Wincheap industrial estate. None of which are on Wincheap. The WP:ASTONISHME factor is - a road is an inanimate strip of tarmac, how can it give anything to anything else?Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it now. The trouble is, ASTONISHME is a plea to omit the obvious, not the impossible or illogical. EEng 16:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Morrisons shopper (for local people). Maybe "Ten Perch Road" gave its name to ten local fish?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a kid I thought, “Fish Ranch Road? [3] They grow fish on ranches?” EEng 17:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That's it! I'm leaving... I`m gonna take up with ah mermaid. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, yup: fish ranching. --valereee (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prompted by your helpful post, I dug a bit deeper and learned something. When I got a bit older I realized that, of course, Fish Ranch Road was named for a ranch owned by Mr. or Mrs. Fish. But it turns out I had been right in the first place: there was, in fact, a "fish and frog farm" in the area owned by the "Oakland Trout Company". EEng 17:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary tells me that may be connected with the Jolly Rancher, which sounds delightful. (It also has a definition for fish farming, but I'm not sure we should even go there). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check your email?

I emailed you something important. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 19:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Analog Horror: I'll have a look, but unless it involves confidential information that should not be published in a public place, I don't see why it can't be dealt with here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've had a look. The page, Flying toast said, verbatim : "flying toast The Flying Toast video has more that 200000 views. about the video the 2 second video contains two pieces of toast slowly flying in the air super fast". What on earth makes that a suitable article for a global encyclopedia? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Threesie. Get down with the kids, dude. Or your tenure here as an admin is almost certainly over: [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. but you might find this useful.[reply]
"Look! I don't want any toast, and he doesn't want any toast. In fact, no-one around 'ere wants any toast! No toast, buns, baps, bagets or bagels, no croissants, no crumpets, no teacakes, no potato cakes and no hot cross buns! And definitely no smegging flapjacks!" (But Welsh cakes, absolutely...) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PREPARE

Could you unprotect this from creation, then I can move PREPARE (project) to it? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: I've moved the article directly onto it, which admins can do. The original protecting administrator is no longer around and is indeed globally locked as their account is compromised. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft/test edit

Are you able to delete Draft:Ploedf, which seems to be vandalism or possibly a test edit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (You certainly have been). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also is a Walter Brandt really needed with only one entry? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I've moved the remaining article over to being the primary, and only, topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Ere, Threesie me ol' china.... I 'ad that "extremely courteous" Ugly Patel in the back of me capital punishment cab the uvver night..... String 'em up, I say... it's the only Home Secretary language they understand! -- ChristieCabs123 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Schazjmd (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Paul McCartney Archive Collection

Hi Ritchie, I know you've done a lot of work on Beatles-related articles in the past, so I wanted to get a second opinion... does the Paul McCartney Archive Collection seem like a redundant article to you, and possible AfD? As far as I can tell, it's just a list of all his albums that have been remastered, and the two that have won Grammys for Best Historical Album, well, those can be mentioned at the respective albums' articles. Richard3120 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: I have added two independent sources and done a bit of fact checking. I think we should be able to make something of the article and flesh it out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ritchie – not living in the UK any more means I don't have access to anything regarding British music releases except online sources. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Keys: Keyboard Sounds That Launched Rock Music

I like this M3....
....but not this one.
♫ Die Fahrbahn ist ein graues Band
Weiße Streifen, grüner Rand ♫

Thank you Ritchie333 for your intervention with MrOllie. I would welcome you or an editor of your choice making an assessment of Classic Keys and its relevance to keyboard articles. There are a number of starting points embedded in the paragraphs I wrote on MrOllie's talk page. However, I'm happy to answer any questions you have. There is an overview website at www.classickeysbook.com and the Amazon US listing contains 21 reviews from readers. David Robertson Docrobbie (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Docrobbie: As a source, it looks fine - the book has had a positive review in Sound on Sound and their trustworthy and independent view is it's well researched and clearly written by subject experts. I would have to get a copy and read it myself in order to determine its factual accuracy, and would need to see if it adds anything over and above the sources already used in the articles. In particular, I would like to compare its Hammond coverage over Scott Faragher's book, which is what is currently used and is (IMHO) the definitive source for the instrument. I have long wanted to get Wurlitzer electric piano to good article status, and this source may be the missing link I need to do that. I don't know what on earth MrOllie's playing at, he's going to end up blocked if he carries on ignoring the substance of an article and just parroting rhetoric (and that's not a threat, that just a plain old observation). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the website and .... wow, the book has been endorsed by *gulp* Rick Wakeman, Donald Fagen, Chuck Leavell and Steve Nieve. Just missing Tony Banks (but he's never been one to look back on old gear). Never mind reliability, I want a copy for my own personal enjoyment! I also had a look at another website and invite Serial Number 54129 to leave a witty remark in response. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Considers establishing a reputation for being sarcastic-on-demand about minimal content creation combined with a reliance on automated tools; realises it would set the seal once and for all on my reputation as an utter turnip-head* ——SN54129 11:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*bang* give me a witty comment or you're dead *bang* give me a witty comment or you're dead, my lord. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ritchie333. It was a great relief when you joined the discussion. I was ready to walk away - and I regret to say I was honing some parting words. I'm relieved that you like what you see of Classic Keys so far. I do hope you can lay your hands on a copy. It is, of necessity, an overview of mid to late 20th Century instruments winnowed by the significance of the instruments' sounds to use in rock music. While there are clearly more complete single-subject accounts of instruments, such as the Hammond organ, the Mellotron and the Moog synthesizer, this is, as far as I'm aware, the only "complete" discussion of this era of keyboards (besides the two overview chapters in Vintage Synthesizers). I'm a hobbyist restorer of keyboards. It's my restored Pianet N that is sampled on Nord's collection of vintage instruments. I've contributed various innovations to the vintage keys restoration world - such as the hammer alignment tool that Clavinet.com now sells. And Vintage Vibe has used my replica Vox Continental vinyl in a few of its restorations. As I pointed out to MrOllie, writing a book about Classic Keys is not a path to wealth. The amount of money earned from the exercise is in inverse proportion to the amount of effort spent. Amazon is making good money. The publisher will, if they are fortunate, break even. And Alan and I are effectively giving away $100 with every copy sold. I assume that it will still not be acceptable for me to revert MrOllie's reversions of my additions of Classic Keys into the Bibliographies of keyboard articles. I hope you find sufficient value in the book to feel comfortable editing it back into the relevant locations. If you want to carry on general discussion of vintage keyboard things that you feel are inappropriate for Wikipedia discussion pages, my contact details are in the book, or self-evident in my author biography on the book's website. Docrobbie (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Docrobbie: I'm glad to hear that. The more I looked into the situation, the more impressed I have been with your track record, to the extent I would now trust your history and technical knowledge of the Hammond over my own. It did not take me long to identify your expertise in this subject and your receipt of the Queen's Birthday Honours in 2014. I've been a Hammond player for about 30 years, not in any bands you'd have heard of, just local party / function / wedding stuff, but I've always found the older electromechanical keyboards easier to set up and play something in a band set up that digital synths just don't seem to be able to do. A consistent talking point at gigs is "wow, how do you get that Hammond sound". I use a Nord Stage 2 as my main sound board (I'm on the Nord User Forum but I don't have much to post about). Anyway, I've got a bit of a gripe with Amazon; is there anywhere else online I can order the book? I've already put a link to the website on my personal Facebook page with the simple intro "Want this", but Christmas is a long way away......
Anyway, per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments I am happy for you to use the book as a citation in keyboard articles; for example if page 123 contains a detailed description of the features and mechanics of the Farfisa Compact Duo, and you add {{sfn|Lenhoff|Robertson|2019|p=123}} to Farfisa#Compact_duo (see Template:Sfn for an explanation of how to cite books using shortened footnotes with Harvard referencing), I would not have an issue with it. If you get any problems, contact me and I'll address it; it's unusual for subject experts to edit Wikipedia articles and that's why some editors get confused, but in this instance the source has been independently checked out.
@MrOllie: This is the second time this week I have found you have been actively disruptive and driving subject experts away, and I see from a quick perusal from your talk page that is far from the first complaint on this that you have received. So, please take this advice - stop and think. Read the source material you are presented with and at least attempt to understand what it says; don't be quick to assume bad faith on anyone who talks a reasoned argument. Don't parrot policy at new users, it's not helpful; instead look at what is best for the encyclopedia, then if you aren't sure, refer back to policy as a guide to how contentious situations can be resolved. On a number of occasions, you have come close to violating the three revert rule, and I'll remind you that if necessary for the good of the project, you can be blocked for that just like any other editor can. I know we all specialise in different areas, we have content creators, gnomes, copyeditors, vandal patrollers and sockpuppet investigators, but we all have to work together, and frankly you are coming across as not just ignorant, but proudly ignorant, and that is a completely incompatible attitude with the teamwork ethic that we need here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheapest available copy at the mo, fyi ——SN54129 17:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Peter Kay put it, logged in, bought it, f***ed off.... estimated delivery 7 March???? Ah well, you get what you pay for, I guess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a consequence of photographing and assembling the book I ended up with seven tonewheel Hammonds, including, remarkably, the beautiful B-3 and M-3 organs shown in the book. I had given up the thought of ever owning one, but, over a few years, formed a friendship with the owner before he died - all stemming from an initial request to simply photograph the instruments at the owner's house. I have never played one in public, and I don't consider myself to, in any way, be an expert on Hammonds. Alan and I had to pragmatically divide the research and writing tasks, and Hammonds are his great love - so, if there is debate to be had, you'll have to take it up with him. Alan has a journalist background. So, as is his way, in the course of the project, he became close friends with many of the significant Hammond techs in the US and spent many hours fact checking with them. He spent some time interviewing Sal Azzarelli before he died and was able to find safe homes for his valuable collection. Thanks for the link to The Advertiser article. I'd forgotten about that. They must have used a file photo of me because I also don't remember being that young. I assume from your sign-off that you bit the bullet and bought a copy of the book? That long quoted delivery suggests that the company is not actually holding copies and will order it from the relevant distributor now that you've ordered. I do hope that the UK distributor is holding copies and that you'll see it sooner than expected. Regrettably, the fastest way would have been through Amazon US. The book industry is extremely US-centric. While I'd love to see Classic Keys included in Bibliography entries, I think the safest path is for me to back away from Wikipedia and leave things to your judgement once you've assessed the book. I will see emails sent to my business Icarus, and will welcome any correspondence. Thank you for your help. Docrobbie (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fakenham

"I bet there's a billionaire trainspotter out there somewhere!!"

Hi, can you find something for a transport paragraph on this? There is some info in the history but wasn't sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: There is unquestionably a significant amount of detail you could add about the stations; the problem is, as usual, all the good sources are offline. I am absolutely confident that The Directory of Railway Stations: Details Every Public and Private Passenger Station, Halt, Platform and Stopping Place, Past and Present will cite the opening and closing dates of both stations, but I don't have a copy (Redrose64 does, I believe), and the library's copy is "reference only" so I can never take it out. I think it's high time I actually bought my own copy given how prone I am to citing it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheapest available copy at the mo, fyi ——SN54129 12:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it doesn't look like the sort of book you'd reprint in paperback. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But comes with free gift? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Berkshire Maestros

You never know, you may win it during the Destubathon :-) Thanks. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk tsk, Blofeld, that's paid editing and will get you teh banhammerz. :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I bet there's a billionaire trainspotter out there somewhere!! Looks better now. I'm strongly tempted to blast St Albans sometime..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've used my copy of Butt to amend both Fakenham East railway station and Fakenham West railway station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Redrose, that's very helpful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a bit on transport for Watton, Norfolk to finish off what I did, no more for a while now, I have a contest to run soon!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can. In the meantime, I'm having a quick look at Berkshire Maestros (which sounds like a second hand car dealer, if I'm honest) to see if it's salvageable before it goes off to AfD ... again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'm picturing a car dealer who looks like Eddie Hearn too! Crap name, but it looks just about acceptable to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to add the articles to the bottom list too, that's the most important thing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. Had look at Taunton Deane services but I can't think much to write about other than "Taunton Deane is a service area in the middle of nowhere. If you're here, you're probably heading from the Midlands or Bristol to somewhere nicer, but are just busting for a wee, so you had to stop...." anyway, you get the picture. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some ten years ago there was a mass AfD for articles on motorway service stations (Taunton Deane was in the list), and Jeni (talk · contribs) was rather miffed as a result. Anyway, most motorway service stations are in the middle of nowhere, for several reasons:
  • land requirement:
    • they need a lot of space since the car parks, fuel retailers, and refreshment franchises all need to be within the site
    • land is cheaper out in the country where compulsory demolition (with attendant compensation) is much less likely
  • they like to have the service areas at fairly even spacing, and the large towns are randomly spaced
  • there's no point putting them near large towns
    • towns usually have all the necessary facilities already, albeit spread out and not one self-contained site
    • with a few exceptions, service stations don't provide access from the motorway to the outside world, so the lack of a nearby town is not a disadvantage
Look at the earlier service stations on the M6 - Hilton Park, Keele, Knutsford, Charnock Richard. All named after villages or small towns, all about thirty miles apart. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me? Miffed? Never! Just remember, you can get a service station to GA status, been there done that! Jeni (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sandra Pinel

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

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I can't for the life of me remember why I started this; any ideas? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: do you think it was part of an editathon? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

Plenty of music on my talk, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Romford Garden Suburb

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Underpass Festival

Hi there - attempting to set up a page to act as an archive for the bands who have played Sheffield's Underpass Festival - an annual festival starting this year.

It'll be a very similar page to the existing one for Sheffield's Tramlines fest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramlines_Festival

You took the Underpass page down the other day - is the issue that Underpass Festival needs to have happened before we can have a wiki page?

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23Copley23 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@23Copley23: Wikipedia is a repository for historic information for researchers to look up. By definition, a festival that hasn't taken place yet is not going to have any coverage, so it's impossible to write a neutral and balanced article on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&oldid=943867873"