User talk:Ritchie333

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

Richard Wright

Please get familiar with policies before reverting. The WP:QUOTENAME guideline justifies my edit. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Why does it, and what material difference does it make to the end reader? In fact, the article as it stood adhered perfectly to the guideline (not absolute dogma) mentioned in WP:QUOTENAME, so you are edit-warring over something cosmetic and pointless. I see from your talk page this is far from the first time you have been in hot lather, so may I suggest taking a deep breath and realising that some hills are not worth dying on. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's funny that you write "mos" as your edit summary, but when I give you THAT MoS section, you suddenly change your tone to "not needed". Please make up your mind – are you following the MoS or don't. As for edit-warring, I'm not doing that at the moment and there's nothing about that on my talk page aside from ANI notice, which was brought up, because someone completely misunderstood me, but that's none of your business. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine, I'll write the article as requested in the below thread, you just waste time moaning about inconsequential edits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Rhondda by-pass

Two flakes please, Dai.

Hi, when you've finished battling idiots, any chance you could create an article on the Rhondda by-pass? here. There's some notable bridges built too which are missing I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Bore da, that's done. Personally I think the Rhondda is best admired from a distance, such as one of the laybys on the A4061 (provided your ice cream doesn't get accidentally consumed by a passing sheep). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice one. I wasn't sure if it was already part of a road article on here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it, I think the mountain roads are obviously notable because of the engineering / unemployment relief, the urban streets just sprung up to accommodate miners and are nothing specific beyond a cursory mention in the history of the area, while this is something different altogether. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Shrove Tuesday

...and they said we didn't give a toss about article quality - pah!

Hey, stop shroving! –EEng

Does this now pass muster? We hope (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a couple of unsourced paragraphs, and then we're done. Cheers for helping out! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

... and now we're all done. Hurrah - extra lemon all round! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Spam?

Why did you remove my question as spam? I just asked for help with the wizard. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The "spam" was the, er, spam in the section above yours, which was what I meant to remove. I've restored your bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Shelby Cragg‎

Just going to point out that having sources is not a valid reason for declining an A7, especially when one is merely an acknowledgement and the other is basically social media puff. Working on two web comics and being an intern for iTunes does not constitute a claim of significance; that constitutes a job. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:A7M#CI, it is a valid reason. It's not a valid reason to !vote "keep" at AfD though, which is why I recommended a full discussion be raised there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Essay != Policy, especially not one written almost entirely by a single editor, which is, on its face, contrary to or entirely beyond the standards established in the relevant policy. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's throw policy out of the window and focus on good old-fashioned common sense. Way back in the early days of WP, we decided that you shouldn't delete stuff without a discussion. So why do we have speedies? Well, it's because sometimes a deletion debate on things like "Susie is my pet cat. She is small, ginger and likes fish" is a complete waste of time. However, because you are short-circuiting the usual consensus process, you need to make sure what you are deleting is absolutely water-tight and beyond question. If you have any doubts whatsoever, kick it to a full discussion. Since the article is not (AFAIK) a blatant copyright violation, an attack page or vandalism, it will not hurt to leave it around for a few days - we're not exactly short of disk space. (I need to write myself an essay, I've said the preceding prose to I think 4 different editors now). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If it is your opinion that this is the case, and the criteria of Has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sources should be added to A7, that is a perfectly reasonable argument to seek consensus on at WT:CSD, and your rationale above may be a perfectly solid one for supporting it. But currently, having sources with no credible claim of significance still qualifies, in the same manner that making a credible claim of significance with no sources is still disqualifying. Having had this discussion with four different editors may be an indication that your current interpretation of policy is out of line what guidance policy actually gives. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go through CAT:CSD and delete everything per WP:CSD#A7 and tell all the article creators to fuck off to Facebook. Thanks for the advice! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because that's a fair interpretation of what I just said, and not at all hyperbolic. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having a bad day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

George W. Hooker (Medal of Honor)

Hey Ritchie--I need a small favor. As a classroom demo, I moved this draft into mainspace in the wrong way, by copying and pasting. Can you please delete it, saying "test" edit or "gross negligence and incompetence? Ta! Dr Aaij (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Where did you cut and paste it from? The article seems to meet WP:MILPEOPLE so I'd be reluctant to just delete it - what you want is a history merge from the draft. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User space--it's User:Aporter90's work. Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Also, a copyvio (and promotional to boot) was introduced into our beautiful project here--with thanks to User:Michaelgav09. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it. There are little copyvios all over the place on WP; here's one from a few days back that had been kicking around for years. Unless it's stamped on quickly, it spreads to mirrors, at which point the copyvio tools will mix up the real positives from the false ones, making an automated check impossible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your quick help, To The Benefit Of Our Beautiful Project. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I was beginning to wonder if I was actually a fuckwit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Gosh, where does the time go? Well, my aims for this year are to have 100 confirmed GAs, and get Category:London Monopoly places to Good Topic status - only a few articles left now.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good goals! I would have liked to have a TFA on 2 February, but it's still open, in case you want to comment peace and joy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Marshlink Line

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marshlink Line

The article Marshlink Line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marshlink Line 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Sofiano

The deletion of this page was proposed by another admin on the grounds of notability, which I then contested on grounds of the fact that I was still editing the page and adding sources, plus the evidence that I had created two previous Burkinabé musician articles which survived the patrol and demonstrated my confidence that I was attempting to make notable musician pages that meet criteria. Now that it has been deleted for this other apparent reason of unambiguous advertising/promoting, it is unknown if my contestation was seen, let alone replied to. I would like to request to have back the original source code of the page revision which you deleted, firstly so that I can continue to improve and build it as I was doing so, so that it meets criteria, and additionally on the grounds that the reason it was nominated for speedy deletion was not the same reason that you deleted the page for, meaning any contestation I made must not have been regarded by you, the deleting admin; however, correct me if I'm wrong. Indeed, nomination for speedy deletion allows any admin to delete an article at their discretion. However, there must be a reason for an article to be nominated, a reason which must be stated beforehand and which legitimises the speedy deletion to take place on the grounds of that reason. The reason you deleted it for was not that for which it was nominated, making the deletion seem to have been unwarranted and arbitrary. I would, therefore, also like clarification on how the revision was unambiguously advertising and promoting, instead of, as was intended, being ensured to have notable sources and relationships to make it qualify for the criteria it was initially reported for. Thank you. SpikeballUnion (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@SpikeballUnion: I have restored the article to User:SpikeballUnion/Sofiano where it can be worked on, and on a closer look I agree it doesn't meet the criteria for CSD A7 or G11. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the restoration of my article. As advice for the betterment of my editing in the future, please would you be able to clarify why the current revision (not the one that was nominated for speedy deletion) didn't fit notability guidelines in your view, and, indeed, didn't fit your criteria reason of unambiguous advertising/promotion? Thanks again. SpikeballUnion (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about A7, since I didn't agree with that in the first place; as for the G11, I think it was because the writing had vague claims about "generally encompasses the afro-zouk and coupé-décalé genres" and "contributed greatly to the beginning and later success of Sofiano's musical career" without having anything of clear substance that demonstrates without doubt this is a good topic for a worldwide encyclopedia. The best advice I can give you for musician articles is to read our notability guidelines for musicians and state the claim to notability in the very first edit. Something like "Sofiano is a musician for Burkina Faso. His 2014 album Dossé reached number 'x' on the 'y' chart and reached critical acclaim by [newspaper] and [magazine]". Stick to the basic unquestionable facts. I realise this is easier for certain classes of musicians than others, but that's basically the direction you want to head in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take that into account. SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A short rant about deleted stuff

This is in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MinkaXXX and the related discussion on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_MinkaXXX ... this is probably more appropriate for the AVEN forums, but I just despair that somebody really thinks the subject of the soon-to-be obliterated photos are actually attractive, and not just severely unhealthy and borderline self-abusive. Sure, I think some women are really nice looking (exhibit A), (exhibit B), and I don't mean that in a mysoginistic / disparaging way at all, they just present themselves well in public, and the sort of views and ideals they have strengthens that. Anyway, rant off, pages speedied. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be all over the news at the moment too - US Marines accused of sharing nude photos of female colleagues, Is Emma Watson anti-feminist for exposing her breasts? Somebody will be creating an article (List of breast baring controversies?) at this rate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Liverpool Street station

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I never get to see that nice view of Liverpool Street, I just use it to change from tube to mainline. Actually, I don't even do that anymore as I tend to change at Stratford or West Ham these days. Ho hum. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Liverpool Street station

The article Liverpool Street station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Liverpool 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 Esquivalience -- Esquivalience (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Enemies of the people

 

This user hates the Daily Mail and thinks any publication that claims "using Facebook causes cancer" is about as trustworthy as Jimmy Savile in the Cheltenham Ladies' College.

I have to say I was surprised. I have begun a discussion at talk:Enemies of the People#Aftermath, let's debate it there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if you don't agree on stuff, the blog post I linked to is worth reading anyway, it really is (or at least should be!) eye opening, which is why I thought it was important for this article to exist. Since then, Wikipedia has banned the Daily Mail, and while I don't personally agree with a total ban, I say good riddance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

How to decline a Speedy deletion?

Hi Ritchie, I hope you can point me to the instructions on the procedure for declining a speedy deletion. I have not been able to find it. I've been cautiously getting involved with various admin tasks since my RFA, this is the first time I have made a decision to refuse a speedy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's a specific procedure other than just undoing the edit that adds the speedy or manually removing the {{db-meta}} derived tag. Normally, I will suggest further action in the edit summary eg: "decline A7, does not apply to buildings / books / arcade games / public parks etc", "decline A7, one source, try PROD / AfD", "decline A7, has a claim to win an award, try PROD / AfD", "decline A7, notability clearly established" or (when annoyed) "decline A7, did you actually search for sources?" (warning, this last one should not be used unless you are planning to 5x expand the article and send it to DYK ;-D) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, so it's quite simple, I will explain the reason in the edit summary. BTW, I think maybe WP:DGFA should say something about this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I misread that as WP:DGAF ;-) ... but if you feel it would be helpful to add it, then go for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I am new here. I received a notification saying "decline A7, has sources, try PROD / AfD" from a man named Richie.. What does this mean? Archiveworld (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of South Circular Road, London

The article South Circular Road, London 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:South Circular Road, London for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Grondemar -- Grondemar (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Questionable blocks

I had my doubts about you as an admin before (as you know), and your labeling of my block of Singora as "questionable" only reinforces this (I was aware of your opinion on the Cassianto block, where you clearly aren't objective and who you should never have unblocked in the past). Furthermore, try to be honest when you write ANI reports in the future. " I have previously banged heads with Fram when he felt that telling another editor to "fuck off" was acceptable" is not true, you have banged heads about that comment because you apparently didn't know the difference between a personal attack and an uncivil comment. Fuck off is an uncivil comment, what Signora wrote or what Cassianto reinserted were personal attacks. Please (re)familiarize yourself with our personal attacks policy and definitions, and don't start pointless ANI sections which will only backfire in the end. 09:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Everyone else had forgotten about this and gone back to writing an encyclopedia. Now run along and fix something on WP:ERRORS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"everyone else had forgotten about this" is a rather ironic comment from the one who raised the Cassianto block weeks after the fact. But thank you for your command on how I should use my time on Wikipedia. No idea what I would do without you... Fram (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You could fix all unsourced and questionably sourced content on MS Herald of Free Enterprise (sank 30 years ago this evening) then add it to the main page under "On This Day", and I would be very grateful, as would several other editors. I don't think I have time myself. But seriously Fram, you do good work around here and ultimately we are here to write an encyclopedia, so I just find it impossible to carry grudges against anybody. Peace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Andrée Algrain

Regarding the speedy delete tag for this article, the askart source isn't a reliable source, so I removed it. There are no news articles, no mentions in books, nothing in JSTOR, etc. The only sources I am finding on the internet are sales sites and genealogy sites. This isn't even a close call.

Your reason for removing the speedy delete tag is that "world famous in Belgium", may have a source - where does it say that? What does world famous in Belgium mean?

By the way, I am a member of the Women's artists wikiproject and have saved, created, and improved a lot of articles about women artists.—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, both of the sources that were given are not reliable sources - one is a sales site and the other was askart.—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"World famous in Belgium" is a humorous paraphrase of Mel Brooks' To Be Or Not To Be's "world-famous in Poland", which in this case means "there might be sources in Flemish or French to support this subject, so a full discussion at AfD is best". The standard for A7 is pretty low, and basically I will only delete an article per that criteria if I am certain nobody will never reasonably complain about its deletion. For everything else, a full discussion at AfD is best. In this case, it's likely that the subject's notability (if there is any) occurred well in the pre-internet era, which means a search for sources may not turn up much. It never hurts to have the full deletion discussion bar a couple of criteria (most obviously A10, G3 and G12) where there are legal problems for the article existing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a way to go. The resources are severely strained for both the NewPagesFeed and the AfD process and it's hard to keep up with the mountain of new articles. Particularly if those decisions are not upheld like Abigail Keam, which at least has a stronger case for notability, although decided not enough to warrant an article.

For what it's worth, this is discouraging work to begin with, but these kinds of efforts seem to me to make efforts to keep meaningful content and remove non-encyclopedic content much more difficult. I see why the NewPagesFeed is getting so backlogged and there are fewer people that are actively patrolling.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a serious problem - what we should be doing, and what traditional policies and procedures encourage, is helping improve articles and fixing them up wherever possible, but with the increasing backlog at NPP, that's impossible. FWIW I think I usually accept far more speedies than those I decline - of the 3,000+ articles I've deleted, I would say most are CSD A7s. In all seriousness, you may want to think about filing a request for adminship which will allow you to help with the CSD backlog. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I spend far more time working on articles in the NewPagesFeed than applying CSD tags. I will think about the RfA.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I will need to do a thorough check, obviously, but having had a quick look through your article contributions, and your NPP work, and that we're having admin-type conversations right now, I think you have a high chance of passing an RfA. Paging Kudpung and MelanieN for second and third opinions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie, and hi, Carole. Ritchie, I have done my usual workup and agree that she is an excellent candidate, but I prefer to hold such discussions off-wiki. Carole, if you think you might consider RfA, send me an email and I'll talk about my analysis, strengths and weaknesses, etc. And don't be shy; both Ritchie and I had to be "dragged kicking and screaming" to considering adminship, but I think it has worked out well for both of us. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN, I sent you an email. It would be good to hear your thoughts.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Tibbo

Today, I added an entry for Tibbo, an international group of companies for IoT hardware and software solutions.

I do not really understand why did you mark it as a speedy deletion nomination without even contrast it.

Just trying to help a bit doing the Wikipedia a better place with wider information, and at the same time improve my Wikipedia editing skills. But with decisions like this, one prefers to go and work in other more productive stuff.

Best Regards.

--Newtomi (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Newtomi: I didn't mark it for speedy deletion, PKT did, though I disagreed with the specific criteria. In this case, the language used by the article, eg : "Tibbo, an international group of companies, is a leader in hardware and software solutions for the Internet of Things (IoT)" seemed to be more relevant to a press release than an encyclopedia that we hope will be around in 100 years time, and therefore I felt it met the speedy deletion criteria for blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everything, which is why we don't have an article on Bybrook Barn Garden Centre or Newnham Court Shopping Village. What makes this company you are trying to advertise as significant as Microsoft or Google? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I was NOT trying to advertise anything. As I already said, I just was trying to learn some editing skills and improve Wikipedia. Never mind. --Newtomi (talk) 11:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Newtomi: The best way to do that is to take existing articles and improve them; just about anything assessed as start class is a good place to begin. Or have a look at the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement project; where a group of editors get together and work towards improving an article as a team. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Tjzhjw

They've already contested a PROD and a CSD on their articles, and seem very determined to post their articles on here. I think their articles are pretty bad, to be honest - very promotional, taking for granted that it's some kind of genius idea, lots of details about research methodology. The CREATE Program article is really just a copy of this. I'll think about it in a bit when I get the chance. Let me know what you think. Blythwood (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Blythwood: I have tagged both articles as WP:CSD#G11 - we'll see what happens next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

deleted page Sylvain Seccia

There is a mistake. Where is the page? latest version before deleting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagw (talk • contribs) 12:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lagw: Unfortunately, I ran the page through a copyright checker and it seems the majority of the text was copied wholesale from Seccia's website. As you can see at the top of the text area when you make an edit, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" and that's what happened here. I'm afraid I cannot and will not restore copyright violations anywhere, as it is against the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Service. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Without proof? Your copyright checker and you have all rights? I just want to check the latest version of the deleted page. And I don't see any copyright reference on that website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagw (talk • contribs)

The copyright checker can be installed by adding User:The Earwig/copyvios.js to Special:Mypage/vector.js, or the main landing page is at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/. Wikipedia uses the CC-BY-SA copyleft licence, which means anything you add can be freely redistributed and sold. So if somebody wanted to create a book called "The best of Ritchie333's Talk Page" and sell it for $1,000 a copy, there's no legal reason they couldn't. So unless a website explicitly acknowledges a CC-BY-SA or similar Creative Commons licence, it cannot be used in Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: And what was the percent of the checker result? I think you lie about the true reason. I tested Hillary Clinton with the copyright checker (Violation Possible: 70%). 70% seems to be the majority. And it's funny because this website says: "Copyright, Attention: This website and its contents contain intellectual property copyright materials and works belonging to the National First Ladies’ Library and Historic Site and to other third parties. Please do not plagiarize. If you use a direct quote from our website please cite your reference and provide a link back to the source". So please delete Hillary Clinton page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagw (talk • contribs)

That's almost certainly a reverse copyvio where another website has copied Wikipedia; the tool doesn't work well on established articles, only new ones. However, if you really think there is a major case to be made for plagiarism, go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems and make your case. "I think you lie about the true reason" .... why on earth would I do that? I'd much rather restore articles wherever I possibly can, as it makes for a happier environment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Bruh

Yo dawg you deleted my page about Jacob Auge. This information is true. I know Jacob and his family and have gather these resources through local libraries. So please check your facts next.

Thanks, Angry Wiki lover — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDaddyLewis (talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how you feel about people removing these things, so I'll leave it, but FYI I've blocked this joker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence of your brief "article" was "He has held the part since the play first started and can still be seen playing Frank every Monday and Thursday night at the VFW bingo hall." This is as realistic as Trump's inauguration crowd estimates. Cheerio. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Law Society

Hi, this page was speedily deleted but I think it has grounds to be re-instated. I can see it was deleted in the past however I think it would benefit from being resurrected. What is the means by which I can revert this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Law.archive (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Law.archive: You're probably right; however, since the article has already been to a deletion debate twice, a new version of the article is going to have to show beyond any reasonable doubt that it is a truly important topic to have in a global encyclopedia. I have moved it to Draft:Oxford Law Society where it can be worked on, with some links to help pages that may assist you in improving it. I would highly recommend you gather some detailed reviews of the society in nationally-distributed newspapers such as The Guardian (if they exist) that go into considerable depth about the law society as a main subject. (I wonder if it's ever been named-dropped in Morse or Lewis?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

One reference in the Guardian found, which I have added [1], but it is a passing reference - the society is definitely not the main subject matter of the article! WJBscribe (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not bad for a random guess! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks Ritchie, I'll do some more research on it and try and come up with a substantive article. Will comment on here when I am done - perhaps you could direct me towards the steps towards reinstatement once I have done so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Law.archive (talk • contribs)

Basically, when you are ready, click on the blue button that says "Submit your draft for review", and it will go into a queue (this can take upwards of a week because of a backlog, so make sure you are a ready to avoid having to go through the process again). If the reviewer considers the draft is ready for the main part of the encyclopedia, it will pass, otherwise you'll be told what the problems are. Get as many sources on the society as you can that are broadsheet newspapers or books, and put them in the article - the more comprehensive the draft is, the better chance it has of being accepted. You can work on the draft indefinitely - there is no deadline. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for moving back

At Marshlink Line. Better than the typical lack of reaction. But maybe comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Marshlink_Line, too. Happy to do an RM discussion if opinions vary. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I have replied there, and I'd like to thank you for your good faith, but this whole incident reminds me of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles and that makes me depressed :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting; I wasn't aware of that 5-year-old discussion. Did it come to a resolution? I think the current line case questions are much simpler; just a few railfans wan't to ignore guidelines and cap things that sources don't. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think most people retired or got blocked ... consensus went to "the Beatles" in the end (and has now progressed to other band articles) but it's something of a Pyrrhic victory. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Tom Fritsche has been removed

The author changed the name to create the page.Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Xx236: Got it. It wasn't really a well-attended AfD though, so consensus might end up changing on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please restore "The Lincoln Center for Family and Youth" page

Please restore the "The Lincoln Center for Family and Youth" article. It does not violate copyrighted material as everything in the page is from the official website at thelincolncenter.com Can you please restore it. Thank you. Gtfree (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)gtfree

@Gtfree: I'm afraid copyright means a very specific thing on Wikipedia - we can only reuse content from external websites that are marked "CC-BY-SA"; in other words the text must be explicitly marked with that licence, that allows the content to be freely edited and sold to others. Since most websites do not offer this, we cannot use their text. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the jargon that you're using. I'm just trying to create a Wikipedia page for the non-profit organization that I lead. Please tell me what specifically needs to be done to reconcile the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtfree (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The simplest thing to do is to rewrite the text in your own words. Unfortunately it's against the Terms of Service for me to restore copyright violations, even those added in good faith, otherwise I would. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the thing. They are my words. Can you restore the draft so that I can change my own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtfree (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You can, provided you are prepared to use the same text licence as Wikipedia and explicitly log it as such on your website. Have a read of Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online which explains what you need to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and for the links for me to get up to speed on the rules. I'm new at this and still learning. Thanks for your patience. Gtfree (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

my page

who are you, whats your problem with my page, its none of your business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberlyleewhyte (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kimberlyleewhyte: The problem with your autobiography is it is something that would not look out of place in The Sun, and years of discussion (and lawsuits towards the Wikimedia Foundation) have resulted in a well-respected policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) and one facet of that is that material relating largely to tabloid journalism is unacceptable. In fact, your brief relationship with Kenny Richey has been listed on Wikipedia for some years, but it is not properly sourced so I have had to remove that too. [2]

You need to read An article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing right now and understand that an article about you can be edited by anyone in the world. While BLP will protect you to some extent, if something bad happens to you, and it is picked up in mainstream media, anyone can add it to Wikipedia and it will stay. Rolf Harris is listed on Wikipedia as a sex offender and I'm pretty sure the current US President is not happy about us having an article called Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, but they have no power or authority to get rid of that, and rightly so.

On a personal note, speaking as a parent, I am cross that you want to put personal information (including dates of birth) about your children in a very public place. This is probably not a good idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Well my friend it is not something out of The Sun, a tabloid who I am not on great terms with so I do not appreciate the comparison. Do you work for wikipedia, if not why are you meddling in other peoples lives? No one ever has or ever will put up that I am a sex offender as I have never committed any sex crimes, so I have no worries about that. I am proud of my son and tried for a baby for 18 years therefore I am entitled to be as proud of my child as I want. I haven't posted his picture or address have I now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.51.49 (talk)

I think you've misunderstood the points I was trying to make. I have restored the article to Kimberly Lee Whyte, added a citation to The Independent, cleaned up the content I do not feel passes the BLP policy, and started a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Lee Whyte. This allows everyone on Wikipedia to have a say. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Several years?

This edit seems to go too far in the other direction, no? We've had 1-2 year candidates do just fine, and when there's text like this floating around, it encourages people to peg their stated expectations to it. How about something vaguer like "candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors for a significant period of time" or "candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors who have invested significant time in the project"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I see what you mean, but I like "years" because it's concrete and easily identifiable as a frame of reference, whereas your definition of "a significant period of time" may not be the same as mine. Nobody has passed RfA with just a few months' tenure for a long time, so it does need to be changed to something, and over the past year I don't think we've had many people pass who haven't had multiple years of service. There's a nice page somewhere that tabulates various statistics for successful RfA candidates over the last couple of years - where is it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh, being "concrete" is exactly what I don't like :) It implicitly gives people justification for perpetuating the trend you're documenting - "See, you can't be an admin if you've only been here for two years, because two isn't 'several'! The admin page says so!" There's a table here, and I have some general stats here, including time-of-service averages. But those are a little hard to interpret, since was no such thing as a ten-year veteran at the RfA peak in 2007. Still, there have definitely been successful 1-2 year nominations within the last few years - including someone I nominated, who I think is the modern recordholder for time from registration to successful RfA. (I confess that the reason I object to letting the written documentation further perpetuate the trend toward longer service time is that I think the data shown in this graph reveal a serious problem for the project. In any event, the data elsewhere on my stats page suggests that no amount of changing the written text of any RfA-related page has made a dent in the rate of unprepared nominations, which have fairly closely tracked overall candidacy numbers since at least 2008.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I have seen it before but couldn't remember where from. I don't think anyone except BU Rob13 has passed RfA in the last year with less than 12 months' service, so maybe changing it to "at least a year" is realistic. What's also interesting about Rob and Primefac is they were both contentious RfAs which threw up quite a bit of opposition (and in the case of the latter made me to step out of character and criticise a few oppose votes), though you can get that on any level of service. While it's true that not-ready people will file RfA despite all the "don't do this" warnings that get thrown up, it seems to be happening less often these days as people drift towards the candidate poll instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"Successful RfAs in the last year" is unfortunately a statistics-of-small-numbers problem. In the last 5 years, it's around 7% who registered their account less than 2 years prior, which is small but nontrivial. (And for some reason people elected some weirdo to arbcom with under a year's recent experience, under two years total, and under 10k edits at the time... ;) I don't think I posted a chart, but I've never found a correlation between percent RfA support and anything else of interest. "At least a year" is better, but how about just linking to that RfA study page? Now that I've actually read the admin page (much like "not now" candidates, I don't read that stuff :) I'd prefer no implied de facto criteria at all. Either the written documentation should be purely descriptive (and thus link to or include some actual data), or if there must be numerical criteria, they should be defined by consensus with explicit agreement that meeting the criteria is sufficient and any opposition based on personal preferences beyond those minimums should be discounted or removed. (But, oh god no, not another RfA RfC... :)

As for the poll, I haven't looked recently, but the last time someone asked whether it was deterring unqualified candidacies, the answer was... they're exactly at the historical average. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I can live with chopping it out, as Blaise Pascal once said when he was originally drafting the first set of Wikipedia space pages, "I have made this policy page quite long, because I lack time to make it shorter". All said, we don't get very many obvious NOTNOW RfAs; certainly quite recently we've had a bit of a purple patch which has unfortunately come to a crashing halt. It's a shame; I think CaroleHenson has already convinced me she understands the CSD policy standing upside down in shark-infested custard from just a week's worth of heavy annotation of what's turned up at NPP, but general "convention" says there's no point re-running for another six months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this work?

Ugh, apparently that withdrawal was so fast I missed the RfA completely. I'm stealing "shark-infested custard", though ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sam Dewar

You can stop silly articles being recreated .... with a pinch of salt

You recently deleted this page, and now a new user created it with a speedy tag already in the body. Was it a different user who initially created it? If so, this new one - ElJuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be a sock. Home Lander (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I've no idea, but I have popped into the kitchen and got a jar of Saxa out, which should stop it happening again (unless they fancy creating Sam dewar, heaven help us). I couldn't be certain this is a sock; another possible explanation is a group of kids screwing around (which is close enough). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Good enough, thanks. Watchlisted the lowercase title. Home Lander (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

why?

we are not a garage band, December screams embers` music is going to be on iTunes and Pandora and satellite radio and everything soon after the end of this month, I had every right to post about the status of my band, what business is it of yours to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdsembers (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Willdsembers: The essay No-one cares about your garage band is rather cutting, but the serious point behind it is that there are millions of bands all over the world, most of which cannot be independently updated by anyone else in the world as there is not the appropriate chart success or source coverage to allow them to do this. I have played on at least three albums commercially available on iTunes (and some singles - I forget, somebody else puts them out) yet I do not have a Wikipedia article. If you would like to retrieve the text you wrote, I can restore it to a draft underneath your user page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please restore the page "Riley Webb"

Ritchie333 I am just wondering why you decided to delete my Wikipedia page. It had information about an Australian YouTuber called "Riley's Tech Tip's". If you could please restore it because it gave valuable information about a small YouTuber and it is not fake advertising and it is based on a real person. I am the person it is based on and I am the one who wrote the Wikipedia page. So it is all true and not made up. If you could please restore it that would be wonderful.

Thanks in advance. Riley Webb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21WEBBri (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@21WEBBri: Don't write articles about yourself - it's impossible to write them in a neutral manner. Simply being factually correct is not enough, an article has to be verifiable, neutral and suitable for a global encyclopedia. User:Uncle G/On notability is the best essay to read, in my view. There are millions of YouTubers in the world; even Korean Billy doesn't have an article and he had a dedicated piece in BBC News yesterday. (though I dare say he'll have one this time next week now I've written this) As above, if you want your work restored, I can put it in a user page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Btw...

That editor who was upset about content being deleted & cited the Hillary Clinton "70% score"?... they've apparently been trying to get something to do with that content into WP since 2009... Shearonink (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As the old saying goes ... AGF is not a suicide pact. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

LISELLE at "List of songs about cities"

Hi Ritchie, may I ask you to keep my entry "Liselle" in the a.m. list ? It"s a song about the 600th birthday of a small city in Germany, written by one of Germany's most successful songwriters Tex Shultzieg. From my point of view it should be in this list as it shows the variety of songs not only about capital cities and from my understanding it underlines the wide spectrum of songs about cities. I very much appreciate if you give this entry a chance on Wikipedia. Thks a lot, Ritchie, Leslie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslie Chester (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Leslie Chester: Schade, aber kann Ich nicht gut Deutsch sprechen. :-/ Translating the text as best I could, I still wasn't certain of the significance between Liselle and Marienheide; if there has been national attention to the song and its contribution to the town. Has there been any mention in Der Spiegel or Die Welt for example? The best advice I can give you is to speak to Gerda Arendt, who is a native German speaker and a keen enthusiast of traditional and classical German music, with a particular interest in Bach chorales and cantatas, and who may be able to advise further. In the meantime, I have restored the article to Draft:LISELLE where it can be worked on further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers, Ritchie. Bach chorales? There are very few, he set the chorales of others. Look at Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, and please comment, - that almost derailed FAC needs fresh eyes. - Now to the singer: "small city" is a contradiction in terms: project Germany regards only places with more than 100k inhabitants a city, and I tend to follow, - smaller places are towns. (We had an interesting discussion on Schloss Weimar a while ago.) So the song doesn't qualify for the list by definition sorry. We might start a second list, on lovely little places. - I wonder if this song would be sufficiently notable, though, - it seems a local hit, - again sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	HEY MAN APPRECIATE YOUR ACTIVITY but guide me as in what was wrong with the article Rohan Barad and how do i modify it? Citymun (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Citymun: As the notice you should have got on this page said, you ask nicely (which you have) and I restore it to Draft:Rohan Barad (which I have). I can't find any reliable and independent news or magazine coverage about him, but perhaps somebody else can? TBH, we need more Indian admins around here (paging Yash! and any established admin who fancies starting RfA round 2). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK credit

MjolnirPants felt upset about being left out of the vaginal steaming parade.

It was very nice of you to include me as one of the creators of Vaginal steaming for the purposes of the DYK. LadyofShalott 21:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well we wouldn't have cleared the article through WP:MEDRS without your research (and Drmies' coffee machine). By rights I should probably credit MjolnirPants but I only credited people who'd actually edited the article, as opposed to just the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I did add just now Hap400. LadyofShalott 22:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

At this rate, we're going to need a new joke : "How many wikipedians does it take to write about vaginal steaming?" All I wanted was a way to top Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators for April 1's main page this year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There's gonna be some stiff competition. EEng 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Whoa. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, boy. Funtime's over. EEng 03:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Bah, I'm here for the editing. I can live without the credit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Gerda (with glowing green wristband and face averted) and other groupies

Tempted to join the fun: I'd drop two letters from "that is used to health reproductive organ ailments", or I learn English. - EEng: can you - after you portrayed me and my flashmob - find a funny image to picture me as a groupie? (named so because of this edit)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the images, one better than the other! I'm dressed in red right now, may buy green wristband to match. Perhaps change the fiction title to "non-notable songs about lovely little places in Germany", because no village in Germany seems without an article in the English Wikipedia, including the one mentioned above, with the poetic name translating to Mary's heather. - The below I'd call "The steamy-juicy credit". More seriously: to my understanding, there's no verb "to health", but "to heal", - if health is wanted we need a different construction. Also more serious: the discussion on my talk which mentions BLPDELETE and argues that the existence of articles my rest on the permission of the subject, - which I didn't hear until yesterday and find unbelievable. The relevant discussion is here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ever since Van Der Graaf Generator's Peter Hammill turned up to complain something I wrote (that cited a source generally considered reliable and perfectly within policy) was in fact factually wrong and a bit upsetting, I have been sympathetic to BLP subjects' concerns about their own article. There are zero policies and guidelines for the reader of the encyclopedia - all you need do is open your browser at the right place; so arguing the toss over notability etc is missing the point, particularly if the subject has influence over the press as we've recently seen. That said, I hope common sense would prevail and nobody would kick you off this place if it was reasonably obvious you thought you were doing the right thing; indeed this eventually happened to Blofeld and he was unblocked.

I occasionally get off-wiki communication about my work on here - the (then) management of The Minories, Colchester gave me a free lunch and coffee for fixing that article, and I got a thank you note in the post from Kat Wright (all the way from Burlington, Vermont, although I had paid for a CD which explains that) which brightened my day. (Her band is flippin' great as well, though I think Rhonda has the edge). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, however, I did nothing, - how could I, about an article that was deleted so I don't know about who did what, based on what sources. That's why I voted to have a draft version, for a bit of transparency. - My day was brightened (2016) when a strange idea I suggested on my talk was realized in real life! (Gedenkkonzert means memorial concert, + my German article was printed word for word in the concert program) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I hereby award all involved one steamed fish in a dressing of chopped garlic, chillies, lime juice, fish sauce and chicken stock. The spearmint (bai saranae, Thai: ใบสะระแหน่, Mentha spicata) is used to cover up the somewhat strong smell of this particular fish but it is more common to see this dish served with coriander/cilantro leaves (phak chi, Thai: ผักชี) instead of mint. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, pictured signing her recent work, "The Lonely Planet guide to lovely little non-notable German places"

Alright, who put a bunch of yappy teenagers on my page? Tell them all to pipe down and go on a nice course of .... well, I can't even say the name, it's so nauseating. BAN THIS SICK FILTH and VOTE LEAVE Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• That little boy looks so much like my son my mind started playing tricks on me--like, our faucet doesn't look that new, where did I take this picture? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that little boy for so long that it's probably not yours ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

If you look at User talk:83.148.95.197 is it time for revoke talkpage access? Also what do you say about the editor removing "their" content at 2016–17 Liverpool F.C. season? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qed237 (talk • contribs)

@Qed237:I'd leave it for the minute, there's no real need to turn it off. As for the Liverpool FC article, it's always hard to hit a moving target (in this case the progress of a team mid-season). The content is well-sourced, particularly to BBC Sport, but it's also true that an overview of the season doesn't need to go in as much detail. You're best off asking on WP:FOOTY or chatting to our more football-savvy admins such as GiantSnowman Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And now they restored the attack message again (diff) clearly only here to provoke and not use talkpage for purpose of discussing the block. Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm an admin; people can call me a (Redacted) if it makes them feel better - it just makes me laugh. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

True, but that does not make it acceptable, and usually when the behave like this their talkpage access are revoked. I guess you have more patience than other administrators. Qed237 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I just turned talk page access off. You're right that people shouldn't say this stuff, but the recommendation under WP:NPA is to ignore it and brush it off, which does make sense. I know it doesn't make it a nice editing environment some of the time, which is a shame. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, to ignore it is often the best solution and that is what we did the first time. But then he started again after 2 hours just to try and push our buttons, and then it is a block in my mind. But, I am not an admin so you have to decide. Anyway, have a nice day! Qed237 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

reverting over zealousity

Thanks for repairing some largely inoffensive refitting, rephrasing, and refactoring. But be careful, just because you run a recording studio, your expertise may be in-Wiki-adequate... 69.118.209.149 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Apologies for an addition. I followed mlpearc (the electric guitar reverter) to his talk page and left a note. His response, at that talk page, which I just found explains that intimidation is not acceptable. ???? It's in his talk archive nr 32 (IIRC). I see that I shall likely be reverting to Wiki-vacation status again. Kudos to you for hanging in there and fighting the good fight which drove me to the sidelines. 69.118.209.149 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I complained about Mlpearc on WP:ANI, though I might as well have found a brick wall to bang my head against. I can't find my copy of Ralph Deyner's "The Guitar Handbook" which IMHO is an excellent source for the anatomy of electric guitars and amps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

WIK Code

I would like to discuss the relevance of the deleted page. I'm the author.

You have not yet given my page a chance to blossom and grow in its own time. I can only assume that you did not read the statement on my page...

The requests for urgent deletion were made before I had the chance to post any content. However I since have.

I am requesting that you please leave the page be for me to later add further content. Thank you. Willmckissock (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Willmckissock: The text in full was : WIK Code is a new 2D Symbology created by William Mckissock. The creator of this page is requesting for viewers not to bestow it with a speedy deletion notice or to be flagged. The relevant information with regards to WIK Code will be provided to all users over the next 3 weeks, when the final development of the symbology has been completed.

You cannot request that anything happens to a page - it is against the terms of the Creative Commons licence that Wikipedia uses, and also the ownership of articles policy. This is why you always get the message "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone" whenever you edit or create any page.

Secondly, anything that is new or recently invented is not appropriate for an encyclopedia that documents historical facts for all time. You need to wait until the symbology is in widespread use and has been comprehensively documented in third party books and papers; and even then you may find it only warrants a cursory mention in our Data Matrix article instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your response... I understand the usage policies and terms in full now. However I was merely asking for the page not to be taken down, I was entirely happy for people to contribute -the purpose of Wikipedia. I understand that it is still young, and need to be more well known. How can people write about something that they know nothing about... I will endeavour to make the symbology known in full as there are over 40 different types of simple, undeveloped barcode already written about on Wikipedia. Mine should not be an acception. I do understand where you are coming from.

People should not ask for a page that was created seconds ago for to be taken down, you should have consulted me about improvements upon the page before removing it. Perhaps you would consider doing this next time?

So once again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmckissock (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Also in the terms of service, I have been led to believe that you can appeal or ask for a page not to be taken down, that is what I was doing. Accept I posted on the page itself getting viewers to show some support while I was uploading relèvent content... @Ritchie333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmckissock (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Shrek Hollywood.JPG

Administrators are not ogres

But neither are they kittensCoolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is I'm not quite sure what your actual end goal was for using Wikipedia for this purpose. Google tends not to front-load Wikipedia articles on web searches so much these days, so there tends not to be an advantage for using it over your own website. Indeed, with your own website, you pretty much have free reign to do exactly what you want when you want, which sounds like a much better fit for some things, and people are not really any more likely to find your information on here given we have 5 million articles and rising.

The reason things get speedy deleted is because sometimes somebody comes along and creates a short stub about something they're making, or know personally, or have a vague idea about. Unfortunately, nobody else can do any work on the article without the necessary knowledge, and if its not documented somewhere that can be believed to be factually accurate, (this is what is called "significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources" in Wikipedia jargon) that means work on the article stalls. You probably won't want to be continually nagged to do updates on the article in 1, 2, 5, 25 years' time - the whole idea of a collaborative project is that you do a little bit, somebody else does a little bit more, and so on, until you have a cohesive whole. If it's not possible for any typical editor to do any work, the article will get deleted. Speedy deletions happen because we have had so many articles of a specific type (such as garage bands or YouTubers), that administrators get a broad prerogative to delete these classes of articles without discussion. My essay User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has further information (in this case, the article was deleted per WP:CSD#A11 : "obviously invented by creator", but the basic principle holds).

All that said, administrators are not ogres, and if you ask for deleted content, most will give it back to you as they fully appreciate people don't like losing work. In your instance, the entirety of the article has been quoted earlier up the thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Chapman

Well, I was about to restore the cats, but since you've invoked the Flying Welshman I think I'll wait and see if any cool YouTube links are forthcoming. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Some day, somebody may do Colin "Bomber" Harris vs Colin "Bomber" Harris in Lego and everyone will be happy.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

For your enjoyment

As you pointed out on SK talk page the Colonel would say that's silly :-) Enjoy your St Patty's day and your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hah I didn't see that the thread above was about the same delightful person. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I take it you were unaware of {{colonel}}? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Almost - I stumbled on it for the first time on Tuesday but I thought it was a bit to big to place on your talk page :-) Many thanks to you for creating it!! MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thought you maybe interested.

Hey Ritchie, it has been long since we last talked. Hope everything is going well! I thought you might be interested in this project and this project. Thanks! Jim Carter 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Vaginal steaming at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Your A7 essay

I've just seen your essay. An excellent start. Keep it up! Now my essay has another to compete against!

Nah, just kidding about that last bit: my essay was never intended to "compete against" anyone else's or anything like that. But let's pretend for a moment that this is a contest: things are not looking good for my essay right now. You and SoWhy are alright, but I've been declared disqualified pending outcome of an investigation into illicit activities (yes, I "handed myself in". I felt I had no choice given the feedback I was receiving .). Thought you might be interested as you gave me a barnstar for it, although I have made some changes to it since then. Adam9007 (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: The essay was CaroleHenson's idea. (Kind of). I put in a keep vote at the MfD without realising you were the nominator. Oops. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol! The last bit was a giveaway (or so I thought ). But anyway, I know it may seem weird to MfD my own user page (has anyone else every seriously done so?), but I'd have thought that common sense dictates that if there's a problem with my A7 application, there's a problem with the essay, as it's a reflexion of my application. Following essays is supposed to be optional after all. But if it's going to cause disruption, then we have a problem. Besides, if I had a choice between the essay going and another episode of this, I'd choose the former. I genuinely did think there's a chance that some may consider it so far outside the norm that they will ignore all rules and !vote delete. Given recent discussions, I had to see if that was the case. Adam9007 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The-Go-to-GA-guy- of course :)

A-1, a-2. FYI. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I would take British Army to WP:MILHIST, who can properly review it; Romania should not have passed GA as it has far too many {{fact}} tags and unsourced content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Right! Yeah, I didn't mean you should actually re-do them , which could take years off your life... so British army to MILHIST, Romania for reassesment? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reversed the GA review and quickfailed it. I would have probably done this anyway had I reviewed it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

OK; saves a job! I'll pass the other one along too. Thanks for helping out. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You gave no rationale at your closing of the deletion discussion for the blp Benjamin E. Park

I would hope to resort to WP's appeal process owing to the fact that you gave no summary/rationale at your closing of the deletion discussion for the blp Benjamin E. Park, a subject who is obviously notable per wp:BIO. Could you reconsider/rectify this oversight?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Essentially, nobody except you wanted to keep the article. That's it. I have no opinion on the article myself; that's just how I read consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You missed the other !vote for keep, so I question your efforts to adjudicate the question properly. Indeed you are supposed to research the !votes vis a vis the guidelines. wp:NOTYET refers top actors who haven't been written about, for example, and other !votes gave as justification for their conclusion statements that are patently untrue, as the discussion makes clear.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's consensus for you. See also Brexit and Donald Trump. Certainly the article as I looked at it did not look in particularly good shape. Find another topic to write about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Benjamin E. Park

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Benjamin E. Park. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

why did you delete my article

i am curious to why you deleted my article. i am a published artist, and have work in line fgor distribution. what about my article displeased you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bymistaclean (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bymistaclean: You shouldn't write articles about yourself. I have music for sale on iTunes here but I do not have a Wikipedia article and if I tried creating one it would be deleted for the same reason. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

-oh by the way, which one's Pink...?!  :)

We have to lose that sax solo! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm an admin! You address me by my proper title, you little bollocks!

That was so cool :) just play the ******g chord! not that ******g chord! The other ******g chord!!! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's it------>

"We call it, riding the gravy train..."!

to keep it fully honest i hadnt created the article about myself it was done with a 3rd party using my account. as well as you are an admin not an artist obviously so that example is pointless. i have interviews in line for publishing as well as new musci and videos. so again i am not understaning your reasoning except to flex admin power. if an article is made of me by a third party account not just someone else using mine then will my article be eligble? its hard for a blog to reference me when they cant find my page. theyve expressed they do not want to create the full page for me because for most artist worth mentioning theirs is already done so please guide me. and not with a witty assinine comeback.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bymistaclean (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bymistaclean: The reply to you was serious; if Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has been watching too much Father Ted then that's his own lookout (in this instance, the line "you address me by my proper title, you little bollocks" is a quotation from a character in the sitcom, and funny because you would never expect a Roman Catholic bishop to call a priest a "little bollocks")

.... anyway, User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has more information; as does the reply on this page entitled "WIK Code". The simple question to initially ask in this case is : has Mistaclean had a Billboard chart hit? Administrators are required by policy to answer any grievance or complaint, and I never delete things for fun. If I hadn't deleted this, another, more prickly admin might have done so :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Father Ted? That was you... I waz on the Floyd boots earlier :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)

It seems SineBot is not signing your posts on this page, which does result in an outside appearance of me waffling to myself. If you want to help (and I mean FIM, not Bymistaclean!), add a hook to Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a hook is the last thing they need, steamed or not. But thanks for the verrrry tempting opportunity to suggest a hook based on hot rocks and smokin' ... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)

ok so i had to cut threw the exrta stuff to get the basic answer i needed. well i guess im happy you deleted rather than a douchier admin. so i suppose when my fader interviews etc publish then ill have a better shot. its just ironic you have to have a bilboard chart when ive read artilces that dont but ok.. guess by the time i have the right notoriety to your standards i could just wipe my tears about this situation with the money im making... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bymistaclean (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The full list of general guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (music), which explain a fuller set of inclusion standards. Having a chart hit is a general rule of thumb, but not an absolute (eg: Van der Graaf Generator have not troubled the British or UK charts much, but their article is assessed as a good article). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Question re: speedy deletion request reversion

Hi Ritchie, it looks like you reverted my speedy deletion request for Cell_Phone_Signal_Booster, declining the A7 reason because it has sources. Those sources look like they are all fake; the A7 reason is that the subject is not of importance, so the validity of the references doesn't matter - none of the references indicate importance of the company (who appear to be a small eCommerce site). I'm trying to help clean up some of the content around signal boosters on Wikipedia, but am new to using the site, so I acknowledge that I may be doing some things wrong. But I do think this particular page probably shouldn't be on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whenthebellsgo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I spent some time procrastinating today by looking into this. Article now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Phone Signal Booster. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Whenthebellsgo: See my essay User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7. In this case, I found one source in a news search. More significantly, the article could be reappropriated as a redirect to the prosaic cell phone signal booster. Together, these mean a full discussion is probably required (which Floq has now set up) so we can't just short-circuit it via A7. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand... deleted by @NeilN:. My new IAR hero. FWIW, Ritchie, I don't think the article you found is even about this company; it's about a signal booster (no caps) by some other manufacturer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's always worth having the discussion and having it logged, which you can't do with A7s. Turns out the article is about another signal booster, yup - but still we ought to log these things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I had no real problem with you declining an A7. Although such a quick AFD close makes it harder to get a wide audience to appreciate my extraordinary detective skills. Wheel war to reopen!!!--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for this. And sorry for being a beginner - hoping to learn and contribute more, particularly on subjects around RF. Whenthebellsgo (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

CSD Decline

Hi there! I wanted to ask a quick question. You've declined a couple of my CSD nominations recently with a rationale roughly paraphrased as "has sources." Am I missing a guideline somewhere that says an article with sources isn't eligible for CSD? Thanks! —Non-Dropframe _talk 23:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Non-dropframe: The best guides in my view are Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion and User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Severn Railway Bridge

Thank you for your comments at the poll page. In my opinion, the West Country Challenge and similar contests where you are trying to achieve as much as possible in a limited time probably don't produce the best articles. With regard to the Severn Railway Bridge GA, I did not deal with your comments as well as I should have. I have now replaced the information and found and added a reference for the completion date. Mind you, as the bridge was opened in October 1879, the chances of it having been completed in 1878 were pretty slim I thought. The Huxley book was really too detailed and yet unspecific in some aspects to be an ideal source.

With regard to the other main point you raised at the poll, it is not so much my attitude towards the other individual involved as their attitude towards me. I don't go out of my way to quarrel with anyone, but do try to defend myself when attacked. I can and do react to that person perfectly civilly but don't really see how I am going to be able to resolve any underlying differences between us. However the atmosphere at DYK is much more pleasant this year than it was last. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I think the atmosphere at DYK has got better this year, but to be honest last year I typed up a whole thread entitled "Fram and Cwmhiraeth" and was close to posting it on WP:ANI, when I thought I'd have a cup of tea first. I then thought the drama levels would explode, and closed the browser so it was never posted. I didn't want to take sides; I think you are committed to the project.

I did pass the Severn Railway Bridge as GA because the issues were ultimately fixed, I just needed to do a bit of badgering first. The thing about the sources and deadline was more a nagging doubt, and it probably didn't help that I'd witnessed the drama regarding that feud on the Editor Review from 2014 and all the fisticuffs with Fram. I think that'll stick in people's mind. Still, I'm pleased to see The Rambling Man has come out in support of you, which I didn't think he would. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your essay

You should also take note of Mob psychology which I feel greatly influences our votes/consensus debates. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Which essay is this? I've written quite a few now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my vagueness. I was lurking the incidents board and saw your essay on how we apply sockpuppet policies inappropriately. You mentioned consensus and at this point, I feel so-called consensus is run by mob mentality. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah right, User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful. Yeah, that's just how I feel and what my opinions are, and I suspect more than a few admins don't agree with it. I think it helps on this project to have close family and friends who don't edit Wikipedia much if at all, and treat it with a little bit of suspicion - you get another angle on things. Still, maybe another admin can write "SPI considered essential" and I'll link to it so readers can make up their own mind. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be great if someone wrote an opposing view, but nobody has stepped up to do so. In all honesty, I think Wikipedia's administrative processes need to be refined one way or another. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically if you run into trouble, get blocked, take a year off, then come back with a new account and don't cause any trouble (emphasis mine), I don't see an issue. The problem with actually problematic socks is they revert to type and cause exactly the same disruption as they did in the first place, as sure as the sun coming up in the morning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Iloveartrock

Prime-time era Floyd. As the old vinyl sleeves from Garrod and Lofthouse said : File under POPULAR : Pop groups :-P

Continuing from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#The Piper at the Gates of Dawn and Arnold Layne, I'm not sure what fully protecting the Piper article for 3 days was supposed to accomplish when the disruptions are only being caused by IPs and new accounts made by a single user. S/he claims that the reverts are being made for no reason, but this is blatantly false, and s/he's just extremely uncooperative (see Talk:Pink Floyd, User talk:Ilovetopaint#The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn).

Your refusal to protect Arnold Layne suggests that edit wars are a requirement for page protection, but that's not the official policy.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

S/he has been doing this for 6 months. You can interpret further disruptions by them as one extended edit war over Pink Floyd genres, so it's a bit strange that you pass over an article for "not enough activity" when there is indisputably a lot of activity from this user. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint:, @NeilN:, @Oshwah: (and feel free to ping anyone else I've forgotten)

Firstly, read some of the things I've written in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Long term planning; it may explain where I'm coming from.

I have been a fan of Pink Floyd, particularly the late 60s / early 70s era (which is now finally getting attention outside of the Bootleg market via the Early Years boxed sets) for about 25 years, give or take a few. I've just had a go at re-creating Echoes in my home studio for no reason other than I wanted to, and I prefer listening to that over the original right now, just because it's fresh. I've read most of the major biographies on the band, including Nicholas Schaffner's "A Saucerful of Secrets", Glenn Povey's "Echoes", Nick Mason's autobiography "Inside Out", Nick Manning's "Rough Guide" and the various works of Andy Mabbett, and one other I can't remember off the top of my head. From this, you may be able to draw the following conclusions:

1. I'm going to be interested in improving Floyd articles, including taking them to good article status
2. I have a reasonable handle on what's important in the article, and how to structure it

All the arguing over infobox trivia in the world won't bring Rick Wright back. RIP Rick :-(

Important things for a Floyd album article might include background to composition (since the post-Barrett band frequently found themselves lethargic and had difficulty kick starting themselves), who recorded what and when (since they infamously liked to record all their parts separately to save arguing), when it was released, what promotional tours were like, how they think about it now, and what the retrospective critical reception is like. These are the typical things a layman reader will be looking for.

None of the above includes the "genre" field on the infobox.

Genre-warring has been going on a lot longer than six months - I seem to recall A Knight Who Says Ni complaining about it at least ten years ago. It's a silly and pointless feud that has only one correct way to win, and as the computer in WarGames concludes, it is not to play. Quite frankly, if an IP came off the street and changed the genre in Made in Japan (Deep Purple album) from "hard rock" to "progressive rock", I would probably let the baby have their bottle as it is not worth fighting over. It's possibly not the best term, it may be inaccurate, but I can say (as a reasonable subject expert on Floyd history and a frequent reader of Wikipedia articles on topics I don't know much about) that most people would not giving a flying monkeys which it was. Instead, I would improve the article, maybe add another review, or find something else to edit. When you've done the hard work of ferreting out good sources for an article, and writing the prose for it, giving you 150 edits in the article that you can say "that's my hard work" (but don't talk about it too loudly), then you can afford some give and take and "lose" a few to other editors. It's no big deal.

Therefore, getting involved in any sort of reverting or spilling disputes over to articles (other than perhaps a discussion on the talk page that attempts to converge towards a consensus to settle the matter) is a complete and utter waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. Quite frankly, the lot of you have been made to look like absolute chumps and should hang your heads in shame. This guy (whoever he is) has wanted attention, and you have handed it to him in spades.

Like you said, The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars!

It never ceases to amaze me how people always think edit warring only applies to other people. I need to take a break from this and will follow it up later, as I've got to go and let a band into the studio. Watch this space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional reading : Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates and Parkinson's Law of Triviality Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Whilst playing Paint Box of course  ;)

"Like... who cares... summarizing reliable sources on Wikipedia is a huge waste of effort dude... just write whatever you want... none of it matters..."

Well, gee. Never had someone write such a long-winded reply that boils down to "abuse doesn't matter and nobody cares what Wikipedia says anyway". You should try to get every Wiki policy and guideline abolished and replaced with "don't do anything". I know you would like to save us all the time and effort required for improving Wiki articles, so that would be the best way to do it.

Nobody is actually arguing over "genres". It's about the misrepresentation of sources. I couldn't care less whether someone on here thinks PF is psychedelic rock or experimental rock. I do care, however, what's been published about PF, and it's annoying whenever I discover BS claims that some editor synthesized. I thought one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia was that editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong?

And "who played what" or "promotional tours" being a more significant or interesting point than "what genre is the music"? Haha. "The retrospective critical reception." What, you mean like when a critic calls Piper the "greatest psych-rock album of all-time"? How about if an editor said Robert Christgau dubbed it a "punk rock classic"? (He's never said any such thing, of course.) Your priorities are very curious. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. If Christgau has a reliably sourced opinion of an album, I don't see why it can't go in the article. Perhaps User:Dr. Blofeld/Encyclopedia problems will explain what I can't. You are right about one thing - if you get into fisticuffs with editors, most people in the world won't care. That, unfortunately, is life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I'll reiterate, the issue is with regards to WP:STICKTOSOURCE, not WP:TRUTH. Their edits are reverted because the claims aren't supported by the sources, not because I (or anybody else who has engaged with this editor) dispute them. Perhaps Animals is a space rock album. It would be interesting if somebody at AllMusic or Rolling Stone believed that, but so far, nobody appears to hold that view.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, if you edit-war over it and generally act aggressive towards the other party, then sanctions have a tendency to boomerang back on you as well. As I'm sure you're aware, "my edits were right, so I'm not edit warring" isn't a valid defence. You have to be like Caesar's wife - above suspicion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} I'm a big pink floyd like you, every day I think there are genres that should be added to the albums, songs and artists of the band, I get all the necessary sources to add them but unfortunately always come a motherfucker like Ilovetopaint (talk) and ruin everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.191.60.233 (talk • contribs)

Like I said above, some hills are not worth dying on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint (talk) He is always undoing and undoing the issues I make giving the same silly excuse as always. Tell me if the genre I just added to "Arnold Layne" is not reliable or is not specified.[[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.191.60.233 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Instead, I would like you to:

• Add a citation to the quote from Roger Waters re the origin of the lyrics (since our verification policy demands all quotations are sourced)
• Explain what "at the lead of Waters" means re: Candy and a Current Bun
• Find sources for the other Joe Boyd quotations re: early live performances
• Do we need to be specific about the dates where it was performed on Gilmour's solo tours in 2006?

... and then expand out the article as much as you can, with sources, and nominate it for GA. Everybody wins. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think all of them are in the article now.

The source you gave for avant-pop on "Arnold Layne" is inappropriate for the article. This is because not only is "avant-pop" never attributed to the song, the phrase never appears in the book. You need to find sources that use the exact phrasing of a genre and unambigously attribute it to a work or artist. Anything less is original research--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Upsetting people

You're not alone: I'm on a roll in upsetting people too. In fact, at times like this it seems like it's all I ever do. John Tyndall? Never heard of him until now . Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Well I don't like upsetting people, it's not conductive to a productive environment around here. Now, while you're here, I have a couple of bits of advice for you, Adam. First, I know your heart is kind of in the right place for A7, or at least in a similar place to mine, but I think for the good of the project you might want to consider giving it a rest and doing something else. Sometimes you just have to earn respect, and that means holding your tongue a bit. Secondly, I've had a word with Iridescent - he does a lot of really good work around here but has a low tolerance threshold for time wasters. In particular, you really need to get rid of that "This user is a British Nationalist" userbox. You are asserting that only white people should live in Britain, and if you think that's not a problem I'd like you to look at this picture of me, my other half, and Dominic King, and then figure out why I might have a problem with it. Hopefully, that will be enough to make the penny drop and you to remove it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it was never my intention to state that only whites should like in Britain. I am not a racist. Nor did I have any idea it could cause offence. Probably another shortcoming of having Asperger's. I'll see if I can replace it with something else. In fact, my entire user page could do with a good revamp. Adam9007 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I was certain it wasn't the case, but "British Nationalist" does mean "racist" (think British National Party). Best get rid of the nationalistic userboxes - I get in enough hot water for the Sun and Daily Mail boxes on my userpage. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If memory serves, I was going by the definition given in British nationalism. I can't see any mention of racism there, although it could be that certain groups have hijacked the term. Adam9007 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That article mentions the BNP in its lead! I have some friends who've done door to door canvassing for the Lib Dems in various parts of Britain, and the responses you get from some people are truly jaw-dropping; things like "I'm English not British like all those ****ing immigrants". Seriously, did you think Leave won Brexit because of the £350m for the NHS, or the distrust over red tape, or over concerns the EU was getting too large (or any number of reasonable reasons to vote "leave") - no, it was because of latent racism. Anyway, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to rant about Brexit, so let's draw a line under this conversation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion decline?

I fail to understand this decision. There is no such a word as "himn", it is "hymn" and the subject has a new page as I indicated, Hymn of Valledupar Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: In this specific case, it was because you tagged it as {{db-g6}}, which is for technical and uncontroversial changes. Since the redirect has been present for over 11 years, I really didn't think it could fall under the G6 criteria; hence why I suggested filing a report at Redirects for discussion instead. The case you've just stated above should be sufficient. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for taking the time to explain. I really struggle with these nominations and however seldom I make them, invariably end up picking the wrong option. Keep up the good work — and your constructive work ethic. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

John Hair and Son

Thanks for rescuing the above page. After I thought it had been deleted I started again in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Histman/sandbox What's the best way to move this over to the present John Hair and Son page? Thanks again. Histman (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Histman: The easiest way to do it is to click on the "submit your draft for review" box. This will put it in the Articles for Creation queue, where an independent editor will review it. If it's accepted, it can be moved over an history merged with the current version. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Amazon.com

I think your closure might be problematic: I see WP:NOHARM and WP:ITSUSEFUL on the keep side, and WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research WP:Neutral point of view on the other side. The keep comments are NOT telling why the neutrality problems indicated by these who wanted deletion; especially the positively skewed selection that has been identified as violation of WP:NOT#Advert and WP:NPOV. The deletion guideline to admins includes the following at WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS: "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable." which you might have failed to apply. Please act accordingly.Burning Pillar (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Burning Pillar: Just waving a policy isn't really a convincing argument, you need to state exactly how a particular policy or guideline applies in this instance. IMHO Beyond My Ken made the best argument : "[you] may well be correct that there's listcruft in there, but that can be taken care of by the normal editing process". The pertinent part of the close is that you can selectively merge and redirect these articles through normal editing, and indeed people have already cleared out cruft and worked towards this. A "no consensus" close in no way implies the current version of the article cannot be improved further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)