This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Ritchie333

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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


Source help[edit]

Heyo, Ritchie. I've been given to understand you're knowledgeable about this sort of thing, so...been trying to improve this song article, to GA, if I can get it there. Found lots of great sources on the lyrics and music and impact that I'm still working through; but can't seem to find anything usable for the credits. Any advice? Vanamonde (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Okay, I see you've got all the sources I immediately looked at, including Easlea's biography, which still leaves you short for the chart positions and credits. The chart stats might be in Bowler & Dray's Genesis biography, which does a cursory overview of Gabriel's solo career, but I don't have that in front of me. Unfortunately, this biography says that the actual credits on the song are not known. It's probably David Rhodes on guitar (Gabriel is known for consistently working with a core of musicians who've stuck with him for his career), but the source in question doesn't definitively say. Bit of a tricky one this. JennKR has done a bit of work on Gabriel, particularly getting So to GA, so she's probably got good sources but she hasn't been around for a few months.
I will have a hunt around, I appreciate you're probably trying to get this in shape for the 40th anniversary of Biko's death to get a DYK on the front page. If I can't directly find anything and don't contribute to the article, and you want a GA review when you're all done, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie. I confess I hadn't anticipated this much trouble with a song this well known. I missed the point at which the Hill book says the credits are unknown: could you point me to it? I've tried web sources, too, but even AllMusic only has credits for the album. I'm going to keep looking; but if we can't find the full credits anyplace reliable, would you recommend adding album credits, or just adding what we do know and a note to say the rest is unknown? Cheers. Vanamonde (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I think the only thing I can compare it to is who played what on Beach Boys LPs; although the Pet Sounds and "Good Vibrations" personnel are reasonably well documented, that's because everyone who played on them got sought out and given the appropriate credit; for the lesser albums, there's no real indication of who was used to play what. The trouble with book sources is they tend to fall into two types. The first are proper groundbreaking research done with extensive interviews with the subject and people close to them, which subsequently get rave reviews. The second are just people digging up second hand information and assembling it into a readable format (which, when you think about it, is exactly what we do here). I've got a feeling that book is of the second type. Still, I think for now, put what we know in a footnote and source it to that book. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense, many thanks. I've been distracted by other things over the last week or so, but I'm planning to get back to this project soonish. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've added a fair amount of stuff to it and sent it to GAN; here's the link. If you're still able to review it, that'd be great. It's not perfect, but the basics are there, I think. Also, since we're on the subject, I wonder if you'd be interested in reviewing Music in the movement against apartheid at some point? It would be a larger project, obviously, so no hurry/no pressure; it's just that it's been languishing at GAN since February, and is a topic complex enough to make it difficult to find reviewers for. Vanamonde (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Well to cut a long story short, I'm in the middle of GA reviewing The Rolling Stones which, as you might expect, is a bit of a slog, plus I've got three of my own articles being reviewed right now. Maybe if I can clear all that backlog down quickly, I'll have a go at this one, but it depends on what else turns up, I guess :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That's entirely understandable, I did notice the slew of notifications here. It would be nice to get this to the main page on 12 September, but it's not hugely critical; and we still have a bit of time, because there will be folks at DYK willing to do an expedited review. The Stones article is hugely important, I wouldn't want to distract you from it. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I see that you've dealt with the flood of GA reviews; is this a good time to remind you of this? Vanamonde (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Ritchie? Vanamonde (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Finaly reminder, I promise, then I'll leave you in peace. Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Hi, sorry, I got caught up by The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger's GA reviews, which took (and are taking) longer than expected. Let me grab it now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
No worries and thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Future Discworld[edit]

Threesie, a special exciting ITN-type peep into the future of world order, just for you!

Kinda flat, ain't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me introduce you to the exciting world of Tila Tequila, failed celebrity, model, musician[dubious ] and Nazi stormtrooper, who once tweeted about 25 times in 10 minutes that THE WORLD IS FLAT GODDAMMIT Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, ok!! No need to get into a big pissiffik. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Opinion please? on a band article[edit]

Hi, Ritchie! Could you take a look at the article Twiddle (band) and see if it qualifies to stay here? I notice that it has been speedied twice before, but it now has at least one mainstream source (HuffPo). I came across it because I had to protect it - there's recently been ton of edit warring, inserting unsourced puffery, adding and removing albums, etc., from brand new SPAs. I don't know enough about band articles to know if it meets NBAND or not. Mind taking a look? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's a marginal case; there is a small amount of coverage, but the disruption on the article makes me wince. I'm tempted to AfD it, but I'll have a proper look round first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the barnstar – it's nice when somebody notices the little things, and barnstars are an underused reward. You keep up your good work, too!

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do sometimes come across as a grump to people who edit articles I've spent ages on, but I think there's selection bias at play there - because when somebody makes a good edit to one of those, I don't need to say anything so nobody notices. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Meh[edit]

Usually I agree with you. Sorry I didn't today. -- Begoon 13:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've got no issue with people disagreeing with me - except maybe if the way they do it is dick-ish (which yours absolutely wasn't) in which case I'll probably ignore them. If I hid in an echo chamber surrounded by sycophants all day long, I'd never learn anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)"And no one sings me lullabies, And no one makes me close my eyes". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
True, in the end... -- Begoon 01:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Euston railway station[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 2 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Euston railway station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the navigator and cartographer Matthew Flinders is thought to be buried under Platform 15 at Euston railway station? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Euston railway station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Euston railway station), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 00:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chiltern Main Line RDT[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Chiltern Main Line RDT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: A discussion here (or on Talk:Marylebone station, or any of the template talk pages) might have been a first good step. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that; usually I only nominate templates which aren't in use. Did the TfD notice mess up the article (sometimes Twinkle does that with table formatting)? I can't see it now because you've already deleted the template. Jc86035 (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It dropped one of the usual "this template is considered for deletion" messages at the top of the template, which overspilled the box a bit. In any case, it was always the ultimate intention to delete the template anyway; I just couldn't fix the original template into a state where I could do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Michael Wollny[edit]

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

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

My approaches to editing[edit]

Hi Ritchie333, you brought up the Candice Hutchings AfD. I admit I could have handled that better. In particular, I shouldn't have started the COIN thread while the AfD was taking place - it came dangerously close to canvassing. An SPA tag would have been kinder and just as effective as the note I left under the voter's comment. That's not to say that the nomination or the COI concerns were not valid - I think they were then and still are, but the AfD was not the venue to raise them.

I would like to hear what other of my "approaches" you take issue with. I take all feedback to heart. Thanks, Rentier (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rentier: I think it's just generally being slightly over-aggressive to COI editors. I would recommend just putting the tags on and sending the articles to AfD without comment. Explain in a disinterested tone what the issues are and leave it at that. I believe it's possible to have good paid editing (eg: my frequently quoted example of "we will pay you $5 for every unreferenced BLP you completely source and is validated by another, neutral editor"), it's just most if not all examples we come across are not.
In the specific case of Candice Hutchings, I've got no real issue with you starting an AfD and saying "can't find any sources [search link], no way of improving this" - ie: keeping the debate focused on the article. In this instance, I didn't really want to bring this up, as it was only to try and demolish an argument that everyone who disagreed with this COI editor were friends and in collusion with each other, which is nonsense. But also I think it's reasonable that if you're going to talk about another editor, to bring them into the discussion so they're aware of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I was surprised to see it mentioned in a venue such as the AN, but I suppose it's a well-deserved WP:BOOMERANG :) No disagreement with your assessment and recommendation. Don't hesitate to drop me a line should you have any concerns in the future. Rentier (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

99.104.66.69[edit]

Hi, I see that you're active at the moment. Could you take a look at [1] and see if you could revoke TPA please? Thanks –72 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Somebody needs to find a new hobby. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

AN/I notification[edit]

I mentioned you at a section I started at AN/I. The section heading is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Two.25.45.251. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've replied. As you probably know, I've got a thick skin and if people come here and say "you know something Ritchie333, I think you're an asshole", it generally stands because of WP:NOTCENSORED. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

London Waterloo station[edit]

Careful analysis of timetabled movements from Waterloo. The published timetables do back it up, I just need to work out the most efficient way of inserting the citations, as SWR's service groups aren't split all that logically. There were some services straight up missing in the previous version, which I've added (Woking stoppers, Poole stoppers), some services which were simply non existant (an additional 4 fast tph to Guildford), but mainly I just rearranged the way in which existing services were described. 146.198.99.121 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, you removed a source that was in the article, which was a pointer to official online timetables from SWR. I spent about two hours a few weeks back nitpicking through the timetables and determining all the tphs and services and I got a sore head from the end of it - and while I do use the trains quite a bit to travel to family in SW London, I haven't memorised them! So if you want to change stuff, you've got to either a) explain why the source is wrong, or b) explain why the source is right and the article is wrong. This is why you get the message "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" when you edit. It's also why it's vitally important to leave an edit summary so people can work out what's going on. That another editor reverted this with a summary of "wrong timetable" leads me to wonder if the whole lot is, in fact, wrong. (I've got a sinking feeling that Waterloo Station is going to fail GAN now on GA criteria #5 "stablity"). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Woolwich Ferry[edit]

Hello. You've just reverted my edit with the comment "British English, please". I am British, and I always try to write accordingly. As far as I can tell, my minor edit had nothing to do with British English. Help me to understand. Eric Blatant (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Eric Blatant: I'll start off with a disclaimer that this is what I think is right, and if a talk page stalker rebukes me and tells me I'm talking rubbish, I'll self revert .... anyway, the basic idea is that a collective noun denoting a group or organisation of people (in this case, Briggs Marine) are referred to in British English as plural, but in American English as singular (See MOS:PLURALS) The most obvious form is in groups and bands eg: "The Rolling Stones are an English rock band" vs. "Aerosmith is an American rock band". In this specific case, "control of the crossing passed from Serco to Briggs Marine, who were expanding" follows suit accordingly. The change from "7-year" to "seven-year" was okay, so I've put that back in. Sorry, must have missed that :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, and so does the Guardian style guide, which says:

"Corporate entities take the singular: eg The BBC has decided (not “have”). In subsequent references make sure the pronoun is singular: “It [not “they”] will press for an increase in the licence fee.” Sports teams and rock bands are the exception – “England have an uphill task” is OK, as is “Nirvana were overrated”"

In reverting the edit wholesale, you also reverted other unrelated changes. May I respectfully ask you to revert your revert? (I don't agree that Nirvana were overrated, incldentally). Eric Blatant (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Eric Blatant: I think you've made a good argument, so I've reverted your changes back in - can you check everything's correct. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete Draft:Lord Aleem?[edit]

Lost interest in creating this guys page, and no one else cares to edit it. Possible to delete?

Draft:Lord_Aleem

AnsarAction (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, as you've been the only significant contributor to it, I can deleted it per WP:CSD#G7 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Who waz Lord Aleem, just out of curiosity? — fortunavelut luna 16:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, a YouTuber? Ok, no worries. — fortunavelut luna 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Here you go Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Should have listened to you first thought i could make an interesting biography not enough good sources. Also novice editor! Thanks. AnsarAction (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hello R. I wanted to make you aware that a couple IPs (but likely the same person) are reverting your edit here. You might want to start a talk page thread about your concerns. If not no worries. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've asked for semi-protection; I believe WP:3RRBLP means I can take out the source to the Daily Mail and the onus is on the other party to come back with a better source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I already changed the source, so there's no need for a protected. 174.192.30.131 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Michael Brandon[edit]

Just wanted to give you a heads up about it, I've recently made some changes to the sources and added more appropriate sources instead of the daily mail source stuff, I apologize for the misunderstanding about it, please try not to ask for it to be protected, because I helped fixed it and made it more appropriate. Thanks! 174.192.25.214 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I also apologize if my IP address keeps changing, my connection is really weird and my IP keeps on changing at random times. 174.192.25.214 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; it's simply that we can't use the Mail as a source for living people. I've been reading what they said about Gina Miller and it's quite vile. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but however, MarnetteD keeps removing his personal life info ever since I changed it. He said the source I added can't be used, but Brandon wrote it himself on his website. 174.192.35.180 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I still wish you can help out resolve this situation and add it back with a better source, because I'm afraid he's gonna removed it again and remove his spouses in the infobox too. 174.192.35.180 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the basic problem is unless a reliable and independent sources declares this element of his personal life to be important, it's best to leave it out per WP:BLP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
I always assumed you were joking, actually- sorry about that! — fortunavelut luna 17:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

What, on your RfA? Nope, absolutely serious - pretty sure MelanieN will co nom. Dr. Blofeld going for RfA was more of a wind-up, but that doesn't mean I don't think he could use the tools responsibly (he's got enough experience of working with tools after all, as I'm sure he'd admit). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

RfA for Fortuna? Of course! I thought I got him to agree, last April, that he would run eventually. And actually I think it was User:Drmies who first publicly suggested the idea to him. No, Fortuna, we are not joking. There are so many of us who want to nominate you, we might have to have a raffle or something to decide who gets to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was me--I do have some good ideas every now and then. I have it on good authority that Fortuna is a bit of a medievalist, so we'll have to beat that out of them before we get the process going. Also, no more jokes please, and stay away from people like EEng. And Jimbo Wales's talk page. We do need to see your ANI stats--by which I mean the stats that indicate when you completely inconsequentially attempted to mediate in an impossible situation, and when you piled on totally obvious support for something that was clearly passing. Quick, you run into a user called User:DonaldTrumpSUX who writes up an article called Hillary and Rahm in a pizza joint meme. What do you do? Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not too far-fetched a question. Back in July I actually did encounter a user called User:Donald J. Trump - 45th President of the United States, going around posting Twitter-like comments. Step one: I blocked them. Step two: I got a good laugh from a reaction on my talk page. See how much fun adminship can be? --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
When did I become the strange neighbor parents warn their children to avoid? EEng 21:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Note that I'm warning the grown ups. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
What went wrong in Robert McClendon's RfA? I hadn't revisited it but saw that he had withdrawn. It wasn't something that happened during the RfA, was it? Fortuna, learning experience...Drmies (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It was that nagging feeling of spending a bit too much time at WP:JIMBOTALK that might have been it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding the A7 criteria[edit]

Hello Ritchie, How are you?

I have some doubts regarding A7. I tagged Josh Dean (writer) as there was no claim of notability (mentions writing at least two books and being editor at various notable magazines). The article had only a product listing for the book from the publisher itself as a reference. It's not independent and it provides no in-depth coverage about the author, so it does not contribute towards establishing notability. I did a quick search before tagging the article and I could not find anything significant either.

For future reference, I would like to know if I have to be more restrictive when tagging under A7. If an article without a valid claim of notability has at least one reference, even if it does not meet our criteria for establishing notability, should I refrain from using the A7 criteria?

Thank you for your advice. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7. In the case of Josh Dean, "His work has appeared in numerous magazines including Rolling Stone, Popular Science, Men's Journal, GQ, Travel + Leisure, New York, Entertainment Weekly, Inc., Fast Company, Men's Health, Runner's World, and Outside" is a clear case of significance ie: something you could use to apply a specific search for sources). Indeed, a Google search for Josh Dean Rolling Stone brings up his profile on RS' own website. That absolutely clears A7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie, thank you for the quick answer. There is a similar page in GQ, both are RS but neither is independent so they can't be used towards meeting WP:GNG.
I have read your guide on A7 before. I think is a good document and I share your views on the subject. Still I have a couple of questions to keep in mind for the future:
My current understanding is that publishing at notable magazines is not a sufficient criteria for establishing notability, am I mistaken? still, I agree with your point of keeping a lower threshold when evaluating A7. I guess that having a claim of a direct relationship with notable entities (publishers, companies etc) seem like a reasonable criteria for that lower threshold. I will avoid tagging such articles as A7 in the future.
My last question would be that if an article has at least a reliable source, even if it is not independent (like the list of articles published at Rolling Stones), should I use that as a reason to avoid A7 Tagging?
Thank you for your advice and best regards, --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Publishing at notable magazines may or may not be a criteria for deserving a standalone article - Jan Wenner, Nick Kent and Charles Shaar Murray are all chiefly known for being magazine writers and journalists - while for others, a redirect for the associated publication might be appropriate. In any case, it's a grey enough area to require a discussion, which takes it out of the remit of CSD, which is for very obvious cases that admins can be confident of bypassing consensus completely without fear of getting it wrong.
If an article has at least one significant and reliable source that mentions the subject, it is definitely not an A7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification the first part does make good sense and I will apply it from now on. For the second I would appreciate it if you could elaborate, is there no issue with the independence of the source? an article with a link to a publisher that mentions its own book and author should be enough to avoid A7? How about a trivial mention? or an iMDB profile?
Thanks again for your guidance, its been very helpful. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you can clear A7 provided the publisher is not a vanity press like Lulu or iUniverse. Not IMDB either, as anyone can add anything there. Basic rule of A7 though is when in doubt, don't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It's Clear now. Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A82 road[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A82 road you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A82 road[edit]

The article A82 road you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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:A82 road for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

UTRS access[edit]

I believe UTRS access can be turned off, if you're a registered UTRS admin, by emailing utrs-admins@googlegroups.com with details. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like SpacemanSpiff has already asked the admins to turn access off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Howdy![edit]

  • Ritchie, I have to say I don't really appreciate you hosting Kumioko talking shit about me here. How about you two start emailing about me if you want to, as much as you want, instead of letting Kumioko spew his fuckwittery about User:Kudpung and me in public? If Kumioko wants to evade his ban to talk about the weather or something with you here, I don't much care. But I would never consider letting him talk shit about other people on my talk page. There is 1000% no question who this; for weird reasons known only to himself, Kumioko always pretends to be some other person who just happens to be deeply concerned about how everybody treated Kumioko. Perhaps he's ashamed of what he has become? I would be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, a clarification. The email suggestion was rhetorical. You haven't annoyed me so much I would wish that on you. I really wouldn't suggest giving Kumioko your email address. If he ever decides he doesn't like you after all, he will create multiple email addresses to harass you daily, and it will take you some time to create a filter that catches them all. Fair warning. At the very least create a throwaway email address just for him that you can walk away from. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ritchie I am surprised to see you entertaining this troll and allowing personal attacks about your colleagues to stand on your talk page. I have made a report to Arbcom about this recent spate of trolling, and am about to retire if this trolling about me and being drunk at 10:30 am in the morning coffee room at George Washington University in the presence of Drmies and Beeblebrox is allowed to continue. These screeds are classic Kumioko exactly as described by Floquenbeam and the IP has been blocked already by Bishonen. If anyone would like to take the time, they will discover that contrary to the almost pathological lies by this poster, Floquenbeam and I were the only admins who treated him kindly and tried to reason with him before he was finally banned by the Foundation. As it stands , admins are perfectly within their rights to summarily block any IP addresses or even make range blocks on anything that reasonably resembles this user and his 200+ sock farm, and to summarily delete their posting and edits. If I do retire from from Wikipedia, I won't be going quietly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Just coffee, though I think I did go out to the terrace to smoke delicious cigarettes. Those were the days. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, after the reply today where I wrote "ignore all dramas and go write something in mainspace", I haven't read anything else that was posted here as I've been either busy in real life or working on another GA. At this juncture, I would like to apologise to Gerda Arendt for being a bit of a grump yesterday, and draw her attention to the fact I got my 100th GA passed today, which means the two main goals I set for this year (the other being Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of London Monopoly locations) have now been achieved, which makes me a happy chappy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever makes you happy, but your GAs are not an excuse. Please try to carryout your part as an admin responsibly, not encourage trolls, and please not make excuses for me on my behalf that are little more than conjecture and an attack. It might have been in good faith, but it was very misplaced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I have removed another diatribe of PA about me and other admins from this talk page. If you can't be around to do so, if there is another one I will semi protect your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I have been away, singing Der Messias in preparation for this years concert. Apology taken. More important: congratulations to GA 100! Content is what we are here for. I think my ratio of content to dramah is not to bad, and invite sceptics to check that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
As I said (or at least implied) earlier, I was out all day yesterday (which Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi can vouch for as I was in the pub with him!) so I have not had a chance to address any of this until now. Now it seems everyone has over-reacted and got angry, it doesn't seem much point in saying anything else, so I think this conversation is over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I can follow this being over, but think it would not hurt to say am sorry to Floq (with whom I was out). - On a different matter, perhaps you can elucidate me how G7 can apply to a page that A wrote, and S moved and then requested to be deleted. Who is the author which the G7 rationale mentions? - I am A, I want it deleted because that move was wrong, but that is not G7. Anything else in the reasons-basket. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You can basically delete per G7 if the page creator blanks it, or asks anywhere (broadly construed) to delete, and if there are no other significant edits on the page (so any bot-gnoming on tags, spaces or general cosmetic stuff is okay). If anyone else has done anything of value to the article, it has to go through the proper deletion procedure. As for Floq, well I'm sorry that I did something that I thought would reduce dramah and did precisely the opposite, but I am not responsible for other people's opinions. Certainly, if somebody else says "Floq abuses their tools", it doesn't actually mean that's it's true, or that anyone else shares that opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to reduce tension, even if it doesn't always work. (I know the feeling.) - The G7: define "asks anywhere (broadly construed) to delete". With only me the author of the content visible on the page, it would not even have to be deleted because I didn't put it on the page that was formerly deleted, I wanted that to stay a (somewhat interesting) red link. Nothing should have been moved there, only to claim it needs to be deleted, - do you understand? It's like moving something from a closet to a table, where it is found disturbing, and request destruction. Why not let it sit in the closet where it doesn't disturb? - I would have stopped talking about it per ignore ignore ignore if I wasn't concerned about such a waste of time thing please not happening again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
By "asks anywhere" I mean you can write on the article or the talk page "I don't want this, please delete". Or you can write "please can [x] by deleted, I can't find the delete button" on your talk page or any message button. Any positive endorsement that you want to quietly undo the page creation in the first place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Understand. No help yet to prevent that someone moves again "my stuff" to where it's not wanted, then makes noise about it, attracting the crowd that seems to wait for the "or-no-supper-word" (which is in the article title, can't get around it), - I listen to being told about lack of smiling collaboration, - sigh. - How about protecting the page from recreation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Talking about[edit]

1FA- or actually SweetFA  :) - can you have a quick look at this request and advise what I need to do? I mean, I don't don't know how I've even got Harvard refs in there in the first place (I tend to object to them in principle)- but I totally agree about standardisation and consistency, etc. Thing is- how? and mre to the point is there an easy way to do it?!fortunavelut luna 12:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no easy way or a script to do it, you just have to kuckle down and do it the hard way. The basic procedure is to earch for {{cite book, copy the book source to the clipboard and move it to "References", making sure you have ref=harv set. Then replace the citation with {{sfn|LastName|Year|p=page}}. Repeat for each occurrence of the source. Then, do a search for <ref> in case there are any bare book references at the end. See this edit to Mick Jagger, for example. In any case, the formatting of book sources is not part of the GA criteria, merely that the source has to be there and sufficiently detailed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Well in which case I've been bullshitted. In any case, I deleted this section as I had come to that conclusion almost immediately. And have now done that. Thanks very much for the reply anyway. — fortunavelut luna 13:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, formatting the sources is nice to do, and if you go through them, you can spot mistakes in the refs that you might have missed - so I don't mind updating Jagger's article myself as the reviewer, but if the nominator doesn't want to do it, I can't fail the review because of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
S'alright, it all came out in the end. Thanks for your help. — fortunavelut luna 18:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocking editors who falsely accuse IPs of vandalism[edit]

wall of text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Great idea. I had a look to see what benefits it would bring and this is what I found:

Chris Bennett

You can get the flavour of his editing from this: [2], [[3]

5 February 2008

"It's more like abuse than vandalism" - arguing with an administrator who had just declined his protection request

However, this editor is now deceased.

Future Perfect at Sunrise

His language was so foul the Arbitration Committee couldn't take it any more and de - sysopped him

22 February 2016

Suggested that it would be a good idea to report editors who do not vandalise for vandalism. Idea rejected by the administrator he was discussing it with

Jusdafax

15 March 2010

Reverted an edit to Julian calendar claiming it was "vandalism". The edit

  • added a direct quote from Macrobius explaining the operation of the calendar in the early imperial period
  • cited a paper by Alexander Jones on the use of the Julian calendar in Egypt

Jc3s5h

For an example of abusive edit summaries see c:Special:Permalink/224981036#DEMAND TO UNDO EDIT

28th October 2009

Rollback is only to be used for reverting vandalism. He was warned about "clear abuse of rollback" and gave this flippant response:

Perhaps I have misinterpreted a failure to look in one's rear-view mirror as an intentional refusal to communicate.

13 February 2010

Alleged an editor introduced "incorrect information" into Julian calendar which appears "to be vandalism". The information was a statement by the Archbishop of Athens that some countries have not adopted the 400 - year leap year rule. He later tried to cover his back (see 9 March 2010 below)

16 February 2010

Alleged an editor is continuing "to vandalise pages". The edit he objected to explained that when converting between the Julian and Gregorian calendars you apply the difference to the calendar you are converting into. After reverting and threatening the editor he quietly added the information back.

9 March 2010

Uses a "vandalism" template to report an editor at AIV. Two minutes later he's back complaining the links don't work. The previous six edits by the editor complained about were to talk pages. Three minutes later an administrator rejects the complaint because no vandalism warning had been issued. To get Jc3s5h off his back administrator tells him he has issued the vandalism warning himself. One minute later he strikes the comment, pointing out that "In fact there is no vandalism, the repeating characters tag was just some dots." Jc3s5h isn't going to let the matter rest and decides on a spot of forum shopping. Nineteen minutes later he pitches up at ANI. Four minutes later he is told

Other admins might differ, but I can't see anything with which I can justify a block or even a warning.

He then starts canvassing Dirtlawyer 1 and Newyorkbrad. His question is:

In connection with the Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, and Revised Julian calendar articles, I would like to know if there is a list of what countries have formally adopted a calendar, and ideally, pointers to the legislation. There are many countries, such as Greece, which might have adopted the Gregorian calendar, or might have adopted the Revised Julian calendar, or might have delegated the choice of a calendar to the state religion. Since the latter two calendars happen to agree with each other for the time being, you can't tell by observing when things happened and how those events are dated in government documents.

Unsurprisingly, this guy has since driven the Vermont government up the wall with a claim that minor officials (like himself) should be able to register marriages.

2 May 2010

Issues a vandalism warning. The edit he objected to

  • explained the mathematics behind the octaeteris and the Metonic cycle
  • added a direct quote from Macrobius explaining the operation of the calendar in the early imperial period
  • cited a paper by Alexander Jones on the use of the Julian calendar in Egypt in the early imperial period

2 June 2010

Reverted a talk page edit claiming it is vandalism. Reverted an edit to Easter claiming it is vandalism. He thereby

  • changed the word "Century" to "Centur"y"
  • removed the information that the early British church was falsely accused of being quartodeciman because they observed Easter on the xiv of the moon whenever it fell on Sunday

Reverted an edit to Computus claiming it is vandalism. He thereby

  • Removed the URL of the book Christliche und jüdische Ostertafeln by Edouard Schwartz
  • Removed the URL of the book The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac by Margaret Dunlop Gibson
  • Removed the title of the book Patrologia Graeca by Migne, replacing it with the unintelligible abbreviation "PG"
  • Removed the URL of the book Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar Second Century BCE-Tenth Century CE by Sacha Stern
  • Inserted the false information that the 84 - year Easter table used in Britain was the same as the one used in Rome
  • Removed the URL of the book Bede: The Reckoning of Time by Faith Wallis
  • Removed the URL of the book The Ecclesiastical Calendar: It's theory and construction by Samuel Butcher
  • Turns the article into a "how to" manual, for example by replacing "it will be found that March comes out exactly the same as January" with "you will find that March comes out exactly the same as January" and "The epacts are needed only from 8 March to 5 April" with "You need the epacts only from 8 March to 5 April"
  • Inserted the false information that short lunar months have the labels xxiv and xxv at the same date
  • Removed the key information that the number of days in the lunar month is dependent on the ordinary month in which it ends and intercalary months are hidden inside ordinary months when the new moon falls at the beginning of the ordinary month
  • Inserted a claim that when Dionysius Exiguus, a confidante of the pope, wrote that the Church follows the precepts of the great Council of Nicaea in its observation of Easter he was lying
  • Removed the URL of the book The Ordering of Time: From the Ancient Computus to the Modern Computer by Arno Borst
  • Removed the URL of the book The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era by Alden A Mosshammer

I haven't progressed this investigation any further because it gets worse and worse as you go on. 86.176.18.240 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You're asking me to look at stuff from ten years ago? Jeez, one of my kids wasn't even born then! Try WP:ANI. Anyway, editors who make false accusations of vandalism should be educated, not blocked. Maybe on an extremely egregious example where they are also being disruptive at the same time, but most of the time it should not be necessary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Really, I think that Vote (x) for change knows that... — fortunavelut luna 13:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Melanie, you're not serious nominating Fortuna for RfA - he can't even write out a coherent edit summary.@Yngvadottir: Ritchie, I'm trying to work out the reasoning here. You're quite happy to take up the cudgels for Best Known For in a case going back just as far despite the lies, incivility and threats ("Yep, you're still a complete twat", "What kind of f------ retarded reason for a revert is that?" etc.) but when an editor is polite and constructive you cut talkpage access. 86.152.81.53 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The editor is a confirmed sock - see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. As for BKFIP, I've got fed up of blocking him and want to try something else - more to the point, that LTA case actually makes constructive edits in mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but there's always the asshole to benefit ratio to consider. I'll take the Best Known For IP over this one any day. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A7 Decline Bank of Commerce Mississippi[edit]

Hello Ritchie, I saw you delcined the A7 I nom'd and mentioned merging it into another article. Which article were you thinking of? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not too sure, but I would guess a merge with Greenwood, Mississippi would be the most obvious. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Any suggestions on how I might go about this? I'd be interested in giving it a shot. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just had a go - if you click on the article it should redirect to a "Commerce" sub-section inside Greenwood's article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A82 road[edit]

The article A82 road you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:A82 road for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Medha Khole[edit]

Medha Khole. hi, please see, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP you blocked for edit warring[edit]

It appears the IP you blocked for one week has a new IP and is back edit warring over Battle of Mu'tah, Early Muslim conquests, and Byzantine–Sasanian wars. Also, as evidence this is the same person, when warned of disruptive editing, they troll my talk page by copying & pasting the same message.Blocked IPnew IP

Do you want I should file another EW report, since this is becoming more harassment and personal attack(s)[[4][5][6], than anything else now. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I think Ritchie is out on the town, so I took care of thins. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Real Life Barnstar.jpg The Real Life Barnstar
Nice to meet you R333, look forward to doing it again. — fortunavelut luna 11:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Page Deletion[edit]

Hi Ritchie, I am trying to publish a page but you recently deleted it - "Livetecs". I was wondering if you could give me any direction so that I can successfully meet all publishing criteria, and also if you could send me the page so that I can work on it? Thanks Richardaldinho (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Richardaldinho: I have restored this to User:Richardaldinho/Livetecs so you can retrieve the text. I don't think there's a good chance it will be acceptable in the long-term as a Wikipedia article, as the encyclopedia focuses on topics that anyone in the world could potentially edit and have long-lasting significance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie - what I don't get in this case, is why comparable pages offering the same thing, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickTime.com or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicon_(company) are acceptable pages, where mine was not. Perhaps you can help me understand where I lacked? Thanks a lot for restoring. Richardaldinho (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Usually, it's because the pages were created years ago, when quality control was a bit more lax. In the case of Clicktime.com, it seems to have been created as a one-time advertisement with no thought to long-term quality, so I've started a deletion discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the info. I might try something else then. Richardaldinho (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Bobherry's talk page.
Message added 15:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Dye & Durham Corporation[edit]

Spin the wheel and see which admin action you end up with .... oh dear, it's gone in "0", that's delete all edits and indef block - sorry!

Much appreciated. I had contemplated doing that myself, but had considered it may get a drive by G11 even as a draft. TJWtalk 16:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if does get a drive by G11 they can't say they weren't warned, but hopefully drafting it will give them a chance to tone it down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Eh... I had also considered whether they might actually be better off starting from scratch, but... I guess we'll see in six months whether there's still a draft there. TJWtalk 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I also had a bit of a trim, so it looks less G11ish now anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh Kudpung... you rascal, you... TJWtalk 21:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Aaaand zero. In other news, three out of four admins recommend Efferdent®. The fourth deleted Denture cleaner. TJWtalk 12:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyvios[edit]

Hey, I got alerted to that whole zoo thing through word of mouth, just wanted to drop a friendly note that if there's copy/paste material placed onto a page that it should probably be revdel'd after removal. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was copy pasted from a public website or just something that had been drafted up. There's a whole bunch of book sources about the zoo, and it's historically important, so when I get a chance I'll expand it - might even be GA material. I've emailed the zoo's marketing representative and they plan to list the most serious errors in the article (which is largely unsourced) so I can try and fix them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Antifa talk[edit]

They quit after the second time, but for something like this, and esp. with content like this, semi-protection is well warranted; this isn't just about some content dispute. The banhammer (well, block hammer, Mr. Admin!) only does one thing and it's not preventative. You should see what's been coming my way... Drmies (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wonder if anyone will listen to this? There've only been two blocks on that talk page, so if IPs are on 5RR on the talk page, maybe we can semi-then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Phil Orsi page[edit]

It was less than a day.... now that's S-P-E-E-DY WITH A CAPITAL "S" It seems lately that editors have no idea whatsoever who is notable in MUSIC!!! Plenty of references and sources... It was clearly not promotion... Phil Orsi is one of Chicago's legendary music artists...just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjay331 (talkcontribs) 21:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jayjay331: Okay, I've just listened to "Loving On Borrowed Time" three times, and I've restored it, I just need to clean it up a bit first otherwise another admin might delete it again. Give me a few minutes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks much Joseph L Pytel Jr 21:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjay331 (talkcontribs)
The problem with this article is that most of the important sources (that confirm record releases on major labels or chart positions) are all buried away in back copies of Billboard that take a bit of sleuthing to uncover. The best advice I can give you (for future articles) is to put a clear and obvious indication of importance right up in the opening paragraph. eg: in this instance, "his single, "Loving On Borrowed Time" is regarded as a Northern Soul classic." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa[edit]

Hi Ritchie. Bit of a kerfuffle at the Barbarossa article at the moment. Can you take a look? Ta. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a bit - that should keep things at bay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Appreciated Ritchie. I doubt if the i.p wishes to discuss using WP:RS but I have left a note on his/her T/P recommending just that. Suspect it's futile though. Cheers mate. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Whining Pussys[edit]

Hello "Ritchie" there is an active rock band from huntington beach california called the whining pussys, I attempted to create a page for them with references, media reviews, etc yet the content was deleted. They play all original music and I am a part of the wikiproject punk rock and bios. I would like to create the page again (I believe it was nominated because I didn't have a chance to include references, I put them later but it was still deleted.) I didn't even get the chance to finish working on the page before it was flagged for deletion and removed. Earl E. Smith (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have restored to User:Earl E. Smith/The Whining Pussys so you can retrieve the content. I had a look for references myself, but I couldn't find anything at the level of Billboard and Rolling Stone which are good base sources to show a group meets our general level of inclusion. A Facebook and Reverbnation page are not suitable references (anyone can create one of those and say anything) and small local blog reviews aren't either (they cover thousands of bands all the time, so it's routine coverage). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Abbey Road[edit]

Hi Ritchie: As I look the edit on Abbey Road, I realize that the sentence isn't clear which album is being referred to: Abbey Road or Let it Be. My attempt was to clarify that but I may be wrong. TdanTce (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, but to me "the" is just slightly quicker to parse. Not by much, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London Victoria station[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Victoria station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've left a few minor comments and quibbles on the review page. Tim riley talk 22:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London Victoria station[edit]

The article London Victoria station you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:London Victoria 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ritchie! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png Thanks a lot for declining the suggestion for speedy deletion of article titled 'Ashok Vaidya'. He is highly notable person in my opinion considering his huge work in the field of research in medicine. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As I've said before on this talk page, in general the online web coverage for notable (or possibly notable) people in India is much lower than in Western countries, and this should be taken into account. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London Waterloo station[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Waterloo station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London Waterloo station[edit]

The article London Waterloo station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:London Waterloo station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - Just going to do a bit more St Pancras before signing off for the night, so it'll probably be tomorrow or Monday before I tackle that lot (unless any talk page stalkers fancy giving it a go) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
No deadline. I had a spare half an hour, so I did something positive. Take your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Well I for one appreciate your daily comments on ERRORS / OTD, even if I never get the chance to fix half of them, so for the "we hate TRM crowd" I say ppfffffftftftf :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Revdel request[edit]

Here. There may be other edits in the Jemele Hill page history that qualify, but the majority of it is accusations of her being a racist, which I'm not sure qualifies. The one I linked to, at least, clearly should be deleted. Thanks. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: Done, thought it was 2:30am when you posted this, so I hope I'm not too late on the ball. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Carlos Becker Westphall[edit]

Hi! Could you please put the deletion tag again in Carlos Becker Westphall? Thanks. 208.73.21.13 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I come here to write content, not destroy it, plus an article gets protected on whatever the status quo is. Get an account and file a discussion at WP:AFD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 04:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thread close[edit]

I'm fine with this but rest assure I will make good with my promise to report Rubin each and every time he makes unfounded claims about me or my motives. I'm sick of it being one-way traffic. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Arthur Rubin, aside from when Dennis Brown says Arthur shouldn't be an admin, I'm prepared to take that opinion at face value. I see John has read him the riot act and he's on thin ice, so I wouldn't worry about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but this isn't about whether he's fit to admin, the answer to that is obvious. No, it's about whether a normal "editor" is entitled to continually level unfounded accusations at another and refuse to provide evidence, time and time again. That should result in a site ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You deleted a page for copyright infringement with no reason[edit]

I am the source of both content.

You could have at least asked me before deleting.

I wrote BOTH versions and it is my right to use.

Shame on you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wightlight (talkcontribs)

@Wightlight: - Copyright infringement means something very specific on Wikipedia. We used the CC-BY-SA licence (which appears on every page just above the "Save changes" button - "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL."). The licence means that you can take any text on any article and redistribute it, even printing it in a bound book and selling it for profit. Most website owners do not want their work copied and sold by other people indiscriminately, so unless the site has a specific and appropriate CC-BY-SA licence, it will be deleted (per the "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" notice the appears above the editing window). And no, we cannot ask before deleting as we need to prevent violations of the terms of service, and you did agree to them when you saved the page, even if you may not have noticed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A very serious complaint[edit]

That picture of Dick Cheney you put up on AN/I was much too complimentary, and not at all like the "classic" Cheney as I remember him. Couldn't you find anything with him holding a shotgun or something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I could, but my photoshopping skills are not so great. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Couldn't you pretend this is fair use or something? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion[edit]

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

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Karen Carpenter.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT 00:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

I have left a note on your talk page; in the meantime I would remind you that you were closed to violating the three revert rule, and in future you should attempt to discuss issues on the talk page. Now, be off with you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ooh, crimony. A "big red error", eh? Is that anything like a Big Leg Emma?? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Martin, making crude jokes over something like The Carpenters, whose reputation rests on being ultra-conservative, clean cut and generally so bloody nice, is just so .... wrong Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Only the start, I assure you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Need a bit of help[edit]

Ok, so Merlin Sutter is still in the NPP queue and has been since June 2015. It was already redirected once with an AfD template that resulted in redirect but a new editor reverted the redirect stating in the edit summary that the guy joined a different band. Should it still be blanked and redirected as was done before per the AfD, or should it be deleted? Atsme📞📧 01:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: (talk page stalker) It seems I dream of horses has already taken care of it by re-redirecting it. I've marked the redirect as patrolled so it shouldn't come up in the NPP queue any more. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: As Anarchyte said, I already found the article in Category:Stubs and reverted the edits. IMO, consensus still applies; at most, we might have to redirect to a different band, but only if that band is notable.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Atsme📞📧 03:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)