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.

Contents

Your GA nomination of Graham Chapman[edit]

The article Graham Chapman you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Graham Chapman 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 Onel5969 -- Onel5969 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! You might be interested in expanding The Duke of Hamilton I just started.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld, I don't suppose you could check that GA review? It looks very, well, brief. Now obviously I think it's close to GA (or I wouldn't have put it up) but I'd much rather I had a proper constructive critique of my work. Given the problems Sitush has thrown up on Talk:Babur I think it's worth doing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It certainly looks to meet the GA criteria. I think you expect too much from GA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talkcontribs)

Eric has taught me well ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Red link[edit]

I think the consensus is perfectly clear that it's no longer appropriate to keep it locked in Sinden's version. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably, but the protection is (according to my clock) going to run out in about 11 minutes, so I think I'll just run its course for the mo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The moral of this story is, if there's drama involving Eric and you're an admin, keep your trap shut. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no moral in a story where a request which was dismissed by all who commented (I slept then) grew into this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Might as well stay at home and listen to a nice Bach cantata. Or, if you're feeling adventurous, The Nice's take on Sibelius' Karelia Suite, Intermezzo including the frankly bizarre juxtaposition of a nice opening string movement against some truly terrifying Hammond organ feedback noises that will probably involve all listeners of a sane mind to run out of the room screaming. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
When there is no moral I can't stay home, so commented on top of the noise - needed for my conscience. I did the same last time, my first arb case ever, my salad days when I thought motion set something in motion, in that case an infobox for Verdi (Beethoven made it from case workshop to article as you may have seen, much to my amusement entered by the arb himself.) - Next Bach cantata BWV 88, in progress. When that hook appeared with the nice image, they removed the image in the middle of the day because it was not specified what was pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing nice about the soundtrack to ArbCom. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand there's always the flamethrower option. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally my thoughts gravitate more towards this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
LOL thanks, that made me laugh. Still laughing. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought more - also of flames - of something like enforcers' Götterdämmerung (the woman who can't believe what she sees), alternative pic here, - seems that we had more fun in that Case, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Too lazy to start a new topic: just resist sin GA candidate.svg - anybody inclined? Only three movements, - want it to appear on DYK 19 July if possible ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dewtron has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Dewtron, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I never - can you expand this, Martin? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
OMG. I might need to research my Throbbing Gristle a little deeper. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Have to confess that since it's been sunny and in the news I have been listening to quite a bit of the Grateful Dead recently. The trouble with them is I think they're the most documented band on the internet ever and just trying to find somewhere to start is difficult, but Europe 72 seems to be as good a place as any. Still, it's started raining, so maybe I should put the weird / miserable stuff back on the stereo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Your GA nomination of Whitechapel Road[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whitechapel 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitechapel Road[edit]

The article Whitechapel 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:Whitechapel Road for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitechapel Road[edit]

The article Whitechapel Road you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Whitechapel 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxford Street, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Turnpike and John Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Martyn at Trade Signal Machine[edit]

You unblocked User:Martyn at Trade Signal Machine on condition that he didn't edit Trade Signal Machine. He's recreated the article. Bazj (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bazj: Thanks. I am generally amenable (probably more than most admins) to unblocking people and giving them a second chance, hoping that's enough for them to understand the problems. The flip side of that is, if I tell you flat out "don't do 'x' or you'll be blocked" and you do 'x', what choice do I then have? Indeffed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
None. I admire your WP:AGF even as trawling through WP:NPP makes me more and more cynical. Bazj (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Todd[edit]

Just so you know, I finally learned what was up with that AfD challenge of Douglas Todd, via email from him after the fact. It was an organized campaign to hit the piece by Sikh nationalists that objected to his writing on a controversial airline disaster, which brought out the other team, too. It was a good close based on sources available (which I explained to him), but there was something rotten in Denmark with that debate, as you observed at ANI. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tim. I had a feeling it was along those lines - personally I'd have been happy with a redirect than a straight delete, but that's consensus for you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the stick[edit]

This horse is alive and well and no sticks should be introduced near it under any circumstances.

I am not into equine necrophilia. All that needed to be done has been done. The AFD will do whatever it does, and the editor will do whatever he or she does. The SPI is already closed, sufficient rope was allowed, relevant IP blocks are in place, and I hope the editor will become a good citizen. I doubt it, but I can hope. Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If I say anything nasty about horses, Montanabw will descend upon this page and give me a nasty look, so I won't. I think you were just getting a bit over-excited in the dealing with user, because given the conversation I suspected this to be a user who had had an article deleted via A7/G11 (possibly several times) and was getting cross, but it turns out it's just that AfD and a few other okay gnomish edits. New editors do tend to overreact sometimes when their first edits aren't preserved, it's just the way it goes. Anyway, as you say, it's all over so I'm going back to expanding / sourcing Oxford Street now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Stick? Shtick more like. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Whew! Montanabw(talk) 03:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, silly me[edit]

Crikey, my talk page is like Piccadilly Circus this lunchtime!

At User talk:Acorn Publications I managed to misread your comment about "excellent work at AfC elsewhere" as being addressed to the editor "Acorn Publications", not to TimTrent, so the comment I put there was nonsense. I have removed it, and I have also taken the unusual step of removing your response to it. Since the comments are based on a misunderstanding, and will not help "Acorn Publications" at all, I felt that this was a situation in which IAR takes precedence over the principal that one does not remove another editor's talk page post. If you disagree, please let me know. My apologies for my careless mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, due to an edit conflict, at the time I posted the above message, the comments had not been removed, but they have now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. We are all human and we all make mistakes. No harm done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion[edit]

was wondering if you would give your opinions of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acorn_Mobility at its deletion discussion thanks Acorn Publications (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bretthuk72: I have no reason to doubt that you posted that request in good faith. However, since it was addressed to an administrator who has just unblocked you, there is a danger that it might be seen by some editors as an attempt to get a comment from someone who you think might be well-disposed towards you. Soliciting participation in a discussion from someone you have reason to think might support you is not well regarded: see Wikipedia:Canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks !James. The short answer is "I don't know". As I hinted above, I've got a limited amount of time over the weekend, I really should be helping with sawing wood right now instead of typing on here, and I'd really like to spend it getting Oxford Street to GA status (please, please, somebody, anybody pull out the cites for the 2013 and 2014 Christmas Lights shows so I don't have to!) If I have any time, I will look further. If I can improve it to the point of !voting "Keep", I will, but I make no promises at all that will be the case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
To be scrupulously fair, the request was made in neutral terms, with the editor having no idea what opinion you might offer. I would not hold the request against them. There is no validity in the assumption that an admin unblocking an editor might also be in favour of that editor's edits or an article to which they have contributed. The only assumption one may make, especially about one trusted with the keys to the janitor's cupboard, is that they will apply policy rigorously. We know this not to be a universal truth, but it is the best assumption. I would not treat their request as canvassing, more as asking, slightly obliquely, for advice. So, if you have the time or the inclination, please offer your opinion either way. If not, please enjoy shopping. That discussion will end in due course, and an outcome will happen. Either way Wikipedia will be improved. Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I totally agree. I started my message to Bretthuk72 by saying "I have no reason to doubt that you posted that request in good faith", and I meant that: I was not suggesting that I thought it was canvassing, just giving what was meant to be a friendly warning to Bretthuk72 that posting such messages might be seen that way. I was also not for a moment suggesting that Ritchie333 would be likely to act in a biased way, or would not "apply policy rigorously". However, I have sometimes seen perfectly innocent requests for help in circumstances like this being misinterpreted by some editors as wicked collusion, so it is as well, I think to be very careful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: I agree with every word you have said above. Fiddle Faddle 12:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help at negative resistance GAN[edit]

  • Nominator would like a new reviewer... do you know anyone who could help? Thanks! • Lingzhi(talk) 13:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: I'm not sure I could do the review justice; I tend to restrict GA reviews to areas I have a good subject understanding or am confident I could learn it quickly. The Rambling Man is going through GA reviews like a knife through butter right now, but even he might pause on this one. Failing that, you could ask on the GA nominations talk page? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I could give it a look over, like Ritchie I tend to stick to my comfort zone, but lately that zone seems have widened... Let me know if I can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Please see new thread at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Thanks. • Lingzhi(talk) 03:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Mischaracterization[edit]

In what sense is reverting the edits of a blocked editor "edit warring"? Think it's at least worth using fair characterisations in your evidence?—Kww(talk) 15:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You could have just ignored it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) It doesn't work that way with some admins, they let some stuff slide and are robust and forthright with other stuff. That's one of the reasons that most of the community distrust a large percentage of admins, they are entirely inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I could have failed in my role as an administrator and allowed a blocked editor to update policies about an issue that directly affected him. That doesn't make my decision to revert it "edit-warring"—Kww(talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Rolt[edit]

Hello, Ritchie333. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "David Rolt".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Rolt}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Well since I am an administrator, I can undelete it. It turns out this was a draft I declined for being non-notable about three years ago. Wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground I'm afraid - I think you've sent this to the wrong person. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Age in years[edit]

Semi-protection I understand. Why template-editor accessible? --George Ho (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what we tend to do with templates that have high usage. It means people wanting to change them have to have good technical understanding, to avoid a high load on the server. The user right is reasonably easy to ask for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
TE is not reasonably easy to acquire and 691 transclusions is not TE-high high usage. Also, the server can manage whatever load we throw at it; there is such a thing as load balancing and a queue. Alakzi (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I seem to remember just saying "could I have TE please?" (I think it was to edit Template:AFC submission) and got it. It certainly wasn't a big deal compared to RfA! To be honest, I was faced between template protection (it's sufficiently high use) or no protection (not sufficiently high use) - I didn't see a requirement for semi. As @Jonesey95: has done the most work on the template, let's see what his view is and maybe go with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
That's because it was you; most people have got to ask for it at WP:RFP/T, where they will be scrutinised. What do you mean about semi? Alakzi (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It was asked for semi-protection by an editor who had never touched the template asking for it. Based on my own experience (eg: Template:Db-event), template protection does seem to be favourable for templates that transclude many articles (although "many" is subjective). The principal problem is if you aren't entirely sure what you're doing in, you can change the template many times with little "fix", "oops", "fix again" and "debug" edits, each one individually affects the job queue adversely. That's why it's a good idea to get a consensus first, test, and ask someone with technical changes to make the live deployment. Pretty much how all good professional coding is done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
TE is not so much an issue with the template in question, but I've seen instances where protection was clearly detrimental. So long as people use the transclusion count as the only measure, this sets a very bad precedent. Alakzi (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Why not ask at the template's talk page what other people think, or another noticeboard (not sure which is best? WP:VPT maybe?), and we'll see what takes. Have you a specific change on this template that you are frustrated about because you cannot make it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I can edit the template; I'm a template editor. I don't feel so strongly about it that I'd start a new thread elsewhere. Alakzi (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


Deletion review for Sway Public Relations[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sway Public Relations. 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. Gixego 17:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There has never been an article with that title, so I can't restore it. In general, you'll get a better result asking for a restore to draft (which I'm usually happy to do) than charging head first into DRV. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Pepper Creek, Porter County, Indiana[edit]

Hello Ritchie333, I see you declined the CSD because CSD doesn't apply to "locations". I would argue that Pepper Creek, Porter County, Indiana is a company since it's a commercial lot of houses, so no more a "location" than Bob's Hardware Store is. But I grant it's a disputable issue, so I'll just PROD it instead. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas: Okay, PROD sounds good. It looked suspicious but I tend to err on the side of not deleting things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dyingscene.com[edit]

Hello Ritchie333 - I was wondering if you could help us remove a web extension from the blacklist. Our concern is that there is a wiki editor somewhere who is practicing favoritism .I brought this up another wiki editor who threatened to ban my editing privileges if I accuse any wiki editors of this; however, his threat is absurd because how can anybody assure another that their fellow human being is without bias? These are gestapo tactics and they will never deter us from researching how DyingScene.com is not being currently considered as a valid news source when sites like punknews.org and absolutepunk.net are. DyingScene.com arguably does more interviews, album reviews, exclusive premieres and publishes way more original content then either of those sites. Our goal it to get the site whitelisted. Can you please assist? Robzwop (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robzwop: First up, don't mention the Nazis even in passing, it hurts you more than it helps. Secondly, it would help to know which articles you are having difficulty with. @Carrite: is an experienced editor whose clued into the indie-punk scene more than I an (given I've just been improving an old blues hippie that figures) but my gut feeling is I probably wouldn't consider any of those three sources to be particularly good. For band articles you really want to be aiming to cite things like Billboard, Rolling Stone or the music section of the New York Times. Band articles are a hard sell on Wikipedia and I know from personal experience that you can be reasonably successful without ever having one. As for the blacklist, your best bet is to raise a thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ted W Kulp[edit]

The link for the party re-directs to his page. Neither are notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Send it to AfD then. A7s are for blatant articles that have not a chance of ever being improved to notability. If you look at WP:CSD carefully, you'll see that "not notable" is a typical error when speedy tagging. If I thought it met the criteria for A7, I would have deleted it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the work to put it on AfD. Appreciate the help. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bond Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bond Street[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bond Street 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bond Street[edit]

The article Bond Street 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:Bond Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bond Street[edit]

The article Bond Street you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Bond Street 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


My RfA[edit]

Homemade chocolate chip cookies, fresh out of the oven, November 2009.jpg
Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Yum. I certainly think you and Cyberpower678 should be admins, but there's this blasted thing called "consensus" around here. Ah well, as Gerda might muse, Vielleicht Das Nächste Mal.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Vielleicht nächstes Mal, - German is no friend of extra capitalization in headers. May be that's why I still hate (and I don't say "hate" often) what we have instead of A Boy was Born. Listened to it, King's College Choir at the Rheingau Musik Festival: A Boy was Born, of course, what else?. How would anybody have the idea to name a thing differently than its creator? Only Wikipedia assumes higher authority - called consensus - than the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know but me and the "missus" do get a good chuckle out of that massive RfC a while back that debated "The Beatles" over "the Beatles". Actually, the whole of Lamest edit wars makes us laugh, I must pop in something about the "Barbara hater" accusations on Barbara Streisand that turned up a while back.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Happy chuckeling - you probably didn't write The Beatles. Imagine you name a child (like Britten did) and people give it an official different name, and remove the image of your name from the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Joe Seerg[edit]

Hi. I nominated this article for AFD (2nd nomination) but I screwed up the formatting. Can you help? Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC) -- Never mind, already taken care of. Quis separabit? 22:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

IP[edit]

Can you keep an eye on this IP, keeps spamming the Dorchester article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

12 hours' protection should sort that. In the meantime, as the old saying goes, WP:RFPP is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you find anything more on Nicky Blair's?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Had no idea Vine Street was so tiny, surely little more than 10 metres long! I do think we need to find who is based in the buildings there currently though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A bunch of non-notable businesses, back ends of shops, and if you're lucky, a few chavs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Faversham[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Faversham to good article status.

Another GA! Keep up the good work. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

evnin' all[edit]

Metropolitan Police custodian helmet.jpg The Letsbeavinyou award for services to policing
For your great work on Vine Street, London. Now run along PC 333 Ritchie, Mrs Jones is reporting a theft of her daffodils in Arcadia Drive. Report to me for traffic duties when you're done. Sgt. CassiantoTalk 18:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Rum, Sodomy and erotic asphyxiation, I hear? That Marquess is a cad and a fop. Still, one can survive everything nowadays except death. And ANI.
  • "Rum, Sodomy, and erotic asphyxiation". One quite often leads to the other in some police stations, I'm led to believe! CassiantoTalk 18:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It's still not 5x expanded to get up to DYK though, which would have a brilliant hook. Aaaargh, bloody rules. Just need 400 more characters or so, but I've mined every source going. Maybe I'll just add some unsourced original research like a "bent" copperadmin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Do say hello to D/Supt Jeremy and DC Timothy. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC) ... oh, and P.C. Pan Am, of course!
Right, as Graham Chapman might say, I'm so and so of the yard and I'm stopping this sketch because it's not using a proper punchline. Now, you're all nicked, down to the station with the lot of you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
sock-it-to-me, Harry Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I 'ave it from a semi-reliable source, that Graham Chapman's birthplace is now the "neurological and specialist care unit' of CheerHealth Ltd. What an 'orrible name. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Winklevi again[edit]

"My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One or the other of us has got to go."

How many more users have to run into his editwarring ways? See: [1]. Saw this on Wikipediocracy.[2] Regardless of he was in the right or not, I pointed out as well as other users have pointed out that he is a problem user. I get blocked for three weeks--where you chickened out on unblocking me--and he gets a slap on the wrist for his 6th dragging to AN/I. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no justice, either on Wikipedia or in the world generally. Oscar Wilde - two years' hard labour for sodomy. Dale Winton - not a peep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The Importance of Being Fastest? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC) "I'm so sorry, Oscar, love, but it's time for you to enter the RED AREA!"
  • funny. I remember supermarket sweep in the old day's when cable was 20 channels and nothing was worth watching except hbo. Maybe it'll be like The Magnificent Ambersons...when young George Minifer aggravated people, they'd all say he'd one day get his comeuppance. When he did, none of them we're around to see it. The entire autie thing with Winklevi looks like a canard...he added all that b.s. as a convenient excuse after people started raising issues his hehavior. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
20 channels? Good grief, hands up who remembers when we had three and you had unforgettable classics like this. not too heavy on the banjos - vulgar, vulgar Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
In fact Britain only has one, except for that special Welsh one, over in the far west for the "hard of thinking". Allegedly. Dai Laughing (Splott) 18:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Louis Belasco[edit]

A couple of days ago, you increased this editor's block for edit-warring from 60 hours to indefinite, citing Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Runtshit. Although this editor was indeed needlessly offensive, he is clearly not Runtshit, who has a very characteristic agenda and style. This editor has very different interests, and is apparently aggrieved that I PRODded his article. Unless you have some specific evidence which is not apparent to me, then I suggest that you undo your block and allow the original block to run its course. RolandR (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@RolandR: - This edit convinced me it was. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
No. As I said, he was venting because I had PRODded his article. Runtshit has a very characteristic pattern; he makes no legitimate edits, but follows me to articles I have been editing, particularly articles related to the Middle East or Socialism, and makes taunting, frequently scatological, comments. He will repeat the same edit on as many articles as he can before being blocked, and never uses edit summaries. There are also username traits which this editor does not display. In short, this is a genuine editor, with a particular interest in the subject of the article, who is unable to handle disagreement. It seems unlikely that, unless he improves his behaviour, he will be around for long; but he should not be indeffed on the basis of a clear misidentification. RolandR (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've unblocked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

WordGirl (season 7)[edit]

Hi Ritchie333. This is about WordGirl (season 7). I've had a look at the deleted revisions, and I 100% agree that it's a G12 candidate. But in this case, as the page is going to be under a lot of scrutiny due to Cyphoidbomb's RfA, would you be willing to IAR and undelete the page until it is over? The non-admins following the RfA will undoubtedly want to see the page to help them in their assessment of the candidate, and they won't be able to do that if it's deleted. And legally, Stfg's revision with the content blanked out and the large "Investigation of potential copyright issue" notice visible should cover us until the RfA is over. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: I'm afraid I'll have to decline. Copyright violations are one of the few things that I believe are non-negotiable. As it says at the top of this edit window : "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". I appreciate it would be beneficial to restore it for non-admins to make an effective evaluation, and that the timing of this is particularly unpleasant, but as an admin if I see a page that unquestionably qualifies as WP:CSD#G12 it must be deleted. To try and give an analogous example, many people would have preferred the evidence of harrassment against Lightbreather in her arbitration case to be played out in public, but there are good reasons why it couldn't, and I feel the same (albeit to a lesser degree of severity) about copyright violations. The only reason I could contemplate restoring is if somebody can supply obvious proof the original source has a CC-BY-SA compatible licence. I hope that clarifies my position. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure that this is analogous with the Lightbreather case, but don't worry, I do understand where you're coming from. As I said, my suggestion was an IAR one, so as policy goes, your position is definitely the stronger one, and I'll respect your decision. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Insult[edit]

Re: this, I genuinely do not understand how you perceive my comment as an insult to another editor, rather than as standing up to someone who, from my perspective, had insulted me. "I find it strange that the candidate would need somebody to change his diapers, grown-up admins are supposed to speak for themselves." I'm not asking you to justify, I'm just pointing out that I have no idea where you're coming from. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Text communication is difficult - so much emotion is lost and tempers flare more easily. If I got the wrong end of the stick, I'm sorry. In this instance, I think Kraxler was bluntly telling AussieLegend that his bludgeoning replies to everything were unhelpful and actively harming your RfA. As an admin, people will insult you - if you work in anti-vandalism, you can expect abuse from just about anyone. You must have a thick skin to deal with this. So even if Kraxler really was insulting, don't fire back. Okay, in normal chat between editors, it's not too bad, but for an admin to a blocked (or soon to be blocked) editor, you really need to ramp the AGF up to silly levels. Otherwise you'll burn out. This, incidentally, is where the "Old fashioned values" userbox on my page comes from - you can see people having a pop at me on this talk page, but I do try and calm the situation down and approach everything rationally, though I'm not always successful.
Anyway, from now on, apart from numbered questions directed at you, avoid commenting at the RfA and tell AussieLegend he should not make any more edits on it. Hopefully then the result will come back around 75 - 80% and you'll get a pass. Despite my concerns that adminship might not be best suited, I really do wish you all the best as you generally are polite, well-mannered and I sincerely believe you are here to help the project. That much is clear, and you wouldn't have had the large level of support you've already acquired without it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, Ritchie, thank you. I do have a thick skin and I rarely get into it with other editors, even [when dealing with people who are clearly unhinged]. I only pointed out that I found his comments condescending and rude. That's not an insult to him, that's an explanation of how I perceived his comments. I was over the matter immediately after that, so to hear it come up again as a point of concern is distressing. One huge flaw in the RfA process is that people get to voice opinions based on cherrypicked information, and the candidates are discouraged from addressing the incorrect perception. For instance, I can list for you 14 examples from my past 1000 edits where I demonstrate I have a clear understanding of Wikipedia's copyright rules. Am I allowed to present that to at the RfA? Of course not, and that's what makes this a flawed system. Anyhow, thanks again for your note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cyphoidbomb:, I thought the allusion was blatantly obvious. I made a comment elsewhere, without mentioning the name, that he should back off due to actually damaging the RfA and causing drama. I was understood immediately. I think admins should have sufficient perception to recognise such nuances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrong decision.[edit]

Hello,

That "other user" you mentioned here, namely User:Madhyapak, is another sock of the same sock master who created the article. The article should thus still he deleted. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Even so, I think G5's should only apply if the article should be AfDed or otherwise should not be added. I know people shouldn't evade blocks and create content while doing so, but that's life. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northumberland Avenue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pall Mall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say "yeah right" but bugger me, it appears the cigarette gets more views than the street. Well I never. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Akhtar Raza Khan[edit]

Hello mr.Ritchie as I saw that the article with name Akhtar Raza Khan has been deleted because of copyright problem.I think someone who dont have any knowledge of the rules on wikipedia would have created that.

Now, I decided to creat the article again abiding by the rules and laws.But it says only an administrator can creat it.Therefore I am requesting you to please restore the article I will improve that article.I will take out the contents which violates copyright rules. Or you may simply creat a new article with that name with a few lines I will thereafter improve that adding more words and sources...

It will be your kind favour on me If you accept my request.

Thanking you for reading my request.

Ejaz92 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ejaz92: The easiest thing to do is to use the Article Wizard to create a new version of the article in Draft space. You can then submit the draft for an independent review. When the review is accepted, the protection can be removed at that time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.I benefited from your advice and wrote a draft.I will be very thankful of you if you reveiw the draft soon Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan Ejaz92 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Quid pro quo at GAN[edit]

Hi Ritchie. I noticed you've had The Nice nominated for GA for nearly 2 months. I've had a music article, DJ AM, nominated for almost as long as yours. Just throwing it out there, if you'd like to swap reviews i'd be happy to do so. You review mine and i'll review yours. I expect your review to be thorough though, as mine will be also, I don't want to give you the impression that i'm interested in just passing both our articles through with a perfunctory check. No worries if you're not interested or too busy though. I made this same offer to someone else a couple weeks ago but they didn't reply. I do review GANs myself from time to time with no expectation of getting a review in return, i'm just rather keen to get my current nominations all resolved as i'm going to be taking an extended absence from Wikipedia in September. Anyway let me know if you're interested or not. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Freikorp: I am struggling to find the time to do GA reviews - typically I find they require about 2 hours' dedicated focus on the article. However, I've started the review here and made a few initial comments. I think the main issue we'll have is keeping the plane crash and death in proportion to his career. As for The Nice, it's been more like two years since I thought "this article really should be improved" and it's had at least one trip to the BLP noticeboard since then as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the time for this. I've initiated a review of The Nice. Got the easy stuff out of the way today; i'll have an in depth look at the article tomorrow. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Pending unblock request[edit]

Is there an update on the pending unblock request at User_talk:Stokesnet#July_2015? Not sure if you got the info from Bbb23 that you were waiting for, as you wrote on July 20. I was reminded this was still pending when one of the related sock's unblock req was just declined at User_talk:Mwrcwms#Unblock_Request. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba:@Bbb23: I haven't heard anything since I posted the unblock request and if I didn't know any better I would say that Stokesnet has got fed up of Wikipedia rules and regulations and given up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe its a notification bug, or its disabled. I've pinged Bbb23 on their talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It's very late, and I'm very tired, so I may not express myself as clearly as I normally would. I saw Ritchie's message soon after he put the unblock request on hold. Whether the ping was succcessful doesn't much matter as the page was on my watchlist. I didn't respond for two reasons.
First, normally (at least in my experience) when an administrator puts an unblock request on hold to seek comments from the blocking administrator, he approaches the blocking administrator on their Talk page. He doesn't put his comments in the hold expecting the blocking administrator to respond on the blocked user's Talk page. So, I assumed that if Ritchie really wanted to hear my views, he would done that, but he didn't.
Second, I wasn't eager to respond to what Ritchie said. I was quite taken aback when I first read it. I had had no problem discussing the issues with Bagumba, but I found Ritchie's comments at least mildly offensive. For him to say publicly that he was "shocked" and that we should "apologise" was over-the-top given the circumstances, and I didn't know how to civilly respond to an administrator that would characterize the events in that way. (As an aside, I don't know what he means by the loss of the orange bar. It's still alive as far as I know. I just got it when Bagumba posted to my Talk page.)
Third, I am also well aware of how many times Ritchie has blocked users and how much he hates doing so. If I recall correctly, at one time he said (on Drmies's Talk page?) that it made him physically ill to block users. That's a rather unusual thing for an administrator to feel. Some administrators, of course, block more than others, but I know of no other administrator who is almost effectively opposed to blocking. In my view, that makes Ritchie biased when evaluating an unblock request in any circumstances.
Fourth, as to the merits of unblocking the user, I'm still not convinced that unblocking her is for the benefit of the project. On the one hand, she discusses the Meeks article as if her only interest was in helping someone who'd asked for it, but, on the other hand, she has worked on articles that obviously benefit her non-profit. Whether her overall intent is malicious, benevolent, or a mixture I can't say, but there are a lot of unexplained inconsistencies in her statements. Just because a lot of what she says is plausible - and I'm willing to accept some of what she says as true - doesn't mean that everything she says is true. Just as with some vandals - and I'm not labeling her a vandal - there are some that are purely malicious, but there are also some that vandalize a good deal and also make constructive edits. At some point, you have to decide what should be done with a particular user on balance. The black-and-white cases are easy. The gray ones, not so much. I wish Ritchie's comments could be undone. It now looks like if I agree to unblock her, even if I don't apologize, I am implicitly apologizing because it comes after Ritchie's comments.
Finally, although you may already be aware of it, I don't want there to be any misunderstanding later. Per policy, checkuser "blocks must not be reversed by non-checkusers. Administrators should not undo or loosen any block that is specifically called a "CheckUser block" without first consulting a CheckUser." (see WP:CHK section entitled "CheckUser blocks") WP:CUBL is even stronger: "If an administrator believes that a checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee. A reversal or alteration of such a block without prior consultation may result in removal of permissions." And this is not really a case of an erroneous checkuser block. I think that Ritchie believes the user should not be blocked because they acted innocently. Please don't expect any more comments from me tonight. I may continue to edit Wikipedia (I have recurrent insomnia), but I won't be doing anything as draining as writing this little treatise.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: If there are no further comments, perhaps you can formally decline the unblock. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather close it as "no consensus" if that's possible. I don't think there's much point going to WP:AN to get a wider consensus over the block, as the editor has disappeared so any other action is moot. Let me see if I can close it appropriately. Regarding the "loss of the big orange bar", see Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ#What happened to the orange bar for talk page messages on Wikipedia? specifically the point "we do realize that there's a risk that messaging-related notifications are not sufficiently prominent in the web interface". I find the final paragraph on Stokesnet's talk to be insightful and worth everyone taking on board. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Nice[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Nice 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Nice[edit]

The article The Nice 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:The Nice for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Nice may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{Notelist}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh that's right, don't fix it yourself, just moan. Are you here to write an encyclopedia? Hah - may Keith's L-100 drop on you on a great height :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Count yourself Lucky. To stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried but it bounced. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Nice[edit]

The article The Nice you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:The Nice 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And that's GA #50. Do I meet GregJackP's admin criteria now? ;-) It's a lovely sunny day to go and visit Sandwich and eat a Sandwich while trying to avoid being sandwiched. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason for the snark? I didn't participate in your RfA, nor does it really matter what I think at this point. Obviously though, you don't understand my reasoning, or you would know that I could care less about post-mop content as far as a person's admin abilities go. I use it to determine whether or not to support them for the mop, it has no bearing on what admins themselves do. BTW, congratulations on reaching 50 GAs, that's quite an accomplishment. GregJackP Boomer! 07:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Greg, I thought you'd take that humour in the fun spirit it was intended :-/ For what it's worth, I believe that admins should have experience in content creation. Firstly, creating GAs shows the ability to explain a subject well to a general audience and demonstrate good writing skills - explaining stuff is vitally important. Secondly, if you adjudicate a dispute without really having a deep understanding of the topic which comes from either doing GA writing or reviews, you run the risk of all the participants thinking "You don't know what you're talking about - bloody stupid admins again". Thirdly, if you spend all your time on noticeboard and arbcom cases you lose the ability to see the wood for the trees. To give a real world example, even José Mourinho (regarded as one the better "admins" in football) had a stint in "content" with the Portuguese Second Division. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No prob. Long day/night for me, I should have known better. I apologize, and have struck everything but the attaboy for hitting 50 GAs. GregJackP Boomer! 08:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Sandwich? I always thought you were a bit posh, Threesie. So is it Deal or No Deal? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've linked to your admin essay in my admin criteria essay. GregJackP Boomer! 15:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lola (song)[edit]

Ritchie333, the nominator has replied to your review; I was wondering whether you could return to continue it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Irony"[edit]

I'm going to presume that this was intended as a joke. Surely an administrator would not be so insulting? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup - Round 2[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2
Symbol support vote.svg

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points.

The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category.

After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition.

Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful.

16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, 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) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

International Forgiveness Day[edit]

Globe-barnstar2.png The Barnstar of International Forgiveness
Yes, Threesie, I've decided to graciously forgive you, for being such a twerp bolshy git. Enjoy!!
Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
(p.s. please don't block me again Mister Admin, Sir. A "suitable adjustment" is already on it's way to the usual PayPal address.)

Revert undiscussed move of KTM[edit]

Hi, I'm looking for an admin to revert an undiscussed move of KTM to KTM-Sportmotorcycle AG, on the basis "Malaysian railway is much known". The KTM railway is not the primary topic and before this page is moved (again; this was tried in 2009) there needs to be consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really my topic of expertise, I'm afraid. The best thing to do is go to requested moves and set up a proposed move request. That will give you a consensus under which anyone moving again can face sanctions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

No Gun Ri Peace Park-Memorial Tower.jpg No Gun Ri Barnstar
Thanks for protecting No Gun Ri Massacre. Very much appreciated. GABHello! 20:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, now run along to WP:DRN and get a consensus on what to do, otherwise it'll get protected again, and next time a less charitable admin might hand out blocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I've already been, and it was closed as a conduct dispute best suited for ANI, although they did suggest formal mediation. GABHello! 22:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old Kent Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elephant and Castle station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)