Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

June 2016

"Oh, and, by the way, if you think that it's unprofessional to be funny, then I'm sorry, but you just don't have a sense of humor. (Don't deny it. People without senses of humors always deny it. You can't fool me.) And if you work in a company where people will respect you less because your specs are breezy, funny, and enjoyable to read, then go find another company to work for, because life is just too damn short to spend your daylight hours in such a stern and miserable place."

Joel Spolsky[1]

Information icon Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Miss Grand Universe Canada that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Why are you an administrator? You call people names and don't understand Wikipedia speedy deletion A3 which says - "This applies to articles (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images." The article has no content but links. That qualifies as A3. Your conduct is appalling. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I'm sorry you think like that, however the relevant portion of WP:CSD#A3 here is as follows : Similarly, this criterion does not (my emphasis) cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet another speedy deletion criterion. Since the article is already under a debate at AfD, and since it doesn't meet the criteria where it is vitally important to delete the content (such as WP:CSD#G10 - attack page or WP:CSD#G12 - copyright violation), there is no need to rush to delete the article, and it is better to wait the full seven days to give as much chance to see if somebody can save it. In answer to your first question, there is something on this talk page archives where I discussed criteria under which I would resign as an administrator, but I can't find it at the moment. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • WilliamJE, do you think "Why are you an administrator? .... Your conduct is appalling" is collaborative, polite, and respectful? It's you and Graham11 who are violating policy by removing a pre-existing AfD template. And I don't see Ritchie333 calling anyone names anywhere there (seriously, "Mr. Impatient" is not name-calling, it's descriptive of your policy-violations). I do however see you being very uncivil above. See also WP:DTTR. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • User:Softlavender. You accuse me of violating policy and removing a pre-existing AFD. Neither of which I did. Put up proof otherwise. Of course you fail to know WP:Civil, where it is clear namecalling isn't justified. It also says accusations need proof otherwise you violated Civil yourself with your false claims above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I erred -- your violation of policy was adding a CSD tag to an article that was already at AFD. Softlavender (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Again you accuse me falsely of violating wikipedia policy. Tell me where it says putting a CSD tag on an article at AFD is a policy violation. You can't because it isn't. I've done it before, and articles were speedy deleted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Jeez, sounds like someone is being a right Mr Impatient right now! Jeni (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
But just watch your language, Appalling Threesie. We all have to be best friends with Majorie Manners and make sure we're not at home when Rosemary Rude comes a-calling. Otherwise we're gonna start calling you "Bitchie333", ok? And remember.... if you don't care a feather or a fig, you might grow up to be a pig!! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ... "his back is brawny and his brain is weak"
Jeez, Martin, tone down the cockwomblery please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Whaoh there, buddy! Do you think I'm totally Daffy?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:DUCKSEASON! WP:WABBITSEASON! WP:DUCKSEASON! WP:WABBITSEASON! WP:WABBITSEASON! WP:DUCKSEASON and I say it's WP:DUCKSEASON! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Painless Functional Specifications". Joel on Software. 15 October 2000. Retrieved 9 June 2016.

A cheeseburger for you!

Hungry work. Thanks for the two RFPPs :) Muffled Pocketed 13:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

GA queries

Hi Ritchie333. As a novice reviewer, I still have incessant doubts about reviewing GAs. Considering you seem to be well-experienced, would you kindly answer some questions here I have regarding them in general? I am writing an essay where your answers will be summarised. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Sorry I didn't get round to answer this sooner. I'm not sure I'm going to get more than small fits and starts on WP these days, so I might not have time for GA reviews, but I can probably answer anything, unless somebody else has had a go since? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! Yes, a few others have had a go but I'm trying to incorporate everybody's views. Here are the two questions:
  1. Criteria 2c, 2d requires access to sources: should a reviewer fail it if the nominator has partial access to most of it themselves?
  2. Criteria 3 requires subject knowledge: does that mean one being unfamiliar with the topic should not review it? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast: I would say the following:
2c,2c : A reviewer should WP:AGF that offline sources exist and are correct to verify the information given; however, given the increase of print material that can at least be partially accessed for free via Google Books, it is becoming easier to spot-check information. Broadly speaking, I find those who have cited a book source, particularly using the {{sfn}} template, are more likely to be correct in their citations, though as ever, nobody is perfect. You can fail a review if you believe a source is made up (and hence part of a blatant hoax) but since we have public access to titles on Worldcat and the British Library, amongst many others, it's pretty easy to prove the existence of a source.
3 : Yes, I agree with this - you cannot do a good GA review justice unless you have some understanding of the subject. I have never reviewed any science and medicine GAs and probably never will for this reason; conversely many of my GA reviews have been on music and British architecture. In particular, the "broad in coverage" criteria requires you to evaluate what, if anything, may be missing from an article. In general, a good GA review will say something like "have you considered [link to source] and adding information about [subject]?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks once again, your responses were enlightening. I've added it to Wikipedia:FA and GA answered queries. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Namik Paul

Did you consider G4? Adam9007 (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Nope, it just doesn't appear that often, unlike G11 and G12 which turn up quite a lot. I've checked the AfD and deleted that per that criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw you'd declined A7, but I didn't know if you'd considered other criteria. Unless I'm mistaken, an admin's word on a speedy declination is final, but of course, that doesn't apply if there are things the declining admin missed. Adam9007 (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Some CSD criteria are more equal than others - G3, G10 and G12 need to go immediately, the others allow a little bit of leeway (technically "speedy" is "less than 7 days" that you get for the full works at AfD). I don't think an admin's word is final; indeed, anyone who didn't create the article can decline a speedy, but it doesn't follow it will be declined for a good reason. I do aim to try and save any CSD candidate wherever I possibly can. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Divya Bharti Portal

Some of the wiki admins like Anup Metha and SpacemanSpiff took personally about Divya Bharti Portal. Divya Bharti Portal is the the most reliable content to Divya bharti and they erased all the link... Wiki is about giving information to too... but they were bombarding to the site. Portal wants to work to develop page of Divya Bharti but the wiki admins should not discredit them. If we work together we can built it up high... if we pull our legs we go no where... it is the waste of precious time. Pls convince them... Last but not the least wiki admin will never be able to built a complete wiki page of Divya Bharti without the portal....

- Divya Bharti Portal 

Admins  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.234.94 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this person - please discuss the issues at Talk:Divya Bharti#Protected. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a sock of Divyabhartiportal (talk · contribs · count) who has been spamming here for a while under different guises. —SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I suspect a far better source would be the archives of the Times of India and the National Archives of India myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Dream Team Investments

Sorry, I haven't visited this page for few week and now noticed that you deleted my page with the reason of advertisement. I remember that some editor wrote that there is no significant in my article....but advertisement? Can we discuss on this theme and about significant? Daria popova (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Daria popova

@Daria popova: I seem to recall that in my view, there was a small amount of third-party source coverage which meant it would not be appropriate to delete it per WP:CSD#A7, but the article would probably have to be rewritten, as phrases like "Strategy includes a comprehensive solution for the protection against currency risk with individual approach to clients' business" don't really mean anything to the casual encyclopedia reader, in my view. In the meantime, I have moved the article into draftspace at Draft:Dream Team Investment where it can be worked on further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Senator George Mitchell Peace Bridge

On 14 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Senator George Mitchell Peace Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a statue near the Senator George Mitchell Peace Bridge commemorates the Northern Ireland peace process, with the inscription "Peace For All"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Senator George Mitchell Peace Bridge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Senator George Mitchell Peace Bridge), 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whitehall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parliament Street. 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) 09:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Who is "we"? I advise you to look at our sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry policies carefully, before I block you as an obvious sock of Willy on Wheels. Now be off with you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whitehall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parliament Street. Such links are almost always intended to be accompanied by some drop-dead, kick-ass low down funk, since a disambiguation page is merely a very boring and unhip list of "Did you mean to fall asleep on the dancefloor..." type of tedium. Listen to the Mothership Connection album for further enlightenment • Join us at the cosmic funk party for more advice on how to shake-yo-booty!!!
It's OK to remove this message as long as you propa shake yo ass dude. Also, to funk your rocks off, please follow this hot link. Thanks man, Funk bot (funky talk) 10:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!!!! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If only the Leader of the Free World were to tell Vladimir Putin "Dance, sucker!" Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Violence at UEFA Euro 2016

On 15 June 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Violence at UEFA Euro 2016, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sabrina A. Parisi

Hi, saw your decline of my A7 speedy on Sabrina A. Parisi, after I'd made that a bot added in that the page has been previously removed at least once via AfD, I was going to update my criteria to G4 if it was still here. I re-nomed it correctly, but if you want to pull that & leave the BLPROD it's cool, just notifying as a courtesy so as not to try & create an edit conflict. Thanks! JamesG5 (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@JamesG5: I try and evaluate the article now on its own merits; I've had a think and I think G4 is justifiable as there hasn't been really any change in notability in the last two years, so a new article would still not be able to overturn the consensus there. Cheers for the heads up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice essay

Hello Ritchie333, I noticed your mention of User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. I like it and wanted to know if you welcomed collaborative input from others here in your user space? I'd like to see this as a live essay and am willing to help. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

While I sometimes put my essays in mainspace, where I think they will represent general, non-controversial views, in this case I would prefer to leave it in my userspace and clearly mark it as my personal opinion. Of course, if you want to create a similar essay and link to this one, then that's probably the best option. I realise I don't WP:OWN the essays, and indeed the odd gnome does copyedit them and fix spelling / grammar mistakes (and that's fine), but I would rather something clearly marked as "these are the views of Ritchie333" to remain just that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand your reasonable answer. Best.--John Cline (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Another editor has put comments about the essay on its talk page; that might be a place to write up anything you happen to disagree with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You're Breakin' My Heart

Hello,

The above article has been approved for DYK on the Main page.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

GA confusion?

Hi Ritchie333, on Oshwah's poll you referenced a GA review that he didn't do - I did it (in a somewhat lacklustre way I'll admit) -- samtar talk or stalk 11:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems it was I that was confused, apologies! Thank you for clarifying there :) -- samtar talk or stalk 11:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: The purpose of the poll is to judge what's going to happen at RfA. I've had a read through Sakurai's Object and while I can't see anything obviously wrong with it, astronomy is not my subject of expertise. I did a google search for the subject and found this page at Keele University which describes the star as "a once-in-a-lifetime - opportunity to observe one of these rare events over the broad wavelength range now accessible", which is matched in the article. In any case, the problem I have with the GA reviews is a lack of evidence of real discussion and criticism. I know I've got a bit of a reputation for grilling people at GA reviews (although if you think I'm bad, there are harder taskmasters out there), but it's always so that anyone reading an article can be comfortable it really is a quality piece of work. If you go into RfA saying "look - I've created two GAs", and people spot holes in the review, it can turn into a pile-on oppose. (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen for how these things can play out - particularly oppose #14, then #39 onwards). So watch out! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 1) And I appreciate your grilling, there's nothing wrong with high expectations! I stand by my estimate at Oshwah's chances (because, honestly, with the way RfA voting has been going lately, it can only ever be a best guess) but I can see where you're coming from in regards to GAs. I think, again just basing this on recent RfAs, Oshwah's other qualities would outweigh any flak from the GA reviews. I'll admit, reviewing GA nominations is not something I do often and I dare say I'm not all that good at it, so I'll happily take criticism from an editor such as yourself. Oshwah has one article under his belt which he created and brought to GA standard - do you have an opinion on this review? Sorry for all the questions, and thanks again :) -- samtar talk or stalk 12:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, that linked RfA went south fast - oppose #14 is cutting, but really hilights what you're getting at... Do you think something similar could happen? -- samtar talk or stalk 12:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: Some years back, when I started reviewing GAs, we had mentors who were available to help, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. I'm always happy to help if I can, the problem I find is that doing GA reviews at my speed takes about 2-3 days to a week, so it's hard to commit to too many. I quickly looked at Windows Push Notification Service and I see a few issues. The article is quite short; there is a corresponding article Microsoft Push Notification Service that could be merged with that one without the result being particularly large. I was (and indeed still am) confused about what Windows Push Notification Service is - do any large projects use it? How would the man in the street know about it? I looked at one source hoping to find more on the topic, but I didn't see any mention of the Push Notification Service in there. So I went away from the article not really knowing much about the topic other some technical details I don't really understand. There's also an unsourced end of paragraph in the article. The GA review did capture some problems that were fixed, but I just felt there was more that could be brought up. I usually come from the angle of "what would a reader get out of this article?" If they can quickly and easily learn about a topic in depth, be confident that what they read is true and accurate, and not feel like they have to visit another website, that's roughly what a GA is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Ritchie, really appreciated :) if and when I do another review I will bear your comments in mind. Your explanation of what a GA is has helped a lot, it makes sense that a Good Article should provide enough information to be able to take a reader from not knowing anything, to having a general grasp on the topic. It's so often I find that we forget that we do all of this for one purpose, which is create encyclopedic entries for readers to learn from and enjoy reading. I think a lot of admin candidates also forget this when the topic of 'why content creation is so important' comes up at RfA -- samtar talk or stalk 14:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pall Mall, London

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pall Mall, London you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Repetition

Thanks for your work on Pall Mall, London. I realize that it's hard to get a good flow in the lead that doesn't feel repetitious but avoids excessive variation for the sake of it. In a note, you said "I thought consensus was we didn't start two paragraphs with the same phrase". Is there some official guidance on this? I'm happy with the way you reworded the article, but wanted to know for future cases. Thx. Rupert Clayton (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rupert Clayton: In this case, I think "consensus" was simply that I had the conversation before (possibly on another article) where we agreed that starting two paragraphs the same was disjointed and reworded it, but couldn't remember when or where, hence "I think...." I'm pretty sure the manual of style won't have anything. The best link I can give you is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing which has some interesting reading about how to beef up prose. As you can see from the above comment, Pall Mall is undergoing a Good Article review, which is a quick and easy way to get a second opinion on the prose (amongst other things) so the article can be tightened up a bit. I don't claim to be a particularly great prose writer on Wikipedia (I could point to several editors whose work I simply aspire to), but do try and learn enough to get by and help make the encyclopedia a better place. Hope that's of use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Tony1's essay. And thanks for moving to get GA for this article. I'll try to monitor the review comments and see if I can help out at all. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Associated Press

I'm not sure why you're questioning the reliability of the Associated Press, one of the most respected news agencies in the world. Or are you not aware that bigstory.ap.org is part of their website? Hergilei (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hergilei: No, that's fine - the problem was the source just said "AP - The Big Story" without any other context, so at a cursory glance (especially given it was covering the arrest of a living person) I had no idea whether it was towards the level of The Guardian or The Sun, and didn't clock what "AP" stood for. Perhaps I should have put a note on the talk page instead. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did that silliness win over the rule book itself?

"When someone's first edit is reverted, and they are sufficiently angered by this that they leave several paragraphs of invective on the reverter's talk page, it is highly unlikely that that person is suited to become a Wikipedia editor. Hard as it is, we need to leave our egos at the door, or as much of those egos as it is possible to unload."

Antandrus, Observations on Wikipedia behaviour

I'm well-aware that The Beatles is IP-locked; that's why I said I would have to wait until I had bothered to make an account and was then autoconfirmed. You couldn't be bothered to notice that even though you noticed the rest? Why?

And why would anyone fight the rule book on the matter, then? Why is it even there? 97.117.29.41 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have had plenty of constructive discussions about the Beatles, such as whether the point of view on Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head makes it a suitable source to use given its attention to detail balanced against an obvious bias that shows his favourite musical era is about 1966 and tails off thereafter. Why can't we have a discussion about that? I really don't think the use of caps / lower case in "the" is an argument that needs to be had again; aside from making one revert back to established consensus, I have no opinion on anything else. We still need new editors' help; Rubber Soul and Revolver are obvious candidates for good article status yet still aren't. Why don't you look into improving articles in that way instead? (PS: see also Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#The Beatles) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, geeze. "Thanks" for being so "direct" and so "helpful" so that I could get "just the information I was looking for." 97.117.29.41 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I fear it won't be long before this is the information you'll be looking for. Oh dear. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pall Mall, London

The article Pall Mall, London you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pall Mall, London 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Make Piriczki edit only my "The" changes back, then.

Oh, you're an admin? Well then, when Piriczki says there's a piece of MOS that says the "The" in band names should just be ignored as if they're not part of the name, even though there's another part of MOS that says that titles with "The" in them should be mid-sentence capitalized, how do we reconcile the two?

For now, make him restore only my "The" edits; not undo unrelated edits along the way. It's not my problem if he's too lazy to be selective. 97.117.29.41 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is there are some arguments on Wikipedia that are not worth your time having. This is one of them, the thread immediately above this (which is related to the question "should an article have an infobox?", which caused one of the nastiest and most drawn out battles in the entire history of Wikipedia) is another. I can't impress upon you enough what I've said to others before you - if somebody doesn't agree with you on trivial matters, ignore it and feel proud that you do not stoop to trivial matters unlike them. I can't really put it any nicer than that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
While that does not help me have an idea of why band names get their own rules, when Piriczki made his last reversion of mine at The Moody Blues showing me some more rule book info, with this: "Revert, see WP:THECAPS, MOS:TITLE, MOS:NUMBERSIGN, and WP:NOTUSA," I just wrote a new section to his talk page with the title, "Your recent citations in edit summary," and then simply said, "Thank you, Piriczki. 97.117.29.41 (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)"
It would still be nice to know why band names have their own rules, though....
I'll give you another pointer : Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 20#RFC: "Sega Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis" as the article title?. Look at the closing discussion carefully - there are valid points on whether to call the article Sega Genesis or Mega Drive, the strength of each is based on a number of factors, and ultimately no arguments are strong enough on one side to trump the other. So, to paraphase "The Battle of Epping Forest" from Genesis' Selling England by the Pound ... "there's no-one left caring / it must be a draw / so the Blackcap Admin tosses a coin to settle the score" and decrees Sega Genesis has won, hard cheese Mega Drive fans. It's the same principle here, which is band names have "the" in lower case, live with it. This discussion is over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-retired

Peace for all. DYK not pictured

Hello people, I'm going to have to wave a white flag and declare myself as semi-retired. I have been busy doing things in the real world (and I would say what except WP:NOTADVERTISING and all that, but here's a clue). I have not retired because of anybody here, or any disputes or problems anywhere on the project (I'm totally out of touch with them), but simply that I prefer to keep myself occupied by real world projects I might actually get paid for! If I still haven't come back in a few months, I'll arrange to get my administrator tools revoked. Have a nice summer, everyone! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the clue, nothing is as important as real music! Enjoy. My next (no advertising, nono): Rossini's last mortal sin. In the process of expanding the related article (any help welcome, only six of 14 movements were covered by those before me), - the next best thing to real music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking about this. You semi-retired were more active than some of us without restrain ;) - Thank you for the requested close (where I had commented ANI is not good for my health). Another request is open initiated on 11 April, if you still have time and are still bold, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm just listening back to the final master of our latest album (it's being released next week) and it sounds rather good, if I do say so myself. Hurrah for mastering! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
You'll be sadly missed. Please send me a demo by email!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, sorry to hear that, Ritchie. Although, I understand you need to take care of your career and financials and real-life interests. Best of luck in that! We'll miss you -- as an admin and as an editor you are refreshing and light-hearted and act from the heart. Don't worry about the tools; per WP:INACTIVITY, it takes an entire year of inactivity and non-use to merit mop removal. Best of luck and hope you may have more time for us somewhere down the line. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a sad and bitter blow. The loss of a great editor, as "Softy" says above. Why not just pop back now and again to block a few vandals? Better still let me hurl a string of obscene insults at you and then you can resign properly, in a fit of self-righteous pique. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Is that a record for the shortest ever retirement?? Welcome back!! Ya schmuck. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC) p.s. can we have that gold watch back please?
I'll genuinely miss you and your humour!, (and I don't mean this in a dickish way) but your career/interests are far more important and at the end of the day editing this glorious place isn't going to pay bills and put food on the table so if you're being paid for it then good luck to you! :), Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 16:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I was a big fan of Sithole. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll really miss you if you leave, Ritchie, but do wish the best for your real life endeavors! Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Good luck Ritchie, and I hope you'll pop in from time to time (or hopefully more than that!) You're a credit to this site, and your absence will sadly felt. Good with your off-Wiki stuff: looks interesting! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And ironically enough, as soon as I declare a semi-retirement, I find time to write an article. Of course, doing little bits here and there isn't really comparable with some of the marathon stints in the past. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Very ironic indeed Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, I am "about", and sod's law would dictate that no sooner did I think "I've really got to say something as I haven't been on for two months and people are going to wonder if I've been run over by a bus" ... then I make time for little bits of stuff. However, look a bit closer and you won't see a frequent edit pattern I used to do when I had a full evening at my disposal, which would be 50-100 edits in a row on an article, either large scale additions of text with frequent additions to book sources, or extensive copyediting. That ANI close I just did though did take about 45 minutes' reading over breakfast this morning, but I can do that on a phone, which is impossible on regular editing marathons. Did you know I have got sunburn from spending over 4 hours handing out leaflets to passers by on Sunday afternoon? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Funny, I never had you down as a leaflet pusher, Threesie. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hah! I've got four Black Sabbath albums you know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe you've been at the forefront of the BREXIT campaign?? It's great to see that "The sensible, safe option is to Leave the European Union", and yet... Nigel says he knows his supporters will "crawl over broken glass" to the polling station. Duh!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins (to name but two) have been vaguely on my radar for articles to take to GA, simply because Wikipedia's NPOV policy means they are the only sane places on the internet I could possibly read about the pair of them, and if that's the case, we might as well make them good. However, in both cases it would involve buying books about them, which I just can't bring myself to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you’ll find signed copies from both are available in the more exclusive outlets. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this might be a more appropriate place for some "celebrity" bios, particularly ones that come out just before Christmas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes. There's lovely, look you. I love those autumnal shades. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sunset

Even if the sun sets on your wiki career, your work in article space can live on .... until someone reverts it

I placed go outside on top of my talk, did you see? ... think alike? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, sweetie, you could put a 20 foot high barn door in front of my face and I might not twig that it was there. Down to more serious matters, I hatted the thread on Talk:Gary Grant not because I want to shut down conversation on infoboxes so much as it was starting to get ugly with personal attacks flying round, and if I hadn't done something, a more trigger-happy admin might have dropped in and blocked someone. As you're probably aware, yesterday was the Summer Solstice and watching the sun set around 20:16 UTC with visible twilight lasting for at least another half an hour, is nice to savour while it lasts, secure in the knowledge that the days are going to get shorter and shorter until Christmas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of the solstice, and you probably know that my lead image shows the sun, rising. It was created by the banned friend about whom we talked before I was ready to give you the sapphire, created for the wrongly blocked (soon afterwards needed for himself). It's a symbol for hopes and dreams against all reason, so a good symbol for the cabal of the outasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I included that in my mood set, help yourself if you like, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have created User:Ritchie333/Userbox Suede in memory of my lovely cat, in case anyone else feels in the mood to borrow it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Lovely, stopped me from discussing "the nastiest" (below). Don't think I ever used "nasty" here. Lovely is better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Just for my edification, I'd be interested to know how you arrived at the "nastiest" evaluation, while I thought (of the same thing) in 2014 already "best remembered as a farce", and consequently archived the whole thing end of 2015, ready to start a new life as if it hadn't happened. None of the restrictions are still in place besides the general "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." Perhaps design a smart little warning symbol, telling an editor that his or her comment violates that reminder? There will be ample use, my prediction ;) - The removal of an infobox is the removal of sourced content. When that happens to a different item on Wikipedia, it's called vandalism. - I created Impact in memory of my lovely friend who wondered about the same, and left, and died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a subtlety of English; in this case "nasty" means "difficult" or "complex". eg: "The server falls over with a segmentation fault after about 3 days of running. That's going to be a nasty software bug to resolve, isn't it?" I seem to recall the Arbcom case itself was pretty civil, but it's just the differences of opinion, and the strength of them, and the numerous ANI threads preceding them led to a case the Arbs felt they had to take but none of them looked forward to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's hard for me to get the subtleties of English. Complex? The case could have been so simple. It was called by Ched because too many infoboxes were reverted (I counted to 59). It's not what the arbitrators were used to hear, so not what they ruled, they ruled relics of the past instead. I worked on Kafka, that helped to accept it. Instead of looking back, I said "We start today", and might still say the same, three years later. Will we? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"The removal of an infobox is the removal of sourced content. When that happens to a different item on Wikipedia, it's called vandalism". That's nonsense Gerda. This same information is still in the article's body and in the lead, it's just not in a tabulated form in the top right hand corner: it's no-where near vandalism as you, I or anyone else understands the term. I've seen some rather hooky statements about idiot boxes (pro and con) and it doesn't help anyones case when they are advanced. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting comment after "We start today", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what is so "interesting" about it Gerda: I made the comment picking up a rather ridiculous claim. 59 IBs were removed three years ago and that was enough for an ArbCom filing? So much for AGF, or assuming that the editors who did the removal on a particular article were doing so for the very best reasons. You're adding one at an average of at least one a day, but don't le the disparity of that worry you too much. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I was counting (then, only) in defense, - didn't help me, though. I would not have gone to arbcom (wasn't asked, would have said noooooo.) Can we start today not to count? - I have a table in my article, - would you advise me to remove that because the same information is also there in prose? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't advise you to do anything. I trust that the people who spend time developing the article and who will be safeguarding it are the ones best placed to make a decision. I focus on things I want to develop, I don't 'somehow' end up on articles of tangential interest to complain about the same point of formatting time and time again. There's only one person here that's counting Gerda: does this ring any bells? – SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Bells: was mentioned above, started with the 59 of the arbcom case, but then I noticed it happening more often. I don't even count the reverts, just add and subtract. I do count the three musical ones which I helped to create, with some pride. "Dreams" - of the first line - was also mentioned above. - Cary Grant: I didn't revert, I only asked the question if the community has also a say, not only the principal editors, - and in my New year's slogan about readers and peace, readers come first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm trying to save a potentially notable woman's article from being speedy deleted and keep getting interrupted by "You have new messages" notifications every 10 minutes, can you, like, take this conversation elsewhere (or, even better, help with the article I just linked to). Ta! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

After going outside for a while, and reading again "Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important": what I did today was creating a navbox, because a friend is cleaning up a composer: {{Edward Elgar}}. For some unknown reason, that kind of structured information is usually welcome. I did {{Benjamin Britten}} in 2013, for his centenary. Why is that welcome? Because it stays modestly at the bottom of a page? Anyway, I used two sources: the structured list of his compositions and the prose of the individual articles. Guess what, I found the date of composition much faster in the list than in the articles which - almost all without an infobox - have it sometimes in the lead, but then you have to read the full sentence to find it, sometimes later, sometimes not at all. That's why I like it structured: with a predictable spot to find something. Going out again, it's summer, bright and hot! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not my week

Here is the original article:
Hannah Beachler is a 2005 graduate of Wright State University, known for her production design work on numerous feature works and television shows.
Rather cryptic, don't you think? Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: That's a non-argument. Years of experience have shown me that if a new editor's contributions are speedy deleted, they won't stay around to contribute anything else, so anything we can do to avoid that should be pursued. In this case, "production design" and "television shows" should have been sufficient to give you pause, and typing the subject's name into google (which admins are asked to do when presented with an article tagged {{db-a7}} before deletion can be considered) would have brought up the sources that are now used in the article, not least the entry in the British Film Institute's official records.

I see PamD has complained about you biting newbies elsewhere, and I have taken other overzealous taggers to ANI and got them topic banned from New Page Patrol (example), so don't let it happen to you! I would advise you read User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Checking for the possibility of speedy deletion, Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters and Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/I.O.O.F. Centennial Building

We've suggested lots of other hooks. With respect, there was nothing wrong with the original hook. And I've added sources that deal with the importance of the flat iron building form. And not even the Flat Iron Building was originally called that! I suggested yet another hook. Your assistance would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Epic Battle Fantasy

As the person who PRODded the Epic Battle Fantasy page, I think it has been tagged as A7 web content because the game is played in a web browser. I don't care if it goes back or not, but I think that's why it has happened. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@331dot: Leave the PROD for now, if somebody contests it, I'd recommend sending it ti AfD. The confusing is that A7 kind of pre-dates the rise of fully-rich games on the internet, and in the past, standalone games have been declined A7 for not being web content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for You're Breakin' My Heart

On 27 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article You're Breakin' My Heart, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Harrison played on Harry Nilsson's infamously profanity-laden song "You're Breakin' My Heart"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/You're Breakin' My Heart. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, You're Breakin' My Heart), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like having the f-word on the main page was too much. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The Drowners (Band)

Thank you for your work on sorting this page out. It's very hard to find information on the band but here were significant and finding out about them has been made complicated by a more recent band taking the name and being in a similar style. My aim was to help people looking to research the Swedish band, but obviously me wiki article skills are lacking. I appreciate the work you put in to make my data presentable. Thank you.Nzindie (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nzindie: The next thing you really need to do is present evidence of where you got the facts to write a page (which we call sources). These must be in something commercially published which is highly unlikely to print anything untrue or biased (what we call a reliable source). It doesn't have to be online, just a back copy of a newspaper or magazine (with date) will be sufficient. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

For your work

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Cary Grant (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! We hope (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I hope I'm not being indiscreet here, but your contributions to GA articles are quite notorious. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
mine even damned (good music) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Bardens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jimmy Smith. 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) 10:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you have got the hump over this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Did someone say Hamps Humps?? GET DOWN! .... growling B3 by this black wizzard. Averts Man In (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Life, the universe and everything

I'm not having the bumps - sod off

Those keeping score in the talk page archives (I have mentioned my birthday on-wiki, so don't worry you won't get blocked for outing or anything) will have realised I appear to have turned 42 today. As for those who may speculate via my corpus of GAs and article work that my musical taste ought to suggest I should be about 15-20 years older ... well, pre-1973 vinyl was dirt cheap in the late 80s and early 90s and you could buy lots of great (but unfashionable) music for next to nothing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Have a happy one! The damned good music above might be a bit too long today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
What, No bumps?? Here’s some almost pre-1973 unfashionable vinyl for you to sing along with instead. And some more fashionable vinyl that’s definitely post-1973 (… with added ostrich). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_39&oldid=1079777593"