User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Template:Did you know nominations/Safeword (game show)

Ritchie333, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen Launchballer's request that you do indeed do the review here, whenever you get the chance. We're not getting a lot of people taking up the older reviews at the moment, so you're probably the best chance for this nomination. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I really should pick this up, I seem to recall it was going to take upwards of an hour or so to verify the content in the article and check the factual accuracy. I'll see what I can do today. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Savision article

Hi Ritchie

I like to understand why our page is deleted when I compared to a competitor of us = vmturbo

Can you explain the differences where I am going wrong thanks?

Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcarr71 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Fundamentally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not for advertising your business. You need to find another website. For what it's worth, several clients I have worked with off-wiki have decided a Wikipedia article is not only irrelevant for growing a business, but can be actively harmful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer. Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups. For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun! Cheers from 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.

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Baqqer.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqqer was deleted, but it's actually a novel CrowdFunding site that deserves its own page. I can re-edit, but it should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctwiz (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ctwiz: I have restored this article to a draft in User:Ctwiz/Baqqer where it can be worked on further pending an independent review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Manika

Hello Ritchie333,

why should I be lucky? I deleted the vandalism from the IP. This was not a silly edit war. --Serols (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Serols: The problem is, you didn't give any obvious explanation that's what you were doing, so I had to look at the diffs to find out. This is why I dislike Twinkle / Huggle auto-generated edit summaries, as they leave themselves too open to interpretation. When you are dealing with obvious vandalism like this (in this specific example I cannot believe changing the prose to "ha ha she had no chart hits" can be construed as improving the encyclopedia), it's best after about two reverts to file a request at WP:RFPP or WP:AIV and get an admin to look at it; otherwise you end up with a huge article history that's difficult to pick through, which is what a number of us were trying to do to see if we could salvage it. Personally, I don't really see the point of "stop it", "seriously, stop it", "stop it goddamit" warnings in these circumstances - nobody's going to say "say, you're quite right, maybe I should stop vandalising and write an FA instead" are they? I know the Counter Vandalism Academy or whatever it's called say you have to issue level 1, 2, 3, but I just see that as pointless red tape. Obvious vandalism is obvious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie333, but when you mention someone negative, then it is actually your duty, to look exactly before - that should be actually normal among adults. Then you would have seen that there clearly existed vandalism. --Serols (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Long may she reign o'er us.....

I'm #1, so why try harder?

@Pigsonthewing:, @Alakzi: - can either of you explain why today, List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign shows Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II having reigned for the same number of days via {{age in days}}, but a different number when reported via {{age in years and days}}? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

...and I see the question has now been answered, so I suspect it's not actually a template bug at all but working to spec. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

{(talk page stalker) It's because Elizabeth's socialist programme of enforced industrialization and collectivization has given us more Leap Years. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Victoria was "not amused" to suggest appearing on It's A Knockout, which in 1897 was a travelling fair set up on the corner of Hyde Park. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Hahahahaha. And just look at the Belgians, ma'am". Lord Hall of Strangeways (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dumb and Dummer? ... "Does my mic look big in this?"

• I actually saw that version, It's a Royal Knockout (Ian Charleson was falsely rumored to have been in it, so I lost untold hours of my life perusing the damn thing). It was mostly irredeemable dreck interrupted occasionally by something actually entertaining, royals non-inclusive. Oh, were we talking about something else? What care I? I love the sound of my own voice. Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I did see it, but it didn't make that much of an impression on me, certainly not as much as Blackadder Goes Forth not long after, which I can still recall watching "Goodbyeee" when first broadcast like it was yesterday. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so that's where Blackadder stuck those things up his nose? And is that the genesis of people writing "Byeeee" instead of "Byyyyye"? This is a pet peeve of mine, along with abbreviating "favorite" as "fav" (instead of "fave", which it clearly should be), and typing "hehe" instead of "heehee", and all kinds of other internet hideousness. But let's not dwell on negatives. We have so much to be thankful for. Don't we? Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol, "Lavs". On a bit of a mish there, ain'tcha. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Good-bye-ee!" was coined by Harry Tate who was also responsible for "how's your father?". I did the song when the Blackadder episode was in the news last year. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Andrew D., I am always astonished when I hear or learn of a British music-hall song; they are simply unheard and unknown over here, whereas the Great American Songbook is like mother's milk. (A) I'm not familiar with "how's your father?" (is that like "Bob's your uncle" LOL which I do know of -- by the way that article is utter shyte). (B) Why, where, and when was the Blackadder episode in the news last year?? I follow dozens of Brits on Twitter but saw nary a whisper of it (perhaps I missed that day "in school" [which is what Twitter is, isn't it? I get all my news that way]). With the utmost sincerity, Softlavender (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As I have an American partner, I am frequently explaining British cultural influences (Google for "andrew preview"). Anyway, I'll use (A) in a sentence "I heard Joe had a few too many with Jane at the party and afterwards he gave her a bit of how's your father". (B) this sounds like a pub quiz but I would assume it's something to do with the 100th anniversary of the start of WWI, and Blackadder has been repeatedly praised for being funny yet underneath (especially right at the very end) deadly serious and harrowing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• OMG now I know where I've seen a part of that episode: The causes of WW1: [1]. Brill. Makes as much sense as anything else I've read or heard about the war to end all wars. Plus I forgot Hugh Laurie was in that. We Yanks don't and didn't get broadcasts of Blackadder. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Well you see the real reason for all this drama and silliness is that it was too much effort _not_ to have a war. The idea was to have two giant superpowers, the content creators, gnomes and copyeditors on one side and the admins, wannabes and vandal patrollers on the other; two giant superpowers each acting as the other's deterrent. There was just one small flaw in the plan. It was bollocks." And yes, whenever House appears I cannot perceive Hugh Laurie in any other way than being excited about an enormous pair of trousers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK.... "that Hugh Laurie is actually an American (even though he's not yet dead)?" Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping me when we have done away with the bloody lot of them, and we have a republic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping you?! Andy, we all thought you'd be one of the first to man the barricades. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I think you have been deceived - the Queen Mum didn't really drink 14 bottles of a gin and blow £1,000 on the races every day, and she didn't really sound like Beryl Reid either. It was a joke. Let it go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah? And what about that crippling addiction to white fox and satin?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Monkhams

Doesn't interest you? It seems to have been a historical estate at one time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9:, @MusikAnimal: : I'm not a great fan of mailing lists, partly because I like discussions to happen in the open wherever possible, but in this case there is a technical discussion of a hidden edit filter that makes no sense to discuss in public. How much traffic do you expect? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why in the new filter use guideline I've proposed the line about discouraging use of the mailing list for discussions which could reasonably occur on-wiki. I don't expect that the mailing list will receive a whole lot of traffic but it should be useful for the times when it does. In particular I like that non-admins now have an obvious venue through which to query details about hidden filters. Sam Walton (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Old Kent Road

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Old Kent Road 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 Boson -- Boson (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the Turkish baths. I also found a good extract reflecting the rough area here. Would you welcome a quote box in the industrial section perhaps? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It depends what you were thinking of putting in I guess? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hi Ritchie, i was about to post my query on the TP of Dennis Brown but was directed to post either on your TP or the TP of another Admin in the event that my query was 'complicated'. So i thought of posting here. My issue is that i have been doing editing on the WP pages of eighteenth century french philosophers like Diderot, Voltaire, and Rousseau. Since some of the books written by these philosophers had been listed in french, and some in english, i thought i would change all the titles to the english titles (wherever i could find a reliable reference referring to the book by its english title) for the sake of uniformity and consistency. I also proceeded to change WP pages of certain books written by Diderot listed under their french title with their english title. But i got stuck when i tried to change the title of Rousseau's Le devin du village to its english title The Village Soothsayer; i could not make the change because it turns out the earlier title of the page was The Village Soothsayer from which it had been changed to Le devin du village.

I don't know whether there has been any comprehensive discussion about whether we should use english titles or french titles for the authors of these books. The only relevant discussion i could find was this one: English or French? Please advise on what i should do now. I think the most important thing is to aim for consistency and uniformity: the only thing we have to agree upon is whether in the english wikipedia their book titles should ordinarily be in english or in french. (if its a well accepted french title like Les Misérables then there is no scope for any dispute.) My own view is that they should ordinarily be in english. For example, Philosophical Thoughts and Reveries of a Solitary Walker give the reader a better idea about what the books are about rather than their original French titles Pensees Philosophiques and Les Rêveries du promeneur solitaire. Perhaps there should be an RfC on this, but i don't know whether there has already been an RfC on this; furthermore, i don't know how to add the template for an RfC and where exactly such an RfC should be posted. Soham321 (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Page lurker here-I have looked for a style article as well and not found one. I find it disconcerting that a *name* would ever be translated. That is usually never done in English, so why is it done for works, or even buildings? My preference is that they always be given in the original way they were published, performed, styled, etc. That is how the viewing public experienced them. If there is a widely accepted English equivalent it could be given as well as the original. But why on earth Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán would ever be given as Autonomous University of Yucatan is beyond me. It is locally known as UADY and even the acronym makes no sense if it is translated. Likewise, if the play was performed as "La valija" all reviews of the performance are likely to carry the same name. Same for a book. Just my 2 cents and (no, I am not Susana, you are not tanjamón321 and Ritchie is not Ricardito333, though I live in Mexico--names just don't translate) SusunW (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Often the english name is more commonly used, and 'familiar', as compared to the original name. For instance, everyone in the english speaking world has heard of Tolstoy's War and Peace; since the book is in Russian the original title must be something else but very few people in the english speaking world would be familiar with that title. Soham321 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Found this thread because your move of Supplément au voyage de Bougainville → Addendum to the Journey of Bougainville struck me as odd. See WP:ENGLISH: "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." As far as I can tell, far more English sources call it by its original "Supplément au voyage de Bougainville" and there are even variations in the translation (Addendum/Supplement, Voyage/Journey). I think this is likely going to be the case for most of e.g. Diderot's work (I shudder at the thought of moving Encyclopedie to Encyclopedia -- and indeed most English language sources use the former). In other words, don't translate into English just because it's English. Figure out what name most reliable English sources call it by. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The closest thing we have to a guideline is WP:COMMONNAME which basically says there is no set rule and the title should simply be where the majority of readers would expect it. Obviously this leads to crazy things like Petrol vs Gasoline, both of which are recognised terms by a huge number of people, but in general terms I think English is preferred. Even then, we have exceptions : "Advancement through Technology" is not as well known as the German "Vorsprung durch Technik". Das Boot is at the German name, while Black Book (film) is the main article title, not Zwartboek, even though I believe both have been shown in their native languages (with subtitles) in Britain.

Richie, Rhododendrites and SusunW, Sometimes retaining the original title is useful if it is a distinctive commonly known name in the original. It is better to retain Encyclopedie because it is a distinctive name identifying Diderot's association with this particular Encyclopedia and it is a name with which the scholarly or knowledgeable english speaking world is familiar with. I myself gave the example of Les Misérables as a work whose english title should not be used since the original french title is the name by which the work is commonly known. I think we can all agree that if the english title of the book is a commonly agreed upon name, like War and Peace or The Brothers Karamazov then there is no ambiguity and we should all agree to use the english titles. Now, what about a work on which the translators/scholars have not agreed on a common english title? That seems to be the nub of the problem here. I converted the page name from Supplément au voyage de Bougainville to Addendum to the Journey of Bougainville because Addendum to the Journey of Bougainville was the alternative title already given in the WP article and i mistakenly assumed that it would be a commonly accepted title by translators/scholars. That is not the case. P.N. Furbank in his Diderot: A critical biography (1992) gives the title as Supplement to Bougainville's "Voyage". Will Durant in his The Age of Voltaire (1965) and Otis Fellows in his Diderot (1977) use the French titles, but Fellows while mentioning the english version of the book gives the english subtitle and this is not exactly the same as the subtitle currently being used in the WP article. So, overall, this is a more complex issue than i had anticipated. I will, however, point out to this page as a guide to resolve our problem: Water Margin. This is a WP page on a famous Chinese novel, Shui Hui Zhuan, which has five six different other english titles (including Water Margin) all of which are mentioned in the WP page at the beginning and one of these english titles is selected and used as the name of the WP page. Soham321 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"what about a work on which the translators/scholars have not agreed on a common english title?" Well, then it gets a bit trickier, and if there really is no obvious common agreement, past precedent is to simply pick which name came first and stick with it (this is what happened with Gasoline and Sega Genesis where there was a straight split of opinion with no overall consensus). "Water Margin" is a popular name for a Chinese restaurant in the UK, so that's probably why the book has ended up with that article title. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I typically work in areas where the works have never appeared in English and find it totally odd for people to translate the name to English when the only notable version ever appeared in, say Spanish. I typically do a redirect so that both are searchable. And yes, it is very difficult to ascertain which title is the most commonly used or recognizable unless it is something like War and Peace. Good luck ;) SusunW (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As for what to do, the recommended procedure is to start a Requested move. Unfortunately they can get extremely contentious (I remember going batshit insane and loudly asserting that the capital of North Carolina was not more significant than a very famous explorer or one of the world's most established cycle manufacturers combined), so keep a cool head and assume good faith at all times. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Richie, i am not inclined to participate in a Requested move; i would rather spend my time editing articles. If there is a consensus that the french names of the books should be used then i am ok with it. Soham321 (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a logic if the original name is in other than the Latin script and originally War and Peace was titled and written in Cyrillic. As I said, both can be given if there is a widely known English version, but the original name would be the primary name as it is what is typically notable, IMO. The instances would be fairly few that the translated version would be famous or notable if the original had not already been so. SusunW (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sex Messenger

Sorry new here. I created Sex Messenger but it was deleted What should I do. It includes information about that page and I did what other people do on other pages in the same category. see as example(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DateIITians) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam50 camgirl (talk • contribs) 18:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I am new here. I created that page as it is a dating app and wanted to add it to the category that it corresponds. I created the age and got deleted. What info is missing? This is what I added. Thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam50 camgirl (talk • contribs)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Cam50 camgirl (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi I am asking why is it deleted. I am following what other similar site's pages have. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DateIITians or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Match What should I add? Please give me a bried description instead of an automated reply

@Cam50 camgirl: The problem with the page is it didn't really give me any indication it belonged in an encyclopedia, and seemed to be an advert for a dating site. Furthermore, if I'm perfectly honest, while eHarmony and other dating sites are popular, the title of this one, and your username, make it sound rather seedy and unpleasant, and something I'd give a wide berth. The presence of other articles isn't really considered; I think statistics show that less than 1 in 1000 articles are good articles and above, many are in poor shape so they're not necessarily a good thing to compare against.

What I would recommend is to use the Article wizard to create a draft. What you will need to include is information taken from major newspapers and magazines. Don't use your personal knowledge, but go with what these sources say. Has the site won any awards? Are there any famous cases resulting from it? Is there a wide subscription rate and / or demographics. What will people remember about this site in 50 years time? When you have added sufficient sources, you can submit the draft for review and an independent and experienced editor can assess it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone else expecting Martinevans123 to post a link to a funny video somewhere on the web? Cassianto^Talk 20:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Alas, following a few cranial problems, he currently finds himself committed to a padded cell. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC) [2]

"Desirable female seeks suitable companion. Must be fast, agile, bark well and be able to round up a flock in 30 seconds. Please write to F Barleymow, box 347." Okay, I lied....

(talk page watcher) I've posted additional guidance at user talk:Cam50 camgirl. Hopefully it will help. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a new user so I am not going to stoop to my usual level of humour and make sheep jokes, though I do resent the implication that men are only interested in dating sites for a bit of "how's your father" (see above thread) - quite frankly I am happy with a nice meal, a few drinks, and a few episodes of Blackadder. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 

Now I think you need to strike through "not" in your previous comment!. (Going offline, any reply will be much later.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  21:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's all Martinevans123's fault, that Welsh blood, he's a bad influence.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Now I think you need to strike through "bark well" in your image caption (Going offline, any reply will depend on if I get fleeced by someone on Sex Messenger). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move

I started a Requested Move for one of Diderot's books: Requested Move. Just wanted to draw the attention of Ritchie, Rhododendrites, and SusunW about this. As i mention in the Requested Move, the core issue is not about one of Diderot's books but all of Diderot's books and indeed all books which are not written in english. My model WP page for handling this issue is Water Margin. Soham321 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Old Kent Road

The article Old Kent Road you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Old Kent 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 Boson -- Boson (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Boson: Thanks for a good GA review - it's nice to see somebody get stuck into the sources and check the content, or at least flag up when they can't verify something. We should be doing more of this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I Dr. Blofeld hereby award Ritchie the vast sum of £60 for acquiring Old Kent Road! Can't have you out of pocket ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Northumberland Avenue page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Bloody hell ReferenceBot, I remember the first version of Netscape Navigator making the http:// optional in URLs waaay back in about 1994. Do keep up :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

E tu?

This was unexpected.

As a side note, I think the info that Chicken, Alaska has a post office was of the WP:Blue variety of information: a photo of the post mark from said post office is included in the article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's my personal opinion on what's best for the article, based on what I have commented on the talk page. If anyone reverts, I will not revert back, and if you want to put in the post office comment, that's okay. As I said elsewhere, the problem is that the Best Known For IP's potty mouth makes it near impossible to actually consider his edits rationally with an idea of what's best for the enyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless I come across something extraordinary about the post office, I'll let the postmark tell the story. As for the IP user, or rather his style of editing, I saw that question you asked at RfA: I laughed, and wondered if he was familiar with that editor. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Previously deleted

Pteviously deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eclectika_(festival)

Its not biggest festival. The college student claimed that and you believed.--Action Hero Shoot! 16:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

All you need to pass A7 is a claim of significance, then the remainder of the work (including AfD) is verifying that the claim is true. As the article was recently deleted via a full AfD debate, you should have tagged using {{db-g4}} or {{db-repost}}. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

How i will know it was previously deleted at first tagging. When i tried to make proposed deletion after you revetted my Speedy deletion tag only then Twinkle automatically took me to that discussion. And you should not believe in original research and facebook post claims. You are an administrator. Those who created Twinkle you should thank them for taking me to that page.--Action Hero Shoot! 16:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the article per WP:CSD#G4. You can tell if an article has been deleted at AfD by clicking on "History" and "View logs for this page". And no, Facebook is not a reliable source (except maybe for corporate detail on its own article) but that does not mean higher quality sources exist somewhere, and that's the job for a full AfD debate. Being an admin doesn't really mean much at all, apart from having a few extra tools and hassle ;-) ... and I personally hate Twinkle, it's a really good way to bite the newbies without even thinking you are at the click of a button. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

God Damn (band)

God Damn, I asked for tuna mayo sandwiches!

Hi there,

I decided to delete this page (although you removed the speedy deletion tag) for the second time as I don't think we should have record label employees advertising their acts. Also, I counted a total of zero independent sources. If you believe the article should exist, please feel free to undelete it but please help me teach Trincres17 about correct editing with a WP:COI. Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 12:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kusma: To be honest, I don't really have a strong view on whether or not the article should stay, but One Little Indian's website is an independent source for the band - they have no control over it and it is entirely down to the discretion of their record label who they mention, and they don't sign any old garage band. I wish you'd sent this to AfD, it won't hurt the article to stay around for a week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As the article was written by a One Little Indian employee, I do not count their website as an independent source. I am also disinclined to spend any more time on this issue. —Kusma (t·c) 12:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just because you assert that opinion, it does not follow that every other administrator has to agree with it. Have a nice lunch. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Dropped like a pipe-bomb into the British rock scene, Wolverhampton band God Damn have spent the last three years nailing audiences to the walls with their sonic blasts of glorious noise." Shame they're not from Mississippi. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Look, if I hadn't nailed that band to the wall they would have muzzled up to them bars and Vrooom." "Mate, this band wouldn't vrooom if you put 4 million volts through it". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A mere 5,000 is not really gonna help, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hooray, the page is back! The new editor who created it knows who to credit for the image. I don't have time to play sock police though, so I will leave it be for today. —Kusma (t·c) 19:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

At AfD now. —Kusma (t·c) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Antonelli Bros Ltd

I hope you can help me understand your logic on this one, to save everybody time, effort and frustration in future...

I nominated this article for deletion due to lack of notability, and you removed that with this edit, giving the explanation " (not a chance, the Manchester Mafia will have sources .... maybe :-P)."

I don't follow how your comment relates to the notability criteria. I don't know who "the Manchester Mafia" are; the closest reference I can find is about Manchester United football team, which does not seem to have any connection to this article. If you think there might be relevant sources somewhere, is that sufficient to meet the criteria for notability? Yet your comment implies there is a strong case which I can't see - can you fill in the blanks, please? --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Right, sorry about that, that was an in-joke to myself. What I meant was "I really don't think I can delete this per WP:CSD#A7 as I've found one source and the subject material suggests to me that the regulars at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester will be able to improve it further." I need to look through my British Newspaper Archive subscription and see what else I can find. You'd still be within policy to nominate the article for deletion via a full debate at WP:AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:Okay, thanks. I guess the lesson I need to learn is to do more thorough searches before tagging for deletion... --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: You got it! And remember there is a difference between speedy deletion (CSD) and deletion debates (AfD). The general rule of thumb I use is that an article will clear CSD A7 if it indicates a number of search terms you could use to find sources to show notability. Hence, "Joe Bloggs works at my local Tesco" gives you nothing so that's a clear speedy. Whereas AfD is when you can't prove notability and don't think anyone else can. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Pigpen

Article says "The remaining members did a number of shows without the pair. Weir quickly rejoined the group after promising to improve, but McKernan was more stubborn, missing three Dead shows; he finally vowed not to "be lazy" anymore and rejoined the band." So Weir rejoined after missing one or two shows (since Pigpen missed three)? (Didn't know where to put this question). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(I feel like I've just shouted "Angelic hordes come forth!") Yeah, that whole bit of the article has bugged me. According to Bill Kreutzmann, this never happened so I'm suspicious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently they played as "Mickey and the Hartbeats", according to this website, eight concerts at the Matrix from October 1968, where they played Dead songs without the lyrics. According to a Youtube video of the 16 December '68 concert the lineup consisted of Jerry Garcia, Jack Casady, Mickey Hart, Spencer Dryden and David Getz. So… not really the Dead then? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really, but it might be the genesis of New Riders of the Purple Sage. I've depped for plenty of bands and done various sessions as side projects, so it's nothing unusual. Interesting how Phil Lesh wasn't involved; he was the keenest to kick Pigpen out it seems, from accounts. In any case, this whole incident seems rather "he said 'x', she said 'y'" etc so it has to be balanced carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you've read this blog Grateful Dead Guide 1968 The Firing. I've read half of it, and now I'm cross-eyed. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've read some of the blogs before, which talk about Pigpen, realised he was a lot more than an occasional guest member and decided I needed to improve that Dead article first before moving onto others. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just look at this grass growing. Fascinating isn't it? It's so exciting I might just die.....

As part of a degree I had to nominate three topics for research during the summer recess (with the bonus of a travel grant). One was Deadhead culture, the second was the social development of British railway company locomotive liveries and the third- can't remember. They paid for a rail ticket to York, so if you've ever got any questions about Victorian paint technology, just ask… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that's something to be proud of, you are officially an expert in watching paint dry. If I do some gardening, I'll ask your advice about the best way to watch the grass grow, cheers! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the review; RL is very busy for me right now hence the notice on my user page. I've only had limited time and not enough of it to do any proper reviewing or editorial work. I also tend to keep out of the way of the reviewer who I have negative opinions about, so that hasn't helped. I have tried to make head nor tail out of the discussion, but I can't quite get it. Could you simplify the problem here? Cassianto^Talk 07:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Welsh Without Tears"?

Dear Mr Admin, I need your advice. This particular ridiculous little game of cat and mouse has been going on for nearly two years now, with the anon ip refusing to engage on the Talk Page. Do you suggest (a) page protection, (b) some kind of sanction, (c) waiting for the breach of 3RR that will never arrive? Thanks, for your prudence. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. If I were you, I'd ask someone who wasn't currently "under a cloud". And someone who was not a known Welsh sympathizer. Must observe the proprieties. Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oooh. As if one ever sees any clouds in Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm . No words. You poor thing. Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, whenever I look in the mirror, I'm often quite shocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC) p.s. I tried that "road to Damascus" once, but the sunlight was so blinding I couldn't read the satnav.

Non English reference

What is the policy on non English reference? Can we allow articles that has non English reference? eg: Saleem Al-Basri --AntanO 14:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Provided the source is reliable and verifies the content, it's okay to be in another language. 3 October Festival has several news sources in Dutch, for example. However, English ones are preferred wherever possible. This link explains the full policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --AntanO 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Would love your input!

Hi User:Ritchie333. Hope all is well! You've been involved in music related WikiProject's and I'd love some insight. I'm talking to someone on my talk page right now in an effort to keep the article for an indie band, Five Year Mission, non-promotional. This editor created the original, rather promotional version of the article, which I have since rewritten. They are interested in listing every track on all five of the bands albums. While the band itself is notable, I am not so sure that their albums are individually, and I'm not really sure how far it should go with listing the tracks. People can go to Amazon to see those. Any thoughts? If so, I'd love it if you can comment here. I'm also going to ping a few other folks. Thank you for your HELP! :) Missvain (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Missvain: I had a quick look and from a basic news search it does seem possible to write an article about this band. I don't think we need separate articles on the albums though; articles that cannot be much above a basic track listing are generally merged unless the band in question has released so much material that the articles then exist as content splits. Anyway, this whole Star Trek band stuff has been done years ago.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Concerned

Hi Ritchie. This thoroughly concerns me about the notability of Manika (singer). I'm no expert at BLP and article deletion policies, hence why I'm bringing it to your attention. I'm shocked the article was kept in the AfD. I know it's an awful forum and all but what's been said there made me hesitant to bring this up on the article's talk page let alone link the article on yours. The article's prose, the comments of the new/IP editors, the recent comment on the article's talk page all scream a promotional PR stunt. CoolMarc 22:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: The article was deleted at AfD, but with the option to userfy and cleanup. I !voted "Keep but cleanup" on the grounds that there might be a salvageable article (Manika has toured with One Direction, I haven't), but all said and done I really didn't feel like wading through the required teen pop magazines to sort it out. Sometimes (but not too often), something written by a paid editor can actually be cleaned up and turned into something useful, not just obliterated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason Prince Harry has never asked you, Threesie, is because you're usually up all night editing Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC) (.. and probably inventing chart entries on Notepad to show how well your band is doing...)

Notepad? Notepad? That's a bloody Windows app, I'm a proud iMac user you know, partly because I know where to pick up cheap models and bootstrap OS X Yosemite on them, but mainly because my kids haven't got a clue how to use it, so slink off to the old PC next door to play Sabre Wulf or similar.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Manika isn't used to appearing on many front pages. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

Are you open to recall? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a question I've ever been asked, but I did support the recent WP:BARC proposal to remove admins, plus I've recently wondered elsewhere if I'm just a bad fit for this sort of job as there are too many policies I don't really see eye to eye with, and I wrote WP:RFATONED so I would guess the answer's "yes". More to the point, though, the "One revert guarantee" on my user page applies to everything including deleting, blocking etc ... if you don't like an admin action I've done, just undo it. I've got no more rights to run this shop than you or anyone else. One of the most poisonous things that can happen is when an admin digs their heels in and says "I'm right, everyone else is wrong". It's the best way to make drama explode and stop people from writing the encyclopedia. No thanks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, I hope you will take what I am about to write in the spirit that I mean but I do have serious concerns about your approach to adminship. To my mind there has been a little too much controversy over some of your actions and the block of Rational Observer was pretty much a textbook example of how to do blocking completely wrong. I say that even bearing in mind that I'm a massive proponent that admins are allowed to make mistakes and although I still viscerally recall my first serious admin action leading to a massive shit storm and an admin RFC against me (see WP:RFCU/Spartaz is you want a laugh). Ironically, I still believe that the unblock I performed was the best thing I ever did for the project but was a classic example of an inexperienced admin fucking up by following the rules rigidly. Despite the sympathy that my history engenders, for me, you are attracting too much controversy and this is not only affecting your own credibility but that of the admin corps as whole. Your unblock of RO was particularly evidential because I saw noindication in your commentary that you got even a little bit why your block was so bad. It seemed more a case of accepting that consensus was against you but still wanting to show you thought you were right. I don't actually think we are at the point where we should be seriously questioning whether you should hold the tools but there is a severe lack of demonstrated introspection when you drop the ball that is really concerning. Simply put, refusing to learn from your errors isn't compatible with being an admin and you need to be closer to the median if you are to start losing that cloak of controversy that is starting to gather around your adminship. I'm not asking for any conversions on the road to Damascus but I do strongly ask you to think about what I am saying here and try to add more introspection and humility about your actions when they go prang. Dammit, you don't have to agree with everything round here - I don't - just don't take admin actions that conflict with the general consensus of how its supposed to work. Sorry for the long screed but there is a serious point here that I do think you need to reflect on. Thanks and good luck. I'm more than happy to unpick this further if you think that would be useful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The thing is though Spartaz, Ritchie is very controlled as an admin. In fact I'd argue already there's been cases where he should have been more heavy handed in blocking or taking action but took the easier option and tried to encourage people to drop it. So please don't paint him as one of the cowboy admins. The blocking of RO in this instance though was a bit strange as he must have known it wouldn't last long. This was one of the reasons I didn't want as fine a contributor as Ritchie becoming an admin though, one thing like this and me might not see him for a long time and miss out on a lot of great content. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Hi, thanks for your message. I do want to follow up on it, but is it okay to do it by email? As I said above, I don't agree with the way some things are done, but I also think it's okay to accept that others disagree and respect the consensus if it doesn't go your way. One quick point though I want to make is that I apologised to RationalObserver about the block by email and she was happy that I'd realised it was a bad move and unblocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, send me an email. WRT the last point, I'm pleased that you did the right thing by RO but that's not the impression you gave on wiki and that's the way that everyone else will be judging your behaviours. Further food for thought? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Revenge may be a dish best served cold, but if you have to eat crow, make sure it is good and warm. More than once I have gone to an editor's talk page with a large header "I'm sorry, I was wrong", followed by an apology and explanation, right after a mistake was made. To be honest, once or twice, the editor was upset and simply told me to piss off. Regardless, it sent a clear message to the community, which is also important: That I was accountable and didn't see myself as infallible. I've been watching here as well, and I think I understand Ritchie's perspective, being a new admin, you want to make changes and it gets frustrating when the rules get in the way of actually improving the encyclopedia. I was the same way, if I'm honest. I personally think some R&R and narrowing of duties to what he actually likes will be helpful. While I disagreed with Ritchie on the block of RO (and maybe one or two other issues), I haven't lost faith in him as an admin. For the record, I talked to both RO and Ritchie about the block via email. To Ritchie's credit, he didn't dig in and was quick to revert himself instead of pawning it off to another admin "if you want to revert me" style. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you back. The Angel looks good for GA IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hey Ritchie, Thanks for your message. I have read the 'how to write an article' further and understand now why it was deleted. Obviously, it's my fault, I should have done that first! I will write the article properly (hopefully thus explaining it's purpose in an encyclopedia) and then ask for feedback from you guys before publishing. I get it now, sorry about that! best wishes, Emma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladoselache (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cladoselache: The best way for new users to start editing is to use the Article Wizard, which provides a step-by-step guide to how to structure an article. As I suggested, I am perfectly happy to restore your article on Bob Nicholls into a draft page, which can be worked on and then submitted to an experienced editor for a peer review before it is published to the main article space - please let me know if you'd like to do this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi Ritchie333 – Thanks for removing the speedy deletion tag on the article I created, I have another issue with this User talk:Arthur goes shopping and he accused me of copying this content "in the Presidential Election campaign that cost $17,273.28 (Rs. 2,278,000.00) of public fund" from here where I wrote this content at Rajapaksa family. Actually I wrote this content first before the author's PDF was published and I asked him why he was accusing me of copyvio. If you take look at the date of creation in PDF shows “ Jul 26, 2015” and on Wikipedia I created this content on 4th February 2015. I would like to know how should I resolve this issue? As I have created this content six months earlier before this PDF was actually published. Any advice to resist this kind of accusation would be appreciated. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Alpha Monarch: Is your content back in the article now? If not, re-add it and put {{Backwardscopy}} on the talk page, clearly showing the external source that is a reverse copyvio. Arthur goes shopping does a lot of good work at Articles for creation, particularly the help desk, so I would assume good faith he is trying to help. The same thing came up at Graham Chapman's GA review, for what it's worth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The content wasn't removed from the article, He was simply was warning me on this case. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 15:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: My apologise, This accusation was not made by User:Arthur goes shopping, I was accused by User:Friend.hey. He used this IP Address to warn me. This must be serious violation of hiding account identity. Do you think an appropriate action should be taken in this case to warn the user for hiding the account identity? ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 15:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd personally ignore it. If they start repeatedly hassling you about it, then the appropriate venue to take it to is WP:ANI, however you must make sure you have ample evidence of repeated harassment (which I don't think you have right now) or you complaint will not be taken seriously and can even backfire on you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I will make sure that – Thanks for your advice and assistance! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)