User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Some advice if thats possible

Hi, I saw your name on the Putin lock notice. I'm wondering if you can help or point the right way. I'm trying to get us all talking to resolve it BTW, I think it will happen. But an odd thing happened. A brand new user came in on the talk page. Numbers not name, [1]. Appears anti Putin, quite active, not helping our dispute. Is this whats called a single purpose account? The timing is suspicious. Edits like an experienced user too. Should we be concerned? Sock? I'm concerned its an attempt to sabotage resolution. What do we do? SaintAviator lets talk 00:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@SaintAviator:I think Putin comes under Arbcom discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe, so I have dropped a discretionary sanction notice on their talk page. If they directly disrupt Putin's article, they can be arbcom-enforced blocked, if they don't touch the article again, then the notice might have done its trick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. SaintAviator lets talk 23:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

OK hes editing the article now, another user calls it vandalising. I agree. We need help please. [2]. SaintAviator lets talk 08:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A one-off bit of vandalism like that is best reverted and ignored. For the remainder, I think Volunteer Marek has called it correctly - the lead is too long and the obvious candidate to be trimmed is the out of date economic figures. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OK good re vandalism. Economy Lede. Well thats my call too, I just voted it out. It is too long and messy. VM wants it back in now, after a rewrite. I tried to facilitate a rewrite first. I'll go with consensus now, when people talk clearly. I think for now its on the back burner as the VM and Atheleans duo fix crashed and burnt. SaintAviator lets talk 03:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure at ANI

You were WP:INVOLVED being the unblocking admin, so your closure of this thread was inappropriate. If I wanted your feedback I would've gone to your talk page, but I wanted intervention from uninvolved admins. Jus' pointing out the obvious, nothin' else.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Why can't the two of you make up your differences, give each other a big hug (or pint of bitter, or whatever you like friends to do) and both work on getting Billy The Kid through GA, as the review likes a total and utter train wreck from my cursory perusal of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:TheManchMan vs. User:TheManchoMan

The block log for 68.194.58.163 lists him as a suspected sock of TheManchMan, when it is TheManchoMan. This typo, although minor, might assist any future admin considering unblocking this IP in understanding why he was blocked in the first place. I have given the same notification to EdJohnston because he also blocked this IP with the same typo. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jsharpminor: - EdJohnston patched up the block notice so it displays the correct name now, so I think this is resolved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

1RR restriction on Winkelvi

hello Ritchie333,

I am writing to ask for your help and opinion. Sadly today the second GA nomination Billy the Kid was failed. I can see that winkelvi might be upset about that but she went to the talk page for the article and archived every post on there except for on today she put there. We need the most recent posts there for the notes as some of the editors want to work together to try for #3. When I saw the entire talk page posts gone but one, I replaced the latest ones from 13 down so we may refer to the notes. In the kindest way possible without reverting winkelvi's edit I restored the latest posts to the talk page, and updated archive 3 to denoted the restoral, explaining it will be easier to have the latest notes at hand. Subsequently she reverted my two edits within a few minutes. [3] Usually older posts are archived, no? These 2 RRs are causing a disruption to us working on the article easily. Is she allowed 2 RR already? Or is it just in an article? Can you look at the talk page and archive and restore it. She threatened me with edit warring so I thought I should get an admin opinion. Thank you for listening. Jilllyjo (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie, I reverted at the Talk page and the Talk page archive. Two completely different pages. 1RR was not broken. I asked you in the edit summary to not edit war over it, Jilllyjo. That's not a threat. You are only trying to make trouble for me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

nope, no need to. deja vu Jilllyjo (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: archival of discussions from this month (including a couple of days ago) is inappropriate on any article. WP:ARCHIVE mentions a reasonable minimum of 30 days, which is only to apply to particularly busy talk pages. The wholesale archival of the entire talk page that you did was not appropriate. LjL (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I just posted something on your talk page in regard to this. Thanks for the education on MOS/policy I wasn't aware of. It was a WP:BOLD move, but obviously not the right one. My intentions were good; trying to give the article a "restart" by cleaning out the old as well as what pretty much equated garbage in my opinion. I can see now that it was not just inappropriate, but not my call to make (as far what's garbage and what's not). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: If some discussions are patently offtopic or inappropriate, one possible route is to "hat" them so they only show up if one explicitly clicks Show. It's less controversial than outright deleting them or archiving early (although these are legitimate options for things that patently don't belong to the talk page). LjL (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you LjL for the clarification of the policy on archiving for winkelvi. deja vu Jilllyjo (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

In general, archiving is best for pages that are getting large and are full of dead conversations (*cough* User talk:EEng *cough*), so I don't think Winkelvi's archiving was necessarily the best idea, though it doesn't breach any restrictions. FWIW, non-admins do get slapped on the wrist from time to time for using One Click Archiver on ANI threads prematurely. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Catalonia

Hi Ritchie, is it possible you change the current version of the Catalonia article to Jacobi's versions, I don't think Satesclop's behaviour is fair as he's going against several consensus. Thank you for your help — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have another question, why the Catalonia article is totally locked and you left the Basque Country and the Valencian Community/Country unlocked? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@JaumeR: Hi, thanks for your message. I know enough to realise that Spain has far more cultures and dialects than the version spoken in Madrid, and patriotism runs high, and for that reason, I think picking one version or the other is going to put me in the firing line for doing things I don't really know enough about. To give you a colloquial example from round here, people get really, really, really upset whether Wolverhampton is regarded as being in the West Midlands or Staffordshire (quick wave to Jeni) and I'd be really cautious at closing a content dispute regarding that. As a rule of thumb, admins protect on whatever state the article is left in, unless the current version contains obvious vandalism or BLP problems, which this doesn't.

If it would help, I can add a note on Talk:Catalonia explaining this, or perhaps start an RfC on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain. The article will be unlocked in three days or if I see a very clear and obvious consensus as to one version that all parties in the edit-war are happy about. I recall a similar protection on the main article on Spain last year that closed after about 36 hours following a talk page discussion. I didn't lock the other two articles simply because the edit-warring didn't seem to bad (Catalonia has had a regular series of back-and-forth reverts spanning the entire year so far) and I assume people more familiar with the subject and politics can work things out on their own accord. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Ritchie. And I understand what you say, but why Catalonia and not the Basque Country and the rest? Besides that, most users agreed to display the previous version to Satesclop, so I don't think it's fair you leave it as it is, in my opinion if you do that it shows you're favouring his view and you might not be neutral : ) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I can say hand on heart that I do not favour any version over the other; the mountains in the Catalan Transversal Range have been around for millennia, they will still be there when I'm six foot under, so arguing about the most important language to call them right now kind of misses the point a bit I think. However, when you protect an article, you have to lock it on a version at least one person thinks is wrong! Regarding Basque etc, simply put, in my personal opinion, there wasn't quite enough disruption on those articles to justify a protection. If you disagree, the best place to go is WP:RPP and request a short full-protection there. Admins are pretty on the ball at RPP and cases tend to get turned around within a matter of hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation

	Hello, Ritchie333. You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 09:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70

Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 403, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni ^(talk) 17:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jeni: I'm surprised you didn't contact Custodi2, who created a significant amount of content in that article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The guy who hasn't edited in a year and no meaningful contributions beyond blatantly copying and pasting articles from other wikias? He's probably a sock of the same person anyway - most of these "bus route editors" are exactly the same single person socking and changing IP - I just haven't been able to prove it. Jeni ^(talk) 10:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

GA review

Cheeesy!

Hi Ritchie333: Thanks for your time to provide the GA review. I have copy edited the article and responded to your queries at the review page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll hopefully get the review finished today, and then we can sit down for a nice cup of coffee and some pizza, with double cheese. Say, where's Milowent these days, I'm sure he can help out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, this is quite exciting! And delicious!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have copy edited the article and responded to your new queries at the review page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Really sorry with the delay on following up on the review, I was going to do it this afternoon but the problem with this damn mop and bucket is that people expect you to be on the ball with stuff, and my kids want me to teach them how to play Bid whist (and since that does not involve computers or tablets, I am all for it). Touch wood I will tidy it up this evening. The only brief comment I've got is that I'd quite like an expert in science-related sources (quick wave to @Opabinia regalis:) to look at the "Research and development" section. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I saw your ping and wondered what the article would be where science-related sources would be a question... I was not expecting pizza cheese! ;)

In other news, I just discovered that the card game I've known all my life as plain old "whist" is apparently actually a variation of "bid whist". Huh. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333: The Research and development section is written entirely and factually from what reliable sources about the topic report. I am hoping you would be willing to waive having an expert review the section, because it may never occur. I've seem pages tagged with {{Expert-subject}} literally for years without ever being addressed. I tend to be modest, but I may actually qualify as a food and drink "expert" on Wikipedia per my experience in the "real world". I'm concerned that no expert will ever come along to review it, and all of my work to attain GA for the article will go up in smoke. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Malformed RFAs

Please don't do something like this again. It would have been kinder to revert the edit and point the user to WP:NOTNOW than to transclude and then immediately oppose an RfA you clearly knew was going to fail. –xeno^talk 11:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xeno: As I said in the edit summary, I assumed good faith that the editor really did want to become an administrator, and running through the process might have been fairer and compassionate; after all, WP:NOTNOW says "The people who contributed to your first RfA have given you feedback" but a revert and a link to an essay is more or less no feedback save for perhaps "get lost, we don't want your sort round here". :-(

Certainly I never assume everyone has got the same opinions as me (it would make closing AfDs much easier, for one thing!) This user has had a considerable number of article space edits and might be future admin material if they start to take an interest in the back door things, so it's not your stereotypical "I want to be an admin so I can progress in the Wikipedia MMORPG". Do we have an actual policy that says anyone (as distinctly different from 'crats) should revert obviously NOTNOW RfAs? I'm pretty sure I've seen discussion on WT:RFA along the lines of "since when did we start doing this". @Kudpung: might have an interest in this matter. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

From WP:RFA: Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination. Moreover, common sense and decency. You see an obviously inexperienced skier show up at a double-black diamond run and having trouble getting off the ski lift. You don't help them off the lift and push them down the hill, you direct them to gentler slopes. –xeno^talk 12:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) xeno, you appear to be assuming an awful lot of bad faith here? Jeni ^(talk) 12:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The trouble with that is whether or not you consider this to be sufficient mens rea to count as a "nomination added by the candidate"; clearly there is a difference of view between "the intent is good enough" and "only a perfectly formatted template should be allowed". The problem with that ski-ing analogy is there's a very good reason you wouldn't push an inexperienced skiier down a hill as it is extremely hazardous and foolhardy. Nobody dies or is seriously injured if they fail an RfA. More to the point, I think trying to get more Nigerian admins is a good idea as it will help reduce the systematic bias. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Not "death", per se, but t's very possible to lose editors like this. Check the WT:RFA archives, this issue has come up numerous times and has always come down on the side of "counsel gently away from the slope". –xeno^talk 13:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

We're not going to agree on this and I don't think you picked up on the point in my previous post, but I saw parallels with this RfA and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikicology. As a fellow Nigerian, perhaps Wikicology can give their thoughts to the matter. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If your goal was to get more admins from that region, why didn't you support the candidate? Please don't transclude malformed RFAs in the future, leave that to the nominator or candidate. –xeno^talk 13:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment:; @Xeno and Ritchie333:, you have all brought up valid and interesting points in this discussion, and I appreciate that you have all engaged in a discussion that is likely to have a significant effects on RFA reform. Xeno, thanks for exercising your right to voice your concerns about Ritchie333's action but I think they transcluded the RFA in good faith and I don't see any major problem with this. I'm a bit worried about how the RFA regulars handle the process an the potentially devastating effects on qualified candidates. Wikipedia had lost several amazing editors on the basis of how they were treated during their RfA. For example Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John Cline forced John Cline to retired in 2011. See the user's note here. In fact, Jimmy and other respected editors tried to persuade them from leaving but all to no avail. What I'm saying in essence? I'm silently saying that the RfA process need a reform. Personally, I can't oppose a RfA because of a single or minor flaws. For example, I can't oppose User:Davey2010's RfA in the future for their comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Daniel but the regulars at RfA will do and I don't see that as a good idea. I'd like to say that there is nothing wrong in having experienced editors from a region/country like Nigeria that is under-represented in Wikimedia projects. This can be a good idea as it will help reduce the systematic bias. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I just read through John Cline's RfA, and I think a "no consensus" close was correct - some of the comments were a bit barbed, but at least Salvio, DGG and Wierspielchequers all made legitimate and constructive criticism in the "oppose" section. He's still actively editing, and if he filed RfA #2 tomorrow I wouldn't think there was anything suspicious. More recently I recall a case of Thomas.W "retiring" after a particularly vicious RfA, though he's still active. The same goes for Hawkeye7 and Brianhe who both had "near misses", but have made edits within the last day or two. I don't think editors leave forever after a bad experience at RfA, to be honest, at least not anymore, so I'm not worried about that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Wikipedia colleagues and friends. I appreciate the compassionate regards spoken of me above and thought it proper to clear the few misconceptions the sentiments contained. Firstly, as Ritchie333 mentioned, I did resume editing, and remain active under my new username. Nevertheless, even had I never returned, it would be as glaring a misnomer to propagate the conclusion that the process of RfA itself "forced" the retirement; creating a consequence by cause and effect that does not exist. In truth, I was woefully unprepared to request adminship at that time and the RfA merely exposed the fact of my unpreparedness; ultimately reaching the correct and proper outcome. Ironically, the entire notion of RfA as a "horrible and broken process" is dis-served using my RfA/1 to illustrate the meme, regardless of how true it may have otherwise been. Thank you again!--John Cline (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that User:John Cline is still active here. I'm not aware of this before now. Thanks to Ritchie333 and John. I will be glad to support their future RFA. Ritchie333, do you know any admin from Africa? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Just thought I should point out that I don't ever plan on becoming an admin but if I were too that one slip-up shouldn't ever be held against anyone .... No one's perfect here and to be fair I've done far worse than get confused over 2 policies.... but thanks for the mention! :) –Davey2010^Talk 17:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dave2010, you will be a good admin. No doubt! I agree with you that no one is perfect. There are lots to learn here. I learn more about Wikipedia everyday. Nonetheless, I don't think adminship is required to be a valuable Wikipedian. It's more of boring tasks. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Haven't popped by to say hi in a while and I like to pass my admin needs around. This has me stymied. I am 100% sure that Puerto Rican Bar Association should be Bar Association of Puerto Rico, but I don't know if one has to request a merge, or how they get joined and one redirected to the other. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: I had a look at the articles, and they assert they are separate entries. Merge requests are a little fiddly, but the procedure is described in Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and basically involves putting a {{mergeto}} template on one talk page and {{mergefrom}} on the other. The "brute force attack" method (warning: do not try this at home) is to send Puerto Rican Bar Association to AfD and !vote "merge", which gets a faster result but is frowned on since AfD is not cleanup. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL, me, brute force attack. Never going to happen. I'm going to assume I was wrong in my initial assessment because they have two different web sites and just move on. I frown upon AfD, which is an extremely flawed process... SusunW (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Mark E Curry Wikipedia Page

A passer by was totally petrified before we explained this isn't the Mark Curry that likes duffing up Lego men.

Good Morning Ritchie,

I'm wondering if you could clarify a couple of points about the deletion of the Mark E Curry page last night. It looked like the page was placed on the speedy deletion track because its subject lacked significance. I am wondering if you could provide me with a few pointers on how to prove the significance of the page, in addition to pointing out the problematic sources and self-promotional language. I'm more than willing to revisit and rewrite any content that is in conflict with wikipedia's standards!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjohnson14 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stevenjohnson14: You can't "make" anyone more significant than they already are. Thousands, if not millions, of people have started businesses and been reasonably successful, but to be considered for a general-purpose encyclopedia, they must have contributed something major to the sum of all human knowledge. The use of PR Newswire is a major red flag for why an article isn't an appropriate; if the person was significant enough for a Wikipedia page, publications such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal would cover them on a regular basis. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Tom Lucy

Hi Ritchie

Thank you for your help. This is my first ever Wikipedia post. I am always happy yo take your advice but keen to get this one uploaded. Thank you Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lucy (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Lucy: I've cleaned up the article as much as I can, but the claims of significance are still a bit weak - he doesn't have any coverage in The Guardian or The Independent and that's a bit of a red flag. Our guidelines for biographies mention "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", but for a stand-up I would consider that to be more like winning the Perrier Award than the Leicester Mercury Comedian of the Year - and even then most obviously notable comedians have featured regularly on national television. Any other editor is free to nominate any article for a full deletion debate if they sincerely believe it isn't possible for it to be improved. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. All points noted. Can we add a picture? How do I upload this? Best. R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lucy (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Provided the photograph was taken by you, you can use the "Upload file" link on the left hand menu (or click here) and follow the instructions there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback from Eman235

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Eman235's talk page.
Message added 20:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eman235/talk 20:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie Thank you for your help.. How do we add a picture of Tom? There are a number of options on his website www.tomlucy.com Also one factual amendment - Tom attended Bristol University but left mid-course to fully meet his comedy commitments Thank you.. R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lucy (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Hit and Run Editor"

I resent the use of your little essay to try to discredit my argument. I am not a "stereotypical Wikipedian, who makes a large amount of similar changes to pages, despite having had no evidence of being previously interested in any of them". I'm an active, long-term member of WP:ALBUMS who was notified of a relevant RFC, and gave a stance based on an established guidelines. I'm sure its fun to throw that link at newbies or something, but please don't confuse the issue with me. You're free to disagree with my stance, but I don't appreciate the misdirection. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Stick the album in question on full blast, and hopefully once Mick Ronson's blistering guitar solo on "The Width of a Circle" dies down you'll feel better. Works for me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Re:

...I LOL'd. Tiderolls 17:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got to laugh in a place like this, otherwise you'll go mad. Or retire. Or get blocked. Or end up working for the WMF. I don't know which one of those is worst, should we have a straw poll? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion please

What do you think of this? Harmless venting or personal abuse? I suppose I have been called worse names than "wanker" before but in response to a {{subst:uw-npa4im}} it might be considered blockable. As the abuse is (presumably) directed at me I thought I would ask a second opinion. Thanks for your time. --John (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I just laugh it off if somebody calls me a "wanker" if I'm doing my job as an admin. (They could try a more interesting insult for one thing!) If you're the same, ignore it, but watch out for his edits. If he swears at anyone else who doesn't like it, or edit wars on Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica again, a block is probably good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I had already blocked them for (what seems) obvious socking. Again, a second opinion would be valued. --John (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Link to an SPI or otherwise say what other accounts they are suspected of having (or some other thread that confirms it), otherwise you are likely to get an unblock request along the lines of "This is my only account. The blocking admin is abusing their tools as they have not said what accounts I'm supposed to have used! Unblock me now!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

We all wait with bated breath. Looks like guy's already been fully gridled by John. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Careful

Some of this keeps angry mastodons at bay.

We both need to be more careful. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 16:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. If this is for the badgering on TMWSTW's RfC, I've said my piece and will take whatever consensus offers. If it was for "blocking" Drmies, well I would hope we've got the same sense of humour. If it was implying I wanted to delete an article simply because Floquenbeam created it, same thing. If it was for having a go at you for violating 3RR on Bowie's article, well don't violate 3RR again and the problem's resolved. If I've just pissed somebody off, well I'm sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea about any RfC, I am saying , Please don't threaten me with wikihounding and/or blocks, as your edit summary suggest. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh you mean this? Goodness, no, you've completely misunderstood and I genuinely am sorry you did. If you think I was going to file a long-term abuse case against you or some sort of other sanction-seeking thread on ANI / Arbcom - absolutely not, that would be extremely petty and out of character and your contributions to the project are, on the whole, positive. The events that led to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP were a combination of two things; a) reverting IP edits when it wasn't really necessary and b) gross edit-warring, incivility and block evasion. Now of course b) is completely unacceptable, and to be clear I have never, ever, ever seen you do that, but I can't help thinking that a lot of it was caused by a) and we would have saved ourselves an awful lot of grief and hassle if we'd had a bit less of it. All I'm saying is be careful when reverting good faith edits by IPs, as it can be a bit of a game of Russian roulette that can come back and bite you, as you don't know who is editing by definition. Regarding the edit in question, which added the US record label for Ummagumma, the information is sourced in Glenn Povey's Echoes, it just wasn't in the prose, so the edit is a good faith improvement that is verifiable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I apologise also, mybe I should have more coffee this morning. No problems (I'm relived I was wrong) Mlpearc (open channel) 17:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Text-based communication is hard, especially when placed against the geographical spread that is the Wikipedia community. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Anticancer Fund

Hello Ritchie333, I would like to say I disagree with your interpretation of WP:CSD#A7 having references does not negate the criteria of A7, a claim of significance is needed which I do not see in this article. That aside you did not speak to the other reason for deletion of WP:CSD#G11 The entire article is written in the tone of a flyer handed out to potential donors and definitely requires a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. I am not trying to be difficult or anything I more curious on your thought process and looking for more information, I have no issue taking it to AFD, but wanted to see more of your viewpoint. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just had a thoroughly miserable experience with the Dartford Crossing, so I'll give a fuller reply later, but here are two quick questions. First, why do you think this topic is "insignificant" and what results did you get when you Googled its name? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mcmatter: Okay, I've had another look and the most obviously "good" source I can find from a cursory Google News search is this Daily Telegraph piece on an anti-bowel cancer drug, that quotes a UK representative from the Anticancer Fund. The fact that a national newspaper we normally consider to be "broadsheet" and focused more on factual accuracy than sensational nonsense (yes, I'm looking at you and you in particular) is prepared to put a quotation from the charity / group and print it says there's likely to be some more "meat" to write an article with. In any case, it's well out of the ballpark for speedy and firmly in a full AfD debate. I don't think the article particularly qualifies for G11, if it had I'd expect to see gushing prose such as "The Anticancer Fund is a vital link to discovering the breakthough of crushing one of the world's most unresolvable causes of death." Significantly, it makes little mention of who runs the charity, how much money they've earned, and what their annual turnover figures are, which are all hallmarks of G11-able articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough thank you for your feedback. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

MBC Times is an online magazine - A7 does apply

Hi Ritchie. According to this, MBC Times is an online magazine, so CSD A7 would apply. I'm not sure why you removed the content stating that it's an online magazine and then declined the CSD.- MrX 14:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I wasn't confident enough it was just an online magazine and erred on the side of caution that this may have national prominence in Morrocco that I don't know about. I removed the puffery because it was, well, puffery (and if that was the only content I would have deleted it per WP:CSD#G11), though I may have gone a bit far as I removed the claim that Noam Chomsky has written for the magazine, which is another reason I would decline A7. If you're certain the magazine has no actual significance whatsoever, file a PROD or AfD and see if consensus agrees with you. I do give a bit more latitude towards African-based articles as experience has told me they are less easy to verify via a simple English Google search - had this been an English magazine I probably would have deleted it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. I agree that that Noam Chomsky would be a significant claim, but I was skeptical that it was credible. I did find this, but I could not find anything written by him on the MBC Times website.- MrX 14:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Whadaymean?? Gnome Chomksy really gets around! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1 Greetings, all. The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already, If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here). Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: (as general grand fromage of the cup) I think I'm going to have to duck out of this one. In the past, I've needed about 8 - 12 solid uninterrupted hours on average to do a full GA review justice, and I just don't have that right now. The most recent review I did, Pizza cheese took a week where at one point I might have sorted it out in a day or two. I'll just have to cheer from the sidelines. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Tom Lucy

Hi Ritchie Can you please help me?

1. The Glee club link is currently not right - it should be to https://www.glee.co.uk/

2. I have been trying for a while to get a picture of Tom on the page! He commissioned and paid for some professional pics by Andy Hollingsworth. There are absolutely no copyright or IPR issues. We own the pictures. They are now on his website www.tomlucy.com. Can you please help me get one (or more) on to his wiki page?

3. Tom has supported Harry Hill, Jack Whitehall, Paul Chowdry and Seann Walsh. Can we get this mentioned on the page?

Overall - Thank you so much for your help.. Best. R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lucy (talk • contribs) 09:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Lucy: Hi. In order:

1. I've fixed the link to the Glee Club (see my edit for how I did it).
2. Pictures are an absolute nightmare and a minefield for newcomers, as to be brutally honest they contradict most modern social media websites. Sometimes, like monkey selfie, they even contradict common sense (long story). Basically, Tom needs to contact Wikipedia's Open Ticket Resource System, prove who he is, and prove that the photos hosted on his website have a compatible licence - which means they must be able to be freely modifiable and even sold commercially by others (that's not what most people want and that's why editors sometimes come down like a ton of bricks on image copyright issues). Once this is done, the image can be tagged. A prolific professional photographer Yanping Nora Soong recently had problems with wanting to reuse their own photographs on Wikipedia, and I think Nyttend managed to sort the OTRS ticket out for them.
3. Find me a reliable source such as a link to an entry in the The Guardian, Time Out (basically anything that think most people would trust to be accurate for just about anything and has an established reputation of being right) that shows Tom has supported Harry Hill and yes, we can put it in the article.

Hopefully that'll give you some ideas to what advanced Wikipedia editing is about. Be warned, it's habit forming. By the way, don't forget to sign your posts by adding four tildas (~~~~) to the end of your message. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Afrocandy

Hello, the page Afrocandy does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I put a speedy deletion tag and it was removed by the user Oshwah many times and now he's saying something very strange that a person doesn't have to be proven notable to be on Wikipedia, please see his comments on my talk page. I'm bringing this to the attention of an admin because this page needs to be deleted. The sources quoted are blogs and she has made no impact on the Nigerian music industry, has won no awards and is not known even in Nigeria. Do your own research please and see for yourself, all she has are small mentions. Please advise. Thanks PaulAshford (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @PaulAshford: you are right there is an issue with what happened on that page, the first one was replacing CSD tags after another user, whom is not the original author, removes them. If someone removes a CSD template you do not revert it and begin edit warring with them or try a PROD. If the CSD is contested, then a PROD is considered contested, once there is a contested deletion it must go to WP:AFD for the community to discuss. However before you do that make sure you have read through WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and ensure you can convince people why she does not meet these inclusion criteria. We are allowed to disagree with each other but there is a set process on how to deal with this. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@PaulAshford: As Mcmatter says, you've fallen into a common trap that assumes CSD A7 means "not notable". It doesn't - it means that there is nothing in the article that could possibly show it could be rescued at a full deletion debate at WP:AfD. Things like "Fluff is my pet cat. She is 3 years old and likes bringing dead frogs into the house." - that's a good candidate for A7. In the case of Afrocandy, the article has two of my bete noires in it - pornography and citations to The Sun (both of which I think Wikipedia has too much of); normally I'd research and rescue an article but I'm not going to explain to my spouse and kids why I'm looking at middle aged Nigerian "glamour" actresses - not a chance. However, having newspaper coverage, even tabloid stuff, is generally sufficient to avoid A7 unless it is particularly slanderous or libellous to delete per WP:CSD#G10 - which this article really isn't. If the woman herself contacted Wikipedia and said she was upset at having a biography and wanted to remove it, I could entertain that per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Other than that, you'll need a full deletion debate, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

.Ritchie333 Thank you so much for the response and the explanation. I see the difference. PaulAshford (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bring Chrome Home

Might want to protect that page and revdel the anon IP...BLP issues. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi protection applied. Will think about revdel later if necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Bring Chrome cats home!!

Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, Threesie... just trying out that new gizmo that appeared on the right-hand side of the page! lol

Jeez Martin, I've got a button here called "Block user", but that doesn't mean I'm tempted to try it out for a laugh. And there was that old deli-batch button admins get that forces one of your underlings to fetch you a footlong sub sandwich. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Be careful now... you just can't trust us underlings. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Strand, London

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Strand, 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

):(

Stop deleting my pages you idiot! I didn't violate anything on Wikipedia! I followed all the rules! Richard Ariel (Mobile Animator) (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Ariel (Mobile Animator): Please read Observations on Wikipedia Behaviour #33 carefully. If you wish to advertise your Weebly blog, Facebook, Twitter, Medium or Mashable may be more appropriate places to do so. If you get angry because people disagree about the usefulness of your contributions, it may be that Wikipedia is not the right website for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Welsh National Opera GAN

Just a quick note to thank you for the prompt, thorough and all-round helpful review. Tim riley talk 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Strand, London

The article Strand, London you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Strand, 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vine Street, London

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vine Street, 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vine Street, London

The article Vine Street, London you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vine Street, 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Appearances can be deceptive, look at the street today and it appears irrelevant, spin back 130 years and you'll have Victorian London's answer to Gene Hunt. "Chief culprit is Oscar Wilde. I want him in custody by teatime." "What, because he spoke first?" "'Cos he's guilty as sin, and he's a fucking poof". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, obviously if it was always a minor street it wouldn't be on the Monopoly board! A Czech composer's idea of erotic nirvana ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hoisted by his own petard, so to speak. Or, if you prefer, the ultimate WP:BOOMERANG. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Euston Road

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Euston 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Hello Ritchie, How Are You, With The George Martin Article, You Asked , NORRIE WHO, Norrie Paramor Was The Manager Of Cliff Richard From 1958 To 1972 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.213.114 (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What advice are you giving me when the talk page already has consensus, more consensus than the three editors challenging me?

Well I served the 48 hours you give me, now please answer me as to what advice are you giving me when claiming I am the one "edit warring" when I consistently have been giving references to my assertions and they haven't (or have cherry picked a source to assert their opinion, where I have posted the full sentence regarding the sources' actual opinion on the band's genre on the Bauhaus_(band) page from the source to prove my assertion like in my last edit and yet they still revert it with one page click)? These people editing the Bauhaus (and other goth bands) to the wrong genre don't seek "consensus", they just revert to their opinion and do not use the talk page first before making any changes, I have checked it. What I edited was given a proper citation and they still put it down without reasons regarding the validity of my source (when I finally looked at the sources they did use, I found flaws and pointed them out and they still reverted). They claim that I must get "consensus" but they have not used the Talk page on any of these bands that they edit to promote and gain other editor's views, unlike me who actually looked at the talk pages. On the Bauhaus talk page there is only *one* person who claims that Bauhaus isn't a Goth rock band because he believes there isn't such a thing as "gothic music" (I personally replied to that comment and made my opinion known that they were a Gothic band and that the subculture exists, no response from the other editor on that one yet), all the rest were putting forth that Bauhaus is a Gothic rock band and only a band like Joy Division can be considered a "post-punk" band (none of the editors opposing my genre claim have made any comments towards that, but I have). Now, that to me means that a majority of editors who viewed the Bauhaus_(band) talk page over the years have consensus that Bauhaus is a Goth rock band and even calling them the first Goth rock band, so what am I missing when I edit the page to express what appears to be a majority consensus and yet editors like User_talk:Greg_Fasolino can revert with a few strokes of the keyboard? Did you block Greg from editing for 48 hours too for genre warring or does he get a free pass because he's more "experienced" an editor than myself, despite not actually having consensus beyond 2 other editors? Is there a way to do a search on the editor history to find out who was the one who first edited Bauhaus to "post-punk"? Because I know for the longest time they weren't described that way (years I think) Please help me figure this one out.67.83.143.151 (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northumberland Avenue

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Northumberland Avenue 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 Moisejp -- Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Euston Road

The article Euston Road you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Euston 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)