User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levallois-Perret attack

Hi Why do you not relist the AfD ? --Panam2014 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The existing discussion was descending into name calling; a relist would have just let that carry on. This would not be good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Reno Divorce

You deleted the page of the band Reno Divorce. Can you send me the text of that page? Thanks Johnny1971nl (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny1971n: You need to enable email first - go to "preferences" and check "Enable email from other users" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I confirmed my emailadres. Please send me the text. Thanks Johnny1971nl (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User: 174.16.155.182 is Social justice warring

User:174.16.155.182 is on a one person campaign against perceived isms such as "anti-sex work", "fat shaming" and the term "gypsy". Never mind that at the time of the Black Dahlia murder and Ted Bundy, no one used the freaking term "sex worker" or "Romani". I'll ask others for help too Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 3 hours, which should be enough time to get an explanation and / or revert everything. I see Berean Hunter has asked for one. I have used the term "prostitution" in plenty of London GAs, so there's definitely consensus for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now back to their antics as User:LucretiaIPRE. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• sigh* I've reverted one of their edits. I've also remembered that Whitechapel murders, not just a featured article but one of my favourite all-time reads on Wikipedia, uses "prostitute" in the lead. If a reliable source doesn't name somebody as a prostitute, that's a different matter, but that's not the case here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, LucretiaIPRE here. The terms "prostitute" and "gypsy" are offensive and should not be used. I'm especially concerned with Jane Does who are IDed as "prostitutes"--these women are already dead, they don't need to be offended again. Also, it is unnecessary to say that a dead woman was "overweight," but not say that another woman is "thin." Again, they're already dead. How does this affect you? It doesn't. It's just giving dignity to the dead.LucretiaIPRE (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)User:LucretiaIPRE

You have WP:NOCONSENSUS for your imposition of far-left political views on Wikipedia. *SHOUTING* NO ONE FREAKING USED THE TERM SEX WORKER AT THE TIME OF THE BLACK DAHLIA OR TED BUNDY. JACK THE RIPPER WAS REPORTED TO MURDER PROSTITUTES NOT "SEX WORKERS". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @LucretiaIPRE: Please see WP:EUPHEMISMS. If a reliable source uses a non-euphemistic term, then use it. Would you prefer that everyone in said business be termed "temporary hired procreation partners"? Okay. Thank you for your opinion. But Wikipedia is not your opinion. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored - indeed, people might find the Whitechapel murders upsetting full stop, but it doesn't stop it being a FA here. Joy Division, another FA, doesn't directly use "prostitute", but House of Dolls, where the band got their name from, does it use it. Additionally, Ipswich serial murders, a Good Article also uses "prostitute" in the lead. If sources use the word "prostitute" and it is accurate, we should use if it gets the information across. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not edited it when used in a quote or in the title of a source. We no longer use offensive terms for Black or Asian people in these articles, even though they were used historically, so I don't quite understand how this is different. There's also no need to yell. LucretiaIPRE (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And mainstream media is more likely to use the word "prostitute" than they would the N-word. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That's probably why there isn't a gansta rap collective called P.W.A then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) This is the first time I've heard anyone opine that "prostitute" is offensive. However, I've heard many times that "black" (as in "We no longer use offensive terms for Black or Asian people in these articles") is offensive. So if you're willing to take some advice from someone who's completely uninvolved in any of this, here's mine: don't remove any material that you deem offensive. Different people have different standards, and Wikipedia cannot cater to all of those different standards while maintaining its status as an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Accounts paired with respective IPs

• LucretiaIPRE (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 174.16.155.182 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Fox933 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 82.44.87.217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• BlissFollower (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 12.131.200.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Talk:Violence against prostitutes#We should be using 'sex worker' not 'prostitutes'

• This has a confirmed sock that tries to implement the move and could be the orchestrator of that thread and the above accounts. Fits his MO.

Unlikely related to the above socking but related by subject

• Brooke2796 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• If these contribs were what this student did for that class then she should have flunked.

• Emmabenyosef (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Classmate meatpuppet for the above with this.

Forgetting the last two as an aside, I think somebody is up to no good and Lucretia has been acting a little on the evil side.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) That demeans evil. We should call it the 'less-good' community :) — fortunavelut luna 08:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Banned editor #2

Okay, the confirmed sock that I mentioned above is a banned editor that many of us recognize by two names. This is interesting because I believe that another banned editor is involved unless the two turn out to be the same. There are similarities but I haven't done a thorough enough analysis for that comparison.

The thread Talk:Violence against prostitutes#We should be using 'sex worker' not 'prostitutes' was started by 24.239.124.140 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) who also made this interesting edit for more political correctness as apparently committing suicide should be replaced by completing suicide. They also posted this at Online predator. Given that activity, I'm going to suggest that the IP is banned editor #2 who started this thread and sings the same tune as the above socks with this thread and also edited the Online predator article.

So did banned editor #1 assist banned editor #2 by way of this confirmed sock in this thread or are they the same editor? If different, then one of the two is probably the sockmaster for the accounts that I listed above.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess the distinction between "prostitutes" and "whores" (and I can't remember which historical book had one, but there apparently is) is a moot point here, then? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Outside of, inside of

Ritchie, I need to break the news to you that the "of" is plain bad English, in any variety. It seems to occur most in AmEng. This redundancy is very different from "the inside of the cell", which involves quite different grmmar. Tony (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the whole sentence could do with a copyedit as it looks clunky - now done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. I know what edit summaries are - I use them all the time. Have a look at my contributions. If it's a minor edit, it isn't necessary. Please don't patronise me with a template message. Thanks. Cloudbound (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You haven't used them in any of the edits I looked at today ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5]) so I wasted time working out whether they were good faith or something else. I can't read your mind so I don't know if it's a minor edit (and your opinion of whether the edit is "minor" may be different to mine, or indeed, anyone else's). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks for the note of mistrust. They were minor, and were marked as minor. I've been trying to answer you but you keep editing your original message. You could have written a short note, rather than going straight for the template. Cloudbound (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well here's your short note - other editors are not mind readers, explain yourself. I'm sure half the silly drama-wars that happen around here were just miscommunication at cross purposes that got out of hand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Do I need to add a full edit summary for changing a spelling? Cloudbound (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding edit summaries. The thread is Use of edit summaries. I think it would be good to open this discussion up. Thanks. Cloudbound (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Why don't you two enjoy a nice WP:COOLDOWNBOCK together on me? EEng 19:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• And here's a summary conviction to save you both the bother of going to court. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC) ...ah shucks, you just did.

• I'd say I'll take a kick up the arse from EEng as punishment, but one (or both) of us might find that kinky..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Better than "baring your arse in Burton's Shop window", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Everyone needs a beer, every now and again. You are one of the good'uns - don't let it get to you Scr★pIronIV 20:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Favorite kitteh is here and is interested in purring in your lap when you feel grouchy. kthxbai

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice pussy, Mrs slocumb!" — fortunavelut luna 13:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me link stroke in the caption and then you can bear a grudge for over 12 months? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Opinion please? on a band article

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

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

Thank you

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

Ira

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

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

DYK for Euston railway station

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

Alex Shih^Talk 00:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Meh

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

I've got no issue with people disagreeing with me - except maybe if the way they do it is dick-ish (which yours absolutely wasn't) in which case I'll probably ignore them. If I hid in an echo chamber surrounded by sycophants all day long, I'd never learn anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)"And no one sings me lullabies, And no one makes me close my eyes". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

True, in the end... -- Begoon 01:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Future Discworld

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

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

Let me introduce you to the exciting world of Tila Tequila, failed celebrity, model, musician and Nazi stormtrooper, who once tweeted about 25 times in 10 minutes that THE WORLD IS FLAT GODDAMMIT Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, ok!! No need to get into a big pissiffik. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chiltern Main Line RDT

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

@Jc86035: A discussion here (or on Talk:Marylebone station, or any of the template talk pages) might have been a first good step. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that; usually I only nominate templates which aren't in use. Did the TfD notice mess up the article (sometimes Twinkle does that with table formatting)? I can't see it now because you've already deleted the template. Jc86035 (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It dropped one of the usual "this template is considered for deletion" messages at the top of the template, which overspilled the box a bit. In any case, it was always the ultimate intention to delete the template anyway; I just couldn't fix the original template into a state where I could do so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Source help

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

@Vanamonde93: Okay, I see you've got all the sources I immediately looked at, including Easlea's biography, which still leaves you short for the chart positions and credits. The chart stats might be in Bowler & Dray's Genesis biography, which does a cursory overview of Gabriel's solo career, but I don't have that in front of me. Unfortunately, this biography says that the actual credits on the song are not known. It's probably David Rhodes on guitar (Gabriel is known for consistently working with a core of musicians who've stuck with him for his career), but the source in question doesn't definitively say. Bit of a tricky one this. JennKR has done a bit of work on Gabriel, particularly getting So to GA, so she's probably got good sources but she hasn't been around for a few months.

I will have a hunt around, I appreciate you're probably trying to get this in shape for the 40th anniversary of Biko's death to get a DYK on the front page. If I can't directly find anything and don't contribute to the article, and you want a GA review when you're all done, let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. I confess I hadn't anticipated this much trouble with a song this well known. I missed the point at which the Hill book says the credits are unknown: could you point me to it? I've tried web sources, too, but even AllMusic only has credits for the album. I'm going to keep looking; but if we can't find the full credits anyplace reliable, would you recommend adding album credits, or just adding what we do know and a note to say the rest is unknown? Cheers. Vanamonde (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I think the only thing I can compare it to is who played what on Beach Boys LPs; although the Pet Sounds and "Good Vibrations" personnel are reasonably well documented, that's because everyone who played on them got sought out and given the appropriate credit; for the lesser albums, there's no real indication of who was used to play what. The trouble with book sources is they tend to fall into two types. The first are proper groundbreaking research done with extensive interviews with the subject and people close to them, which subsequently get rave reviews. The second are just people digging up second hand information and assembling it into a readable format (which, when you think about it, is exactly what we do here). I've got a feeling that book is of the second type. Still, I think for now, put what we know in a footnote and source it to that book. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense, many thanks. I've been distracted by other things over the last week or so, but I'm planning to get back to this project soonish. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

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

@Vanamonde93: Well to cut a long story short, I'm in the middle of GA reviewing The Rolling Stones which, as you might expect, is a bit of a slog, plus I've got three of my own articles being reviewed right now. Maybe if I can clear all that backlog down quickly, I'll have a go at this one, but it depends on what else turns up, I guess :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's entirely understandable, I did notice the slew of notifications here. It would be nice to get this to the main page on 12 September, but it's not hugely critical; and we still have a bit of time, because there will be folks at DYK willing to do an expedited review. The Stones article is hugely important, I wouldn't want to distract you from it. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I see that you've dealt with the flood of GA reviews; is this a good time to remind you of this? Vanamonde (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Ritchie? Vanamonde (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Finaly reminder, I promise, then I'll leave you in peace. Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Hi, sorry, I got caught up by The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger's GA reviews, which took (and are taking) longer than expected. Let me grab it now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries and thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

My approaches to editing

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

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

@Rentier: I think it's just generally being slightly over-aggressive to COI editors. I would recommend just putting the tags on and sending the articles to AfD without comment. Explain in a disinterested tone what the issues are and leave it at that. I believe it's possible to have good paid editing (eg: my frequently quoted example of "we will pay you $5 for every unreferenced BLP you completely source and is validated by another, neutral editor"), it's just most if not all examples we come across are not.

In the specific case of Candice Hutchings, I've got no real issue with you starting an AfD and saying "can't find any sources [search link], no way of improving this" - ie: keeping the debate focused on the article. In this instance, I didn't really want to bring this up, as it was only to try and demolish an argument that everyone who disagreed with this COI editor were friends and in collusion with each other, which is nonsense. But also I think it's reasonable that if you're going to talk about another editor, to bring them into the discussion so they're aware of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised to see it mentioned in a venue such as the AN, but I suppose it's a well-deserved WP:BOOMERANG :) No disagreement with your assessment and recommendation. Don't hesitate to drop me a line should you have any concerns in the future. Rentier (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

99.104.66.69

Hi, I see that you're active at the moment. Could you take a look at [6] and see if you could revoke TPA please? Thanks –72 _(talk) 14:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

AN/I notification

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

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

London Waterloo station

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

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

Is it possible to delete Draft:Lord Aleem?

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

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

Sure, as you've been the only significant contributor to it, I can deleted it per WP:CSD#G7 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Who waz Lord Aleem, just out of curiosity? — fortunavelut luna 16:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, a YouTuber? Ok, no worries. — fortunavelut luna 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Here you go Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

FYI

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

RfA for Fortuna? Of course! I thought I got him to agree, last April, that he would run eventually. And actually I think it was User:Drmies who first publicly suggested the idea to him. No, Fortuna, we are not joking. There are so many of us who want to nominate you, we might have to have a raffle or something to decide who gets to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that was me--I do have some good ideas every now and then. I have it on good authority that Fortuna is a bit of a medievalist, so we'll have to beat that out of them before we get the process going. Also, no more jokes please, and stay away from people like EEng. And Jimbo Wales's talk page. We do need to see your ANI stats--by which I mean the stats that indicate when you completely inconsequentially attempted to mediate in an impossible situation, and when you piled on totally obvious support for something that was clearly passing. Quick, you run into a user called User:DonaldTrumpSUX who writes up an article called Hillary and Rahm in a pizza joint meme. What do you do? Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not too far-fetched a question. Back in July I actually did encounter a user called User:Donald J. Trump - 45th President of the United States, going around posting Twitter-like comments. Step one: I blocked them. Step two: I got a good laugh from a reaction on my talk page. See how much fun adminship can be? --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

When did I become the strange neighbor parents warn their children to avoid? EEng 21:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that I'm warning the grown ups. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

What went wrong in Robert McClendon's RfA? I hadn't revisited it but saw that he had withdrawn. It wasn't something that happened during the RfA, was it? Fortuna, learning experience...Drmies (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It was that nagging feeling of spending a bit too much time at WP:JIMBOTALK that might have been it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A82 road

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

Your GA nomination of A82 road

The article A82 road you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:A82 road for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

UTRS access

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

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

Question regarding the A7 criteria

Hello Ritchie, How are you?

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

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

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

See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7. In the case of Josh Dean, "His work has appeared in numerous magazines including Rolling Stone, Popular Science, Men's Journal, GQ, Travel + Leisure, New York, Entertainment Weekly, Inc., Fast Company, Men's Health, Runner's World, and Outside" is a clear case of significance ie: something you could use to apply a specific search for sources). Indeed, a Google search for Josh Dean Rolling Stone brings up his profile on RS' own website. That absolutely clears A7. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie, thank you for the quick answer. There is a similar page in GQ, both are RS but neither is independent so they can't be used towards meeting WP:GNG.

I have read your guide on A7 before. I think is a good document and I share your views on the subject. Still I have a couple of questions to keep in mind for the future:

My current understanding is that publishing at notable magazines is not a sufficient criteria for establishing notability, am I mistaken? still, I agree with your point of keeping a lower threshold when evaluating A7. I guess that having a claim of a direct relationship with notable entities (publishers, companies etc) seem like a reasonable criteria for that lower threshold. I will avoid tagging such articles as A7 in the future.

My last question would be that if an article has at least a reliable source, even if it is not independent (like the list of articles published at Rolling Stones), should I use that as a reason to avoid A7 Tagging?

Thank you for your advice and best regards, --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Publishing at notable magazines may or may not be a criteria for deserving a standalone article - Jan Wenner, Nick Kent and Charles Shaar Murray are all chiefly known for being magazine writers and journalists - while for others, a redirect for the associated publication might be appropriate. In any case, it's a grey enough area to require a discussion, which takes it out of the remit of CSD, which is for very obvious cases that admins can be confident of bypassing consensus completely without fear of getting it wrong.

If an article has at least one significant and reliable source that mentions the subject, it is definitely not an A7. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification the first part does make good sense and I will apply it from now on. For the second I would appreciate it if you could elaborate, is there no issue with the independence of the source? an article with a link to a publisher that mentions its own book and author should be enough to avoid A7? How about a trivial mention? or an iMDB profile?

Thanks again for your guidance, its been very helpful. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can clear A7 provided the publisher is not a vanity press like Lulu or iUniverse. Not IMDB either, as anyone can add anything there. Basic rule of A7 though is when in doubt, don't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's Clear now. Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Michael Brandon

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

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

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

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

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

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

A7 Decline Bank of Commerce Mississippi

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

Not too sure, but I would guess a merge with Greenwood, Mississippi would be the most obvious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how I might go about this? I'd be interested in giving it a shot. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a go - if you click on the article it should redirect to a "Commerce" sub-section inside Greenwood's article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Talking about

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

There's no easy way or a script to do it, you just have to kuckle down and do it the hard way. The basic procedure is to earch for {{cite book, copy the book source to the clipboard and move it to "References", making sure you have ref=harv set. Then replace the citation with {{sfn|LastName|Year|p=page}}. Repeat for each occurrence of the source. Then, do a search for <ref> in case there are any bare book references at the end. See this edit to Mick Jagger, for example. In any case, the formatting of book sources is not part of the GA criteria, merely that the source has to be there and sufficiently detailed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Well in which case I've been bullshitted. In any case, I deleted this section as I had come to that conclusion almost immediately. And have now done that. Thanks very much for the reply anyway. — fortunavelut luna 13:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, formatting the sources is nice to do, and if you go through them, you can spot mistakes in the refs that you might have missed - so I don't mind updating Jagger's article myself as the reviewer, but if the nominator doesn't want to do it, I can't fail the review because of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

S'alright, it all came out in the end. Thanks for your help. — fortunavelut luna 18:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A82 road

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

Medha Khole

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

Blocking editors who falsely accuse IPs of vandalism

wall of text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Great idea. I had a look to see what benefits it would bring and this is what I found: Chris Bennett You can get the flavour of his editing from this: [7], [[8] 5 February 2008 "It's more like abuse than vandalism" - arguing with an administrator who had just declined his protection request However, this editor is now deceased. Future Perfect at Sunrise His language was so foul the Arbitration Committee couldn't take it any more and de - sysopped him 22 February 2016 Suggested that it would be a good idea to report editors who do not vandalise for vandalism. Idea rejected by the administrator he was discussing it with Jusdafax 15 March 2010 Reverted an edit to Julian calendar claiming it was "vandalism". The edit added a direct quote from Macrobius explaining the operation of the calendar in the early imperial period cited a paper by Alexander Jones on the use of the Julian calendar in Egypt Jc3s5h For an example of abusive edit summaries see c:Special:Permalink/224981036#DEMAND TO UNDO EDIT 28th October 2009 Rollback is only to be used for reverting vandalism. He was warned about "clear abuse of rollback" and gave this flippant response: Perhaps I have misinterpreted a failure to look in one's rear-view mirror as an intentional refusal to communicate. 13 February 2010 Alleged an editor introduced "incorrect information" into Julian calendar which appears "to be vandalism". The information was a statement by the Archbishop of Athens that some countries have not adopted the 400 - year leap year rule. He later tried to cover his back (see 9 March 2010 below) 16 February 2010 Alleged an editor is continuing "to vandalise pages". The edit he objected to explained that when converting between the Julian and Gregorian calendars you apply the difference to the calendar you are converting into. After reverting and threatening the editor he quietly added the information back. 9 March 2010 Uses a "vandalism" template to report an editor at AIV. Two minutes later he's back complaining the links don't work. The previous six edits by the editor complained about were to talk pages. Three minutes later an administrator rejects the complaint because no vandalism warning had been issued. To get Jc3s5h off his back administrator tells him he has issued the vandalism warning himself. One minute later he strikes the comment, pointing out that "In fact there is no vandalism, the repeating characters tag was just some dots." Jc3s5h isn't going to let the matter rest and decides on a spot of forum shopping. Nineteen minutes later he pitches up at ANI. Four minutes later he is told Other admins might differ, but I can't see anything with which I can justify a block or even a warning. He then starts canvassing Dirtlawyer 1 and Newyorkbrad. His question is: In connection with the Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, and Revised Julian calendar articles, I would like to know if there is a list of what countries have formally adopted a calendar, and ideally, pointers to the legislation. There are many countries, such as Greece, which might have adopted the Gregorian calendar, or might have adopted the Revised Julian calendar, or might have delegated the choice of a calendar to the state religion. Since the latter two calendars happen to agree with each other for the time being, you can't tell by observing when things happened and how those events are dated in government documents. Unsurprisingly, this guy has since driven the Vermont government up the wall with a claim that minor officials (like himself) should be able to register marriages. 2 May 2010 Issues a vandalism warning. The edit he objected to explained the mathematics behind the octaeteris and the Metonic cycle added a direct quote from Macrobius explaining the operation of the calendar in the early imperial period cited a paper by Alexander Jones on the use of the Julian calendar in Egypt in the early imperial period 2 June 2010 Reverted a talk page edit claiming it is vandalism. Reverted an edit to Easter claiming it is vandalism. He thereby changed the word "Century" to "Centur"y" removed the information that the early British church was falsely accused of being quartodeciman because they observed Easter on the xiv of the moon whenever it fell on Sunday Reverted an edit to Computus claiming it is vandalism. He thereby Removed the URL of the book Christliche und jüdische Ostertafeln by Edouard Schwartz Removed the URL of the book The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac by Margaret Dunlop Gibson Removed the title of the book Patrologia Graeca by Migne, replacing it with the unintelligible abbreviation "PG" Removed the URL of the book Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar Second Century BCE-Tenth Century CE by Sacha Stern Inserted the false information that the 84 - year Easter table used in Britain was the same as the one used in Rome Removed the URL of the book Bede: The Reckoning of Time by Faith Wallis Removed the URL of the book The Ecclesiastical Calendar: It's theory and construction by Samuel Butcher Turns the article into a "how to" manual, for example by replacing "it will be found that March comes out exactly the same as January" with "you will find that March comes out exactly the same as January" and "The epacts are needed only from 8 March to 5 April" with "You need the epacts only from 8 March to 5 April" Inserted the false information that short lunar months have the labels xxiv and xxv at the same date Removed the key information that the number of days in the lunar month is dependent on the ordinary month in which it ends and intercalary months are hidden inside ordinary months when the new moon falls at the beginning of the ordinary month Inserted a claim that when Dionysius Exiguus, a confidante of the pope, wrote that the Church follows the precepts of the great Council of Nicaea in its observation of Easter he was lying Removed the URL of the book The Ordering of Time: From the Ancient Computus to the Modern Computer by Arno Borst Removed the URL of the book The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era by Alden A Mosshammer I haven't progressed this investigation any further because it gets worse and worse as you go on. 86.176.18.240 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You're asking me to look at stuff from ten years ago? Jeez, one of my kids wasn't even born then! Try WP:ANI. Anyway, editors who make false accusations of vandalism should be educated, not blocked. Maybe on an extremely egregious example where they are also being disruptive at the same time, but most of the time it should not be necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Really, I think that Vote (x) for change knows that... — fortunavelut luna 13:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, you're not serious nominating Fortuna for RfA - he can't even write out a coherent edit summary.@Yngvadottir: Ritchie, I'm trying to work out the reasoning here. You're quite happy to take up the cudgels for Best Known For in a case going back just as far despite the lies, incivility and threats ("Yep, you're still a complete twat", "What kind of f------ retarded reason for a revert is that?" etc.) but when an editor is polite and constructive you cut talkpage access. 86.152.81.53 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The editor is a confirmed sock - see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. As for BKFIP, I've got fed up of blocking him and want to try something else - more to the point, that LTA case actually makes constructive edits in mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but there's always the asshole to benefit ratio to consider. I'll take the Best Known For IP over this one any day. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP you blocked for edit warring

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

Do you want I should file another EW report, since this is becoming more harassment and personal attack(s)[[9][10][11], than anything else now. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think Ritchie is out on the town, so I took care of thins. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Woolwich Ferry

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

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

I disagree, and so does the Guardian style guide, which says:

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

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

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