User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Sources and credible claims of significance

Hi. I'm curious about your removal of the A7 tag on Mark Capri on the grounds of "sources". Is there a guideline that having sources is automatically a credible claim of significance, regardless of what the sources are? I'm not confusing significance with notability here. At best, sources may convey notability, the existence of which generally overrides the defect of a absence of a CCS and, instead, calls for expanding the article to indicate the nature of the person's notability. But the source given here don't do that. Two of them merely document that Capri's parents are dead, and one confirms his lack of any attention-worthy role in any production. Turning away from the sources back to the article itself, the strongest claim it makes for this person is that he had a role that, as expressly stated, was not significant. Largoplazo (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Well; I supposed it to have been a reference to the fact that "the [A7] criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." Whereas the claim of significance made (e,g., appearing in best Star Wars film ever) is then supported by the sources provided? — fortunavelut luna 12:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 - essentially, forget about subjective terms like "significance" and "notability" which mean different things depending on who you're talking to, and focus on what possible future the article has in mainspace with the entire editing community available to look at it. In this case, the name does sound at the very least like a plausible candidate to redirect to The Empire Strikes Back, as FIM says - so a full discussion is better. Regarding sources, years of experience have shown me that if an article has some that are not the blatant self-published fodder (ie: YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram and the ilk), the chances are there will be more available to look at. For example, This review in the New York Times seems to suggest it's talking about the same Marc Capri. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

😑 ugh

I'm at the All American Quarter Horse Congress in Columbus, OH and just tried to edit from my iPAD but got the message that I cannot edit from 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:0/64 as it was blocked by Ks0stm. Whaaaa!! I'm bycatch! HELP? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

How did you manage to send me this message? You can't have done if you were hit by an autoblock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

From my clunky tiny hard to see cell phone. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Jealous. Wish I could find the time to go to the Congress.... Instead I'm at home getting ready to go get hay bales and struggling through some QH bloodline research... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well poopers, Ealdgyth - we could've found lots of fun stuff to do - I'm hoping to get some picts for Project Equine while I'm here so let me know if there's anything you need. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Ks0stm blocked the IP for a month for sockpuppetry as logged here, and it's a hard block which stops editing by all users on that IP, full stop. I'm a bit wet behind the ears with IPv6 rangeblocks and can never remember how wide a range actually is in realistic terms, but you've been hit by collateral damage. As it's a check user block, there are private IP and personal data issues that mean I can't really tell you much more about the block other than I'm sure you've got nothing to do with it. There are a couple of possibilities, which are as follows :

• Have a short wikibreak and do something else
• Reduce the block to a soft block but leave account creation disabled on the block - this will allow you to edit but not allow any disruptive editors to create socks
• Get IP Block Exemption (follow that link to see how) that will allow you to override hard blocks on IPs
• Ask Ks0stm nicely to drop the block on the assumption that there's only over a week left and whoever the block was intended for is long gone.

Because it's a checkuser block, I can't simply undo it as I don't have access to the private data that explains the rationale behind it. I got hit by a similar block once in my local library that was set for two years, where multiple people share the same IP, and are only allowed one hour at a time on the terminals, so I was rather brassed off about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ritchie...I posted the template at the bottom of my TP. Ks0stm is busy these days so other than the pings, I didn't disturb him. I also just discovered that I can use my iPhone as a personal hotspot - just hope my unlimited plan covers such use and I won't be surprised with a $1,000 bill for overages when I get back home. . While I do enjoy watching AQHA performance events, it can become repetitious - like watching paint dry - so editing WP is actually my break. Who'd a thunk it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah I gotta run and can't do much more than to say, follow the link to the exemption. I don't know what the block was for, but I imagine there was a really good reason to make it a hard one. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• @Atsme: I might get my wrists slapped for this, but I've just gone ahead and given you IPBE for 2 weeks (the hardblock expires in 8 days anyway). The normal process for requesting IPBE takes a lot of time, and it just seems unneeded in this case. I assume you're not a master puppeteer who has managed to trick us all for 7 years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Flo! I don’t know what you’ll get from others but you’ll get a big hug from me. Trying to edit on this iPhone is dangerous to the project. When I get back to the horse trailer I will be able to edit using a real keyboard and a screen I can actually see! As for master puppeter, does being a Mouseketeer count? If so, I will remove the hat for 2 wks just for you! ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Floq. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Rogue admin Floq strikes again - cheers :-) I didn't realise "normal" admins could set IPBE, I thought only checkusers could do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, both words, "normal admins", should be in quotes - it's an oxymoron. But I mean that in a nice way...exceptional cannot be normal. ^{That's my story & I'm sticking to it.} Thanks again...^{Atsme📞📧} 12:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Pricedelink and List_of_artifacts_in_Philippine_history

Hi. A User:Pricedelink, seems to have moved List_of_artifacts_in_Philippine_history back to its old (see here) page without explanation, in defiance of the consensus to userify the page. I've tried to undo this, but I discovered it wasn't so easy to do so. May I refer the issue to you? Also, based on this action, my instincts tell me to suspect Pricedelink of sockpuppetry. I wonder if you feel my suspicions are worth following up? Thanks for any action/Input on this matter. - Alternativity (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richie, Please reconsider Joel Levine

Hi Richie, I check my Wiki page every once in a while. I did not create it. I don't know how to create a Wiki entry but did appreciate the page. I am not using this as a web host. I'm using GoDaddy and here's my website link: http://www.joellevineesq.com/ Please take a look.

Perhaps I don't qualify but I'd like to point out that the Section 351 Roll up was the first of it's kind and changed the way billions of dollars were invested in real estate. The company was sold to Sam Zell, one of he richest men in America and extremely well known. I've won multiple awards as you can see and my peers have chosen me as best or one of the best mediators and arbitrators. Actors in the 12 movies I produced include Colin Firth, Billy Zane, Eric Roberts, Joanna Cassidy, Beverly D'Angelo and others. My tv show, shot in Africa featured Eddie Albert, Janet Leigh and Steve Kanaly. Please see IMDB. My company, Gibraltar was one of the most successful independents in the early video years and our movies won many awards. My partners wrote and produced Valley Girl and several of our movies. I've had a unique and successful life (I call it the "Miracle of Plan B") in 4 different fields. My first book "Getting In" was a successful Random House publication and used by many college applicants in its day.

In 2003 Harvard Law School invited me to speak to the student body about law, business and the future.

Please reconsider allowing the Joel Levine Wiki entry to remain. If you'd like to contact me directly, my email is (Redacted)

Thank you for your time. 184.164.161.42 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately, the deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Levine was sparsely attended, with only two people suggesting to delete the article. I would consider that a soft delete, meaning an article can be restored on request. So I have restored it. Somebody needs to clean up the article, unfortunately I don't know very much about this sort of subject at all, so I'm not really sure I can personally be much more help. It may be at risk of being sent back to a deletion debate again. Pinging @Edwardx: and @Bearian: who participated in the AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like someone has done a clean-up, and what remains is an obvious candidate for deletion. An executive producer is just one of many people responsible for financing a film, and they are rarely notable simply for such EP credits. If it is not improved soon or moved back to Draft, there will likely be another AfD discussion. Edwardx (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The subject still fails both my standards for lawyers and for producers. I have been a lawyer for 25 years, and my domestic partner has produced a film that was in the Cannes Film Festival, yet neither of us are notable. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Tongue images

Hi. Re this edit, can you please help me to find another place in that article to put that tongue image, not so close to the other tongue image?   — Jeff G. ツ 18:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe needs a mentor

This editor crossed my radar due to a prod tag. Only a month-old account but a lot of deletion tagging. Might want to mentor a bit and encourage him or her to slow down a bit until they understand the place a bit better. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I've closed one AfD they started as a snow keep, but other than that, they don't appear to be editing enough to require any sort of action right now. They seem to be spending most of their time compiling entries for List of people who died on the toilet, of all things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. And yet they nominate other articles for deletion? Montanabw^(talk) 08:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thick as a Brick

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thick as a Brick 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Lua:Error listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lua:Error. Since you had some involvement with the Lua:Error redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Remo Recover Free Edition deletion

Hi, lets discuss about deletion of Remo Recover Free Edition ..As its a free recovery tool ...i have used it and found very relevant for users ...so i started writing for that.. this a information article and it should not get deleted.... can you please restore so that add more informational content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.hendry (talk • contribs)

Your first edit was to create your user page (intrinsically nothing wrong with that but every account I've seen do that turns out to be a sockpuppet, and I've never been proved wrong yet - see Observations on Wikipedia behaviour #7). You then created this spam, and tried to tag a competitor's article with G11. You then decided to recreate this article (taking care to use different caps, perhaps suspecting I'd creation protected the original, which I hadn't) without waiting for my response, which is now tagged for G11 (again) as I write this. So let's discuss why I shouldn't indefinitely block you as a paid editor? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission

Just in case you have pings turned off, or the software messed up, I've closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission, and ... (drumroll) ... tag, you're it. Please take a look at that page for a couple of comments I made in the close. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Abbie Hutty

On 25 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abbie Hutty, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Abbie Hutty hopes there really is life on Mars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abbie Hutty. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Abbie Hutty), 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) 00:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SiFive

Hi Ritchie, I disagree with the closure of this one but I won't be contesting. May I request this to be opened for full 7 days, so the latest argument can be properly addressed. Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: The AfD was relisted at 6:46 UTC on 17 October, so the relisting had run for the full duration. I think this is one of those marginal cases that barely meets the notability guidelines, and only in some people's opinion. I couldn't really decide myself whether it met the criteria or not, otherwise I would have !voted myself. I also think had I closed it as "delete" it might well have gone to DRV. As it's a NC close, there's no harm in waiting a bit and sending it to AfD#2 if nobody improves it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Opinion

Ritchie, I look at images marked for "cleanup", which led me to Manuel Granada. What, if anything, do you think? I'm deliberately not saying what I think because I want an independent opinion. -- Begoon 10:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious "who on earth uploads images not rotated properly?" since it's in a US publication before 1978, was used for commercial / advertising purposes, and has no copyright notice on the photograph, then I think it's PD. See File:Carpenters 1974.jpg for a worked example with the appropriate licensing information. We hope may be able to advise further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I was more interested in any opinions you might have on the article. I don't want to be coy, so I'll leave you "né Benjamin Italo Jose Ingenito Paralupi O'Higgins" O'Higgins to ponder. Something's not adding up for me. However, For the first half of his career, he worked under the name Paul Ellis, so who knows? -- Begoon 11:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I can find one book source that namechecks "Paul Ellis" in "The Rise of Spanish-Language Filmmaking", so it's not a blatant and obvious hoax. The problem is as his claim to notability was a century ago, and he used different names, it's difficult to pick out the sources involved from a standing start. However, if you were thinking it's a blatant hoax, that source is dated three years after the WP article was created (the bizarre name has always been in the article since day one), so it's possible the book has copied Wikipedia. On the other hand, "O'Higgins" could be named after a wealthy landowner or military leader following the 19th-century British invasion of Argentina, so there is historical precedent for somebody to be born in Buenos Aires with that name. I'm starting to tend towards sending it to AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's why I asked. It was (and still is, if I'm honest) ringing all my bells. -- Begoon 11:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, the creator, Lynchkenney, is still around. He has also created the definitely notable and sourceable Willie Piazza. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point, well made. I notified them. -- Begoon 12:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: the photo-The sticking point here would be having proof of it being in the publication in 1927. If we could see an entire page from the directory, we would probably be able to see a date on it for proof this is from that year. From what we have, we can see it's from the Central Casting Directory, but not the date. I would say we need to have proof of the year it was published to be comfortable in saying this is PD. Looking further at the person, I see that he changed his name to Paul Ellis.

I was here at Lantern, where they have a lot of old film magazines and I find some hits for both Manuel Granada and Paul Ellis. One of those hits at Lantern shows him as Paul Ellis in 1925. If either of you likes, I did find some photos of him in various magazines which I believe would work out to be PD-not renewed. (They just need checking first.) I can upload some of them to replace the photo now in use. We hope (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Paralupi is presumably the paternal name, and the maternal name's probably from O'Higgins family. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• That would make sense, as elements of that family migrated to Spain. Thanks for the insight. -- Begoon 11:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

How about a chance for me to try fleshing this out a bit? I am finding quite a bit at Lantern both in English and Spanish magazines. The English is no problem but I can only pick out a few words in Spanish. There are some write-ups in Cine Mundial, which was a Spanish language film magazine published in the US. I can post the links for this somewhere-either here or the article talk page and hope someone whose command of Spanish is better would try using the magazines to do further expansion. We hope (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like I was too suspicious. There's some stuff referring to him by both names at AFI: [1], although they spell it "Granado" as the article mentions. We hope, I rotated the image - do you think I should crop it and remove the border too - or are you going to upload a PD replacement which would mean it would get deleted? -- Begoon 02:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I found him under Manuel Grenada, Manuel Granado or Paul Ellis. Because we can get a PD photo, we'll need to switch to it; we don't seem to have a way to get access to a copy of the Standard Casting Directory for 1927 to turn the present one into a PD image. We hope (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've placed links to Cine Mundial articles about him on the article's talk page. We hope (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision

Hi Richie, I accidentally edited a source on the Xenia (Greek) article. I didn't realise I had to have an account and I don't wish my IP address viewed?

I hope you can help?

Ristoranse (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The usual scenario for revision-deleting an IP address is when you make an edit as an established user, typically to a discussion page, but do it accidentally logged out. That's not the case here so I don't think it would be appropriate. You definitely don't need an account to edit in mainspace, though you may find some pages are protected against anonymous or new editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thick as a Brick

The article Thick as a Brick you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thick as a Brick 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ajay Kannoujiya

Hmm... I have mixed feelings about this one. I originally marked it as reviewed, but I didn't realize that the Indian National Congress was just a political party, and not... you know... the Parliament of India, which seems obvious in retrospect. So I'm not sure that the article actually says much more than "Tom Smith is a social worker who is active in the Labour Party", since it doesn't actually even claim that this person has held any office of any type at all. GMG^talk 13:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I had a look around for sources but couldn't find a thing; however I know that online coverage of Indian topics is far less than those in the UK and US. I think it's closer to "Tom Smith is a politician who is chief treasury of the Parliamentary Labour Party" myself. Provided we can actually find a source confirming the post, it's good for a redirect. Paging Vanamonde93 who deals a lot with these things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Being absolutely sure with this one would need somebody able to scour Hindi sources. That said, applying google-translate to the first bunch of hits suggest that he is completely non-notable. Most Indian political parties have a very large organization, in which national power structures are duplicated at the state and then the district level. This individual appears to be a minor party functionary (or member: not clear that he even holds an office) at the district level, or possible even lower. Furthermore, the manner in which the news source presents his name, ie in a list with other people present at a certain event, suggests that those individuals are not actually notable, but are trying to become so, by BIRGing; common among politicians, particularly common in the very hierarchical world of south Asian politics. In sum, I'd PROD this, and if the PROD is removed send to AfD. And keep an eye on the creator's contributions. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

<humor>Or to put it another way, he is as notable as Ritchie would be for his own political activities :) </humor> Vanamonde (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

PROD works for me. And the only political activity that is documented on-wiki is this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Well if it makes you feel any better, the contributor completely coincidentally made exactly ten edits on the 20th before showing up on the 24th and making this article. GMG^talk 14:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: You would have thought that editors would have got wise to the whole "collect ten edits and wait a few days" thing, and stopped doing it to attract attention, but seemingly not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've actually considered whether it's worth suggesting someone write some kind of script to highlight these. I'm just not sure if it's worth it, since theoretically, they should all get reviewed by NPP eventually anyway. GMG^talk 16:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

On a related point (as I mentioned it on WT:OWB recently), I wonder if we could get a script to print all users whose first edits are the creation of their user and user talk pages, with no content? I have never seen such an account not get ultimately blocked for sockpuppetry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've skipped the subtle tactics. If someone is clearly (and obviously) making edits purely for gaming the system, I just block them. If they want to protest they have a talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Now what would actually be super, is if we got some kind of consensus that we need computer magic to not count non-mainspace edits and reverted edits toward autocon. GMG^talk 17:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I'd even be okay with not counting deleted edits; e.g. you make ten pointless edits to your sandbox, I delete it, and you don't get the credit. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

To paraphrase Father Ted : "Dougal, exactly how did you get into Wikipedia? Was it, like, collect twelve crisp packets and become autoconfirmed?". On a semi-related note, I challenge the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red lot to write an article on Hannah Conduct, journalist, blogger and celebrated crisp hoarder. (I'm not sure there's enough to prove notability myself, but there's a DYK in it for anyone who can make an article stick). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I won't lie and say that making it to the main page the first few times gave me the warm and fuzzies. But the whole thing does feel fleeting in a way that's antithetical to basically the entire rest of the project. GMG^talk 17:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I seem to remember you saying at some point that you had knocked on doors; which is all this individual is likely to have done, so....Vanamonde (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't, but a number of my friends have. Anyway, I need to finish the Thick as a Brick GA review.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Carles Puigdemont

Slow edit war now progressing, mostly with IPs and new accounts. And a general reluctance to use the Talk page to get some consensus. I can't see this going away any time soon. Any ideas? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI is your best bet. This message came in just after I went to bed; it looks like the players in the dispute have quietened down a bit today, but with a topic like this it'll probably start up again before too long. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I am shocked and disappointed to learn that admins are allowed to sleep. After my recent visit to that venue I am encouraged to avoid touching base there. The latest contributor seems quite reasonable, though, so I am hopeful that some consensus can be achieved. In common English parlance I think the distinctions between nationality, citizenship and ethnicity are often a bit blurred. The intricacies of a non-English language may add another layer of complexity. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. looks like I may have to reconsider my hopefulness there

Rouch Collections

Nowhere does A7 say that if an article has sources it doesn't apply. It's about whether an article makes a claim of significance which this article clearly does not. Adding a few references to random fashion blogs shouldn't be enough to force this to go to AFD. I'd respectfully ask you to reconsider or at least let another admin decide by replacing the tag. (As an aside, the editor is clearly being paid to write these and appears to be socking with Special:Contributions/Guruno). SmartSE (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Turns out that they've been blocked before too: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MassiveYR. SmartSE (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Who decides what's "significant"? Me? You? The WMF? Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance? See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 for a better way of looking at things, and also remember that products made in Africa are less likely to come up in online sources we usually consider reliable when compared to the UK or the US (or even, for that matter, India). Also see User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful and ponder why nobody ever came down like a ton of bricks for Bullets and Daffodils or The Minories, Colchester, both of which I got a free lunch for writing / improving. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Us - as admins the community has entrusted us to decide! We evidently have different intepretations of the policy and the simple question is - does the article make a case for why the subject is important? Obviously if it doesn't but there are three sources that are clearly reliable then we shouldn't delete it, but I think it is pointlessly bureaucratic to send an article to AFD when we know it has zero chance of being kept. Where in the world a company is based should make zero difference to how we treat it. As to you equating a free lunch with socking UPEs bombarding us with spam - it's a ludicrous comparison. SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"we know it has zero chance of being kept" .... "No point voting, remain will win the Brexit referendum", "Hillary could be exposed as murdering babies and stomping kittens, because Trump won't win - he's too much of a nutcase", "Germany won't vote for the AfD, they've got too many bad memories of Hilter and Stalin". Spot a pattern? Anyway, bottom line is you don't know, and I've been surprised at enough AfDs (example) not second-guess my own judgement. (I sent the article to AfD already). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Moglix Deleted Page Content Requirement

Hi, I am writing to you for the content requirement of Moglix wiki page, which was deleted sometime back. As directed by wiki moderator salvidrim who shared a list of wiki admins/moderators who would be willing to provide the deleted content.SiddharthSanger231091 (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@SiddharthSanger231091: The problem is that this article has had one deletion debate, followed by another one which was closed as "delete", contested, and reclosed, and finally taken to a deletion review where the deletion was endorsed. I think the community has firmly decided we should not have an article on this topic following multiple discussions, and restoring this now would probably cause more long-term problems than it solves, at least for now. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, What if instead of resorting the article on Moglix, we write a new article sans any promotional content within the article following strict wiki guidelines, which can be proofread by you/any other wiki moderator suggesting changes and then published altogether as a new article on Moglix? Kindly suggest the best way to move forward with this. I'm new on Wikipedia. SiddharthSanger231091 (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to find another article to write for the time being. Even if you wrote a new version completely compliant with all the major editing policies, editors who participated in the deletion debates would probably think "oh no, not again" and be nonplussed. Best leave it for a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Farewell Antoine Dominique

To my mind that relentless thumping right hand piano figure on this classic means that his name will live on forever - even though he didn't write the original song. What a real gem that is. A great shame he practically lost nearly everything in 2005. RIP Fats. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup. RIP Fats :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The original original, issued two years earlier by Smiley Lewis, has a much slower rocking beat, with a fine guitar solo instead of the baritone sax. Lewis' higher-pitched delivery, far more traditionally blues, is more plaintive, but perhaps more moving because of that. The arrangement builds to the same staccato brass and drum thumping climax. Seems to be almost no piano. But it's also just wonderful stuff. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC) [2]

Contest speedy deletion of WP article "Idrise"

Hello Ritchie333, i would like to contest against the speedy deletion of this article. Which i forgot to include was, that the musician is also in several movies credited on IMDb such as MTV Awards.

Furthermore the musician qualifies as notable based on the information given within WP:NMUSIC, "Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria ... 2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.". I think a deletion is not the right way to go about this article, a improvement request might be more appropriate, as there is more information on google to be found about this artist. Such as interviews and movie credits, chart placements, and collaborations with notable musicians. Hope to hear back from you very soon to discuss this issue further and find a more appropriate solution. Ps. i was not able to click a contest deletion button, how come that didnt show up? FrankKoch (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It did, but by the time you got there, both it and the article had been deleted. Unfortunately, sometime 'speedy deletion' can mean just that! ;) But unfortunately, it was a copyright violation too; that has noting to do with notability, and, as it has legal implications is even more important to expunge. R333 might tell me who nominated it. Then again he may not: let idle curiousity prevail! You see, your talk page indicates some issues with article creation- we can discuss that too. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 07:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm that while it wasn't entirely a copyright violation, removing the material which was cut-and-pasted from this website and those sections which were unsourced and made claims about a living person would have left literally nothing remaining other than a list of releases; Ritchie333 not only acted correctly in deleting this, but had no alternative but to delete it. (Whether Deutsche Black Charts counts as a "national music chart" for Wikipedia purposes, I'm not sure.) ‑ Iridescent 08:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a single sentenced has been cut-and-pasted, thats why i am a little skeptical about this action. If there is a cut-and-paste i would like to see which sentence that might be. Every information was referenced with links where it came from and was written in own words, no additional information was added without source reference. There might have been 1-2 words in the same order as the source site, but "songwriter and audio engineer" cant be written without using the words "songwriter and audio engineer". Does that make sense, what i am trying to get at here? Just want to solve this.FrankKoch (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"Not a single sentenced has been cut-and-pasted" That is not true, as Iridescent (as an independent and uninvolved administrator) has confirmed. When you edit a page, you see a message saying "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". The best option, in my view, is to use the Article Wizard and create a draft space page in your own words, taking care not plagiarise any website. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

References

The text inserted at the second revision and present through all subsequent versions was an unequivocally blatant cut-and-paste, right down to duplicating grammatical errors from the original. The first revision didn't contain any obvious copyright violations, but had only one sourced sentence in the entire thing and isn't a viable revision to which the content could have been reverted. There was no alternative but deletion here. ‑ Iridescent 09:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Ritchie333:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Could you talk a look an a new entry of mine? Mindy Carlin

Hello, Ritchie, I recently created an article on Mindy Carlin. It was originally proposed for deletion. After doing more research and finding more sources, the same Wiki user changed it to AfD. In many of the sources, Carlin is only briefly mentioned. I am not relying on those for notability, rather for additional information surrounding her career. She herself is the primary subject of a few of the sources. Her consistent press coverage has spanned from the early 2000s through the present. Some people have called her a local political person but she is involved in local, regional, and state-level politics. Many of her interactions are with state-level politicians such as the candidates for the Governor of Virginia. The fact that she was selected to be one of four business leaders to question two gubernatorial candidates seems noteworthy to me. Also, the original nominator for AfD says it is a long resume or promotional, that is not my intention at all. I have even unearthed, in my research, several controversial issues that I have included. I also am not sure I understand why her personal life section was removed when it was all sourced. Some of it was sourced from an interview with the notable journalist Mary Katharine Ham. I'd appreciate your insights as I am still learning about creating useful pages on Wikipedia! Thank you, Thsmi002 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I've had a quick look around, but I've found it difficult to identify sources. There is Washington Post article about her lobbying activities which is good and another WP source which briefly mentions her, but the accomplishments seem to be limited to local coverage around north Virginia rather than anything nationwide, which is what some editors like to see. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Poulton for an example of an article I tried rescuing but ultimately gave up as a bad job). It is all sourced correctly and you are on the right track when it comes to editing - I'm not sure what else I can advise at this stage other than see who else turns up to the AfD. It is absolutely not a resume or promotional in my view. I will have a look around and see what else I can dig up, in the meantime, Megalibrarygirl is much better at locating sources to cement notability, so you could try asking her. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie! I already ran her through my databases. She's just coming up as a mention. I think it's TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lana Rhoades

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lana Rhoades. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Unscintillating (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my interest in women is only in what's in the head department, not anywhere else. I have said publicly that Hannah Fry is photogenic and nice looking, but that means diddly squat without her bas-ass calculus and pop mathematics prowess, not to mention the brilliant idea of comparing lexical analysis of the Queen's Christmas message to Snoop Dogg. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Stupid question

Since you appear to be around. Regarding this, I... removed the gold lock because it looked like the expiration time set on the template corresponded to the previous semi, and wasn't changed when protection was upgraded to full. I assumed that when protection was upgraded from semi to full the full "erased" the semi (as far as the actual protection setting and not the lock graphic), and when full protection expired the article would be completely unprotected. But now I'm not so sure, since the expiration of the semi extended longer than the full. GMG^talk 15:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Derp. Nevermind. I would still get an edit notice were it semi'd. GMG^talk 15:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The article (as I just looked at it) has no protection - admins see a "protect" button, not a "change protection" one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That was my intuition, that there could only be one concurrent protection setting. But it occurred to me that I had never actually asked. GMG^talk 16:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a very common scenario - in general pages are protected as little and infrequently as possible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Correctly, of couse; full protection should be the last resort, as it defeats the object of our existence. Better to block edit-warriors outright and protect the encyclopaedia that way. Unfortunate it is, then,, that most many admins haven't got the balls to block the so-called experienced "seasoned" editors whom on occasion can be some of the worst offenders. Happy days! :p — fortunavelut luna 16:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators covers my thoughts quite well on this - but in short I remember a recent incident where I full-protected Aberfan disaster instead of blocking SchroCat and pigsonthewing, because ..... well, I think the pair of them may have something to say about a block, to put it mildly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Just so. — fortunavelut luna 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: I meant, that rather proves my point. Using the examples you provided: You clearly have a good working relationship with one of those worthy editors, less so, perhaps, with the other. Yet to bollock one would have required bollocking both- so you bollocked neither, and just prevented anyone editing the encyclopaedia anyone can edit for a period instead  :) your right, of course. Trebles all round! :D — fortunavelut luna 13:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well... "uncommon" among five million articles. CAT:SEMI still has about 10k members, but about half of those are templates. GMG^talk 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Next Games

Hey Ritchie,

Thanks for taking the time to look at the Next Games wiki page I submitted. I feel like the investment and founders section is a necessary part of the history and contextualizes the company. Similar companies such as Rovio (another Finnish games company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rovio_Entertainment includes investments and figures.

My two rebuttals - all startup pages have referencing to funding and founders - here are some examples:

- Duolingo - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duolingo#Investors - King - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_(company)

Many thanks for taking another look!

Amie — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliberateLondon (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@DeliberateLondon: I think you've misunderstood - a quick search for news sources brings up Next Games in many hits, so we can clearly write an article about them - that's not in question. Rather, I felt that the draft had too much extraneous information that would distract from a non-gaming enthusiast who just wants to find out what Next do and what games they produce. Keep the focus on The Walking Dead: No Man's Land and the other games, and talk less about the founders and investors - nobody really cares about that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)