User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

Moody air force base

Hello, I see you approved my page Moody Air Force Base. But when you did it was deleted for "copyright infringement" and it is gone. I cannot find it anywhere and I have spent 3 days working on it and it is now gone. I am hoping you can undo the delete of the page from my Drafts so I can fix my Copyright issue. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan thomp (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ryan thomp: Firstly, I'm sorry about that; I had the copyright check open in another window but then momentarily forgot and hit "approve" by accident when I actually wanted to delete it. Sorry about that. Anyway, Copyright violations are not well understood by newcomers, so I'll explain - basically any content here has to have an appropriate license to be modified and shared, even commercially. To give a rather contrived example - I could take my talk page archives and sell leather-bound copies of them online for $500 each - it's ridiculous, but it's not disallowed by our license. Since most websites don't allow that, we can't use text in Wikipedia articles - and in this case, most of the article was directly copied from http://www.moody.af.mil/About-Us/, so it can't be used. On the other hand, because it's a copyvio, you haven't really lost the work as it's all there on the official website. I know some US Federal Government documentation is public domain, which can be used, but I'm not certain that's the case here. The good news is that I think the air force base is probably notable, as it is documented in many news sources, so it should be possible to write some article on it. Just not one that's directly copied from another website, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: So is there no way to undo it so I can just keep the format and remove all of the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan thomp (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've put back the basic skeleton in Draft:Moody Air Force Base as a starting point. You can use the website sources, but it might be preferable to mix and match some of the sources in the news search I gave earlier. Even if you are absolutely sure the source you are using is PD, it's still best to write things in your own words anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

My my, that's a big chopper you've got there ^(oo-er)

@Ritchie333:Thank you so much!

You're welcome; I also added a bit about the annual airshow. It sounds like Biggin Hill Airport, which is near here, that do a lot of family events, although personally if old military aircraft is your interest, you can't beat the Fleet Air Arm Museum in RNAS Yeovilton which has a full-scale replica of Concorde and hangers chock full of stuff. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum Duxford which has more hangars full of more stuff and a real Concorde (and an SR-71, B-52, Vulcan and U-2) comes out ahead in that particular race? ‑ Iridescent 20:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Haven't been to Duxford. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, Iridescent, I've just noticed this guy has the "nice" User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist box on his userpage. Have we got a policy against that sort of stuff? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the OP, while some military websites can't be re-used on Wikipedia, this isn't a copyright violation and can be freely re-used on Wikipedia provided it's properly credited. Buried at the bottom of the page in question is a slightly misleading link labeled "disclaimer", which takes you to "Information presented on AF.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.", which is a compatible licence with Wikipedia/Wikimedia.

  IIRC we allow political userboxes of this kind unless policy has changed. We're not the Thought Police (and if we were, there are any number of people with assorted Communist userboxes which in much of the world have connotations just as bad as fascism, and we don't crack down on them), and it could be argued that in some ways it's a benefit for someone with potential bias to make it clear what their biases are. That said, it should probably be discouraged; as a certain editor of your acquaintance found out, boasting on your userpage of the offensive beliefs you hold is a fairly sure-fire way to prevent anyone else assuming good faith if and when you make a mistake. ‑ Iridescent 21:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(adding) Given the Aleksandr Dugin userbox, by "fascism" he may mean National Bolshevism rather than what's usually meant by the term—while the ideology is still fairly vile, it doesn't have the same racist aspect as western neofascism (think Franco or Farage rather than Hitler). ‑ Iridescent 21:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to find a PD disclaimer on the website, but couldn't spot it, although as you can see from the discussion, I did suggest it might be PD. I still think it's okay for an admin to err on the side of it being a copyvio (since it's kind of the terms of use and that), and if it turns out the source is PD, well you just copy and paste it back in easily enough, and even then you still might as well give it a good copyedit to make it resemble "house style". Anyway, he's back up and running with his draft, so all is well.

As for the userboxes, well yes in about ten seconds of looking at my userpage, you can see I've said things that Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Theresa May wouldn't warm to, but I might as well state my biases up-front. And I still don't like the Franco / Farage / Le Pen / AfD brand of fascism, it's still "US over here are better than THEM over there", which just leads to divisive rhetorics. (For a WP point of reference, see the dialogue between en-wp and Wikidata, where "us" and "them" trenchlines are clearly drawn - same problem). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Franco's was the first European holocaust;* perhaps the only substantive difference between his and Hitler's was that the latter's was on a twentieth-century industrial scale whereas Franco's was- rather proudly, actually- effctively 'neo-feudal.' — fortunavelut luna 15:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

^*Let us not get bogged down in the Armenian, though.

"Now don't go gettin' all maudlin' now, y'all

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, "Franco's was the first European holocaust" is debatable to say the least, even if you mean "first of the 20th century"; by the time Franco came to power Stalin was already merrily liquidating away and the Holodomor was at its full extent. Going further back, genocide on an industrial scale goes back millennia, particularly in France—the usual accepted toll for civilian deaths in the Gallic Wars is somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 over an eight-year period, ditto for the Albigensian Crusade, while Spain itself already had a proud tradition of racially- and religiously-motivated extermination. ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It's true I meant 20th century. I'm not sure death-toll automatically equals 'holocaust' by any means, but I'll agree to disagree. Talking of history, mine is only a temp return to the 21s C. from the 14th, btw. — fortunavelut luna 19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Christine Hogarth

disruptive editing? I had not seen the ANI discussion--and there was no reason I should have looked there before tagging it; there was no link to it in the draft history. I do not take offense when another admin reverts an edit I have made, nor do I ask that it be discussed with me first, (though I do like to be notified -- as do all admins) , but this is the first time another admin has called it disruptive editing. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive as pointed out in User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates (and, by extension, WP:BITE). The user had already been Twinkle spammed, so you thought you'd spam them some more, and they were doing the right thing. Sorry, DGG, you've probably permanently scared this editor away from Wikipedia now :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Notifying you that DGG subsequently nominated the draft at MfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As Jeremy Paxman said to Boris Johnston, "I despair". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ziggy updates!

After being one of the few folks on this site trying to get Bowie's articles upgraded to GA status (I've spent my time working on Bowie's 1987-era articles), I'm thrilled to see such great progress on the Ziggy album. Great job! Fantastic! Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@87Fan: Thanks for the support - the nominator for Ziggy has disappeared, but hopefully somebody can step in and fix the issues that I've raised; it would be a shame if he came back from a two week holiday to find I'd failed it due to inactivity, as it's Number 35 in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/500. As for the other albums, I've heard Mick Woodmansey's book is good but I don't really have a handle on Bowie sources - my personal favourites are the albums that has Mick Ronson on them, and they're all worth getting to GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Death of Keith Moon's driver

I spoke to Tony Fletcher personally about this. You seem to claim there is a contradiction between Tony Fletcher's biography and the claim by the family of the deceased driver that Keith Moon was not driving at the time. Tony Fletcher does not state anywhere in his biography that the family of Moon's driver do not dispute the story. Therefore there is no contradiction between the two and your claim that "Tony Fletcher's biography trumps a 'personal website'" is irrelevant. The family of the driver dispute the circumstances of the death. That is a proven fact with sources. Nothing in Tony Fletcher's biography conflicts with this therefore the edit you removed will be reversed. If you wish to argue further, it is perhaps better to reach an agreement here rather than edit warring first. As for the validity of the claims themselves made by the family, we can also discuss those here, which are a separate issue than whether or not the family have actually made any such claim, (which is what you are disputing it seems as you do not appear to be able to make a distinction between the two concepts). The claims have been made however, and the fact the claims have been made has been proven. No edit has been made to wikipedia stating the claims are facts. If there were than you may have a case for undoing the edit. But there has not been, therefore there is no justification for removing the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelleyboland (talk • contribs) 00:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Michelleyboland: I think you've misunderstood what I was getting at. What I meant by Tony Fletcher's book is that it cites that Moon pleaded guilty and was charged, then aquitted. You can see a contemporary report in Rolling Stone here and a report by Dave Lifton here, which says : "There are conflicting reports as to whether or not Moon was driving, and Boland's daughter is convinced, through her own research, that Moon's wife, Kim, was behind the wheel. However, Moon biographer Tony Fletcher interviewed Jean Battye, one of the passengers in the car that night, who confirms that the drummer did, in fact, drive the car." You can't both be right, and one of the most important policies on Wikipedia is a neutral point of view, which means we have to either tell both sides of the story, or leave it out altogether. My preference is to leave it out - stick to the basic facts that he pleaded guilty and was let off as it was an accident, and say no more. That's what I was getting at. In particular, using language such as "is said to have" or "it is claimed that" is unacceptable for a neutral encyclopedia; this guideline page also says "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Ok, so I take your point about the, "is said to have" and, "it is claimed that" language. I would have a preference to that which would be something like, "According to the official version of events" instead in that case. However, I still dispute why it is necessary to remove the fact that the Boland family dispute the official version of events. You say both sides of the story should be explained or neither. Therefore, I would argue both sides of the story should be stated in that case. I have no problem with Jean Battye's account also being written next to my account. The question is therefore, why is your preference to have neither side of the story written as opposed to both sides?

Also, if both accounts are to be written, then the language used is important, and the following should be considered...

The language such as, "Jean Battye 'confirms' who the driver was", does not mean it was so, or that it should be taken as gospel, just because one person asserts such a thing. The language implies it is somehow gospel. If her account were written in the form of a quote from the book then fair enough, but it would be better if, rather than a quote, it were a neutral interpretation of what she said, given that, as you said yourself, wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. This could be done by replacing the word 'confirms' with the word 'claims'. Michelleyboland (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Pop-Routing draft comment

Hello Ritchie, thanks for your review, I hope this is the right place where to answer your comment about the page [[1]] . The relationship with Pop as intended in the Point of Presence abbreviation does not really hold. So I added a disambiguation note to the page to make it clear. Any other comments? Leobowski (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I can really think of right now is that the draft probably belongs somewhere in an existing article - I just can't think exactly where right now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think its place as a separate article is correct. My intention is to add a link to it to the "optimizations to the algorithm" section of the Link State Routing page. It is something comparabale to MPRs and FSR (which is in fact mentioned in the article). Leobowski (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly trying to call in a favour...

Hey Ritchie, it may have escaped your watchful eye but I'm beavering away on Laureus World Sports Awards and its sub-articles. I think we're in for a rather nice featured topic in due course, all the sub-articles are pretty much ready to go, going or gone through FLC, and I'm now turning my attention to the main article. So, to that end, I suspect it's got GA at best written all over it, and I'd really appreciate (a) some pointers on getting it comprehensive and (b) reviewed at GAN this side of Easter. No worries if it's not interesting to you or you're too busy, just let me know so I can go begging elsewhere! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh lawd, I don't think I've ever done much on sports articles other decline CSD A7 / G11 on them - you're better off asking The Rambling .... oh wait, no, that's not going to work. Lugnuts has done quite a few sports articles, so he might have a better idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It was actually your outside perspective that I was interested in hearing from... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Well it's at GAN no, so unless a kind soul plucks it out of obscurity, I guess I'll wait until May for it to percolate to the top of the backlog.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting...

PSA Tour was an AfD nom that was deleted and recreated but I haven't tagged it for G4, yet. Pre-tour articles are typically deleted as promotional/marketing but it doesn't stop them from being added. Now there is Zar je važno da l' se peva ili pjeva? World Tour in the NPP queue that needs a G11 tag. Is it ok for me to tag them as indicated or do you see any reason I shouldn't? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't a clue. I think you're on safe grounds sending it to AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Tours can certainly be notable before they actually happen, provided there's (a) a reasonable presumption that the tour will get significant ongoing coverage, and (b) the independent sources exist to demonstrate that it's already considered notable. (If Abba or Led Zeppelin announced that they'd be reuniting next year and going on a world tour, it would be perverse if we deleted the article under WP:CRYSTAL even though that's what policy would dictate.) Spam is A Bad Thing and all that, but the people who shriek "promotional" about Wikipedia's coverage of popular music and (especially) videogames tend to be over-reacting. The fans of bands find out about upcoming tour dates via the band's Twitter feed or website, or through adverts in the music press—I'd like to think that no sane person has become a fan of a band because they read about them on Wikipedia. There's probably a slight effect when it comes to 'musical influences' sections—e.g. a KISS fan reading about the band and noting that Slade and Big Star are said to have influenced them, prompting them to go and check those bands out—but the impact is minimal at best. The guy who periodically pops up on Jimmy's talkpage whining that everything on the main page is "promotional" or insisting that the reason Wikipedia has so many articles about videogames is that the admins are taking bribes from videogame companies, rather than admit that it's because a lot of people are fans of videogames and choose to write about them, is a particular bugbear of mine, although I have to applaud the notion that Ceoil is an obvious paid editor for getting the "clear commercial entry" Hex Enduction Hour up to FA status. (For those TPWs unfamiliar with HEH, it's possibly the most unlistenable album ever recorded—if you want to recreate the experience, ask your local drunk to shout incoherently at you for 45 minutes while you randomly bang musical instruments with a wooden spoon.) ‑ Iridescent 17:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Not hearing anything other than incoherent shouting on Hex? You want to go back to Andy's Records and get your money money back  :) must've been sold a dud. — fortunavelut luna 20:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@ FIM I do apologise, The mediocre has two lights-uh the sign of genius is three lights-uh there's one light left that's the one light-uh that's the science law courtesy winter isn't in the least incoherent, what could I possibly have been thinking? IMO my contention that The Fall studio albums had the decency to rigidly alternate good and bad to make it easier for future generations to know what to ignore holds 100% true, at least up to The Infotainment Scan (after which it all kind of degenerated into a uniform Jimmy Pursey pub-rock slush). IIRC (although I may not be) Hex was the album MES was talking about when he said he couldn't comment on the quality of the CD reissue because he'd never managed to listen through to the end. ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

So "shouting" was purely rhetorical? — fortunavelut luna 20:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you've got more chance of me saying "You know what, Trump's actually not that bad after all" than either ABBA or Zep reforming. As for unlistenable albums, I have heard "Revolution 9", Metal Machine Music, Having Fun with Elvis on Stage and a piece by Van Der Graaf Generator that features the sound of somebody throwing a fluorescent tube light down a flight of stairs, so it'll be up against some stiff competition ... still, describing Mark E Smith as a "local drunk shouting incoherently at you" is pretty accurate IMHO ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've learned to love Revolution 9, does that make me weird? Nortonius (talk)

Depends ... if you can get through Philosophy of the World by The Shaggs, then .... maybe Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't know that one, maybe I'll give it a miss! ;o) Relieved you don't think I'm mad as a box of frogs, anyway! Nortonius (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The copyright police will probably remove this, but this gives Metal Machine Music a run for its money, although like MMM it doesn't really count as it was intentionally intended to be unlistenable. In terms of feeling like your ears need a wash by the time you reach the end, I doubt anyone will ever surpass 'Hamburger Lady'. ‑ Iridescent 18:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Throbbing Gristle reminds me why I became a vegetarian ...! Nortonius (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

In terms of the "local drunk shouting incoherently at you" school of music, this is probably the apotheosis. Dan Treacy was at least as influential as David Bowie or Johnny Rotten in getting British music from where it was in the 1970s to where it is now, and wrote some of the most groundbreaking songs ever recorded, but this makes "The Laughing Gnome" sound like "Visions of Johanna". ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice banter. Anyway...🚩🚩🚩 wave for me when there are no RS sources cited, the editor's contributions focus only on promoting tours/singers/musicians, and the article is nothing but a list of dates and venues sourced to promotional sites where you can buy tickets or read more marketing hype. How is that compliant with WP:PROMO, WP:NTOUR and WP:BALL? Another 🚩 involves behavioral issues like this which is not only disruptive but when added to contributions that are 99% tour promotions as seen here, well it raises more than one 🚩 for me. I get it that the editor is probably a big fan of all those artists but isn't COI still involved? Recognizing that I'm just a lowly NPR, it still seems a dead giveaway when a cited source links to a Ticketmaster-like promo site where one can buy tickets or whatever else marketers are peddling.

If the aforementioned isn't bad enough, how about the perisistent attempts to bring articles back within a few months of being deleted? I posted to DGG's page regarding two other non-notable articles that are connected, one of which was revived after a Feb 10 2017 G11 so I guess my only option now is to wait for admin action again, correct? I received some constructive input, but I still feel like I'm running in circles and it isn't because I've been cutting too many corners. In fact, the only exercise I got this morning was jumping to conclusions and a brief exercise in futility but because of where it drives me, 🍻🍺, I've actually increased my caloric intake. The bottomline is that I've accomplished nothing so far today. I've had contact with at least 6 admins this morning alone regarding various articles I thought fit into their respective areas of expertise. I believed the articles were unambiguously G-spot-on delete candidates, and all I've managed to do is piss-off one admin who shut-down further discussion about his decision to remove a speedy tag. Bygones. Today just started off 💩y, being one of those days when it feels like the whole AfC-NPP process is in the 🚽. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

By my count, you've been told by four admins so far that G11 is inappropriate and AFD/PROD is the way to go with things like this, but I'll make that five. G11 is for unambiguous promotion ("Lepa Brena is the best singer in the world"), not for either "this might have been written by someone with a connection to the subject" or "someone might potentially benefit from this article's existence". While there's a general consensus that upcoming tours aren't usually notable, notability has no relevance at CSD; CSD is only concerned with the much lower standard of significance, which almost any tour by even the most vaguely notable musician will satisfy by virtue of there being a reasonable presumption that at least some people will be interested. Wikipedia's bureaucracy can be frustrating, but it exists for a reason—we've had far too many cases of admins deleting content out-of-process because they have a gut feeling that the topic isn't significant. (When you have even the very trigger-happy Vanamonde93 saying that CSD is inappropriate in these cases, take it as a sign that it's almost certainly the case.) ‑ Iridescent 20:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Trigger happy? With respect to G11, possibly...though if you think I've gone too far with any of them, I would find it helpful to hear of it. So far, I've only ever had article creators questioning my deletions. Not that that changes the merits of your argument. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've got a new rule of thumb - if the article sounds like Trump could have written it in a tweet ("Lepa Brena, great girl, one of my favourite women, one of the best, close personal friend, would love to take her for a round of golf, cofveve") it's a G11. Otherwise, it isn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Iridescent, now 5, but please let's keep this in perspective, and maybe we'll get lucky and a good solution may come of it. I've mentioned more than one situation involving speed-Os:

• Zar je važno da l' se peva ili pjeva? World Tour - turned down as G11
• Bobby Fuller Died for Your Sins - an album that was deleted as a G11 back in February and was recreated in April, renamed (lower case change from "For" to "for"), & has been incubating for 8 mos. It may or may not pass N now.
• Chuck Prophet is the musician/singer/songwriter of the album listed above, and I haven't found any revenue or sales numbers for him - appears to be a cult following - and his coverage is primarily via self-promotion if one takes the time to dig into the research.
• PSA Tour was another one I mentioned, and nominated as a G4. It was AfD deleted in September, reappeared, I tagged it G4 before the editor who recreated it in October added gross revenue to the concert dates, and the G4 was declined. The box office was added and even listed the cancelled shows for "lack of interest". The article also provides next year's schedule - hopefully WP will give it more coverage, I suppose, and up the box office revenue.

How far down the list of 100 concert tour grosses do we consider a tour notable for inclusion in WP? The PSA tour only grossed $1,294,000.00 for their entire tour of 6 shows + 4 cancellations vs 11 other groups whose single performance surpassed that total.

Please don't conflate these issues because they are not the same, and they are issues or wouldn't have come here looking for help from Ritchie. What I find confusing (and I'm not alone in my thinking) is the ambiguity of G11. I can understand G4, it's not a problem. But who determines what is or isn't unambiguous promotion? Not all admins have the same POV so having ambiguity in the policy is what creates the frustration, not the editors or the admins. The policy needs to be reworded so NPR editors and admins don't find themselves in the same position we're in right now. The majority of us just want to do good work so if we're being misled by policy, and then subjected to a variety of admin views, what does it hurt to at least try to all get on the same page? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"But who determines what is or isn't unambiguous promotion?" We all do, together, as a consensus. If you tag an article with G11 and another editor reverts you, that should be your signal that there is no consensus for meeting the criteria and you won't get it CSDed. The only way to get good at judging them is to spend lots of time at NPP and work out what does and doesn't generally meet the criteria. I've already given you one (albeit tongue-in-cheek) rule of thumb, another typical trait of G11-worthy articles is that there are sources, so you cannot even trim the article down to a one-sentence stub of "'x' is a 'y' [source]". If you can do that, it's not G11. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The admin processing the request does, in short. Not every decision on this Earth can be boiled down to a mathematical formula and that's why human beings have to process such requests. I don't handle speedy deletion requests normally but my personal rule of thumb is that a legit G11 means that every single sentence is promotional or that removing them all leaves a nonsense article behind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Information about deletion of a page

Hey Ritchie333, i found this page Anguruwela, which looks like a duplicate of Anguruwella just with a wrong spelling. Based on information i found the correct spelling is Anguruwella. Would that mean, the Anguruwela page is subject to deletion? If so, how can i open a discussion for potential deletion. Am i correct on this? i wanted to ask a experienced user before i do anything like that if i am correct. FrankKoch (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) This table suggests they are the same place - two spellings, identical coordinates. @Dr Blofeld:, who created both pages on 16 January 2011: which spelling is right? And to @FrankKoch: I'd say: once you have decided which version is correct, don't delete the other but make it into a redirect from a wrong spelling. PamD 13:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

References

@PamD: Thats a very good idea. Thanks for the advice. Will search more to figure out a source that reveals the correct spelling.

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:54, 14 November 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 08:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A minute, please

over here as I've done what I can. We hope (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've done a couple of replies but since a) nobody has supported, b) I am enjoying stuff off wiki and c) there's not much else I can comment on, I'd rather work on getting Soho to GA status instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Then what about asking that the FAC be closed? We hope (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Can't be bothered. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been busy with the contest, sorry I've not had time to review it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've pulled it. I think Beyond My Ken said it best here - "Those that can't edit, review". I just can't get excited about reviews compared to actually writing the content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha. I do get excited for reviews unless they look like they require pedantery, such as these irritating WP:NFCC#8 analyses. Then again I do not get very excited by the prose I write as it seems always so-so to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of pedantry, I reverted your close of the FAC page and closed it "officially". If it's not closed this way, strange things can happen with the bot and there would be no official record of the FAC on the talk page. If ever you want a review closing like this, just post a request on the FAC itself or ping one of the coordinators and we can close it for you. Feel free to renominate it at any point; there should be a two-week waiting period, but it sounds like you are busy at the moment anyway so that is unlikely to be an issue. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• I apologize for intruding on the conversation. I just wanted to say that I think you have done a wonderful job with The Carpenters articles, and I wish you luck all of your project both on and off Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Aoba47, your comments were fine and constructive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary on London station group

Moggmentum are campaigning for a hard breakfast!
Note: complete lack of frankfurters

"Might one not think it wise to get one's butler to do one's copyediting?"

You had better explain what you meant by "idiotic edit summary". I removed a hyphen and explained why; I added a comma that most literate people would agree with. My edit summary was accurate and understandable. What, exactly, is your problem? Chris the speller ^yack 06:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it‘s expressing annoyance at these barely useful style edits that don‘t have anything but „some poorly linked rule on the MOS page says so“ as a justification. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary in full was "per WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, points 3,4,6, replaced: richly- → richly, typo(s) fixed: Therefore → Therefore, using AWB". Firstly, deciding whether or not to put a comma after "therefore" is not a typo (see Talk:Mersea Island/GA1 for an example of why); indeed, "fixed typo" is a cliched edit summary used by vandals. "Per WP:HYPHEN" doesn't mean anything, why is that bit of the MOS relevant here (also see User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies), and "sub-subsection 3, points 3,4,6," sounds like the sort of thing a Vogon would say while brandishing his clipboard. Human language and good reading does not fit neatly into rules, so why try? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but don't forget that all your base are belong to us. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm off to get a cup of covfefe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No tea? Jeni ^(talk) 12:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As the weak and wobbly woman once said, "Breakfast means breakfast". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you must mean Andrew R. T. Davies? Or perhaps John McDonnell, or .... you know, that other one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED be damned

WP:INVOLVED be damned! Ribbit!

Damn it to hell and back! Of course you can moveprotect your own talkpage! Have some frog cakes! Bishonen | talk 11:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC).

...so we can't even move this page to...Slough?!?!

Hmmm, tasty. They certainly look like they need protection. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hello Ritchie,

Please take a look at this page [2]. For some reason Mtaanipro moved the template Infopage to Enock Obiero Agwanda. This obviously caused trouble in the pages that use the template like Wikipedia:Noticeboards. I have moved the page back and fixed the template call at Wikipedia:Noticeboards. I think I solved it right but I would appreciate if you could verify it.

As far as Enock Obiero Agwanda I think that the right thing to do is probably to delete the page but neither R2 or R3 seem to apply and I am not sure about Db-move. Rather than proding it or posting it in the noticeboard and since you have given me advice in the past, I bring it to your attention just in case you think this version should be restored along with the edit history instead to then add the proper tags to it. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a disruptive account that has already been blocked. As it was disruptive with no obvious evidence of being a good-faith improvement to the encyclopedia, G3 would have applied. I see they were having a "fun" time screwing around with this talk page, so I've move-protected it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. I guess I probably took WP:AGF a bit too far in this case by assuming that his actions were an unintended mistake while he was creating the article. I can see that it's very unlikely and I am glad it's solved. cheers. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sophia (robot)

On 13 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sophia (robot), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sophia (pictured) is the first robot to become a recognised citizen of a country? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sophia (robot). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sophia (robot)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"I'm very happy to receive all these page views. I am however young and the tabloid rumours about me dating Cluebot NG are without foundation."

Brilliant hook! And 60,000 readers agree!. Best, Yoninah (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:15, 17 November 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 09:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter request - no. 869

Hello Ritchie333 and thanks for creating this special filter.

I have found a list of tabloid journalisms in the linked article and suggesting adding the following to the filter:- www.express.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk www.dailyrecord.co.uk www.nationalenquirer.com www.magazines.com www.globemagazine.com

These are the websites on tabloid journalism which page notices says they should not be included as sources. I would also find it helpful if we tag it with something like "tabloid journalism source added" to the contributions lists and page histories such that page watchers can identify additions of tabloid journalism more easily. Iggy (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rico Rossi (musician)

When I was striking a sock comment at that AfD, I missed one which I just noticed. You may wish to review whether your close would have changed given that knowledge. Only one editor supported keeping, not two. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Doesn't really make much of a difference. The key argument against deletion came from Chubbles who showed evidence of meeting one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. Since the AfD had been relisted twice, and nobody else commented on this, let alone refuted it, I concluded nobody really cares much whether we have an article on this guy or not - hence "no consensus". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't commenting on whether your close should change (and I didn't think it would). I just wanted to make sure you had the opportunity to take another look after a comment was struck. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Finland doesn't not exist for reals

Hey Ritchie, with respect, I think you should revisit your close of this AfD (I !voted keep, so take this with a grain of salt). Saying the keep arguments were challenged and thus invalid while the delete arguments were better because they were not challenged is just bad logic. I can't speak for all participants, but for my part I didn't feel the need to respond to many of the delete arguments, thinking a closer would know to discount arguments which are so plainly WP:IDLI. You've got one saying delete because the map uses Comic Sans, one saying it's "notable for being a hoax" (which all notable hoaxes are notable for), one saying delete but keep at a different title, one says delete because Finland really does exist, are these really good arguments now just because nobody bothered to point out that they're so obviously not? There are also several commenting on notability and poor sourcing, but you seem to have discounted the keep arguments that listed several detailed write-ups in major publications because the comments were "overlong". And yeah, Herostratus left a couple of comments defending the sourcing which were excessively long, but that doesn't mean they're wrong; their final comment with a bulleted analysis of 11 citations is pretty accurate.

Thanks for taking the time, anyway, whatever you decide to do with this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You should be trouted for overlooking the obvious recursion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't not do that by accident on purpose. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Systemic bias?

Liz gone [3] ... GorillaWarfare gone. Administrators hiding behind edit filters. Check my contributions for details of attacks on women in WMF. Baseball Bugs awarded a barnstar on "International Men's Day" which, according to yesterday's anniversaries, was devised "to promote gender equality". 94.173.144.36 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ask Rhonda why she doesn't edit WP. She's not exactly invisible on the net. In a nutshell, it's because the user interface is poor, particularly when compared to modern web-based UIs such as Facebook, Twitter and Flock, and policy is too difficult to explain. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

But GorillaWarfare oly "gone" for the last nine days? — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 15:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea Liz had disappeared - I supported her RfA and AFAIK got on well with her. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hussain Asif

Why is the article Hussain Asif remobed like it is important ...it took me 3 days to do it

Please publish it back Ihussainasif786 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ihussainasif786, it looks like you're working on a draft version at Draft:Hussain Asif. I suggest you keep it there and submit it for review when you're finished working on it.

As for why your first articles were deleted, they were very promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be written from a neutral point of view. Phrases like Drone shots are mesmerisingly shot by him are not neutral, and your articles were full of such phrases. It's one thing to say "he used drones to shoot his vlogs", but it's another to say it like you did. If you phrase things in more neutral ways your draft is much more likely to be acceptable. Please also remember to add reliable sources to verify the content of your page (see WP:REFB Section 3.1 for more information about quickly adding references) Primefac (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Immervision Submission Without Discussion

Hello Ritchie333! I noticed this morning that my draft page "Immervision" had been deleted. I have inquired repeatedly about concerns pointed out on this page following 3 draft declinations (all based on lack of notability, which I attempted to remedy) but only after the third decline was any comment made about it not having a NPOV. I brought the subject up in the Teahouse, but received very little feedback. I have explained at length in the talk page, and another talk page (since disappeared???) about the origin of the creation of this page, and asked more than once to have those offending words/sentences/paragraphs pointed out to me so that I might correct them. Although there have been comments, I don't consider that my draft submission has even been discussed. I read through the undulation request page and the first step is to contact the person responsible for undeletion, so here I am. I'd really appreciate a little insight into this process, which appears nebulous and arbitrary to me, although it probably isn't. The Immervision page was written in good faith, the reasons for its creation explained, and more than one request to have the non-NPOV content pointed out to me. I took great pains to write this in an unbiased way, so my first experience in composing my first Wikipedia entry is a bit disappointing. Thanks Ritchie333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquesdav (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The draft was proposed for speedy deletion by SwisterTwister, presumably after it had been declined multiple times without really going anywhere. Simply put, articles about corporations are generally not suitable subjects for a worldwide global encyclopedia, unless they are very well known household names like Microsoft, 3M, Polaroid or Kodak. In this instance, it would have been better to expand the technical article on the Panomorph lens, discussing the physics involved and other practical applications of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)