User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

February 14th

(1860-1880) Museum of London	Happy Valentine's Day!
	It wasn't easy to come up with an innocuous Valentine's Day greeting to share with collaborators on Wikipedia, so I went with "evolutionary". Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. ~Henry Kissinger Atsme📞📧 13:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Two happy valentines, yesterday

Well yesterday in the office, somebody said "oh bollocks I'd better get the missus a card and something". And they said romance was dead.... If you're single, remember that today is also the anniversary of one of the greatest gigs of all time, so crank it up loud! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

^{{{Bleeding-Ears Endorses This Message}}} Fifteen minute My Gen, AbsolutelyHighFuckingOctane!!! Better turn the bass up on this one  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And in a slightly different take...Pinball Prison Blues  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"Shut up, shut up, I fed up of Wikipedians making fun of me, do you want me to send article to GAR? Yeah, I click "delist" yeah, you want that?"

Somebody should have got José Mourinho to cover "Substitute" .... "You think you play pretty well together // You think your boot can kick that leather // Well I will substitute for another guy // You look pretty tall but your kick's too high // The 4-4-2 formation is complicated // You run pretty good but your striking's jaded, yeah" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, ^^^this^^^ is inspired  :) I've texted it to loads of people (with some WP:A of course). Ha! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Did someone say high-kicking? Would make a great support act. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing protection of a template

Since the editor who changed the face of this template[1] is topic banned and there is consensus to change the template per here, can you remove protection from this template now to allow these edits? D4iNa4 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather not, since templates are also TE-protected to stop good faith edits jamming up the job queue by having to continually regenerate the transclusions. Plus I'm not sure entirely what the consensus is in that link. Hopefully there's a template editor more local to the area who can look into it, or you can ask for TE rights yourself at WP:PERM. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie

Sent you a reply to your email. Warmly, Lourdes 13:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lil vandal

"So this guy was like, can he take loads of nudy pictures of me and upload them onto Commons, and I was like **pffffth* jog on!"

There's an IP wreaking havoc - today they blanked the entire WikiProject Libraries page. They've been warned - obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There’s a foreign secretary wreaking havoc - a few days ago they patronised the entire British population. They’ve been warned - obviously not here to build an economy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

One quote in particular made me nervous..."not some great V-sign from the cliffs of Dover",...maybe in the UK a V-sign from the cliffs means something different from what it means in NYC and has nothing to do with pink hats. I can only hope... ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

So I was like in awe at the rock formations in Arches National Park.

There's a great encyclopedia somewhere around here - I just discovered the finger is a good article. (Probably a good thing Muboshgu didn't bring that up at his RfA) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha. I pointed people to my user page where I take credit for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Pancras railway station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St Pancras railway station 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've put a few comments on the review page, but they are not so substantial as to make it necessary to put the review on a week's formal hold. Over to you. Tim riley talk 18:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Pancras railway station

The article St Pancras railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Pancras railway station 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

New section header

• Meh. The only reason they chose that particular question (#10) to ask was in order to then "justify" an oppose, and so subsequently oppose based on it. Sheer waste of bloody time. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  New section header? Primefac (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"A new section header?—What would that be then Ted?"!!  ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well... the idea in my flippant reply was to avoid a back and forth over an opinion no one takes seriously anyway. I see all worked out as planned. GMG^talk 19:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And the idea of my reply was to stop anyone !voting "Oppose per Andrew. D" - obviously I have a dog in this fight but hopefully that's put a lid on that one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh. I just assume anyone who's worth their salt is already familiar with the song and dance at this point. GMG^talk 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think basically if you haven't directly worked with Andrew on an article, he'll oppose. I have worked on several with him, and do lots of writing on London-based topics, so I'm one of the least likely people to clash with him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever worked with Andrew on anything... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I, personally found Andrew's argument to be quite convincing. Though not of the conclusion he likely intended. If a person needs to go to those logical lengths to oppose adminship, then clearly the editor in question was (figuratively speaking) born with a mop in their hands. Before anyone decides not to appreciate the (attempted?) humor here, please understand that I did, actually go over that entire RfA before casting a vote, and that I stand by it. Lourdes' answers appear thoughtful and insightful, and a number of editors whose judgement I trust and who have dealt with Lourdes before have supported them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Sadly, that's Davidson having a dig at me while denigrating a really good candidate. It's a real shame that Davidson is allowed to continue to do this, but at least he is almost invariably shown to be completely out of touch with the community wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I had to close the last topic ban as "no consensus" a few months ago because there weren't the numbers. We can't prove that people don't run because of him. The run of "Support per Andrew D" !votes suggests he's now being subject to public ridicule there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely the case. It's a shame that he's allowed to continue to sully good nominations, in the past a "unanimous" vote of support was considered a really good thing, but with Davidson, that's hardly likely to ever be the case, even with candidates who make WP:300. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh. It's all a pass fail event in the end. GMG^talk 23:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Trellick Tower coordinates

What do you mean when you say "duplicate" here? The coordinates aren't appearing at the top of the article, and mean that the tower is invisible to a basic API search. My understanding was that "display=inline,title" was required to fix this. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Yes, it should work, but why does it put the co-ordinates at the top, then in the infobox immediately below. @RexxS:, have you got any ideas about fixing this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, right. The template's just doing what "inline,title" is being told to do, displaying the coordinates in both places, and I thought this was common practice for coordinates in infoboxes; clicking around, all the major city articles seem to do it. I agree it looks a bit repetitious, but no more so than repeating the article title in the heading, the first sentence and the infobox. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Looks like you're right. I have self-reverted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Lord Belbury: Sorry I'm late to this, and it looks like it's all sorted now. The default for {{Coord}} is to simply put the coordinates where the template is (same as |display=inline), but as Lord Belbury says, we usually want the information repeated at the top of the page (|display=title) because automated tools can look for it in a consistent position then (and of course not every article about a place has an infobox). Using |display=inline, title does produce duplication, but I think it's pretty much accepted as standard these days. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

History of Pakistan template vandalized yet again...

Hi. It seems like the Template:History of Pakistan was unblocked and vandalized again. Disruptive edits were made by D4iNa4 without consensus. Is it possible to have the edits reverted back to the last official edits and have the template locked again, which you had earlier requested and was granted. No consensus was reached on the any of the proposed edits. Kindly look into the matter. Thank you. --Ratatatain (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As I've seen said by others in other cases, "obvious sock is obvious". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

...Thank You for nominating Lourdes - excellent candidate, pleasant collaborator and knowledgeable editor. I couldn't agree more with your 1st paragraph at the RfA. You nailed it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for UK Picture Editors' Guild

On 26 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article UK Picture Editors' Guild, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that nominations for the UK Picture Editors' Guild awards have included photographs of battlefield conflict, German figure skaters, and Theresa May laughing? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, UK Picture Editors' Guild), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Copied article?

Hi.
Yesterday, I started to work on User:Usernamekiran/James C. King. A few minutes ago EricSerge published the article James C. King. I find it difficult to be a coincident. I am not mad or anything about "publishing "my" article". Actually, his creation is a lot better than my draft. But all I expected was a little communication, instead of simply copying-modifying, and publishing the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for any trouble, I had no idea you had a namespace draft going. I noticed on Template:NGA leaders he was missing. I was going to write his and then see if I could write Howard W. Penney next. I would ask that you assume good faith here, I did not copy anything from you and merely created an article from the source material I could find. I don't own this articles, it belongs to the entire community I encourage you to contribute. EricSerge (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@EricSerge: erm... I am saying the same thing. Thats why I quoted "my" above.
But you used the template on the article which is used on a few articles that were in turn created by me (so was the template). And the page history of King's article shows that you created the article in span of few moments. So I thought you somehow connected the dots, and published the article. What was more spooky, is that I was working on the draft when I got notification of the article being published. Sorry for the trouble/inconvenience caused. I sincerely apologise. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@White Album

The other editor's correct, actually, R3s. I think it was my bad originally, the use of "refuted" there. (Other editor might like to leave an explanation with each of their changes, but, well, you can't have your Honey Pie and eat it too, can you …) JG66 (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've dropped out of that now - I've done enough work on the article, but if people are going to insult editors (not you, you've done great work on this article) over minor wordings and not bother leaving edit summaries, then they can carry on making the encyclopedia worse and I'll clean it up next month. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phil Lynott

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Phil Lynott 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sompting Abbotts Preparatory School page

Hello Ritchie you edited the page above which now has a maintenance template to it - I believe I have addressed the issues of concern - would you be able to confirm for me please?Sarah-Monaghan (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Sarah-Monaghan

@Sarah-Monaghan: I've removed the tags. I did a large amount of clearing up on the article, and I have never visited the school, only driven past it trying to avoid queues on the A27 wondering when on earth somebody's going to build a decent road between Chichester and Brighton. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question about the road - with all the development planned in the area it's going to get worse and worse. Thank you very much for all the clearing up you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah-Monaghan (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious

Three years!

How lovely ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

hapus Dydd Gŵyl Dewi, Gerda. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, but how about English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ych a fi - it wouldn't be right to say "Happy St David's Day" in English, would it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

But wasn't that yesterday? See my talk, where you can also view my latest vacation pics (click on "the desert"), and read how I survive WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

St David's Day has always been 1 March as long as I can remember. Not that you'll see many daffodils at the moment, the whole of Wales is covered in snow. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Ritchie333. Some time ago you asked if I’d consider putting myself forward for selection by the community as an administrator. I’ve been giving this some serious thought and attention since. Though I feel I’ve more still to learn and experience, I have considered an ORCP to gather feedback and identify my weakest areas, with perhaps an RFA much later in the year. (Personally, I suspect I’ve not contributed enough at WP:CSD, WP:PROD and WP:ANI, as well as needing experience of non-admin closures and the undeletion area you suggested back in September. The areas of likely initial involvement would be the regulars of WP:AFD and WP:AIV)

I had been thinking about contacting you for some time now to follow up the offer and seek any advice or suggestions of your own that I ought to address. However an incident I dealt with yesterday has prompted me to seek your observations now as it made me consider whether I’ve handled an issue either competently, or extremely incompetently. Personally, I believe the former but, if the latter, I’m due a block under 3RR, and clearly have much more to learn before ever asking for the trust of the community. You might like to look at my interactions with a new editor at User talk:86.187.172.17 over what I initially took to be their repeated vandalism at Naeraberg, and my repeated reversion and communications over this issue. It seemed like a good place to start! I’m not seeking your involvement in the issue itself – someone else can block me if they feel I’ve done wrong. Just any feedback in your own timeframe would, I’m sure, be most helpful to me. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: ORCP is a good place to start - I don't think you'll get many negative comments provided you've been round the block a few times and you are serious about it. Right now, there's a bit of a backlog of AfDs, so if you've got established experience in that area, that will go down well. As regards the Naeraberg dispute, you have tried to explain your position politely and been rebuked by an IP flinging the odd insult at you. Now the IP wants to AfD the article, we should be able to see what other people think. In any case, this incident will probably worth a mention at Q3 in the standard RfA questions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for that. I'd not spotted they'd now AfD-ed it after all that. Yes, it did strike me this incident might either sink me with too many reverts, or be of use for Q3! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding page Kuldeep Pai

Hi there,

This is regarding page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuldeep_Pai. I see you have closed the page mentioning -'closing as no consensus'. I had included new artifacts, magazine reference and links of the National daily newspaper- The Hindu, substantiating the notability of the subject. There were three admins who had voted 'Keep' and none for 'Delete' in the AfD forum. We had discussions in the forum and I had incorporated few more citations to the content and improvised the content by adding his awards, with appropriate links. So why was this closed as no consensus. I would like to know the status of this article and what my next steps are...what else can I do to make this article live..kindly advise. Sharan (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, not enough people turned up to the debate. A “no consensus” close means the article is still kept, so I wouldn’t worry about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential?

Don't hide very real problems under some wishy-washy title. He was a serial copyright violator who only reduced this once Corensearchbot came around, and even then he continued with copyvio translations and the like. This happened when he was here for a few years already and had created thousands of articles; not just in his first few edits. Fram (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

He’s also a friend of mine. I suggest you read this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought as much. That's not an excuse to spread misinformation at AN. Please stay out of this discussion if you can't be bothered to actually read the evidence presented so far, and prefer to attack the messenger. I suggest you read anything at all (perhaps Miffy or something else easily understandable) instead of editing about this dispute from now on. Fram (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phil Lynott

The article Phil Lynott you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Phil Lynott 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom request

I started a request for an ArbCom case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Copyvio and retaliation Fram (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait out responding. There is nothing to gain by diving in the ring. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Mz7#sources

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mz7#sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case request closed

Hi Ritchie333. The Copyvio and retaliation arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Monty's advice

Is good, contrary to what I said in my response, and I will take it. But I wanted a discussion about the particulars, because I think this is a good candidate for adding a clarification to our existing P&G's. The general consensus seems to be rather clear that "if in doubt, leave it out" and that's fine by me (though I'm not fine with people asserting that either my link nor the original upload was a copyvio, given the fact that I've cited a court decision that explicitly affirms my contention). But I wanted to let you know that your advice was not dismissed out of hand, the way it would almost certainly appear from my response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:ELNEVER which says "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement". So there is an actual risk of opening up the WMF to lawsuits by doing that link. The odds of the copyright holders actually giving a flying monkeys about you linking to it as a joke are minimal, and personally I think the more humour around here, the better, as ANI is hardly what I'd call a laugh-a-minute cabaret. But you can't have a go at someone for following an established guideline that exists for a real reason.

Now, to be serious for a minute, I can't believe you haven't read the recent Arbcom case involving me and Fram, and if I didn't know any better, I would say that this and this are attempts to bear bait Fram into snapping or responding in kind. I'm going to AGF that it isn't, because if it was you would be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I've already addressed whether or not the video is a copyvio to any reasonable standard. The risk is minimal; no more than the risk associated with any of our fair use images (and significantly less for any fair use image in an article which contains a "criticism" section).

No, I wasn't baiting Fram. I reverted the edit at ANI one time because there was literally no evidence given for asserting that it was a policy violation, an admin should know better than to simply assert something like that, and because when I looked for a relevant policy, I found that it was not a clear violation. Had Fram asked me to remove the link, I might have done so. But taking it upon themselves to edit my comment while asserting without evidence that it was a copyright violation, then assertion at my talk page -again without evidence- that it was both a copyright and a policy violation did not predispose me to taking a gentle approach.

The reversion of their last comment on my page was a direct follow-up to my previous comment, in which I told Fram that I was done with that discussion, unless they could quote a relevant policy. Instead, Fram responded by repeated an untrue assertion that the video is "clearly" a copyvio. So I reverted. You'll notice that I revert a lot of stuff on my talk page.

I also like to think that if I wanted to bait someone, I could do a better job of it. Lord knows I don't lack any ability to piss people off, and what little I know about Fram suggests that they're short-tempered enough that I could have easily done so by now.

Finally: I don't follow arbcom cases. Their structure is too difficult to follow for an editor whose editing time is generally confined to 5-10 minutes chunks, scattered throughout the day. So no, I don't know what your history with Fram is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice legs. Shame about the notability.

"Hey baby, do those legs go all the way up?"
"Why yes. Yes they do."

I don't mind editors reverting - it's part of the natural editing cycle - but reverting comments on ANI generally backfires, and if they've got a summary like "Jesus H Fucking Christ" then it's almost inviting a fight to be picked. The trouble with humour is it doesn't travel particularly well - for instance, I was tempted to start this AfD with the rationale "nice legs, shame about the notability" but too many people would not understand the original reference. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear god, you'd have been my hero for a few days if you had...

I understand what you mean about the cursing, and I'll bee the first to admit it's my fault. I tend to curse more when I'm relaxed and enjoying myself, and I know that's not typical, so it doesn't come across like I'm relaxed and enjoying myself (especially because I enjoy arguing, sometimes even against really badly defended positions). I should do more about it, but the cursing is frequently something I do without thought, and the idea of going back to edit my comments to remove curse words just screams "hammer pants lost his cool and now needs to cover for himself!" And of course, there's nothing I can do about an edit summary once it's posted. I really do need to try to curb it more, though. Catch myself before I hit "publish". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Hanging Sword Alley

On 9 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hanging Sword Alley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hanging Sword Alley was also known as "Blood Bowl Alley" after its infamous night life? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hanging Sword Alley. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hanging Sword Alley), 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) 00:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Sim

Hi Ritchie333, I authored the Aaron Sim page that you've deleted. Is it ok if I recreate it again and improve? It's my supposed first article here in wiki and I've made a good effort in doing my research. Shenalyn2018 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shenalyn2018: "Is it ok if I recreate it again and improve?" I'm afraid not. The article went to a full community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Sim, and essentially nobody except you said we should have an article on this person. Find another article to edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ritchie333:, the only reason it was deleted in the first place is because of its notability, and I think the subject is notable enough and I improve the article, can we open another discussion asking for others opinion from SouthEast Asian editors? As per G4; it says that articles that is improved are excluded--Shenalyn2018 (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Shenalyn2018

It's a difficult situation. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and sometimes a minority view doesn't carry. For example, at the AfDs here and here, I gave reasons that the article should be kept, but the overriding consensus was to delete the article instead. The best option is to create the article in draft space and submit it via the Articles for creation process - let me know if you need any help with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Abel Crawford

Any chance of you adding Abel Crawford to your watchlist for a day or two? As with the Digges article, the sources were completely misrepresented. Eg: the source gives a date of death of 1851 but the article said 1817, the article showed a legacy being given by the wrong person, and it claimed that Abel was the first settler, despite the source saying otherwise. It's basic stuff and I can do without the back-and-forth with someone who simply doesn't seem to get it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I spotted two facts contradicted by a source (name of Fabyans and year moved in) and dropped that in the article, and will keep an eye on it. However, if I start doing major work on the article I'm going to be WP:INVOLVED and some other admin will need to handle any disruption. I have also said FloridaArmy should just leave you to fix up the articles and not revert them, and that is purely based on experience and past dealings with you both. I have been unimpressed with their edit summaries and conduct, particularly for someone who have spent quite a bit of time defending. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I took the info from the academic source that was already present and which gives a different date and name to the one you used. I hadn't actually looked around for other sources (still haven't) because I am trying to fix errors etc relating to misreading or whatever of the existing one. I left a couple of notes at the talk page but understand that you are limited in what you can do or say.

FWIW, I first raised the issue concerning behaviour at Digges with Bish several days ago but she was tired. I raised it overnight with Drmies because he was around and it was getting silly, but FA didn't respond to the ping Drmies gave them. This may seem like admin shopping but you found the Digges and Bylaw articles without me asking, and the Crawford one is subsequent to those past issues. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've kept an eye on FloridaArmy since Line the Label got sent to AfD - I just thought an article on women's fashion was worth saving to counteract systemic bias. I am worried their experience of having to continually defend themselves at AfD has brought out an aggressive streak. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, although the idea of DGG being lumped with people described as "crappy deletionists" is almost oxymoronic! The aggression is a problem but there are bigger problems and it is those which are likely to trigger more aggression. Eg: not a great deal of use of edit summaries, failure to categorise and add projects to new articles, numerous issues with RS, V and (yes) notability, citing that is often poor etc. They're kind of setting themselves up for a fall, I'm afraid. Hopefully, they'll listen to you more than they seem to be listening to many other people. Anyone, no more here: not fair to talk about someone behind their back and I dare not ping them. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm, the knives are out. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

*sigh* I suppose I should go over there and say a few words - again, I don't want to sling mud at FloridaArmy, but their edit summaries include Sitush this, Sitush that and Sitush the other - if you don't keep edit summaries geared towards the content, it will come back to haunt you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm guilty of that, and worse. I don't think I was being bite-y but, yes, robust. I'm concerned that I may have driven them away but that is a fine line, given the extent of the issues raised, not just by me and over a long time. I would drop them a conciliatory note but obviously cannot.

As for Abel Crawford, I see that you are into DYK. Is there an enticing hook in that thing somewhere? I'm rather ambivalent about the entire DYK process and I am still unsure about the article title but ... - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I have previously expressed the opinion that "DYK should probably be taken outside and shot" (and dragged to ANI for it too, oh joy of joys) but my starter for ten would be "... that Abel Crawford designed a major pass through the White Mountains of New Hampshire?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

No worries! We've all been there. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ken Dodd

You think you can get away, but you can't! I'll follow you home and I'll shout jokes through your talk page!

Saw your user page banner and your comments at ITN/C. It is indeed a great shame that his article isn't good enough (yet) to post. I remember a Spitting Image sketch from 1992 right around the time that Frankie Howerd and Benny Hill had died, depicting Dodd running around trying to convince everyone that he hadn't died too. Amazing to think he lived on for another quarter of a century.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There is nobody else in the world like him, and his whole attitude to life - forget about problems and have a laugh - is a good one to have. I remember Spitting Image from when it was still being shown on television; one thing that is kind of lost these days is that it was bang up to date - there was some incident with Paul Gascoigne in the afternoon (I forget what) and by the evening it had made its way into the episode. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I wonder how many fans of his comedy routines in his later years realized that he also had massively successful musical career releasing not comedy songs but romantic ballads? A remarkable man. I guess Spitting Image couldn't go on forever but we still need satire - I wonder why it's never been revived (2DTV was certainly not a patch on it).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This is about as close as we get these days to Spitting Image. And my main knowledge of Sir Ken's musical career is as a comeback to people who think the 60s were all hippies, peace, love, the Beatles, Carnaby Street and Mary Quant's school of fashion, pointing out that he was one of the most successful recording artists of that decade. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

G12

I am currently considering the article St. Mary's Fochabers. The History section is a copy and paste copyvio of one source, and the Architecture section is a similar copyvio of another. When I have removed these we have the two sentence lead, most of which is encyclopedic. My inclination is to nominate it for G12 speedy deletion, but you may say this is wrong, because it can be kept as a single sentence stub. Would you like to comment on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cwmhiraeth: If there is non-copyvio content, remove the copyvio and tag the page with {{revdel-copyvio}} instead to request a RD1 deletion. Regards SoWhy 10:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Different admins take different views on this. If you were to take the G12 criteria absolutely literally, you would probably never delete anything with G12. I can see, SoWhy, that you are on the non-deletionist end of the admin spectrum in this respect, so I am hoping Richie will give his views when next online. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

British churches have an extensive history spanning centuries and are generally considered notable, or at least worth a redirect to the parent village / parish article. eg: St Mary the Virgin, Acocks Green, St Mary the Virgin's Church, Little Hormead, St Mary the Virgin, Mortlake, St Mary the Virgin, Saffron Walden, St Mary the Virgin's Church, Ellenbrook, St Mary the Virgin's Church, Deane, St Mary the Virgin's Church, Leigh. SoWhy is right in this instance; I have reduced the article to a stub and revision deleted the violating content. In general, G12s are completely unsalvageable wholesale copy/pastes of websites and frequently have other problems such as paid advocacy or other blatant promotion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, copyvio is not something related to deletionism or inclusionism. It's always forbidden and should be handled as strictly as necessary. However, G12 contains the language where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving for a reason, so saying to preserve that content is not a question of being "non-deletionist" but of following policy as it's written and intended. Regards SoWhy 10:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes a G12-eligible page can be stubified, too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It can, but I think it's within the bounds of administrator discretion (ie: I'd avoid it myself but wouldn't scream to Arbcom about it) to delete it on the grounds you don't know enough about the topic to write a decent and factually accurate stub, and you have no qualms about the article being recreated by somebody who does. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I reckon it's now a nice little stub. And has an entry in the dab page too. One small argument in favour of preserving at least a minimal stub or a redirect, rather than blasting an article out of existence completely, is that there may be a whole lot of useful carefully-crafted incoming redirects which will be lost automatically if the article is deleted, even if soon re-created (but then redirects are something I get a bit obsessive about!) Doesn't apply in this case, but might easily, given the messiness and scope for variation of church names PamD 11:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Another reason (although it can't apply in this case for copyvios) is that the entire history is preserved and if you want to pull out old text and sources to reconstruct the article, you can do without having to ask an admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As with the useful sources you rescued for this one! PamD 11:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've now created a few incoming redirects, too. PamD 11:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I had a look at one of the editor's other creations, Immaculate Conception Parish Church, Stratherrick, and have removed a copyvio chunk - could you do the revdel stuff please? Thanks. Might be worth checking all their earlier creations, and perhaps other major edits. PamD 11:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've checked the articles they created and scrubbed the copyvios. There may be others hidden away in articles they expanded - I haven't checked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. That's given me a better idea of when and when not to nominate for G12 deletions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Crawfords

I am pretty sure that I have nominated the Crawford family of the White Mountains incorrectly at DYK. The process appears to be even more complex than it was when I last endured it and I notice that there are loads of potentially similarly malformed nominations in the maintenance category. Mine has ended up at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Crawford_family_of_the_White_Mountains, as far as I can see, and I have no idea if it is supposed to move from there now or whether it gets reviewed there and then moved. Have I messed it up? - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to transclude the nomination into the main Template talk:Did you know page under the date the article was created. I've done that here for you. The Pending DYK nominations category is simply a list of nominations that have passed review, but have not yet been queued to appear on the main page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'm sure the process was not always this complex! I thought one of the functions of DYK was to encourage new contributors but, boy, those instructions would put off most people. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I refer the honourable gentleman to the discussion in this thread. (Oh, and great work on the article, by the way!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Haim

You advanced that there was a wp:consensus regarding the "reception" section at the talk of this article. Can you give the link because I don't see any discussion concerning this section. Woovee (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the basic rule of thumb is Wikipedia:Silence and consensus; also articles that undergo a good article review tend to have rigorous discussions about factual accuracy and neutrality. You were bold, I reverted, so go and discuss. There might be a bit of shuffling of content required, but as for being written by a fan - really? I think I'm still the main editor, having cleared it up a few years back following work at an editathon. As you can see I assert I like Van Der Graaf Generator on my user page, I've also been editing a bunch of Genesis album articles, and right now I'm listening to some ambient Tangerine Dream, so I think it's unlikely I'm a particular fan of this group! I like their take on "Oh Well", but not as much as Fleetwood Mac's original. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Re Hawking and haste

Oooh, look at what you could have reverted!

Besides the joke about Trump, I later added a reply to your contribution in the extract from the Hawking ITN discussion below, which I later removed (here) when I noticed the discussion was closed. So just in case you might be interested I'm adding it here (along with added supporting diffs), even though I don't really want to spend any more time on the matter myself.

• Comment: Post-posting support. But it seems this was 17 minutes from nomination to posting. Is this a record for ITN? And for ITN article quality assessment? And for articles where the nominator writes 'Article is in good quality, but does need a bit of spotchecking.', where nobody else commented on article quality except the poster, and where the infobox was not (and still is not) even flagged as updated? Was such haste necessary or advisable? Or does it set a worrying precedent? I understand, perhaps mistakenly, that it was concerns about haste like this after the death of a revered figure that lead the Catholic Church to invent the post of Devil's Advocate, so might ITN benefit from something similar? (Please don't bother answering any of these questions here, as I'm only asking them to provoke thinking on the matter, and this is probably the wrong place to discuss them further, and anyway I'm not really interested in discussing them myself as this comment is hopefully just a one-off breach of my decision to try to stay away from ITN). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is a former FA; even thought it was delisted in 2014, I know people have kept a close eye on it so I wouldn't have believed it any worse than B-class at any time - I suspect other people knew / felt the same and hence insta-supported. PS: I await Donald Trump's reaction to Hawking's death with interest. Just sayin'. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I hate to get further involved in this discussion, but I feel I should mention that you seemingly only posted your support 4 hours after the blurb was posted, and are thus in no way responsible for any excessive haste. But a look at the article history shows that most of the pre-posting supports were posted when there were obvious inconsistencies in our reporting of his death, such as being on the 14th in the lead but the 13th in the infobox(here) (which initially also had his age as 75 (here)). At the time of posting the report of his death in the Death section was ascribed to 'a family spokesman' who was nowhere to be found in the supposedly supporting citations, which referred to 'a family statement'(here). The spokesman eventually became unsourced but was not removed until I removed him a few minutes ago, over 8 hours after we posted(here).Tlhslobus (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't look too closely at the article, but by the time I woke up and saw the news, I judged that there would be high enough traffic to be able to fix any minor issues quickly. It was posted by the time I got round to looking at the article, and a quick sweep through didn't pick up any obvious problems with sourcing and layout, so it was an obvious endorsement of the posting for me. Compare and contrast with Jim Bowen, who died a few hours later, and which is more typical of RDs that turn up with poor-quality articles that have very little in the way of sources and often have BLP violations in them. Hawking's article is in a whole different league. I dare say it's probably the most popular article on Wikipedia right now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Arguably it's precisely because it's likely to be so popular that quality issues should have got more than 17 minutes consideration and been addressed by more than one editor, especially the quality of our death announcement. I'm also surprised that a non-verified spokesman survived in it for over 8 hours. And in theory I should probably start a discussion about this at WT:ITN. (And in theory some day I may even do so, but the chances of that currently seem extremely low, as I have too many unpleasant experiences of that kind of discussion). Anyway, sorry for taking up your time, and thanks again for your reply. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Year after year we proposed him for TFA on his birthday, but always heard "not good enough". Too late. - If you get popular you are in danger to be deleted, look at Catherine Lynch. 37k+ views, imagine. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, see below thread. I think it'll still get closed as NC by somebody else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jim Bowen

On 14 March 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jim Bowen, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Bendy bullies all round! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)