User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

Heathcote Williams

Changing IP repeatedly removing sourced content. May require protection? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What is this, WP:RFPP2? There's only one edit today, and one could make the argument they are adhering to WP:3RRBLP and protecting the children's right to privacy. Perhaps. Anyway, one to watch for the minute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I've counted three reverts so far over the past few days. No explanation in edit summaries. But you're right that children do not need to be named if not notable. I was more concerned with the wholesale removal of the only source there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Understood; however if the edit war is slow-burning it generally requires a higher level of disruption before administrator action is taken. If you trimmed out the children but left the source, maybe the reverting would stop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I'll do that, thanks. The previous source, which I replaced, was our favourite Daily Mail. As his son Charlie was named I figured the daughters should be also. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool. And now Ritchie333's talk page will explode. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Salt Jaiden Animations

Salted

Hiya. Can you also salt Jaiden Animations as it's been repeatedly re-created. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ritchie, I am looking to close this discussion at RFPP and wanted to check with you whether you had a strong preference as to whether you wanted to downgrade the page to ECP. I honestly don't think it will make a big difference in the long run but just wanted to check in with you. If you have no preference, I'll go ahead and downgrade to ECP. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 14:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You can downgrade it to ECP if you like; I became an admin before ECP existed and before it became standard practice (and not Arbcom required) so I guess I just need to bone up on current practices. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool, done. And yea, I wasn't aware that this was SOP until a few days ago either. Airplaneman ✈ 15:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2 up 2 down with central staircase.gif listed for discussion

It took me less than slightly over an hour. While I was distracted. Without my usual Acad workspace, and with none of my usual custom scripting.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2 up 2 down with central staircase.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Any chance of leaving a personalised message here next time? Say, MjolnirPants, GreenMeansGo, I can knock up my own line drawing in AutoCAD (if I can work out where my copy at work has gone) unless one of you has got time to have a go at it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've saved a copy in case it gets deleted. I could whip one up in Acad that would use the same basic floorplan but obviously be a new work. Gimme a few days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Here you go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Does that little house really have two kitchens and no bathroom? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Lavatory opens to the "Kitchen" without any features in it. Which should be the "Yard" and will be in a moment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Ritchie. Sorry MP. The UK is dumb. I agree that no one with any common sense would create or approve of UK copyright law wrt TOO. But the courts literally ruled that this image was copyrightable. It's really hard to draw any line that's lower than that. It's hard to see that as anything but vested interests protecting the intellectual property of...four letters. But stupid gonna stupid. GMG^talk 02:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't WMF abide by US copyright law? That's where their headquarters and (primary, at least; I don't know what kind of cloud serving en.wp does) server are. In any case, it's a bit of a moot point now unless there's some problem with my newer one that the older one solves.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You are correct; that's why I haven't uploaded my rock rearrangement of "Boléro" as it's still in copyright in the US for a few years. Anyway, just to nitpick a little bit - the yard should probably be marked as a thinner line as that would be a fence, not a wall. And there shouldn't be any windows on the sides, as you wouldn't get that in a mid-terrace, though it might appear on a corner house on the end (where you might typically find a shop, as made memorable in Open All Hours). Anyway, Mr Pants you are a gentlemen and a scholar and I tip my hat off to you for doing this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I presumed the example was an "end cap" for the sake of "that fireplace really needs some framing windows or my inner architect will strangle me". The placement of the fireplace in the original file suggested the same. But I can remove them if you really like, and swap out the North-facing elevation for a pair of East/West facing ones. I decided that, since I'm doing it, I'd go ahead and make something that could be copyrighted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fence around the yard would very likely be a low stone wall, correct? If not, then what kind of fence? Wrought iron seems a bit extravagant for what this is, but then cheap wrought iron was once a thing, so I'm not sure. I mention that because wrought iron would look fucking epic on that yard, and for no other particular reason.

For the record, now that I've started, I'll likely end up drawing the whole row just because I enjoy that sort of work. If you like, I can upload it all when I'm done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well a better idea would be to keep that one as an end of terrace, and then create a mid-terrace duplicate. No reason we can't have both. As for stone walls vs fences, right I see where you're coming from, I did a google image search for "terraced house yard" and got a mix of walls against fences. Horses for courses, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I'd do a more or less mirror image for the north end unit, although I'm thinking I might put a shop in there as you mentioned earlier, then use backing side stairs and backing fireplaces on the internal units. Then publish the whole thing as a series of PNG's, maybe put a PDF collection somewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes. Sorry. Full disclosure, we've been sick sick all weekend. Like laying in bed and playing Detroit: Become Human twice through in between coughing fits. So not exactly running on all cylinders here. En.wiki and Commons are hosted in the US. I'm not sure all projects are. I can't swear to it, but I remember thinking that fr.wiki or de.wiki or something was hosted locally. Not that that matters.

If it was clearly below TOO in the US, then we could host it locally with nocommons until the public domain date if we knew it. Not meeting TOO for the UK means it's a no-go for Commons, because home-country plus host-country. But I'm not super warm and fuzzy saying that it is below US TOO. Maybe if you could show that this was a standardized floor plan. So...if there were 100,000 homes built to this exact specification 100 years ago. Then the plan itself could be shown to be PD, and the representation of it would arguably involve minimal original creativity, and thus TOO.

Obviously the new image is better in pretty much every way. The image is however, even more visually complicated than the original. So in this case, I think it's probably better to go with a CC BY SA license (which we can easily do), and that way we end-run any potential future discussions by unequivocally licensing it freely, rather than trying to argue TOO when we don't have to. Maybe that discussion doesn't happen for another 20 years, but there's no reason for it to happen ever. GMG^talk 12:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: The new image is just about the bare minimum I would consider copyrightable. There's some minor creative elements in the compass decorative knots, and the "scroll" border. Even then, the layout of the rooms (while contributing to the overall work) would probably not be copyrightable, in and of itself. Consider: a straircase in the middle divides each level into two rooms. That's it. The exact width of the staircase is up for grabs, but other than that, it's all mechanical. A computer could design this floor plan from a footprint and the description I just gave. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the Mjolnir + Pants logo might want to be copyrightable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet still, if you can explicitly license something freely, you should, rather than relying on a legal standard that itself may change. Consider that some time in the next 50 years the US changes its legal standard to sweat-of-the-brow because...I dunno...if we're being honest, probably because Disney parked six truck loads of free speech cold hard cash in front of the Capitol building. Now your image isn't free any more, even though your explicit intention was to create a free image, but you neglected to use the right template, and some poor admin in 2041 has to delete it. GMG^talk 12:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's not forget the orange goon in office that is a total loose cannon and, if he could, would probably turn around and make all copyright last indefinitely (unless it was created by Mexicans, Muslims, North Koreans, transgenders, climate change supporters and people with the surname "Clinton", in which case it would be PD). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

climate change supporters...I just imagine angry people with signs protesting the EPA yelling "Yeah! Screw Tuvalu! That's what they get for being a low lying island nation! More climate change!" GMG^talk 13:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the Mjolnir + Pants logo might want to be copyrightable.Naah. The runes are just elder furthark, and the hammer is taken from File:Mjollnir.png which is PD.

Yet still, if you can explicitly license something freely, you should, rather than relying on a legal standard that itself may change.I tend to agree. This is one of the reasons why I release my own work into the public domain when I upload it here. Sure, the CC-by-SA is good enough, but under that license, the creator still owns the copyright, and might not consider the tiny text "courtesy of Wikipedia" at the bottom of your page to be sufficient attribution and sue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the attribution bit is a pretty low bar. Re: The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner, and the standard so far upheld by the courts to define "reasonable" is whether it was attributed in a manner consistent with the use of other similar works. But there's not a huge body of case law there AFAIK, and there are lots of people (myself included) who wish more people would lawyer up and sue over it, so we had more available precedent. GMG^talk 14:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Does that little house really have two kitchens and no bathroom?" There's only one kitchen, but yes, in 1900 a typical working-class terrace house had one cold tap, an outside toilet was luxury, for more basic places you made do with an outhouse that got "empties" collected by a horse and cart (that's why there's always a connecting lane at the back of the houses), and no bathroom (you put a tin bath in the lounge, and filled it with pots of water heated on a coal fire). All outlawed by the 1950s after way too many cholera-related deaths. If you look at a run of old terraced houses, (random example) every one has had a bathroom retro-fitted on the back (houses are now legally required to have a bathroom, but the law doesn't say how it should be designed). So yes, Americans, downstairs bathrooms are far more common over here than you may think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...downstairs bathrooms... <shudders> And they say you Brits are the civilized ones... I refuse to take more than 5 steps (with no more than 1 of them being up or down) from my bed before I expect to find a toilet in front of me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"We were evicted from our hole in a ground. We had to go live in a lake!"

• "Two kitchens and no bathroom?? You were bloody lucky!".... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Adjusted prejudicial Northernist joke to comply with one-nation post Brexit agenda....

I use to live in a 3-up 3-down terrace with back bathroom extension; seriously, going from my room, across the landing, downstairs, through the dining room and kitchen in order to take a piss at 3am was not that big a deal. If you were lucky, there would be something in the fridge you could snaffle on the way back up again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Knowing me, I'd grab a beer. Then make the trip again in ten minutes... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ten minutes? I don't know if you've ever been to Clacket Lane services on the M25 (it's not exactly somewhere you'd want to go, I admit), but the gents are full of adverts for incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Never been, but it sounds like many a truck stop in my neck of the woods. I do have to say though, the ten minutes thing is fairly typical for someone like me, who is of the opinion that "a" beer is generally served in 4-6 individual bottles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There's only one way to drink beer - in a pub, served draught, in a pint glass. (Unless you're Serial Number 54129 who drinks in stereo). Everything else is .... meh. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You can drink ale that way, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm...

"I'm pretty sure that women who like to publicly exhibit themselves in a state of undress can become popular without needing self-promotion."

I am inclined to ask as to how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rozlyn Khan was a NC? Post the relist by V93, both me and Saqib agreed that the coverage was not sufficient to muster passage of GNG/NACTOR.So, I'm a bit perplexed......∯WBG^converse 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, your arguments were weak. "Typical gossip-style-coverage" doesn't really tell us much except your opinion on the article, which is mostly covered by WP:RUBBISH. As the AfD had already been relisted three times, and nobody had really successfully challenged Oakshade's argument to keep, which I thought was the best and most comprehensive contribution to the debate, I concluded we'd run out of time to get a good challenge on that, and thus a no consensus was appropriate, in my view. Remember that AfD is about the quality of the arguments, not just counting heads! You can always start another AfD later if you don't think the article has improved sufficiently; but I'd recommend waiting a while first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm.....Typical gossip-style-coverage is about the quality of sourcing, (as argued by GSS and Sakib).So, WP:RUBBISH is a non-starter.(I agree with that and seldom mention it as a stand-alone deletion-reason, ever),And, I regret for not making myself clear-enough.

One of the sources by Oakshade at SpotBoye fails RS.In general, the entertainment sections of TOI, Amarujala et al are heavily un-reliable and mostly a variety of gossip-blog.See this and this for some example stuff, they are into.

As Saqib and GSS can attest, paid-promotion is too rampant in these circles. We had a case where an article creator of a subject (which was borderline A7) was sent to AfD and there was a near-vacuum of sourcing.Out of nowhere, he brought a TOI piece, published in the midst of the AFD and painted the subject, in the choosiest of epithets.{{U|GSS}, can you link the AfD, please?∯WBG^converse 16:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The whole article reminds me of Micaela Schäfer, which I unilaterally deleted as a total and utter BLP violating mess, but which was subsequently restored and cleaned up. I don't think it's a paid-editing piece (or if it was, it had been cleaned up by time the AfD was due to close), and I'm pretty sure that women who like to publicly exhibit themselves in a state of undress can become popular without needing self-promotion. I'll have a look at sources later and see what I can do about improving it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look:-) And I am not commenting about UPE (neither I have viewed the older revisions) but rather that much of the entertainment-related-coverage in certain media-units is in exchange of payments.But, then I agree as to the case of not needing any self promotion! ∯WBG^converse 17:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin (album)

The article Led Zeppelin (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin (album) 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) 21:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Who's for ... that the first pressing of Led Zeppelin's debut album used a turquoise typeface instead of orange? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Most of this album was regularly played in late 1968 on LA radio from a white label promo. Don't remember turquoise/orange. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a good link for the label. The white label promos were sent out to promote the group's first US tour before the album was released, so lots of people would turn up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Premature Priapus AFD close

I believe that you misinterpreted the consensus at this AFD. In my opinion, it should have been relisted in any case rather than closed, because there was no clear consensus over keep by way of merge or deleting, and the keep votes didn't make strong cases. Also, no one suggested a redirect, so why was that the closing consensus? Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I could have relisted it, but there didn't seem to be much activity, and to be honest I'm not really a fan of AfDs lasting a month simply because hardly anyone turns up to the debate. Given the comments, I concluded that most people would be comfortable with a redirect. It preserves the history, so those wanting a merge can do something about that, and also stops us having a full topic, which the delete voters would be comfortable with. So essentially, it works out as a good compromise to all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. AfD closing is a bit of a black art, and it's inevitable if you do a lot of closes, they aren't going to go the way everyone wants. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I hear that a priapus going away too soon is a common problem, and that there's a pill for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and have you got a WP:MEDRS for that? Have ya? Have ya? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I've always been more prone to having Priapus show up at inopportune moments. Such as once when I was getting smoked by a DI in basic training. To say I was never allowed to forget it would be an understatement. That bastard still calls me up from time to time to remind me of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK ineligible

Dazed and confused

Hey Ritchie, unfortunately, the article you recently nominated for DYK (Led Zeppelin (album)) has previously been listed on the On This Day section of the main page. Per DYK rules, it is therefore ineligible to appear on the DYK section.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Aughlisnafin GAC - deleted

Hey there. I created the Aughlisnafin GAC page to mark my local football club, but you deleted it. Fair enough - it didn't have a lot of content (yet).

However, → Almost every club in my county has a page, and Aughlisnafin GAC should be no different → There are plenty of local historians in the Aughlisnafin area, and plenty of historical emigration too, meaning plenty of ad hoc interest.

I would like the page to be restored so I can input more information about it, as well as the local area in general.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billdoesjudo (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Billdoesjudo: The page read, in full, "Aughlisnafin GAC was a small, rural Gaelic football club located in the eastern side of the parish of Kilmegan, bordering with Dundrum.". I would recommend using the Article wizard and create a draft page for the club first - articles in the main portion of the encyclopedia ("mainspace") are assumed to be possible to improve by anybody, and if nobody can figure out how (as was the case here) they get deleted (as otherwise they have a tendency to sit abandoned forever). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion about User:CheekyboyOli

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by User:CheekyboyOli. — bieχχ (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaving you a notice about a discussion about behaviour of a user that you have blocked a few days ago for edit warring. — bieχχ (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Rachael Bland

On 5 September 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Rachael Bland, 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Subway Challenge

Buckets of fun!

Hi Ritchie333. Regarding this edit, wouldn't we have the diffs of the legal threats as evidence if this issue were ever taken to WP:ANI? Legal threats on the talk page were already removed on four separate occasions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=858232688&oldid=858154856
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=747464268&oldid=747449238
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=736873757&oldid=736870094
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=708968328&oldid=707682616 epicgenius (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, possibly yeah. I didn't realise the text I was re-inserting was full of "fuck you I'm taking fucking legal action you fuckity fucker", (yes, I've been watching this again) so reverting probably wasn't a good idea. In general, if somebody doesn't want to be mentioned on WP, and there's no conflict of interest, and it doesn't harm the article to take it out, it's simpler to just do it. I know some people dig their feet in the ground and say, "no, it's reliably sourced!" but when push comes to shove, people are reasonable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Just another comment, the five names were originally sourced to the Guinness World Records (ref #13, immediately after the sentence in question), so that's where these names came from. I don't really care either way if the names are included or excluded, though. epicgenius (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you and have dropped a note on the talk page. I saw the report at AIV (it's definitely not vandalism), but by the time I came to write my note on the IP's talk page, Dlohcierekim had already blocked. My primary motivation for this is I believe the IP is used by a wide range of people, possibly a public terminal in a hospital. I think the semi-protection was sound, (though I would have preferred "edit warring" or "disruptive editing" over "vandalism" for the protection reason) and "legal threats" is a fair reason for a block, but 3 months just sounds like too much collateral damage, though I can't prove it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"D'ya want fries with that, luv?"

Subway Challenge? I don’t know about you, but I can never manage more than about 10 Double Chipotle Chicken Melts in under 5 minutes. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That's 'cause you're not a student, Martin. Back in the day, we had a challenge to demolish a KFC Bucket in ten minutes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

KFC and Subway? Ha! Here in NYC we have "down as many buckets of hot dogs as you can in 10 minutes" every July 4th. epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't celebrate July 4th over this side of the pond, nobody likes to be reminded of a war we lost and caused the British Empire to shrink. :-P If you're not familiar with British cuisine, when you go into a typical chip shop and ask for a "medium chips", they typically can easily go round to two people. If you ask for a "large chips", they'll probably be sufficient for a small family. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We also have the proud British folk tradition of "Nek-Notting-Nominate", which involves running to cram onto an over-crowded train while pouring a bucket of ice-cold Costa Coffee all over one's head.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for being an admin who seems to genuinely care about WP (noted especially after your contribs to AfD discussions and reading your user page)! Redditaddict69 22:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Indef block, community ban

First of all, out of 14 support for block, there were 8 votes for siteban/indef ban (same things) since 2 indef blocks have been already applied on his past accounts before. Either way it is WP:CBAN and should be stated that way. Secondly your message on his talk page,[1] shows that he can be unblocked by any admin contrary to WP:CBAN which is appealed only to the community. Please fix this and also fix the blocking rational in the block log. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN: "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"." This shouldn't be treated as a normal admin action, especially when over a dozen of editors in good standing supported indef block or siteban. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: Here's my thinking. Everyone who wanted a site ban would not complain about an indef block; but everyone who wanted an indef block may not be happy with a site ban. So I do not see consensus beyond a block at this point, and since Nauriya has never been blocked before, I took the view that we should start with a lesser sanction first. I realise that all the support is being made through a profound sense of exhaustion and frustration, and that persistent copyright violators should be blocked, but I don't think we need to run straight for the ban just yet. If he doesn't appeal the block, or no admin is willing to accept any unblock request (which would almost certainly have conditions attached such as a topic ban on creating articles, uploading articles and agreement for a reblock on the first sight of any copyright problems), then it becomes a de-facto ban at that point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

He has been blocked 3 times on his 3 past accounts, indefinitely all of them still remains in the place. I am amazed that you missed such important fact because of which people supported "indefinite ban". To say "never been blocked before" is misleading.  Your explanation equates to WP:SUPERVOTE and you should instead consider turning your closure into comment if you share such a non-policy based rationale and unblock nauriya for the time being, otherwise just turn it into a siteban as already clarified by me above. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I did notice that, but I also noted that the SPI came back as "inconclusive"; if it had come back as a positive result the account would have been indefinitely blocked anyway. As we now stand, the guy can't edit, and hence can't add any more copyright violations, and it would be helpful to work with him during the CCI, which obviously as a banned editor, he can't do. I don't think Nauriya is malicious or aggressive; this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue and should be managed carefully. For now, I think our main focus should be to get the CCI underway and go and get rid of all the copyvios. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the SPI's conclusion since Nauriya admitted those "3 accounts" to be operated by him. Even on ANI, "Yes I created those accounts in 2013 and moved on with this one"[2] He was unrelated to some other sockmaster (International Shah Editor) but not his own 3 accounts that he admitted. Why one should not siteban a already 3 times indeffed editor? CCIs are well handled without the violator who is proven to be well disruptive for so many years. None of these actions are valid per WP:CBAN. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• "since Nauriya has never been blocked before, I took the view that we should start with a lesser sanction first. I realise that all the support is being made through a profound sense of exhaustion and frustration, and that persistent copyright violators should be blocked, but I don't think we need to run straight for the ban just yet.": isn't this the textbook definition of a supervote? Voting "indef block, don't ban just yet" would have been fine with this reasoning (although you would have been called out on the "never been blocked before" in that case), but closing the discussion with this reasoning, and partly based on your incorrect reading of the socking / previous blocks situation, makes this IMO an invalid close. Fram (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Opened for review now: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issues with closure. GenuineArt (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Ritchie333: You closed this deletion discussion as delete, but did not delete the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like the script didn't work. Fixed now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this has happened several times to me lately. I have to double-check every time I close as "delete", which is an awful thing to do to a lazy person like me. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

blocked sock

Tyranny imposed You people don't realise it. These people like DBigXray, Lorstaking, Accesscrawl are eliminating their Pakistani opponents like me to spread their agenda. They done the same to NadirAli who is in a long line of list they've done it to. Many of the people in their group have been blocked in past for various reasons including socking. Accesscrawl is already suspected of socking.

Give Ivanvector's claims about Fram being aggressive, you should take their admin priveleges. Also RaviC harassed Ivan and Simonm223 over their friendship, which had already been discolsed years earlier and Simonm223's editing with Ivanvector's account as an accident. If someone's involved in meatpuppetry it is these people who had Nauriya and NadirAli banned because they show up everywhere including University of Chicago Law School where 1990'sguy and Accesscrawl supported Lostaking. Another opponent they have endlessly targeted is User:Son of Kolachi with SPI by Sdmarathe (who supported banning NadirAli) and strong claims of DUCK by DBigXray and Accesscrawl. Lorstaking continued to claim he was a sock of another user on Abecedare's talk page. Have a look yourself.

These people will start uttering they're being targeted with bad faith but don't hestitate to have bad faith on others themselves. They clearly don't come to support each other by coincidence and are doing nothing except trying to take control. Can you take any action against them or will this keep going on like a circus? Glitcher1 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

And don't listen to these people, they'll want that reports against them are removed or not paid attention to so their behaviour can continue. Glitcher1 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC) harassment Sock now blocked

Well the ANI thread is now closed; so let's move on. When things get aggressive, I like to listen to music and chill out, then think about improving an article. I've done a bit on The House of Fine Art which Accesscrawl started, and might do a bit more on it this evening. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it just me who thinks that using terms like "tyranny", "fascism" and the like to describe what may or may not be improper behaviour (I didn't investigate) on a public open-access website that is in no way essential to the life, liberty and health of its participants is inappropriate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not a joke guys. Don’t you see why multiple admins and non-admins have pointed out the strange behaviour of these people in past? Do you really think these people are coming out of the blue to support bans against people or edits on article they don't even interact with? It's not a coincidence that they’re all showing up for eliminating opponent editors, especially the Pakistani ones.

If you're not going to do anything, then I suggest you keep an eye on them. Because people like Ivanvector or Vanamonde aren't making it up that their association is suspicious. I have no personal rivalry with these people, but what they’re doing can't be ignored. Glitcher1 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC) harassment Sock now blocked

::::Richie333, re improving The House of Fine Art, this may be useful. Although slightly puzzling, as this claims to be the first to use crypto-currency..[[3]]. Irondome (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC) This [[4]] may be more useful. Irondome (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article "Naveen Bawa'

Hi, I want to ask you why you deleted the article "Naveen Bawa" inspite of adding sources which prove its notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful14 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Helpful14: There's a simple answer - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Bawa, three people asked for it to be deleted, and nobody challenged them. Unfortunately, we can only go with the result that people ask for, so it had to be deleted. (It's kind of like that episode in The Simpsons where Mrs Krabappel reads out the student president votes - "One for Martin; two for Martin".) I can restore the article to draft space if that would help. The draft could then be reviewed at Articles for creation; if it is accepted there, that can generally trump a deletion debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bloody Mues

I see our antipodean belching friend has now branched out into some incredibly cunning and deceptive sock puppetry. Yours AuntieJean123 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel a nice tune coming on.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I roll my eyes
At all the socking (wooah-oah)
They all need blocking (wooah-oah)
Page protection too

Nice poetry :D --DBigXrayᗙ 12:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. These days we all call him "Threesie Rice". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that good sense and justice has now prevailed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Charro outfit

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Warren "Slim" Williams AFD

You closed it as no consensus. There was agreed that the page should be either merged, redirected or deleted. First keep voter User:duffbeerforme said it was OK to merge, because it does not meet GNG in this state. The other vote was a WP:PERX vote by a person who always votes keep. I think the appropiate closure here is to merge it into Tchukon. » Shadowowl | talk 09:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like much of an agreement if there are still three decisions that people want. A "no consensus" result means you can merge or redirect outside of the scope of the AfD, or start a new nomination if you think deletion is the answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I redirected it, because there was little to no content to merge. » Shadowowl | talk 12:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizna Waqas

With due respect, but I'm considering a request for a deletion review, because I believe the "no consensus" was not justified. --Saqib (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: There were few !votes, opinion seemed to be split between "keep" and "delete" and the debate descended into parties yelling at each other. That's usually a good reason to close as NC. The "Created by a sockpuppet" argument does not appear to have held, otherwise it would have been deleted per WP:G5. Looking at the article, the appearance in a notable television series suggests that deletion wouldn't be right answer. Ask the regulars at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to see if someone can help improve it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)--I don't guess a DRV will lead to a change in the outcome.NC was within Ritchie's discretion.A306 is at his usual nonsensical-best but Davey's !vote seemed a bit weird (A ping with an explanation might have led to a change... ).Renominating after some time is probably the optimum way-out.∯WBG^converse 16:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And, are we having a backlog of to-be-closed AfDs? ∯WBG^converse 16:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I asked on WP:AN about clearing the AfD backlog, and a couple of them have chipped in and done it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

New article notability

Hi Ritchie333. I recently created Luitpoldpark. However after reading the geographical notability essay I’m beginning to have doubts that this park is notable. What do you think? I personally would like to see this article stay and be developed, but I welcome your experienced view. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I have added information two books sources, and there is a more well-developed article on the German Wikipedia. I definitely think we should be able to expand this to at least 1500 characters to get a Did you know? nomination. SoWhy may be able to help further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I will add more to the article Monday or Tuesday and propose a few hooks. I’ve never done a DYK before so I’m hoping you can walk me through it. Cheers! Mr Ernie (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I've expanded the article, fleshed it out, and nominated it for a DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Luitpoldpark. Have a look, and if you've got any alternative hooks you think would work well, throw them into the mix. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

italics in page title

Hi.
I recently created Alright Now (film). The "Alright Now" in title is being shown in italics (but not the "(film)"). I was why this is happening. Do you have any ideas? TPS are also welcome to discuss. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Sup. The reasn for the italic is per MOS:MAJORWORK, and for the mechanics of it, {{Infobox film}} commits the italicization autmatically. Hope all is well. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My understanding is that Template:Infobox film automatically italicizes the title, which it takes from the "name" parameter in the infobox template. If that parameter is not supplied (it is, in this case) the template would default to using the page title as the film title, and the entire thing would be capitalized. Vanamonde (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Both of you are right. Some clever person included the mechanism in explained by Vanamonde, into the infobox so the policy gets followed automatically. Thanks guys. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

"Blou (band)" article AfD closing

Greetings. You closed that AfD with a "no consensus" decision. Yet there was only one dissenting suggestion against two opposite ones. Moreover, you justified the closing with this: "Since the pre-copyvio version was restored, nobody has commented on a definitive option for the article." However, after Michig restored the pre-copyvio version, I commented extensively on the sources Michig provided, as well as other sources out there, and I believe I refuted all claims for notability. So, it's surprising to see the proposal closed like this. Do you think the closing should be somewhat revisited? -The Gnome (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The principal problem was there was so little participation in the debate. If one other person had said "delete per Gnome, who has summed up the argument well", that might have been an argument to delete; if two people had, it definitely would suggest a "delete" close. I would see if you can improve the article, then re-nominate after a suitable period of time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the informative response, Ritchie333. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

inna widddly-diddly styleeee, mi bredrins

I was just wondering if you were at all familiar with this 2003 classic? A real treat for dub-wise Floydians everywhere (and full available on YouTube, of course, in case folks are curious). It's pretty cosmic. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC) widdly-diddly

Are those iron butterflies flying around this thread title? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

.... ooooh, I'd never thought of it like that before...! -- Interstellar Teapot Traveller 123 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC) " According to drummer Ron Bushy, organist/vocalist Doug Ingle wrote the song one evening while drinking an entire gallon of Red Mountain wine.

September 2018

Wilful tickling, or other uninvited titivations, may result in a loss of your editing privy ledges

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly tickle a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at this madhouse. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you think I just go and tickle anybody? Good grief, do I look like I have enormously long orange arms? I think not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not long? Are you 'avin' a turkey, or wot?? After all, you are known as the orangutan of the Hammond organ, are you not?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

...always reminds me of, 'Threesie Kings of Orient are, two in a taxi, one in a car  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

'ere mate, strike a light! I 'ad that John Henry Hopkins Jr. in the back of me Yuletide-rip-off cab, the uvver nite. ... and 'e left me a pair of is sandals an' all!" Blimey Charlie! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's created the Cockney Wikipedia. "Awight mate, you can edit this parsley and sage!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

But of course, a folk classic. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)