User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 92

Archive 85

←

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Regarding vandalism report

Hello Ritchie,

I reported User:Jahsiah_Bowie (talk) for vandalism on WP:AIV according to my best judgement, but you deemed his recent activity (over a dozen vandalism edits in the past three months) insufficient. So that I may improve my judgement for the future, what constitutes 'sufficient'?

In the mean time, I shall give the user their second final warning...

Thanks, -- turdas^talk 18:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Simply put, the blocking policy states "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased." Denying recognition is also a factor; people vandalise Wikipedia to seek attention, and if the result of that is nothing happening, they'll lose interest. Obviously, we should keep an eye on this user and block if there's rapid fire vandalism. Update: I see the account has been blocked; I think they'll just create a sock and carry on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explanation. In your view, are user talk page warnings also just undue attention to vandals such as this? The user in question had received six warnings about vandalism prior to me reporting them on AIV, and they had clearly been ineffective. I left them a seventh one because (to my understanding) the guidelines on dealing with vandalism recommend doing so, but in retrospect I doubt the warning would have served much purpose had the user not been blocked, and would likely in fact have encouraged them to perform more vandalism. On the other hand, warnings also serve to inform other editors (and admins) that the user has committed such acts in the past... What do you reckon would have been the best course of action here? -- turdas^talk 13:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This one was a marginal case - I don't mind a block here as all the account's edits were vandalism, it was just a question of whether or not it would have accomplished something. I tend to adhere to Revert, Block, Ignore and think warnings should be reserved for marginal cases; anyone defacing articles deliberately knows exactly what they're doing and just needs a block. User:Antandrus/thoughts#On "Rouge" admins talks about this as well : "I'm pretty good at identifying trolls and malefactors, pointing them towards the door, and propelling them through it with a size-12 bootprint on the buttocks, often without bothering to go through a series of template warnings. Doing so saves someone else the trouble." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Good Music Articles

Hey, congratulations for getting the Fanny (band) article promoted to Good Article status! I truly appreciate the improvements you made to that article, as I was practically the only person maintaining it for the previous 6 or 7 years.
Since you seem to specialize in Good Articles in the music realm, and if you have time to read a lengthy article, I humbly request that you take a look at Cambodian rock (1960s–1970s). As it stands now, I wrote every single word of this article and I like to think that I have it up to "Good" or even "Featured" quality, but I am uneasy about nominating my own work for promotion. In fact, I do not know if serious Wikipedians like you have even read it in order to think about improvements.
There are are few stumbling blocks for the time being... First, I have a few "citation needed" tags for things I'm pretty sure are true but can't quite verify, and hoped that an expert would come to the rescue (no luck yet). Also, a documentary film is frequently cited, and I wonder if this would matter to future reviewers if they can't see it. Thanks for any comments you can offer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That'll be a bit of a slog, but if I get a spare evening I'll dive into it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Thames River boat operators

Hi - thank you for your notifications about the proposed deletions of several boat company articles. Just a couple of remarks/queries:

• I understand the question of notability, and if these companies are genuinely against policy, then so be it. However, they have not been considered a problem for 11 years, so I wonder if the rules of inclusion have changed or are just being adopted more strictly?
• The reason I ask is that there are many apparently non-notable bus companies that are currently considered worth keeping, so I question why other transport operators are not. The lack of consistency is actually quite confusing. Do you plan to delete all these too?
• There are quite a few other companies in Category:London River Services. Are these also due to be deleted?

Thanks for any comments on this.Cnbrb (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Ritchie333, I got confused - I realise that you undid the deletion proposals by Mean as custard (talk · contribs). To save having a duplicate conversation, perhaps @Mean as custard: might like to comment here? I'm not necessarily contesting the deletions, but I would like some clarity for future reference, as it all seems terribly inconsistent, as to what is and is not allowed. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The articles definitely don't meet A7 (see my plain and simple guide). I found a source for one of them within 5 seconds, and that clears the bar for speedy, and I assume the same is the case for the rest. I have taken my kids on the London River Services boats a few times and there are piers all over the place advertising regular services. So the companies are significant in that large amounts of tourists and other Londoners will have seen them, but conversely there could be so many it won't necessarily make sense to have an article on each one. I won't particularly begrudge Mean as custard if he wants to bulk nominate them for AfD, but tag-bombing you five times is ridiculous. As a longtime user, I assume you know what the CSD criteria are, and there are ways of setting up bulk AfDs without having to go template mad. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to argue the toss here, but I have tagged the articles as lacking references and evidence of notability. If there is no improvement in the next 11 years I may nominate them for deletion again. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll pop something in the diary. Cnbrb (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the solution might be to write an umbrella article about them (which includes a basic overview of London River Services) and any that we don't have enough sources for should be redirected there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Or just redirect them all to London River Services. I'm fine with that, I just think there should be consistency. If Bateaux London is deemed non-notable, fine, but why should (random example) Sullivan Buses be considered worth keeping? Cnbrb (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Larry R. Lawrence

The instructions say that I can make a request of the user that deleted a file to remit the old file under my user name so that I can work on it. I would like to do that please. I have some new references that may improve the quality of the article, and demonstrate the notability of the subject. Thank you Skywalk2011 (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalk2011 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Done, now at User:Skywalk2011/Larry R. Lawrence Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hope all goes well at A&E Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Dick Dale

On 20 March 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dick Dale, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review -- check my work?

"Edit Wikipedia until everyone else logs off"
"Edit Wikipedia until everyone forgets about you"
"Edit Wikipedia until everybody dies"

Hey, Ritchie333! I've been doing a GA review at Talk:Tian_Feng_(magazine)/GA1 and it's been at least several years since I participated in a GA process. I found you on the mentors list and am wondering if you might be willing to take a look to check my work. I'm pretty confident of everything except prose and references formatting.

The prose feels dense to me and a bit stilted in places, but I think it's possible that's because a lot of what's being asserted has to be worded pretty carefully to avoid overinterpreting what the sources are saying without causing some other problem. I've tried to come up with solutions, but when I go to check a particular reference so I can figure out how to do that, I see exactly why the editor chose that particular wording. For instance, I just found myself changing "published in the Easter of 1948" to "published around Easter of 1948" (source says "during the Easter") and I'm not sure "around Easter" is any better; I feel like I might just have made the language more vague. But "in the Easter" made me wonder if a word was missing (was it published in the Easter edition?) and the original "during the Easter" just doesn't sound like idiomatic English.

The references formatting is a combination of styles, one of which I'm not used to dealing with, and from the GA review instructions I wasn't sure whether formatting needed to be consistent. That is, I can see that it's fine to have several sections for the sourcing, but some of these sources are in one and not the other and vice versa.

If you don't have time for this, no worries! I just would like to be sure I'm not completely screwing the pooch if I give this a pass. --valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: I have had a look, and I'll hopefully time to comment more later today. For a GA review, if a source is not accessible, I have to assume good faith that the claims have been verified correctly. Some of the language is a bit stifled and makes it difficult to understand the history behind the journal, though I appreciate that's because it is complex due to various politics. "During the Easter" does not sound correct. I have already queried several pieces of prose that I think have to be fixed before the article can meet the GA criteria, and I haven't finished yet.

Don't be afraid to fail the review if you think, despite improvements, the article is not quite there yet. See Talk:Yoko Ono/GA1, for example. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate your time and effort. --valereee (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help! And, wow, that Yoko Ono process and eventual fail, argh...--valereee (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Nickey Barclay

Birth template - it tells us how old they are. More information for the reader = better;
The nickname does not go in the opening name per WP:MOSNICKNAME which states "avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original given name(s), in quotes or parentheses between first and last name. For example: Bill Clinton, not William "Bill" Clinton"; and
We do not need '30em' in the reflist per {{Reflist}} which states that "There are no required parameters; if none are supplied, a single-column list will be generated if there are fewer than 10 references in the list. If you have more than 10 references, it will use columns of 30em wide if your device allows this."
So please can you explain how my edit was not an improvement? GiantSnowman 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You didn't add any content or sources, and "But the MOS says so waaaah!" is not a good argument. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I read that MOS bit as referring to the article title, not the bolded bit at the start.

@Yngvadottir: I think GS meant MOS:NICKNAME, which states, “It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name. Example: Tom Hopper’s lead has simply: Thomas Edward Hopper.” Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie, I hope you were well enough to be there today? I am spatially challenged. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

If you mean this, I went to the speeches, but didn't do the march as originally planned. I'm certain ClemRutter was on it; Whispyhistory might have taken her family on it but that's a random guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct. I spent a few hours in delightful company queueing to get to the start point; I think I got there about three. When I did make it to Whitehall, they were packing away the screens so I can't comment on whether the speeches occured! Later, as I did a P-stop at the local Wetherspoons- someone spotted my teeshirt- and as work prevented them from joining the march they insisted on buying me a pint instead. They were with friends-- and my glass just kept on being refilled. So the march finished for me on the 10.55 from STP- and there are holes in my recollection. ClemRutter (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Push Kings

Hi, this is an A7'ed article I'm interested in working on. Could you please userfy it for me? Thanks Chubbles (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chubbles: Done, restored to User:Chubbles/Push Kings. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A peek

at your inbox, please:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Reporting a guy who is a sheer example of Vandalism

This message is for reporting disruptive editing and clear negligence of wikipedia rules by RegentsPark and Lugnuts. But my main focus is on RegentsPark as just 1 or 2 month ago, He was subject to disruptive editing and I also reported it here with the same Subject/Headline. For this i have Ritchie333 as a witness who was took the control of that dispute. RegentsPark was accused by me of continuous revert of a sourced and reliable content and without giving appropriate reason and he has appeared to repeat identical things in very short span of time as reported in the following text.

A day ago, I added a ranking of Pearl Jam in a reader's poll by Rolling Stone whose citation was derived from Rolling Stones' official site here Special:diff/889044457, thus prooving the reliability. The only thing I did was to add it in the lead and according to StarScream1007, there is no rule against it. But some administrators like Lugnuts and the RegentsPark reverted it continuously as one can see here Special:diff/888800482, here Special:diff/888930921, hereSpecial:diff/888946449, and here Special:diff/889079281, thus breaking the three-revert rule of Wikipedia. Also, Lugnuts removed a sourced content which was referenced with reliable source here Special:diff/889092793 saying that being at 93rd in all time list of artists of all genres isn't significant. One should notice the fact that the list didn't contain bands like Iron maiden, Creedence Clearwater Revival and Grateful Dead. And since VH1 is a big platform, one cannot say that the ranking is insignificant. Even a person of unsound mind can judge that this is the peak of disruptive editing and vandalism by these two guys. Lugnuts should be given a last warning or maybe punishment but RegentsPark deserves to be impeached from his status of administrator because i reported a similar activity from him of continuous reverting 2 months ago. You can have Ritchie333 and Martinevans123 as a witness. He helped me a lot in that case. He is using his adminship powers as a base for taking out his revenge with me as his opinions has often clashed with me and since I have always done right editing here, he always loses the edit war which he very often does. So please don't leave this guy with a warning again because he was already warned last time but he will never stop edit warring and breaking rules. This is really serious and this case shouldn't be judged on the basis that I'm just an IP and he is an administrator. There is always an exception so it's a really kind request to consider my appeal.

One thing is for sure that i am not going to give up on this. Last time you gave that vandal a chance but this time that guy has crossed the limits. I am going to arbitration committee if you don't help me. But if you are ready to help me we can push this matter through to make sure that cyber terrorists like RegentsPark get what they deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A50E:16AA:0:0:626:28A1 (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

If you think that its not safe and sound for you to reply whatever you want here, then you can email me on - (Redacted) For now, i am taking a wikibreak because its really hard to handle so many corrupt guys on your own which i have been doing from probably an year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.234.189.136 (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the ANI thread was closed down and archived before I even got a chance to look at it. This looks like a long standing dispute between the three of you, over something that is reasonably trivial (it's not like you're taking one side in the India / Pakistan politics conflict, for example) and I think the actions of RegentsPark and Lugnuts have not been particularly helpful. Shutting down ANI discussions with a cry of "sock!" is not always useful; unless you can directly link to an SPI or LTA page there and then, no independent person will be given enough context to know what is going on. In particular, deny recognition applies to blatant vandals, not to impartial editors trying to evaluate both sites of a dispute. If I see either of them breaking 3RR and a block is appropriate (it isn't always) then I will block; there is precedent for this. All that said, I have to say that comments like "Regentsass or anyone who now reverts it, will get into some trouble. .... First go and remove it from there then take your ass here" won't help your case and are more likely to result in complaints being closed down. Like Caesar's wife, you need to be above suspicion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie - this diff is where the IP admits to socking. You can check the block-logs of HardSunBadMoon and Chandra Shekher Mishra to see why they were indef'd. This was in the linked in the ANI report. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm not a party to any dispute on Pearl Jam. As an admin, I've blocked Chandra Shekhar Mishra in the past for "personal attacks and harassment" and am merely denying them a forum when they continue socking. Chandra Shekhar Mishra, with due respect to Ritchie333, I think you're getting poor advice from them when they encourage you to continue socking. What you need to do is fairly straight forward. Don't sock. Stay away from wikipedia. Fortunately, as an IP, you can no longer send abusive emails but you should avoid posting notes like this one with its redacted edit summary. Then, after a suitably long period of time (one year would be good), return to Wikipedia, ask for your block to be lifted, edit outside Pearl Jam and related areas for a while, and then, perhaps, you will become a productive Wikipedian. I'm not holding my breath, but this is well meant advice. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 21:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't try to act too much innocent RegentsPark. You have neither received any abusive e mails nor I have abused you on your talk page, and during these times when I taunted you with witty comments, you are solely the cause of it. By the way, Ritchie has done over 85k edits and you have done just 25k in the exact same time so you won't tell if he is giving right advise or not. He is totally fine with his advice and you better not try to act over smart with your advise of standard approach because you are again going to block without any reason just as you did with my Chandra Shekher Mishra. I didn't broke the 3RR you did but you falsely blocked me and since then I knew that people's can't be trusted here and only those people's like Ritchie are here to make Wikipedia. Take your advise get the hell of here because this talk page is too much holy to have devils like you here. With due respect to lugnuts, I'm not going to abuse both of you from now because Im feeling like you both don't deserve even that. WORST WISHES 117.234.14.161 (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah damn! I shall better turn off the auto-correct feature of my keyboard. It only makes sentences worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.234.14.161 (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion, it certainly seems like RegentsPark is WP:INVOLVED and should be deferring any action to other administrators. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning an editor who is edit warring doesn't make for "involved". By that logic, any admin would be involved after an admin action. I would be involved if I had a content interest in the article and that I clearly don't have. Like I said above, I'm not holding my breath to see Chandra Shekhar Mishra reform themselves, but to see an admin demonstrate such poor judgement as to encourage socking by an abusive sock is rather disappointing. The process by which they can return to editing is very clear, I've outlined that above, and that's the advise you should be giving them. --regentspark (comment) 17:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You didn't just warn him, you reverted him. That means you have an opinion in the debate. A while back, some IP kept changing something on Genesis (band) again and again. I forget what, but on the occasions I felt it had gone too far, I filed a request at WP:RFPP because as the principal editor of the article who got it back up to GA status (where it still stands), I was clearly INVOLVED and it would be boneheaded to take any administrative action there. It never hurts to err on the side of not using your tools - you're never mandated to use them and giving them a miss to work on content is always worth doing. As for "encourage socking by an abusive sock" ... perhaps it's because I've been called everything under the sun elsewhere on the internet for having the utter chuzpah to suggest that Britain might be better off remaining in the European Union, but I just think "let 'em sound off, if they say stupid things it says more about them than about you". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument anyway since I haven't been using my admin tools against them. You're just falling into the classic trap laid by abusive socks (have you seen their history?). I've said this before, all you're doing is enabling the sock and they're probably enjoying this more than anybody else. Simply stated. They are a sock. They are abusive. And you should tell them once, politely, to go away and come back after 6 months or a year or something. After that, you should delete every post that they make on your talk page. Encouraging them to sock is way not the correct response. --regentspark (comment) 17:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You could just ignore it and write an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. That was easier when the sock was not getting recognition but ignore and write an article is good advise - for all of us. Best. --regentspark (comment) 19:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We can find tons of similar activities by him. He always over used his powers and never let his flaws being exposed. He uses even the most illegal method. But other editors too need to understand not only you and me. But i will request you to be a little careful because i won't like to see you or other guys land into some kind of trouble because of me. Regards 117.234.14.161 (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"He uses even the most illegal method." We've just had a major news story that has showed that the President of the United States can be a pig-ignorant racist misogynistic fuckwit (broadly construed) and that is not illegal. Don't you think you're overdoing it somewhat? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

With illegal, i mean that he often breaks the rules laid down since the foundation of Wikipedia like 3RR and all that stuff. And not that he is A terrorist (though he is as a person). I think this is becoming a bit frustrating for you and as I said if talking to me lands you in trouble you can always e mail me. I will tell you where. But don't let peoples affect your temper (i think you got a bit angry after reading regents recent comment). Also, some E-MAIL MESSAGES may try to convince you against me but i can assure you that will be wrong. If you didn't get what did I mean through those capitalized letters simply check the thread named " A peak ". Regards 2405:204:A71F:20CC:18F2:657E:1E48:DF89 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well like I said, if you've got diffs of any editor of any standing recently making four or more reverts on an article within 24 hours that is clearly not reverting vandalism, libel or copyright violations, go to WP:AN3 and make your case. I'm not going to block anybody because "they violated 3RR once and got away with it!" because blocks are not punishment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't approached you to block that guy but just stand by my side to expose him and that's all. Don't get to serious. Chill bro. It's fine. Get off this have fun now. Regards 2405:204:A71F:20CC:18F2:657E:1E48:DF89 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Mornin

Thanks for passing by yesterday! In my usual way i am now getting into something a decade later than everyone else, so will nab some of your template boxes. There also looks to be a load of interesting reading on your userpage :) Mujinga (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the concept of Willy Waggling on Wikipedia, though I suggest if one wants to actually do some willy waggling, then Commons is probably a more appropriate place. (Sadly). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Nickey Barclay

On 21 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nickey Barclay, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nickey Barclay played with Fanny, Cocker, and Ball? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nickey Barclay. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nickey Barclay), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nickey Barclay is a true "unsung hero of rock and roll". And not afraid to call a spade a fucking shovel either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: User:Stafen brown

"Good faith"? I don't think so.

Almost all of the sources point to two websites, "geekytips" and "techwikies". The sites have similar formats, but only one of them actually lists an author (whose name does not match up with the account). But still, the similarities between the sites and the fact that they're almost exclusively the sources in his edits, make them feel like refspam. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As Antandrus once said, "We have a noticeboard for everything imaginable, except competence". (Well, we've got Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment which takes examples of redundant writing and pokes fun at them, but it takes care not to name and shame any editor). If we had Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against incompetence this would be a prime candidate; assuming the Huawei P30 is a notable smartphone (and I can't find evidence why not), jumping in with a completely inappropriate review with a source to a fansite is more likely to be a by-product of somebody with no idea of what writing an encyclopedia article is, rather than somebody deliberately trying to make Wikipedia worse. Hence, AGF. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletiones

Why did you delete demos journal - grazie! Poemnerd (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There has never been an article with that name (even if an administrator deleted it, you would see a log entry), and none of your edits have ever been deleted, so I'm afraid I don't know what article you're referring to. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He's referring to Demos Journal. Adam9007 (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh right. In that case, I deleted it because the editors who commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demos Journal asked me to and there were no objections. However, since it was a soft delete, it can be simply restored on request. Do you want me to do this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice, please

Hi! You recently put me right on G5 deletion of a page that had survived AfD. What about during? – not that the page seems particularly likely to survive anyway. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As with these things, it's a judgement call. I've !voted "keep / merge" on that AfD, adding a source that backs up my claims. I'm not going to be particularly upset if it gets deleted and I find I've got a minority view, but in any case, asserting that deletion is not the right solution for this article takes it out of the scope of G5. Additionally, the contributions of Meliquiades1, who has done a lot of clearing out of BLP violations, disqualify it for G5. You may be interested in a related discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Scope of G5. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

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. uyt 15:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This is being dealt with by the OS team. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou, I confess to being clueless about these sorts of things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ranking Roger

On 30 March 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ranking Roger, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A request for a pre-GA review for Hell's Bells (film)

Hi Richie. I was wondering if you could do a GA-review for Hell's Bells (film). I want to see what I need to do to get the article to GA standards. I also want to create a better picture of myself, because of my previous vandalism, and stupid sockpuppeting. Thank you. The Duke 20:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Duke of Nonsense: From a brief look, the article contains information in the lead (such as copyright expiration) not in the body, the plot summary seems overly long compared to the rest of the article, and there seems to be significant information missing, such as why Disney chose to make such a film, and what production equipment was used. The prose is clunky in places, such as "The film also has a variety of musical compositions, one of such is "In the Hall of the Mountain King" (would be better to say "The soundtrack includes several classical compositions including Grieg's "In The Hall of the Mountain King"). I'd say it's some way off meeting the GA criteria, particularly on 1b ("Lead") and 3a ("Broad in coverage"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! I'm wondering what could I change, so that I can work gradually for a good article. Is this a lost cause? Or is there potential? I am willing to work towards a GA. Thank you. The Duke 17:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think what you really need is a good book source covering the history of Disney animation, and cite whatever is in there about the film. I suspect there will be far more insightful information about the background and production mentioned there. Demystifying Disney: A History of Disney Feature Animation might be one such book, but to be honest this isn't my area of expertise and I can't easily advise further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not a done deal

Right, talk page stalkers, who's for Template:Did you know nominations/Bollocks to Brexit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any obvious hook there; as with all current-politics topics I would be reluctant to see it run on the main page if it were done in such a way that made it look like Wikipedia was biased, and a duly NPOV hook like "did you know that BtB is a campaign opposing UK withdrawal from the European Union" has about as much impact as some overcooked spaghetti. (Yes, we ran Referendum Party on 29 March, but at the time it was scheduled it was supposed to have been all over by then, and we were scrupulously careful not to either support or oppose it but just to give their views.) FWIW, there are sufficient sources out there to turn Hard Brexxxit, er, blue; I was eyeing it up but couldn't bring myself to go ferreting round "special interest" websites to actually watch the thing and write the necessary synopsis. ‑ Iridescent 12:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I can think of "... that 'Bollocks to Brexit' has appeared on stickers, badges and buses?" or "... that John Bercow does not personally advocate 'Bollocks to Brexit'"; however the obvious problem is if I personally stick up the DYK, people will immediately spot a political bias and cry foul. Indeed, the reason for writing this article and putting it in mainspace is precisely so other editors can come along and tone things down a bit, if necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Effects Pictures

Hi Ritchie333. I came across Golden Effects Pictures while checking on image use in it (most of which are likely copyvios uploaded to Commons). It has just been recreated (possibly by a COI editor), but with much more content than was merged per the above-mentioned AfD. So, I was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at it and see if it's OK despite the MOS formatting errors, etc.

FWIW, if the article is keepable, then all the infobox logo really needs is a {{Non-free use rationale logo}} added to the file's page; if, however, it's going to be merged, redirect, deleted, etc. then the logo will eventually also be deleted per WP:F5. I can't, however, really do much about the other files uploaded to Commons unless the uploader sends a WP:CONSENT email to OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I have reverted back to the redirect, as suggested at the AfD. The recent additions are largely unsourced and go into excessive detail; if this was a brand new article, it might be worthy of WP:G11. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the article has been recreated as Golden Effects Pictures LLC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:G4 is appropriate (it went to a deletion discussion but was not deleted there), but WP:G11 is. Anyway, I've reduced it to a redirect. I'm not totally opposed to writing a dedicated article, but the way OlamiQ is going about it is not constructive. It should be started with a small 1,500 character (ie: just above stub) piece, and all of it well-sourced with proper citations. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks once again. FWIW, I didn't tag the LLC version for speedy; it was another editor. I think if the editor wants to work on it as a draft and then submit to AfC for review, then that's fine. I'm also thinking there might be a WP:COI concern too, but that's just another feeling, and that's something which can be sorted out as part of the AfC review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the way forward, and is the generally recommended route. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Changes in culture

Hey Ritchie. I saw this comment from you, and rather than clutter up that RfA with my comments, thought I'd bring it here.

Wikipedia's culture has changed over time. It continues to evolve and will do so for as long as it exists. It's an entirely normal process, and one that affects RfA as well. What would have been acceptable 10 years ago isn't so now, and even vice versa. Things that energized commenters on RfAs 10 years ago are significantly different than today's motivations. There's no way to unite all admins, regardless of when they became an admin, under a single banner of culture. It's just not possible. So, while it might be unfair, there's no way to change it and I don't think we can expect the current crop of people who comment on RfAs to adhere to standards of consideration that existed from an earlier time. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hammersoft, long time no see. Also bringing SchroCat into the mix as he's followed up on the main discussion.

I don't really have a solution to the problem we've now got with effectively having two classes of editors; I was just saying it's a problem and as long as people oppose over things that existing admins do without blockback, people will perceive it to be unfair. I think it's a root cause of some of the badgering that goes on there (and yes, I freely admit I'm a major source of that) - while people are generally free to give whatever support or oppose rationale they like, it's the ones that give rise to comments of "if we all had to do that, we wouldn't have any admins" that tend to attract the most controversy and bickering.

To pick up on a point SchroCat made, I have been aware of problems caused by admins who wouldn't stand a hope of passing RfA today for about ten years; I just think directly tackling them head on tends not to be an effective way of resolving it. I'm certainly on record that I think RHaworth is an incompetent admin, and if he had tried running for RfA any later than about 2009, not only would he not get the tools, he'd probably also have been blocked a few times too. However, do you think I'd pass RfA if I ran today? My track record of kicking people who I think need to be knocked down a peg or two has shot up and I suspect I'd have a similar trajectory to RexxS with lots more pile-on "civility problems" opposes. If I manage to lose the tools, I'll never get them back. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a conversation that easily can diverge into multiple threads. To demonstrate; admins do a job that usually gets editors upset with them at some point. Do it long enough, and you develop a cadre of people who despise what you do. Good admins know this, take it in stride, and continue to do the work that needs to be done. But, if such a good admin were to stand for RfA again they'd likely not pass. This is one of the key reasons why reconfirmation RfA processes and de-adminship have failed to produce any effective system. See? Thread :) I don't think there are two classes of editors vis-a-vis RfA voting patterns. It's more like a spectrum, and as the Wikipedia culture changes, so to does the body of people voting at RfA. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi to both. What I replied to on the original thread (and then expanded on when someone said much the same as you, Hammersoft), is that it's not necessarily people being angered by an admin making the "wrong" choice on a close, but by the group of legacy admins who are not fit for purpose. They may have been given the bit in 2003-4 or 2006, but they would not stand a chance of passing now - not because of any particular "admin" action (or a series of them), but their general day-to-day ability to be an a-hole if people don't agree with them. It may be a small percentage, but there are too many of them who have held adminship for so long they either feel untouchable, or they know the game well enough to just about avoid crossing the line that would take them to ANI/ArbCom. All admins will have made an error or two in their time (it goes with the territory and being human), but that is of less concern to me - others are quick to jump in and remedy the more glaring problems, and the admin concerned tends to throw up their hands, say mea culpa and everyone moves on, but the ones I have concerns about have much deeper issues and cause much more permanent damage to the project and to other users. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• In my case, I can't think of anyone who's got a particular longstanding grudge against some admin action I took; the only recent thing I can think of that was a bit controversial was indef-blocking Winkelvi, and even then it was because I was asked to do it and it was backed up with the community. It's more that every now and again some admin says or does something that I think is mean spirited, boneheaded or just plain daft, and I feel like having a go at them for it; I feel I'm standing up for the "silent majority" who I am convinced feel the same but are afraid to say so. I don't recommend doing this - not at all, it's not like it doesn't come with consequences, but I did give fair warning to everybody when I stood for RfA that this is who I am and what I stand for; I've just always been suspicious or contemptuous of people in authority that haven't gained my respect. But the acts over the last few years regarding Brexit and Trump (all of which happened after I passed) have seriously hardened that view as I come across people with diametrically opposed views to mine all the time and as time goes on I have less of a problem calling out ignorance or arrogance. I'm sure everything Jacob Rees Mogg says would meet Wikipedia's superficial definition of WP:CIVIL but that doesn't mean I feel like smacking him in the mouth for being such a mean-spirited asshole. Having said that, I had a pleasant conversation with an old friend last night who voted "leave" for pragmatic reasons, who hates the current government implementation just as much as I do, and it was nice to find some common ground. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  Ritchie333 as an editor who has never been in anything but good standing on this project, I have felt the disdain that radiates from some admin pointed my way at times and not at times where it seemed like I was even maybe talking "above my station". So I get that. But I would ask you to rethink when you choose to engage in those sorts of battles if you think this was in anyway standing up for a silent majority. I further fail to see how a thoughtful, reasoned, measured oppose of a sysop at an RfA (i.e. not in any sort of admin capcity) is mean spirirted, boneheaded, or just plain daft let alone causing harm while being superficially CIVIL. I know you've apologized but I would truly ask you to rethink when you're choosing to pick a fight if that was one of the times it seemed right to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I thought the comment I responded to there was incredibly mean-spirited and upsetting. But that's just me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Rewards Network page deletion

Hello,

You recently deleted a page that we were working to update to address the concerns that had been flagged. It was a page for Rewards Network. The team that was working on the updates had reached out for assistance/guidance and was then taken off the project, so I don't know what information was given to them.

Can you help me get the page reinstated and guide me a bit towards updates that will remove your concerns?

Thanks so much, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dina Ward (talk • contribs) 14:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dina Ward: The article was deleted at a debate : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewards Network - basically somebody asked for it to be deleted and there were no objections. I've restored it to User:Dina Ward/Rewards Network; follow instructions at the top of the page to see what to do next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 Thank you. I'll follow up there. Dina Ward (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)DinaWard

Abinta Kabir foundation Deletion

Hello, Recently you had deleted a page which was created by me, And left the page was created for promotion as a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mash sajid (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Abinta Kabir foundation page was not created for promotion. And i have created the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mash sajid (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The article was originally deleted by SoWhy following a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abinta Kabir Foundation. Though the decision to delete was not unanimous, the strongest arguments came from those advocating for deletion, and the closing rationale was well thought out and stated. While I don't agree with everything SoWhy does, they are stringent about keeping material where it is practical and would not delete something unless there was a very good reason and consensus to do so. You can challenge the debate at deletion review, but I don't think you'll be successful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

assertion

None of my business really, but I'm trying to distract meself. Regarding a question you asked elsewhere, an edit summary for 'copying within wikipedia' is acceptable and a talk page note may be helpful. I would say a link and comment in the page history is preferable and a talk notice is a polite but perhaps unnecessary option. As always, when I make an assertion here it is with the hope that I will be corrected if wrong. How is your day? cygnis insignis 00:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty much what everyone else has said. However, it's not a scenario I find myself in very often, as most of the time our summary style guidelines means that one article doesn't exactly duplicate part of another, but is a condensed version of it. So in these cases, improving the article makes the issue a moot point. In answer to your last question, it was 1:17am when you sent it and I was asleep ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course, the first question is should I be doing this. I have copy pasted verbatim with attribution, then summarised with the next edit, but all that was more bother than using the cited sources and still allows for compounding of concerns arising from using other articles as a source.. The only application I've found is in rearranging biology articles, lists and classifications, that type of thing. Have a good one. cygnis insignis 12:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

King's Cross Thameslink railway station

Hi Ritchie

Following your comment here, I have taken up the gauntlet and had a look at this article to see what can be done with it. And it turns out that if you include the history going back to its days as the Metropolitan line station, it has quite an interesting history. I think it may be almost up to GA standard now, and am considering nominating it, but would welcome your input into whether you think it passes muster and whether anything is lacking. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: That's brilliant, well done. From a quick look, some of the sources don't look reliable (what makes "Disused stations" without any URL a good source?) and possibly the lead is a little over-long, but there's nothing obvious that would make it fail a GA review. I don't appear to have touched the article at all bar one minor edit years ago, so stick it up for GAN and I'll review it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, that was an oversight on my part that I meant to do something about. Well at least to provide the URL. The page was this one, [1], which has a well-written discourse on the station, but is perhaps of dubious reliability as a reputable source? I managed to avoid citing it almost entirely but I think for the one fact in question I couldn't find it anywhere else. Will have another look though. And I'll let you know when I put it up for GAN. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a difficult one. I personally would trust Disused Stations to be reliable; technically, it's self published source in that it's been set up by some amateur enthusiasts with no professional editorial oversight. However, I have read through the site's archives extensively and I would be surprised if anything of significance in it was factually incorrect or questionable. The page on King's Cross Thameslink is written by Nick Catford, who is a genuine expert on the history of the London rail network, and has published several books including Secret Underground London. The policy says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources". In this instance, we have good reason to believe it is published in independent reliable sources, they're just not available on the end of a Google search and require some effort to get hold of. As to how much of a problem that is, well WP:SOURCEACCESS says that good sources being inaccessible is a non-issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed it up now and put in Nick Catford's name as author to give it a bit more legitimacy. Also started the GAN so if you can have a look at it when you have a chance that would be great, and I'll fix up any issues as you find them. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Morning Ritchie, I've had a look at the points you've raised so far in the Talk:King's Cross Thameslink railway station/GA1 review. Thanks and let me know what else needs doing.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A gift

From HardSunBadMoon to Ritchie

I just gave a little gift to one of your favourite band's member, Guy Evans here Special:diff/889564371 for your help to me. Hope you like it. Have a nice day. Regards 117.234.14.161 (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with an infobox, and I'm sure Gerda Arendt would be delighted that you added it, but I'm not entirely sure there'll be universal praise for it. Still, it should be strong and stable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

;) - I remember having had a similar gift idea on a birthday 6 years ago which wasn't understood as a gift (about the first thing happening was that the section header was changed), - well, patience did it in that case. Interesting to read just the edit summaries with a little distance ("I notice bullying, ownership and civility issues that it appears are going to have to be rectified by the larger Wikipedia community" - don't think that happened yet). I still miss GFHandel, who felt during the discussion that life outside Wikipedia was better. - Today is the birthday of Jörg Streli, featured on the German Main page, - long live his memory. - A gift for me would be a GA review, several noms to choose from, - look for section "Quality" on my user page. - What did miss about your health, Ritchie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I dropped you an email with specifics. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Have i not been as much stubborn as i am, i too would have a similar story like GFHandel. I actually gave this all up for 3 or 4 months after having a really good advice from my one and only Sir Gareth Griffith-Jones. But i came back because someone said to me that if you can stop RegentsPark, then you shall otherwise many other good editors would suffer similar fate. So i decided that i will leave wikipedia on the day when RegentsPark gets a lesson to remember. And trust me, i will surely leave Wikipedia. Regards 117.234.14.161 (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You could just Illegitimi non carborundum and write an article. Or do one of Gerda's GA reviews. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha! I will try to learn how to do those GA reviews (Maybe). So i put an end to this discussion from my side then. Bye, See you all after some days of break. Until then, You may listen this song [[2]]. Regards 117.234.14.161 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the gift of moving Pütz to the Main page, and good comments where I promised not to appear again or bite my tongue. Completely unrelated: an IP made changes to Beethoven's Third which I reverted once, as badly formatted and possibly OR. Teach them BRD? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've sent a pigeon

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.— Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@DatGuy: I've got your email, I've just been distracted by real world stuff. I probably won't get to it today as straight after work I'm doing something at the local Women's Institute where I might give Women in Red a bit of a plug. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no rush, take your time. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)