Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs) at 04:17, 5 November 2018 (→Your GA nomination of Carol Kaye: congrats). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Keeping an eye on stuff. Meanwhile, here is some music.[1]


ITN recognition for Geoffrey Hayes

On 1 October 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Geoffrey Hayes, 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) 00:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Aah ahh aaah I want all the credit for improving the article!"
"Bu bu bu Zippy, that's not very nice, all you did was nominate it."
"I didn't just nominate it, I AM A VERY HARD WORKING WIKIPEDIAN!"
"Oh, stop talking like Trump, Zippy! And where's Bungle got to with the shopping?"
An ITN rainbow for you! -- Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little known fact that a namesake of mine actually named his band after this TV series. In particular, he found Zippy a key influence on his personality. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it had something to do with that lovely curvaceous Sonja Kristina?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should trout you for that, Martin! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bungle with the shopping?? I think he ended up stacking shelfs in Tesco?? Govvy (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recall a long time ago (it was either on Radio 1 or one of the London commercial stations) hearing a brief extract of Rainbow Vibes by the Sons of Bungle, and decades later wondering if I'd just imagined it. Nope, it really was available to stick in your hardcore set at the Electric Ballroom, Camden Town; imagine Zippy, George and Bungle with a Roland TR-808 and you're pretty much halfway there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devastating!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G5 is not silly

Too much is enough – SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"G5 is not silly"
C5, however....

I dispute your claim that G5 is a "silly reason to delete" and suspect JamesBWatson and many other admins would feel the same. Is there any reason for you unilaterally overturning it? IIRC this isn't the first time (apologies if I'm wrong on that). SmartSE (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific instance a G5 was inappropriate because it was, as the old saying goes, commenting on the contributor, not the content. I was looking at another article by this user after reading the Quartz piece about Donna Strickland, did a quick news search and thought "hmm, this might be notable and certainly possible to improve". I think an AfD would have been preferable in this instance, hence my suggestion of sending it there, and while I appreciate Geert Wilders isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea (including mine), creating a significant documentary about him does take the biography out of the bounds of speedying. Remember, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to destroy one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a spammy article created by someone who regularly sock puppets to create spammy articles seems abundantly appropriate to me, WP:NOTPROMO and all that, being an encyclopedia we aren't supposed to be used for native advertising, and keeping it that way is also part of building an encyclopedia Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who creates articles, and never have done, and in 10 years' time when the article has been improved, nobody else will either. Might sound a bit harsh, but you can't see who's written an article when you read it; you have to do to the history and look at diffs, which takes forever. In this case, there is a draft at Draft:Stephen Robert Morse, and I don't think that's the only one; that was another reason to think the deletion was an accident. The result of an AfD could always be to return to draft or a redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.... and dagnammit, if I'd just recreated the article from scratch, I could have had "Did you know .... that Stephen Robert Morse describes himself as the Ryan Air of film-making?" Harrumph. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G5 implicitly means that it is a decision based on the contributor, but commenting on the contributor, not the content is about personal attacks, not whether we should delete content added by long term abusers of the community. If you thought they were notable then why didn't you just create the article yourself? That would have been fine, but as others have said below it seems that you just did this because you just didn't like it. Sure, there are times where despite articles qualifying for G5 they maybe shouldn't be deleted, but you shouldn't act unilaterally to reinstate content added by a blocked user, especially without cleaning it up first. Now we will head to AFD because there are don't appear to be any decent sources and we'll all have wasted plenty of time for nothing. SmartSE (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Robert Morse. SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smartse: Thank you for drawing this to my attention.
  • Ritchie333, this is perhaps the most blatant example I have yet seen of something which you have being doing for years, namely knowingly acting contrary to policy because you personally do not agree with the policy in question. That is abuse of your administrative powers. You are free to argue your case for changing the policy if you wish to, but as long as it is policy you are not free to use your personal disagreement as justification for flouting that policy. Although, as I have said, this is perhaps the most blatant example I have yet seen of your doing this, there are plenty more cases in your editing history of your openly and unashamedly putting your personal view above policy. There are various aspects of policy that I personally disagree with, but I accept that they are policy, and never intentionally act against those policies. Is there any reason why you should not be blocked for deliberate abuse of administrative powers? Indeed, is there any reason why you should be allowed to continue to be an administrator while expressly stating that you intend to continue acting against policy? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with James here. Disliking a policy is not a reason to ignore it, particularly in this case when it's directly against the TOU. It's unbecoming conduct and given your propensity to push things for discussion, this is hypocritical, at the very least you should have started one. G5s are not subject to WP:RFU like most criteria and for an administrator to unilaterally overturn a policy based deletion months after the fact with absolutely no comment or request from the community or deleting admin is absurd. There was no request from a third party to overturn this, publicly, so far as I can see, so what prompted you to go against long standing consensus and policy? If you felt he was so notable, why not create an article on your own instead of restoring the work of someone who has repeatedly shown disregard for the work of an encyclopedia? Also since you seem to think that this policy in particular is silly, do you care about the integrity of an encyclopedia or do you only want to make sure every topic under the sun is covered by Wikipedia? Praxidicae (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to question your judgement, you repeatedly brought up a draft from 2016 as a reason G5 couldn't/doesn't appropriately apply. How? Praxidicae (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All out of trout, but double the rainbow, halve the hate!
PILE ON HATE!!!! Wait, wut? Don't all these other admins have better things to do with their time? Shurely? We should be told... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, was that supposed to be constructive? Are we not allowed, as a community to ask questions of an administrator elected by said community when they unilaterally (and without discussion) overturn a long standing policy and community consensus because they don't like it? Grow up. Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm sorry ... grow up!" Wow, srsly? You need to work on that hate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, "work on the hate"? I guess the community should bow down to our Dear Sysop Leaders, since you're all infallible and not subject to any sort of criticism. I guess we should delete WP:NOBIGDEAL too. You're a paragon of professionalism and what we should all strive to be as editors and administrators. Good to know. Praxidicae (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. You've clearly mistaken me for someone else, some I suggest you do some research before going off the deep end. Do try harder. And smile. Alway smile when you type. It brightens things up! PILE ON RAINBOWS! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying your account is compromised or are you just trolling because you're an administrator and know there will be no consequence? Also good to know. It's totally a good look for you. Praxidicae (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not, but you're still not getting it!! But the personal attack(s) are noted. Those are a great look for you! I suggest MOAR RAINBOWS! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Okay, my mistake, you're (thankfully) no longer an administrator. What is it that you think is a personal attack here? Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Applause! You may return to your regular hate pile-on! I got your PAs logged now, cheers, have a great day! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You realize accusing someone of making personal attacks, unfounded, is in itself a personal attack? Please show me where I've attacked you, per WP:NPA. Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You telling me to grow up or implying that grow up is a personal attack? Please define how it is. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's self-explanatory. Now back to your regular program. I have other things to do here, like improve Wikipedia for our readers. Bye now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase this: if you don't substantiate your accusations of a personal attack, I will take this to ANI, which ironically is where this entire discussion should have started. Praxidicae (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me rephrase, you definitely did not personally attack me. Definitely not. But before telling people to grow up, you should take a look in the mirror. Now, honestly, get back to your regular pile-on program here. I have better things to do than keep answering your inaccurate comments and insinuations. Those are, regardless of your threats, on record now. (P.S. Next time you accuse people of "trolling", just think if that would fall squarely into the personal attack category... just think...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then take me to ANI, please. And while you're at it, please explain to me how your edits were not trolling when several editors expressed valid criticism of an administrative action and your response was to belittle them and tell editors, me in particular, to smile because they've expressed a concern. Though given your history here, administrative conduct isn't really your forte, is it? Praxidicae (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, it's descended to that has it? I give up. Perhaps you're unaware of humour here, particularly around Ritchie's talkpage, but take this advice, don't stomp around telling people to grow up, don't accuse people of trolling, don't make false assumptions and assertions, none of that's a good look. Why are you linking me to that article in the Huffington Post? What does that have to do with ANYTHING? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, could you be any more condescending TRM? This is crappy behaviour, especially seeing as it looks like you came here just to stir the pot. Go back to ERRORS - TNT 💖 21:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just intolerant of people who make a series of false statements based on erroneous information, including accusations of trolling and then attempt to take the high ground. And in actuality, you'll note that I was referring to the actual admins who piled on here, no-one else. It was this other user who suddenly stepped up and told me to grow up. So if you wish to discuss and berate people for being condescending, start there. And sure, I'm all over ERRORS, the real one, not the fake one of course, thanks for the advice! I might also add to my 110+ FLs, 200+ GAs, 10+ FAs, etc too. We'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) WP:G5 was not applicable because other editors had worked on the text. In any case, per WP:OWN, the text is now CC and so anyone is free to reuse it as they see fit, provided they make attribution. If people want to enforce some sort of damnatio memoriae, they should use some other mechanism which does not deprive the encyclopedia of such valid content. And, of course, see WP:IAR, which is still policy, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". Andrew D. (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G5 applied at the time of deletion. No editor worked substantially on it and if you read this thread and Ritchie's restoration, in no way does he imply that G5 didn't apply but that he doesn't like policy. Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much in the scrict enforcement of G5 camp, if it is concerned with UPE or that the master was blocked for falsification of references and all that stuff. But, this particular case, (though technically qualifying for G5), does seem rather innocent to me...... So, unless I miss something, I guess at the end of the day, the encycloepadia has improved.At best Ritchie's unilateral overturning might be trout-worthy:-) ∯WBGconverse 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please define how socking is innocent in a case such as this where the original creator has a ridiculously long history of socking, combined with several new somewhat unrelated accounts creating the content, nearly word for word. I'm not sure if you're familiar with WP:UPE, but this is a textbook definition of it. Praxidicae (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now hold on, WBG did not claim socking is innocent, he claimed Ritchie's actions are innocent because the encyclopedia is improved. There is no doubt that this article was created by a bad-faith actor who deserves to be blocked, but in this case it appears a bad-actor created an article on a notable subject. I don't agree with Ritchie's assessment of G5 as a "silly reason", not even in this particular instance. It would be a problem if he had restored it and left it as it was when deleted, but instead he has been devoting time to make it an article worthy of an encyclopedia. So the end result will probably be the same whether or not it was restored or re-created. I really do think some of our best editors have better things to do than to tear into each other. The bad guys are THAT way. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when an admin tries to improve the encyclopaedia... which is, apparently, what we are all here for...

(edit conflict)x3 (talk page stalker) From what I see, all Ritchie did is saw an article that was deleted just because the creator happened to be a sock, and restored it so that he could work on it and improve the encyclopedia. I don't see how instantly calling out "admin abuse!" is helpful or necessary. After all, WP:IAR is a policy. I feel like this whole thread with so much drama is unnecessary and extreme.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on that. Is the encyclopaedia better for Ritchie's intervention? If so, then the rest is all moot, and the dramah unnecessary. - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(As an epilogue, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Robert Morse closed unanimously as "keep") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Herman / Fashion Designer: Page deletion

Dear Ritchie333,

Apologies for sending this again in another section. I hadn't seen a reply and wanted to make sure it did not get lost in the chain/ sea of topics. Again, thank you for your time.

Thank you again for your help and I hope you has a great weekend! I was traveling and apologize for my tardy reply. I totally understand. I included below some links regarding Greg in this message. He has a number of articles on him, however, many of his published accomplishments predated 'Google' and are not avail online. Hopefully these are of some help, and at the very least could aid you in helping to establish a page for him and his name back into the Wikipedia world. If you need any additional info, please let me know. Again, you've been extremely helpful in this process and I thank you very much. Have a wonderful Monday!

Best,

Robyn

～～～～

https://books.google.com/books?id=_F0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=greg+herman+designer++los+angeles+times&source=bl&ots=5G6tYVCcAG&sig=Rzc1qMyBZ98oNCfIJpHnzrGkL1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiil9iMvd7dAhUBCDQIHQ-TAisQ6AEwA3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=greg%20herman%20designer%20%20los%20angeles%20times&f=false

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/30184

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/sep/03/news/ls-18970

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/23/business/fi-13336 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.134.91 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've put something together in Draft:Greg Herman (fashion designer) using the sources supplied, and submitted it for review; we'll see what happens next. I don't think the problem is really pre-dating the Internet era; it's actually right on the edge of it. The real issue is that there are several other people called Greg Herman who are in the news more recently, and they drown out the relevant hits. If I search for "Greg Herman Girlshop" I get something relevant. Some of the content baffles me a bit, I can get starting a business and pricing and celebrities wanting to buy stuff, but I'm looking right now at a sweater I bought in M&S over 20 years ago, and a laptop bag next to it that I've had for even longer. I'm just not "up" in the fashion world, though I'd like to think I scrub up nicely in a suit if required :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ritchie333 for all the help and drafting an article. I noticed the other 'Greg Herman's' as well. LOL--- that's when sweaters were made well. Everything was better 20 years ago ;) -- That's why it lasted so long! Same goes for the laptop bag. Plus, everything comes full cycle so that sweater is probably in again! Nothing better than a good suit!! I totally agree!!!

I did notice the article submission came back and was declined. That's unfortunate. However, it can be resubmitted. Any thoughts on what would need to be done for it to be approved?

Thanks again!!

Best,

Robyn

～～～～ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.134.91 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect?

Dear Ritchie333: In a few minutes of review, you've redirected the Article Steve Watkins (Kansas politician), which effectively deleted the entire content which has been discussed since the article was created. Frankly I'm baffled as to why you thought that action was appropriate. Six editors, Paul MacDonald, David McEddy, Four Violas, Sandnsea, one unsigned (I can look at the history and determine which other editor that was), voted to keep, though Sandnsea wrote "Comment" instead of "Keep," but his or her intent was clear, and myself. Two editors voted to redirect, SportingFlyer and Bearcat. Enos733, voted to merge. Two voted to delete, JohnPackLambert (who by implication chose to insult those who edited it)and Auslander. The discussion in part addressed a content issue, and changes were made to the article taking that into consideration. The article was considerably expanded in the time that the AfD discussion went on. So you seem to have disregarded the opinions of six editors, some of whom weighed in more than once to discuss the issues, and some of whom discussed the specific WP policies involved, as well as the editors' labor that went into creating, suggesting modifications, and expanding the article. In my opinion, you should undo your action. You can respond to me, undo your action, or respond to all those who have weighed in, at your discretion, but I think you've made a mistake which disregards those who have edited the article and those who took the AFD under consideration. I look forward to your response. Thank you. Activist (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"So you seem to have disregarded .... the editors' labor that went into creating, suggesting modifications, and expanding the article". Well, I'm sorry you feel like that, but I spent time and effort expanding and improving The House of Fine Art and it was deleted regardless. Anyway, AfDs are always closed based on the weight of the arguments, not the number of people who made them. Specifically, SportingFlyer said "This isn't promotional, but it's almost written like a WP:BLP1E hit piece" while Bearcat said "Candidates aren't handed a notability freebie just because of what historic firsts they will represent if they go on to win an election they haven't won yet." Then there was a significant discussion and disagreement on Paul McDonald's vote. I concluded that the "delete" (and other not-"keep") !votes used well-thought rationales that could not be discounted, and thus, as I said in the close, a redirect seems the option that will satisfy most parties. The article hasn't been deleted; the history is here and the last pre-redirect version is here. It hasn't disappeared into a black hole. When the mid-terms are over, I think people would be more comfortable to restore it back to a full article that clearly satisfies the notability guidelines for politicians. Specifically, I just looked at the current predictions, and Watkins is on odds of just under 50:50 of winning, so I would say therefore there's about a 50:50 chance you'll have the article back within a month. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents closing an AFD is almost always a tough job and this one is no exception. Where I disagree with the closing is the reasoning provided that it was the "option most people will be comfortable with" == what concerns me there is that it seems that the decision to close was made on the basis of a perception popular vote; on top of which it wasn't. Wikipedia is not a democracy and determining consensus is much harder than that--"appeasement" really shouldn't be the notability standard. Please reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Activist and Paulmcdonald: I'm sorry the article was redirected—as you can see from the centralized discussion I linked, I think it's a mistake on several levels to discount reliable independent sources that happen to be election-related when ascertaining the notability of politicians. However, you can also see that there's a rough consensus against me on this, especially among editors who actually regularly participate in politician-related AfDs. There was a corresponding divide on this key question (whether to discount election-related coverage) in the AfD, and I do think Ritchie's reading of the consensus was very reasonable per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Consensus, given that it doesn't seem to be the case that the wider community agrees that the BASIC and NPOL guidelines should be applied literally.
At this point, I'd recommend thinking about what information from the history of the redirected article is most important—as judged by the number, scope, and depth of sources talking about it, per WP:DUE—and adding a little as needed to the barebones bio at United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Kansas,_2018#District_2, as well as doing the same for Paul Davis and the Libertarian candidate. If there's important info about the general campaign specifically, such as in the "most negative and competitive" U.S. News article, use it along with some related material to make a paragraph or two under §General election. Again, I'm sorry the article wasn't kept, but I think hosting a subset of the material at the election page is a good solution and a better place to direct your energy. Good luck! FourViolas (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amid the heightened emotions, I believe there is merit on both sides of the argument. However, I see no benefit from continuing discussion here. If another user wants to take it to take it to deletion review I would support that move but I'm not that enthusiastic about it myself. As a side note--sending something to DRV is simply part of due process and is not meant as a personal attack. I've had closings go to DRV that I closed and they were overturned--the end result is what is best for Wikipedia. That's what we're looking for ultimately (at least, I hope!!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, my advice would be to wait a month and if see Watkins wins the midterm in Kansas,. If he does, the article will be restored because he will meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. Or, if (heaven forbid) he "does a Kavanaugh" then the same will happen. That will be easier than a feud on DRV. In the meantime, consider Draft:Betsy Dirksen Londigran who is another midterm candidate who doesn't even have an article, just a one sentence draft! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "does a Kavanaugh" ??? That seems like you are putting a political agenda on your comment, and that's not appropriate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean if he does something to get sustained national news coverage for more than a week. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since the subject here has already done that, what does that say?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ritchie, regardless of the general issue, this particular one should be restored on the basis of the argument for sufficient present material. (for the general issue, there are better ones to use for the argument that we shouldn't include these) It needn't take a DelRev to do that. Paulmcdonald, if a Del Rev is necessary to get it restored, my style here is more appropriate if I argue in it rather than bring it. There's another way, though, if you can find addition material, write a draft including it. If there's enough, it would meet the objection and could be moved into mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, we currently have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilletta Jarvis; despite scrambling around for a couple of sources, I don't think I can save that candidate from deletion. Okay, Libertarians are not as notable as Republicans, that's just a plain old fact of life, but given the discussion there, I really don't feel comfortable about restoring Watkins' article unless we at least ping those who didn't !vote "keep" at the AfD to comment first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— xaosflux Talk 13:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to get this message? — xaosflux Talk 13:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I never saw an acknowledgement or a reply, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Electoral Commission. — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was busy with kids, hob-nobbing with Wikimedians in London and improving Women in Computing (which is coming along nicely) - I'll have a look this evening, hopefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hi, could you please help me with the article for Rossendale United F.C.? Best, JV5, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with? GiantSnowman and Dweller do a lot of football related article so may be able to advise better? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe Vitale 5. Take a look at some of our Featured Articles on football clubs, like Ipswich Town F.C. and Norwich City F.C.. The best quick answer is cite your sources. The article currently is very very lightly cited and we require claims to be cited from reliable sources. Someone could come along and delete whole chunks of the current article, particularly comments that make reference to living people, about whom we are very strict indeed. Hope that helps get you moving in the right direction. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Ha! :p ——SerialNumber54129 18:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Saturday Zoo

Hello! Your submission of Saturday Zoo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably better off asking Simon Adler or 78.26 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Luitpoldpark

On 18 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luitpoldpark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that passersby in Munich's Luitpoldpark may get soaked when a figure on the Pumuckl fountain (pictured) spits intermittently? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luitpoldpark. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Luitpoldpark), 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 thanks again for your help with this article! Mr Ernie (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, nice to see collaborative editing having a good result. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at 82.132.233.249's talk page.
Message added 13:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your GA nomination of London Bridge station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Bridge station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops

My bad - wasn’t paying attention when I created the archives for an article TP, and accidentally named it User talk:Angelique Rockas/Archive 1. I don’t see a canned reason for editor F-ups in the CSD list. Can you delete it, please? Atsme✍🏻📧 21:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)  Done I've bullied my way in here and deleted it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 78.26!! Atsme✍🏻📧 21:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Atsme, I had a bit of an attack of the sniffles yesterday (if you have kids, you tend to catch things from their school via them every now and again) but I'm on the mend now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus or merge/redirect?-- OWZAT

Hi Ritchie, admire your work, but I wonder what happened in closing this AfD. I think that the outcome (merger and redirect) was much better than simply deleting it (regardless of what seemed as an lopsided !vote for delete: 15 over 10, plus one merger). But perhaps there is some arcane knowledge to which I am not privy to as to why it ended up the way it did. Thanks for entertaining my question Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 23:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing this with Edwardx at the last meetup at Pendrel's Oak. We've both known about Chitty for ages, but the AfD did have a positive result in that we got more information about this mysterious cricketer, and a merge / redirect means the information is not lost. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I agree that the outcome was an improvement. I just was not sure how it came to it when there was a !vote for a different thing. In other words, my question was also to learn about policy. So, I guess that after the !vote admins, with some consultation, can relocate the data whenever they think is better. Glad this time was in the hands of judicious admins. On a side note, the topic of Chitty is one for historical research. As we found out, there are mentions of other, older Chittys. Cheers. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 14:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of London Bridge station

The article London Bridge station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:London Bridge station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! That featured Theydon Bois on drums and Stamford Brook on bass. Simon Adler (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theydon Bois and Stamford Brook sound more like characters that Chuffer Dandridge might have once shared a stage with in the 1953 production of Hamlet at the Dovercourt Reparatory Theatre, along with compatriots Bradfield Heath and Hurstbourne Tarrant. [2] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgetting, of course.... star of stage, screen and Music Hall variety.... Dicky "Touch" Tingles. -- Yours ever, (agent to the stars) Charles Boyes Rent'em 123 (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he was connected to my good friend Arnos Grove. I recall we once did a revue with the Seven Sisters .... the queue for the bathroom was horrendous.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Ah yes, Anus Grave, I remember him well... very big in Fouronnes, by all accounts. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as everyone knows, the plural of ANUS is ANI.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Oh no.... not more WP:AN/I??! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appointed as ACE2018 Commissioner

Hi, Ritchie! You have been appointed by the community as an Electoral Commissioner for WP:ACE2018. The coordination pages can be found at WP:COORD18 and WT:COORD18. Don't forget to sign the confidentiality agreement if you haven't already. Congrats!  Swarm  talk  02:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I tick the box marked "gift aid"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for People's Vote

On 21 October 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article People's Vote, 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. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear it's very nice in Harrogate this time of year.... “What problem? What is a hard border? Do you want 100,000 troops, a million troops, a Trump-style wall?" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't obvious, I was on the march and I thought "well at least I'm going to try and stick my photo on the main page"? It is a conflict of interest? Possibly, though it did have a consensus amongst other editors to get it on here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, could you please take a more accurate headcount while you're there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wish this article was a bit better as I would link to it every time someone at ERRORS complains that the size of a crowd is too high/too low/propaganda. IT's just not that easy to count a crowd.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is back

You don't even have to take them for a walk!

Hello, just thought I would let you know that the editor that I reported for editwarring here is back and making the same kinds of of against consensus edits and OWN type comments. Totally understand if there is nothing to do, but figured I would let you know since you closed it as stale. zchrykng (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one edit today, so no edit-warring sanctions are necessary just yet. In the mean, I'll give Sagaciousphil a yell (I've got the number for the Royal Inverness Home for Retired Dog-Loving Wikipedians) and see if they can advise on what the lead should look like. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, great, thanks! I really don't know anything about the subject, just got involved from recent changes patrol. Getting someone who actually knows the subject involved would be great. zchrykng (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid my knowledge of dogs extends as far as a) they've got four legs and go "woof" b) Why not get a cat instead? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not allergic to dogs.... Not that I have one (anymore). My only pets are rats, now. And they are awesome. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of my friends keeps pet snakes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I used to have a pet snake. Even though lots of teenagers had pet snakes (well, lots of cool teenagers), people would always be shocked that I did. I'd tell them about Herman and they'd be like "WHY WOULD YOU KEEP A PET RATTLESNAKE??" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, snakes do need care and affection like any other pet. Obviously you have to keep them in a confined space, occasionally letting them out to show everyone else they're harmless. Compared to them roaming free in their natural habitat, it's a bit of a raw deal. It's not like anyone says "put the snake out" is it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like anyone says "put the snake out" is it? That means something very different where I'm from. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is colloquial if living in Sheffield to say "I'm going over t' Snake to Manchester". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
zchrykng Right, the word from Phil is (ZOMG OFF-WIKI CANVASSING!) get rid of Dogbreedinfo.com, Mollosserdogs and Spartan dogs - they're all unreliable / self-published. The Daily Telegraph source is useful, otherwise go with whatever good book sources you can find. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Saturday Zoo

Hello! Your submission of Saturday Zoo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Victoria line

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Victoria line you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vincent60030 -- Vincent60030 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(this GA review terminates at ..... Walthamstow Central) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAAAHHAAHAHAHA VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sliver records and A7

Hi, regarding your decline of Sliver records on the basis of "has sources": a spam-sized flood of links to the company's own promotional materials and routine listings (see Steve Martin in The Jerk finding his name in the phone book and crying in glee "I'm famous!" or something like that) isn't remotely a claim of significance. Instead, it's pretty much an abuse, close to, if not squarely situated in, G11 territory. Largoplazo (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - I think an A7 decline was correct, not because it has sources (everything there is directly tied to the company), but because it "claims" to have released material by several notable acts. Note the quote marks, because those articles don't mention Silver Records at all, so has Silver merely re-released material in compilation form? I think Speedy decline was correct, but I'd !vote "delete" in an AfD. Unfortunately, the name of the company will make it nearly impossible to search for reliable sources, not that I think they are very likely to exist. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims it released material by The Generators; that alone disqualifies it for A7 as we would need to investigate to see if the claim can be verified. If it can, the label is likely to be notable by virtue of having commercially successful bands on its roster. The page is certainly not long enough to qualify for G11. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, not those old has-been Progo dudes... but these young hipster Pogo dudes (??) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. in case you ever need to know.... this is how the Stock Exchange works (... can also highly recommend "Kitten Stomper", in case you haven't seen it.... how the RSPCA works). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Football tables

Hi Ritchie. I contacted you a while back re- the Beatles White Album. This item is nothing to do with you, but unfortunately I can't see how to get it corrected by using the edit facility on the Wikipedia page. You are the only 'contact' I have!

It's an incorrect Football League Table for the (English) 1967-68 season. I'll give the details so that if you could kindly forward to the correct person(s) they have all the info., though it's pretty self explanatory.

Wrong table is shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967%E2%80%9368_Football_League

Errors: (scroll to First Division Table) Liverpool (3rd) and Leeds United (4th, also winners of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in 1967-68) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, NOT the 1967-68 tournament (!)

Chelsea (6th) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. According to the table they did not qualify for European football the following (1968-69) season.

Newcastle United (10th) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. According to the table they did not qualify for European football the following (1968-69) season.

Nottingham Forest (11th) qualified for the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. Again, wrong season. The final league position in 1967-68 may determine whether you qualify for European football the next season, in this case 1968-69.

However, this alternate Wikipedia page also shows the 1967-68 First Division table and it is 100% correct, and also gives an explanation under the table as to who qualified and why, shown as Notes [a] [b] [c] and [d]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967%E2%80%9368_in_English_football

So the correct First Division table shown on the second link simply needs to be pasted over the incorrect First Division table in the first link.

Unfortunately I couldn't see how to do that via the Edit tab, so I bothered you. Sorry about that.

Regards Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1959 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hey, Keith, I'm not a football fan myself, but I know wikitables pretty well. If you have some sources that show that your suggested changes are correct (or if Ritchie can just endorse your suggested changes), then I'd be happy to make the changes for you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't know much about football and I just get annoyed when tables don't work. However, newly-minted admin Sir Sputnik is, I believe, familiar with both, and may be able to help. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith1959: I'm by no means an expert on this era of football, but it all looks correct to me. Based on this source cited in the article on the 1967–68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, Leeds, Liverpool and Nottingham certainly appear to be the English entrants into that competition. Am I missing something here? Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at that table, dam it's confusing!! Govvy (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The table has been amended to show Nottingham Forest (11th) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. As of yesterday, this table showed them qualified for the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. This would have been impossible lol. Think about it. Nottingham Forest did not compete in the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. They competed in the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, and this was acheived by finishing second in the First Division at the end of the 1966-67 season.

Sir Sputnik - you're quite right with your link. It shows Nottingham Forest competed in the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, but they acheived this by finishing second in the First Division in 1966-67. (Sorry to repeat myself but I can't understand the confusion here) They did not compete in the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup tournament. The four English clubs who did were Liverpool, Leeds United, Chelsea & Newcastle United. http://www.rsssf.com/ec/ec196869.html#icfc

I'm repeating myself again here by borrowing from my first message yesterday, but Wikipedia are already showing the correct final table for the English First Division at the end of the 1967-68 season on another page. It's found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967%E2%80%9368_in_English_football

It correctly shows Manchester City (champions) and Manchester United (winners of the 1967-68 European Cup tournament, therefore the current holders) qualified for the 1968-69 European Cup tournament.

It correctly shows Liverpool (third) and Leeds United (fourth) as qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. Note, Leeds United won the inter-Cities Fairs Cup in 1967-68, so the English First Division had four participants in the 1968-69 tournament, the default three based on final league positions at the end of the 1967-68 season, plus Leeds united as the current holders.

It correctly shows Chelsea (sixth) as qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup.

It correctly shows West Bromwich Albion (eighth) qualified for the 1968-69 Cup Winners Cup (having defeated Everton in the Final of the 1967-68 FA Cup tournament).

It correctly shows Newcastle United (tenth) as qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup.

It correctly notes that Everton (fifth) failed to qualify for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup due to Liverpool's third place finish, as per the one-club one-city rule.

It correctly notes that Tottenham Hotspur (seventh) and Arsenal (ninth) failed to qualify for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup due to Chelsea's sixth place finish as per the one-club one-city rule.

This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967%E2%80%9368_in_English_football is correct.

This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967%E2%80%9368_Football_League is incorrect and misleading.

Final repeat of what I've already suggested, that the incorrect table is simply replaced by the correct table with the applicable notes of explanation.

Cheers, Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1959 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC) --Keith1959 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, forgot to mention, it clearly notes that Nottingham Forest (eleventh) did not qualify for the 1968-69 edition of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, or the 1968-69 European Cup, or the 1968-69 Cup Winners Cup. Nothing, just finished eleventh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1959 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) --Keith1959 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And also forgot to sign the above 2 messagesKeith1959 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Victoria line

The article Victoria line you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Victoria line for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vincent60030 -- Vincent60030 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Witch's Promise

On 27 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Witch's Promise, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "The Witch's Promise" is the only Jethro Tull single to feature a Mellotron? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Witch's Promise. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Witch's Promise), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Victoria line

The article Victoria line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Victoria line 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 Vincent60030 -- Vincent60030 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Saturday Zoo

On 28 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Saturday Zoo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jonathan Ross in Saturday Zoo (1993) was described as "humour-resistant Teflon"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saturday Zoo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Saturday Zoo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that should be "humour-wesistant Teflon"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Renee Powell

On 29 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Renee Powell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Renee Powell was the first female golfer to compete in a British men's tournament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Renee Powell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Renee Powell), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was fix up the article a bit, the main shot was by Megalibrarygirl who got the free photo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here y'go

The Tip of the Day Barnstar
A forensic dissection of the many meanings of Fuck Off——SerialNumber54129 11:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now...fuck off. ——SerialNumber54129 11:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How shall we fuck off, oh Lord? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interface Edit Requests - Bot Table

Hello Ritchie333, as an interface administrator I wanted to let you know that there are two pages you should consider watch-listing: Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard and User:AnomieBOT/IPERTable. The later is a bot-generated table of all outstanding interface edit requests that you may be able to handle. Thank you for your continuing support of Wikipedia! — xaosflux Talk 14:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Carol Kaye

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carol Kaye you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ghulam Moinuddin Gilani

Hey, you deleted the page Syed Ghulam Moinuddin Gilani after deadlock on its deletion request talk. I wanted permission to create a new page under the same title as I have better citations now.

Zaydbinumar (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaydbinumar: Sure, restored to Draft:Syed Ghulam Moinuddin Gilani. Follow instructions at the top of the page to see what to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've submitted it for review. These are all the citations I could provide. The mainstream media wasn't so developed in Pakistan that time. He, his father, grandfather and son were popular around the world and are their mausoleum is visited daily by hundred of devotees from around the world. Zaydbinumar (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Trainor article

Hi. An interesting edit was made at the Meghan Trainor article 3 hours after I nominated it for GA status. It changed Trainor's profession from singer-songwriter (which there is long-standing consensus for [3]) to singer and songwriter. Do you think this constitutes an IBAN violation since I had GA nominated it hours before this? Thankful for your help. Will add a ping for Drmies since they're familiar with this situation.--NØ 17:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MaranoFan, just looked at your contributions after editing Mariah's album article so hope you don't mind. Ritchie, Marano and I have had our differences (especially of late) so I'm not on her "side" really at all (or anyone's), but looking at this objectively: Winkelvi was basically told explicitly to stay away from MaranoFan when reminded of their IBAN at ANI when Marano was unblocked, but this editing not long after her looks pretty much like they have just disregarded that and gone straight back to it while dancing around explicitly addressing her edits or her. I'm sure Winkelvi will say it was on their watchlist or whatever, but this looks like straight-up IBAN violation and targeting of an editor—I've had the latter done to me plenty of times. The discussion clearly shows "singer-songwriter" was preferred in a discussion and Winkelvi doesn't like it so is basically violating an IBAN to restore "singer and songwriter". Looking at WP:IBAN, it looks there were indirect references to her ("please discuss on talk page rather than revert back", a directive to her as an assumption that she would) and they basically reverted her indirectly ("by other means") by partially undoing what she had added. Ss112 18:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They've now taken to adding their own view via sources that are irrelevant to the article to contradict consensus on what it should state: [4]. It's like going around to every article that has "singer-songwriter" listed as an occupation or in the lead and adding those sources to basically say elsewhere that "well, technically they're not a singer-songwriter because they don't meet these subjective criteria". Winkelvi has not touched this article in at least two years but are now extensively editing to undo significant parts of what MaranoFan has done. I'm no expert, but that seems like an IBAN violation to me. There's no other real explanation. At the very least, they should be warned away from editing topics that MaranoFan has just edited. Ss112 20:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The article is now being rapidly changed in what is seemingly a bid to make it unstable before its GAN. An infobox image change has also taken place without any talk page discussion.—NØ 20:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All about that bass

@MaranoFan: Sorry for the belated response, but I have blocked Winkelvi indefinitely as a clear and obvious violation of the two-way interaction ban. If you want somebody to do the GA review, I can give it a go, or see if one of the GA stalwarts at Women in Red like SusunW are interested in doing a popular culture review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I'm not withdrawing the GA nomination as of now so anyone is free to pick up the review. You're welcome to, if you would like to review it!--NØ 13:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let the dust settle on the AN thread first, but I did the GA review for Madonna, and helped out at the FACs for Katy Perry and Lady Gaga, so it's not completely unprecedented. Plus I do confess to liking this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Journo Hoping To Have A Chat

Hello, I'm a Sydney based journalist and I am writing a feature story on Wiki editors and administrators who make changes/reports of high profile people's deaths. Any chance you can contact me via email if you're keen to learn more? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journo10 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't email you as you don't appear to have the "Allow other users to email me" flag checked on your preferences. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Street station 1920.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old Street station 1920.jpg, 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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Waterloo station 1848.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic . Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Oxford Street 1882.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic . Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:The Angel Islington 1890s.jpg

"Get you gone, you dwarf, You minimus of hindering knotgrass made, You bead, you acorn!"

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic . Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to re-examine this one. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...User:Iridescent's immortal words spring to mind. ——SerialNumber54129 09:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, @Iridescent: can I get a consensus to block ShakespeareFan for disruptive editing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
^^^+1 ——SerialNumber54129 10:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have a fuller discussion on this, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that a lot of requests for better sourcing have been made recently, is because in good faith I was trying to bring the sourcing quality of media on Wikipedia up to a higher standard. It seems in this instance, I may have been more than a little forward in requesting additional information.

However, the reasons why I was wanting to raise the sourcing and metadata quality are threefold :

  1. The pending implementation of structured data on Commons (and other projects), if the information is already present on Wikipedia in a semi-structured form (such as completed {{information}} blocks , this makes it easier to convert.
  2. The proposed changes in European copyright policy, which could have made certain platforms more directly responsible for copyright violations. Whilst for the most part Wikipedia is understood to have certain exemptions from the proposed changes, being able to "prove" something is directly from a public domain or freely licensable source is useful, in defending against claims from entities that don't necessarily understand 'free' content collaborative projects (and that they very strongly attempt to respect copyrights).
  3. So that media , that the uploader, other contributors and potential re-users implicitly assume IS under a given license, is definitively confirmed as such, so that it can (eventually) be transferred to Wikimedia Commons, without their being a move, delete local, time passes, deleted at Commons on a pedantic technicality, resulting in the loss of the resource.

If processing a lot of images in this way is "disruptive", I'd appreciate some mentoring support or guidelines on how to make it less so, especially given that as a human reviewer, I can (and have) made mistakes or errors of analysis and reasoning which result in tags or notifcations which may be percived as badgering (or vexatious) as you and others have described.

Sure, let's chat. Now let me get this right, ShakespeareFan00, you had some questions about some of my uploads you wanted to ask. That's fine, and had you left a personalised message, or just formatted the reference yourself, there would be no issue. What I am not happy about is you spamming people's talk pages - and I use this definition of spam - "the same thing lots and lots of times". I have WP:MCQ on my watchlist and have commented there several times - so patronisingly telling me about it is at best going to be ignored, and at worst going to get you mocked for being insincere and reckless. Now, most of these issues are easy to fix, and in the case of the Old Street image I was sure I was right, or at least could back my views up with experts (and despite what Gove says, no we haven't had enough of them), but new users aren't necessarily going to have the motivation to do that. So when I go to an editathon, and tell people "Don't upload images, it's more hassle than it's worth, use Flickr, Picasa, Instagram, anything else", that's why. Do you understand why you are disruptive? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, could I please request you refrain from asking people to not upload images. Yes, sometimes it could be a hassle in some cases where the copyright is unclear, but it’s no reason to encourage people to stop contributing to Commons (or enwiki file space if they upload it locally). Thanks, Vermont (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, I don't say that to new recruits, but I think saying it to Andrew D after the editathon finishes (or to SN51429 in the pub over a pint) is absolutely fine. I also think it's fine to have the opinion that Flickr and Instagram are better than Wikimedia Commons because they are more popular and used by a wider demographic of the population. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) In my experience, it's nearly impossible for new users to upload images successfully on Wikipedia because of disruptive editors like ShakespeareFan00. This is despite numerous policies like WP:BITE, WP:BURO, WP:IAR and WP:NLT, which indicate that we should be relaxed and tolerant about this. Note, by the way, that Flickr is changing its charging policy and is about to start deleting many free images. I expect that this will trigger a corresponding wave of deletions here, where the image copyright status is based on Flickr. The WMF ought to become more accomodating and make it easier for editors to upload images from their phones but we still don't have a properly-supported suite of apps. This should be a top priority on the development wishlist but that's another bureaucratic maze and I'm not seeing anything relevant currently. Andrew D. (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That will need some urgent work to archive the file information pages on Flickr before they're going. I'm hoping @Cyberpower678: who runs the Internet Archive bot might have some thoughts on how to handle this impending clusterfuck. Nick (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I can submit a crawl request to the Wayback Machine. I just need the domain/complete list of pages, that need to be archived and a due date.
@Andrew D: - My "political" views on Flikr's definition of a "free" service are not printable here.
On your other substantive concerns, I do follow what you are saying, but would ask for clarification what you would consider actively (or even passively) "disruptive", given that are some aspects of image policy that I was led by other contributors to understand were less negotiable. (Wikipedia can't host obvious copyright violations for example). However on the other hand, I've encountered more than once uploaders that have uploaded material in good faith, but don't understand copyright complexities (sigh). It's a shame that apparently due to the way US copyright practice works, the WMF can't have paid patrollers to proactive review certain media, meaning projects like Wikipedia have to rely on semi-knowledgeable volunteers (who aren't necessarily more aware than the uploaders they are patrolling (rant mode suppressed) ).
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not really what you do, SFan, but how you do it. In the vast majority of cases here, you could have probably fixed the issues in about two minutes; instead you've basically left a big load of redundant struck-through text on my talk page. What was the point of that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying 'slow down' and apply more care, agreed, but that could be asked of anyone patrolling images.
If you are saying 'do more research' before tagging, then I would argue that sometimes it is not easy to determine things like more appropriate sourcing from the file description page, or an on-wiki context (which I had been using recently), and that deferring to the original uploader may well be the most appropriate course of action, given they are more familiar with the off-wiki sources they used. I suppose we may have a difference of opinion, as to the respective priorities of various backlogs. (For example, many images that are without "machine readable" sourcing, are not without sourcing, it's just that various mechanisms don't recognise a 'free-form' structure.. This is another reason for converting a LOT of uplaods to use {{information}} blocks.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to go from here

Yes, I can see EXACTLY why a lot of similar, notifications could be percived as disruptive (I've had the situation of mass notification walls happen to me at Commons.) (The same logic could be applied to CSD notifcation walls as well). So on that basis, time to pause and reconsider how to proceed (if at all).
Generally to find media that needed to be examined (or which needed meta-data). I've been using a combination of the upload log, (which I had also been using to find material which was already well sourced and suitable for commons BTW) and a query here, https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18892. In a past comment, someone had mentioned that rather than the scattered evaluation of images (by type of issue), it might be better to do analysis 'per user', which is an approach I've sometimes used when trying to identify media that was commons suitable (the logic here being that if an uploader has already got a few 'free' license images, others by them are likely to follow a pattern.)
In most instances where {{information}} was lacking ( identifed by the query noted previously), I'd added an information block based on the infromation on the file description page, (and on other context on wiki, such as where a user had transcluded the image, and captions etc..). Where the sourcing wasn't clear, I've attempted to only use CSD in obvious absences, in more ambiguous situations I've tried to use {{bsr}} or some templates of my own creation like {{img-unclaimed}}. (I recently created {{bsr-old}} in anticipation of finding media which is almost certainly PD, but for whatever reasons Wikipedia doesn't currently have definitive sourcing, such as pre 1923 postcards to give one example). In respect of {{img-unclaimed}}, I'd been using the wording here User:ShakespeareFan00/Un-fileclaim to notify uploaders. (I will note that this template DOES need updating to be able to cope with multiple requests, as the approach I'd been using of using one notifcation for the first file found, and then a list following it for subsequent entries isn't ideal.)

I do think someone else needs to review the wording of some templates (And possibly the advice on when to use them), TWINKLE also needs an overhaul, (but of course the users of semi automated tools are still ultimately responsible for HOW and WHERE they are used).

Also would it be possible to have a multi-image/issue selector tool? That way the "wall" of notications could be be avoided, as the tool would let various issues be selected en-masse, and an image patroller could "batch" up requests, into ONE notifcation, perhaps for some uploaders containing ALL the media with issues that had been identified or flagged.

Alternatively (And possibly combined with the above), perhaps an upload "dashboard" (An extension of Special:ListFiles) for users would be helpful, so that rather than seeing a wall of notifcations on the talk page, you get a 'bell' style notification in the UI, which links to the relevant concern in the image dashboard. This would also allow for the consideration that some people don't read their talk pages often, but do respond to the 'bell' or 'tray icons. (Not all CSD notifications or image tagging operations generate notifications, my custom notifcations)

Perhaps we can discuss this in more detail, or are you able to summarise some of the things I rasise into an RFC? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a tool on Commons for preforming batch tasks such as this based on category or uploader. You can use it to nominate for speedy deletion, start a mass deletion discussion, or even add custom text (such as cleanup templates) on an unlimited number of files, while leaving a single standard or customized message for a user. Sounds like we just need to get someone who knows how to computer to import VisualFileChange over to enwiki. GMGtalk 12:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
VisualFileChange at Commons, is only part of the soloution, VFC can't do multiple tags per image, or per batch as I understood it..

If someone is able to extend VFC, so that it can be used as "per uploader", "multi-image", "multi-issue", one mass notifcation tool though ... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can certainly do multiple tags per image, you just add custom text and insert {{no no no}} {{god no why}} {{please no more}} and it applies whatever templates to each file. GMGtalk 12:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I perhaps didn't quite explain things fully, VFC works on a 'batch' of images to apply the "same" set of issues. What's needed is a tool that can see a batch of images , and if needed apply 'differing' tags (by user selection to each image in the batch. Some CSD are applied slightly differently if you have different licens tags.. Some Tags need date= tag applied ( or on one of mine placed= tags, and so on. Once a set of images and associated tags are logged, the tool I am describing should generate ONE BIG notification covering all the affected media and issues, rather than a wall of notifcations like TWINKLE does when patrolling a lot of images.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionaly, The previous version of TWINKLE (and FURME), used to have functionality to generate {{information}} blocks. The current version doesn't. When it was updated previously there were plans to integrate this functionality (and that of FURME which generated boiler-plate Non free use rationales for certain types of well defined rationale), but these seem to have either stalled or been abbandoned. I have had to add {{information blocks manually for each media file I've examined recently, which is time consuming.
At one time there was also a bot pulling 'captioning' information for 'freely' licensed images, from Article pages where the media file was used. This is something that an {{information}} block adder for TWINKLE should have.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moving discussion of technical hurdles to WP:VPT. GMGtalk 12:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially dead source for File:The 1914 Cambridge Boat Race crew by Christine Broom.jpg

Hello, and thank you (possibly belatedly) for your contribution to Wikipedia.

Whilst it's almost certainly, not something you could have necessarily foreseen when you uploaded, it appears some media you previously uploaded appears to be currently sourced to a dead link. This isn't your fault as linkrot occurs on a regular basis.

I am leaving this message to encourage you to revisit this upload with a view to finding an archived copy of the media (such as from a site like) archive.org, or to provide additional information which would allow a replacement to be located if needed.

Please consider revisiting it and replace the reference with a link to an archived copy on site such as archive.org, or provide additional information which would allow a replacement source to be located.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further please use the Talk page for the media concerned.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating this... Should be good for Commons, based on the dates.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully

There are at least half a dozen things wrong with this comment. In order: 1) Volunteer project, nobody is holding him at gunpoint forcing him to deal with the vandal. It's his choice whether he does so or not. That's true of editors, and it's true of admins. 2) Unless his parents are entirely incompetent, they will ask what him the hell he is doing and then have their jaws smack the floor when they find out that Wikipedia allows porn on articles linked from the main fucking page. Seriously, why on God's green Earth aren't TFAs and anything else linked to from the main page at least semi-protected? That's a reputation hit for Wikipedia, not for the kid... unless they conclude that their kid is the vandal... but that's beside the point. 3) He's sixteen, the likelihood that he's seen worse stuff then that by now is very nearly 100%. No citation needed because BLUE. 4) He has rollback rights, he can't be "caught" mid-revert because there is no mid to speak of. Even if there was a mid to speak of, i.e. manual revert, then he'd be in source editing mode and the only thing his parents would see is text. Alright, I only have a third of a dozen criticisms, but I felt the need to criticize the arguments because they are unconvincing. Actually, 5) He could be fighting the vandal without admin rights, and his parents could still catch him "mid-revert" (presuming that a mid to speak of existed... which it does not). Right, 5/12ths of a dozen problems. Other than that, I think we could all see the snow falling into the volcano from base camp. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading too much into this. I just wanted to illustrate the point that adminship is not a laugh-a-minute cabaret show, and some of it (particularly towards the vandalism and sockpuppetry end) is genuinely unpleasant, so he may want to rethink his priorities over what he wants to do here. I can't speak for anyone else, but as a parent I'm going to look fondly back at my kids' pre-teen years. Yeah, kids grow up, and jerking off to bad quality porn is not actually evil compared to what else could happen, but it's really not something as a dad I like to dwell on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had some conception that your point was about the position and it's lack of grandness (admins are janitors, not CEOs type thing). I just saw too many holes with that specific way of making the point. In as far as the substance of the matter, I'm on the same page with you though. I don't really know how to formulate it, but, as a general rule, I do prefer editors who write to those who go into CV. Particularly so if they're younger editors. I'm not sure if it's the muck of CV, or the game-like nature of it; but I get the vibes that CVers aren't so much serious about the encyclopedia as much as some semblance of authority gained from it. I don't if that makes sense. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The game-like nature sounds about right - I have described "Wikipedia as video game" as a class of editors before. To be honest, despite what people say elsewhere, I think we have sufficient admins working at AIV and we don't really need any more. If we're starved for anything, it's Files for Discussion and copyright cleanups. To take an analogy, when you get a "McJob" working in a fast food restaurant, you get a whole bunch of rules on what you should say to customers, call them "sir" (do they still do that?) and treat them respectively, lest you get fired. Because Wikipedia's voluntary, you can't do that to the, umm, less-mature editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Women in brewing

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Forever Cemetery

Regarding your posting here, I think this situation warrants a re-look. The two cited sources are the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Dallas Morning News, which don't appear to be gossip tabloids if you look at their Wikipedia entries. One of them is a major regional paper, and the other is among the top 20 papers in paid circulation nationwide in the United States as well as having won nine Pulitzer prizes. Concerningly, the "SKSLaw" account is a textbook WP:SPA account, having made a total of 7 edits, all to the Hollywood Forever Cemetery article, claiming that Brent Cassity has never been a part owner in Hollywood Forever Cemetery, and alleging that the material constitutes slander and defamation. "SKSLaw" is Stearns Kim Stearns, which is a litigation firm located in Torrance, California, about 25 miles from Hollywood Forever Cemetery (Google them to see their website, it's blacklisted on Wikipedia so I can't post the link here on your page). Their position that Brent Cassity has never been a part owner of the cemetery is contradicted by the two cited sources. Given that the two reliable sources support the contention that Cassity was indeed a part owner and that a Ponzi scheme was involved, can you articulate what the precise BLP violation was here with regard to the content at issue? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AzureCitizen: There are several factors at play here. I've no reason to believe the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Dallas Morning News are not generally reliable sources, although I can't access the articles outside the US. However, it seems a little unusual that a local paper in Missouri and Texas is referring to a criminal conviction in California without any more substantial coverage and it seems more likely they were just given the story from a press agency to fill space. (See WP:109PAPERS). As a general rule of thumb, I want to see coverage at the level of the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times before I think we can include it. That doesn't mean we can't partially restore some of the content (eg: just name checking he worked at the cemetery) at a later date, but it needs discussion first. In the case of BLPs, if in doubt, don't.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question isn't a BLP, it's just an article about a famous cemetery in California. Nonetheless, "defamatory" content should always be approached with caution, with priority first given to checking the facts and the reliable sources. In this situation, Cassity didn't work at the cemetery, he owned it (to be specific, he and his father owned National Prearranged Services, and NPS owned the Hollywood Forever Cemetery along with others). The St. Louis Post-Dispatch was following the story about the Cassity trial because NPS was physically located in Missouri, so the criminal charges had to be brought in federal court in St. Louis. The Ponzi scheme defrauded the victims of more than 450,000,000 USD (over 97,000 customers who had pre-purchased funeral arrangements). Cassity and his co-defendants were convicted of various felony charges and sent to federal prison (all public record, so there is no actionable libel/slander claim here because truth is an absolute defense to defamation). The text that the SPA account keeps trying to remove is "In 2010, Brent Cassity and his father, along with several others, were indicted for running a Ponzi-like scheme stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from pre-need funeral contracts. Authorities later found that the money the brothers invested in the cemetery came from the proceeds of the scheme." Given the above, what concerns (if any) would you continue to have about this content being included in the Hollywood Forever Cemetery article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BLP still applies anywhere living people are concerned; it isn't restricted to just biography articles. As stated above, what I'm concerned about is why so few sources have seen to pick up on this story if it's important enough to mention in the article. Compare and contrast with Kevin Trudeau, where a search for sources produces numerous hits about his criminal activities. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue here, however, is that the other party in the dispute, Kirbanzo, made no attempt to try and resolve it, but just reverted again and again, and broke 3RR themselves. So I could have blocked Kirbanzo and had policy on my side, but I don't think that would have been particularly productive, and preferred to just spell out the issues for them. Yes, Skslaw is here for a very specific reason, but that doesn't mean they haven't made a legitimate point, and we should stop and think before breaking out the banhammers. WP:DOLT has more information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem here with your admin judgement about what the facts were with regard to the edit warring situation; my concern here is that it looks like a SPA account looking to effect a desired outcome is falsely (or at least incorrectly) claiming that something is defamation, which bumps right up against the edge of the bright line rule against making legal threats. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a majority view, but until somebody actually says "the writ is in the post, suckers", we shouldn't bring WP:NLT down on people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Carol Kaye

The article Carol Kaye you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Carol Kaye for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current MaranoFan block

I'm all about the (fucking) bass!

Hi Ritchie, I believe you need to fix this. You specifically notified MaranoFan of the AN thread you opened on Winkelvi's IBan violation, and pointed her directly to the specific thread [5], which, like all notifications of noticeboard discussions, especially from admins, appears to be a direct invitation to participate in it. She then posted there four times [6], [7], [8] (self-reverted), [9], and got blocked by 28bytes for a month for her trouble. All of her posts, even her comment to MONGO, seem to be covered by WP:BANEX and by your notification to her of the thread. Please fix this. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a word; hopefully it'll get sorted out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and preferably within the week, or that's one fat GA review down the pan :D :p ——SerialNumber54129 12:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen you gush, or near-gush, despite what I read elsewhere about you, "your enthusiastic and near-gushing attitude about doing the GA for MF"... Can you point me to the gushing? I might learn something. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a sad situation because it sets a precident. When someone violates an IBAN that protects you, you will no longer be able to present evidence on wiki without fear of a block. I challenged User:28bytes who has ducked responsibility for the bad block. I'm of a mind to take them to ArbComm for this and seek to remove tools. I've got no special opinion or feelings for MF, it is the principle of the whole thing and the community can no longer trust 28bytes with tools if they are willing to block an editor who is only trying to stop abuse against them, then passes the buck to other Admins to deal with. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Carol Kaye

The article Carol Kaye you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Carol Kaye 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 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Congratulations Ritchie. It's great to see that one of the few female bassists is getting some attention. (I corresponded with her quite some time ago regarding whether one of my basses was worth keeping and she was very generous with her time.) Are you up for Suzi Quatro or Tina Weymouth? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&oldid=867351266"