User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 136

Archive 130

←

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

that slowing down thing...?

I know you are generally Mister-fancy-pants-Hammond-C3-organ-Prog rock and all that, but The Ruts' "Something That I Said" must have had some of the finest guitar of 1979. Do you know what that staccato slowing down thing is called, as at 2:18 to 2:28, in the bridge here?? Thanks. I think that song probably deserves an article, or at least a bigger mention somewhere. Stonking video. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Having had a listen, there's no effects or anything, it's simply picking the string with your finger close to it, so you can immediately mute it. It's easier to show in person than describe it in prose! As for the article, did the song chart? If it was featured on Top of the Pops (though citing a bootleg YouTube video is not exactly policy compliant, as it 'appens) it probably did, in which case the song will deserve an article per WP:NSONG. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Lol ok. Ummmm, I mean the time signature for those two guitar riffs slows down as the progression of nine(?) descending notes is played. Perhaps it's just syncopation. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh right. That's a triplet played over Common Time. Fairly standard in music notation, particularly classical, doesn't turn up in rock much, especially punk, where anything other than three chords over a straight 4/4 beat is viewed with suspicion. The other place I can recall it is the live ending to McFly's "Star Girl". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok. Maybe a series of descending triplets, then. Very tasty brass on that track. Another great pop band! And just look what happened to The Juddmeister! Many thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

And another place that springs to mind is towards the end of the guitar solo in "Light My Fire", more noticeable on live versions; also turns up in live renditions of "When the Music's Over". Looks like John Densmore liked triplets. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget to turn out the lights. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

p.s. Walk On By#The Stranglers version (1978) says "(with extended organ and guitar solos)". Was that a Korg M1? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a Hammond L-100 clean with no Leslie - which is why it sounds more like a Vox Continental for the solo and a Hohner Cembalet backing the guitar solo. Dave Greenfield later switched to the PPG Waveterm. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah thanks very much. I thought you might know the answer to that one. Strange not to have a bit of Leslie... Ding dong! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

A work of genius thanks, in large part to the incredible production. So there's Aretha on piano, and Spooner Oldham on electric piano. But he's also on that really subtle organ (first surfaces at 0.24)? Am guessing a Farfisa? Just makes that track for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it was. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Deleted page

Hi there can you please help me - i need to get back the file of the page you deleted and fix it. The page (World Rafting Federation) wasn't ambiguous advertising or promotion i need to understand what was wrong and fix it but i have no draft. Serioushaha (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I've put the deleted article in User:Serioushaha/World Rafting Federation. However, I would advise not using any of the page's contents to improve it. Rather, you'd need to start with sources of information first, and then base an article round those. Help:Your first article may have further information.

As a general note, creating a brand new article from scratch is one of the hardest tasks a new editor can face, and you are much better off attempting to improve coverage of existing articles first, such as spelling or grammar fixes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick answer and for your help! Serioushaha (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin IV

Thank you for correcting my edit on this page. You are correct, I should have looked at the body of the article to find the sourcing. Sorry for my mistake. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @JeffSpaceman: not sure if it compares to III. Fucking off to Wales and getting caned everyday was probably consequentially different to anything they achieved with II or V, although whether that was actually a bonus, I dunno. What say ye? ——Serial 21:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: For better or worse, it might have been a bonus. I mean, it DID result in one of their best albums... JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No problems. It does sound a bit POV, but it is cited to Dave Lewis, who is (IMHO) the best Zep source going; all others should be treated with suspicion. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark episode). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

At last a new slogan! This should reel them in... "Fuck off to Wales and get caned everyday"! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

List of Hammond organ players

I was thinking of adding Kerry Minnear of this great band of the 70s and 80s (as it appears to be his birthday today). But I was unsure what the criterion was. Would this source be a good one? I suspect he played Hammond on most of their albums, but I haven't checked all 45! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a particularly good source, being a Wordpress blog. The original Gentle Giant LPs seem to just credit him with "keyboards" generically, although Acquiring the Taste does have "organ" on a few of the credits. In fact, the whole article on the band and associated LPs could really do with some good references. Have there been any books written about them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is at least one. It seems this has three mentions of his Hammond organ. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ritchie333!

Happy New Year!

Ritchie333,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Monkeman259 (04:14, 7 January 2024)

how do you insert an image for the header? --Monkeman259 (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Help:Pictures gives a complete tutorial on how to add images to articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Page Review!

Dear @Ritchie333,

Requesting you to please review this page Draft:Viraj Ashwin and fix the Errors if there any for the Page Acceptance! Milli's Boy (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I generally don't have a clue about Indian subjects, though we have a lot of them on Wikipedia, so can't really help there. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

User:ThisIsaTest

I’m replying here rather than on the ANI thread as it’s not directly related to what’s being discussed there, but (as a non-sysop) I’m getting a MediaWiki exception when I try to view the logs for User:ThisIsaTest. I just wanted to check if you’d mind if I filed a Phabricator task for this, so that sysadmins can investigate what’s gone wrong. (To be honest, I don’t know if this error was occurring before today as this is the first time I’ve attempted to view the user’s logs, but I couldn’t find any similar tickets from a quick search of Phabricator.)

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. This is the first time I've ever tried to scrub out a block log entry (usually, that sort of stuff is verboten and shouldn't be done by anyone), so I've never tested this before. Anyway, when I log out and try and view the logs, I also get a MediaWiki exception. So that's definitely a bug. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For your information, I’ve filed Phabricator task phab:T354663. I hope that’s okay. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 16:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Ivanvector is having problems looking at that log as well, and he's looking at it with an admin account. There's definitely something amiss there. I'll probably have to undelete the redaction in the log the next time a new admin wants to test the blocking tool. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Rakul Preet Singh’s Awards and Nominations

Was this both a G4 and a G5? I don't think I've seen that before. So she isn't just another actress who has ultras but an actress who has paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

IP Block

Not trying to be difficult on that block. Unblock them if you think its appropriate; I won't complain, even if I think the block should remain. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it needs more of a consensus, mixing warnings and obvious disruptive edits with a bunch of good faith ones. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Googolplexior on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring (02:02, 12 January 2024)

Hi, for the WikiCup, I have a question. To get points for editing articles and pages, do you have to have previously worked on them, or can you just find a page and edit it? Thanks! --"Girls are like bonbons - why have just one when you can have the whole box?" Googolplexior (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, I've never worked on the WikiCup. The Rambling Man and Cwmhiraeth have, so they might know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Googolplexior, you can earn points even if you haven't created an article, but you need to have significantly improved them. Best, — Frostly (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Redirect machine on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn, California (00:50, 14 January 2024)

Help me make the deletion discussion --Redirect machine (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The first question to ask is why do you want to delete the article, and what policies does it not comply with? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall my statement was "Oh my word, what a tempest in a teapot. Decline the case and tell everyone, in the words of John Bercow to calm down and take up yoga.". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Setting up talk page archives

I see great minds think alike. So alike, in fact, that we have overlapped on a couple pages! I didn't think anyone else was enough of a nerd to actually go through and do this. If you want, I can put up a list somewhere and then we can cross off each page we handle to avoid double-dipping. jp×g🗯️ 12:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, through some trial and error, I have figured out that Cluebot absolutely sucks for this task -- it only respects the archive size limits inasmuch as they apply to the whole task. So, for example, if the max archive size is set to be 100kb, and it notices that 600kb of threads need to be archived.... it will just ram 600kb into the latest archive, and then make a note for the next run. This creates a giant pain in the ass. So I just use the template for sigmabot instead.

{{Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archive             = {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d
| algo                = old(1d)
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 100K
| minthreadsleft      = 10
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| key                 = 
}}

This is what I've been using, anyway. jp×g🗯️ 12:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I've also been advising people to use {{subst:Setup auto archiving}}, which uses LowerCaseSigmaBot (MiszaBot as was). In the case of User talk:MargaretRDonald, it seems to have done the right thing.

I'll give EEng some more time to archive his talk page further, but I've got a feeling I'm going to get to a point where I've asked ten people, all of whom have instantly agreed on bot archiving, and question why he's being stubborn about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You may have noticed that nowadays everything is advertised as being curated. My talk page is curated. I'm not annoyed or anything, but you don't need to push. EEng 00:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

In case you didn't see it, I put a link to your comment at EEng's talk page, in the interests of transparency. In one fish's opinion, EEng should not be required to use any kind of bot archiving, so long as he archives manually to an extent that satisfies those who care. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

And that's fine, and if EEng gets his talk page down to the same size as those who've had bot archiving recently added (whether by responding to a request or us adding the directive on a dormant account), which is about 80k of prose, then I'll have no problem. But we're not there yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The correct measure is not 80k based on what a bot does on someone else's talk page. The correct measure is whether other editors have any problems communicating with him. I hope that we don't get to the point where I have to question why you're being stubborn about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's probably a good idea. What happened here is that I went through the top ten on the list, checked there was no archiving template at the top of the page, and then added it, unless the user had edited in the last 6 months, in which case I asked them to do it. I guess you put the archiving elsewhere than the very top, because I couldn't see anything, and also by definition I couldn't scroll through the talk page text to find it as it was hammering a CPU at 100% and causing weird usability errors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Wikipedia Vector 2022 issues.png

Thanks for uploading File:Wikipedia Vector 2022 issues.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the only website I can think of where posting a screenshot to resolve a technical issue gets you nagged by a bot. Mind you, it's not as bad as the time I uploaded a picture of my bookcase (with a caption like "offline sources are great!") which somebody took to FfD because of the "copyright" on the book spines. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Help!

I was wondering when you have time, if you could take a look into the Contributions of User:107.10.129.126 . His edits on wikipedia have been highly disruptive and each time he gets warned he removes it from his talk page as “vandalism”. I believe he should be banned from Wikipedia. Thank you for your help always Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The IP has been edit-warring on Shenna Bellows, claiming that "Salon is a deprecated source". Our guide to typical sources that might be deprecated or unreliable says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." In this case, the source is being used to state a fact, so it probably shouldn't be used for that. That said, they shouldn't call this reverting vandalism. However, that was two weeks ago, and sanctions must prevent current disruption, which this isn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you taking the time to look into this. User @Beccaynr & I came to an agreement on a section on page Brett Cooper (commentator) & then the I.P began a similar dialogue much like the one you mentioned above. It didn’t seem productive or accurate what he was insinuating referring to the sources being used. Again, thank you for your help Elvisisalive95 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Elvisisalive95, thanks for the ping, and hi Ritchie333 - I am mostly off-wiki for the nearish future but did notice my 16 January 2024 warning to User:107.10.129.126 was reverted with the edit summary "Removed vandalism" [1] and then followed by further participation [2] in the discussion originally between Elvisisalive95 and myself at the Brett Cooper (commentator) talk page. I was thinking because User:107.10 may be continuing to edit war at Shenna Bellows, [3], [4], [5], [6], their contribs might get reviewed and a further warning at minimum might be warranted; e.g. [7] (Jan 4 2024); [8], [9], [10] (20 Aug 2023), [11] (21 Nov 2023), etc. [12] (22 Apr 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rye railway station (East Sussex)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rye railway station (East Sussex) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kj cheetham -- Kj cheetham (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rye railway station (East Sussex)

The article Rye railway station (East Sussex) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rye railway station (East Sussex) for comments about the article, and Talk:Rye railway station (East Sussex)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kj cheetham -- Kj cheetham (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I do like a day out to Rye along the Marshlink in the spring or summer, having a pint or two in the garden of the Cinque Ports which overlooks the station. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good afternoon when the weather is warmer than it is now! -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion Regarding the Deletion of IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation Page

Hello, I'm WikiUser: NilsLahr, reaching out regarding the recent decision to delete the Wikipedia page for IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation. As one of the top experts in the streaming media industry and a key inventor within this sector, I have significant historical knowledge and insights to share on this topic.

IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was a pioneering force in the early streaming media market, significantly contributing to the industry with numerous patents and innovations. Notably, it was among the first to extensively use satellite technology for digital streaming, setting a precedent in the field. The company's impact was further validated when it went public, achieving a valuation of $2 billion. This financial milestone underscores the company's significance and the importance of maintaining its history independently.

It's noteworthy to mention that Broadcast.com, a competitor which utilized technologies developed by IBEAM, has its own Wikipedia page ([Broadcast.com](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com)). While Broadcast.com is known mainly for its association with Mark Cuban, IBEAM was a key inventor in the market space and was larger at the time. This comparison highlights the need for IBEAM's history to be similarly recognized and preserved.

I acknowledge that I may have a biased perspective due to my close connection with the topic. However, I have endeavored to source all data from internet sources and am open to ideas on how to minimize my bias. The historical significance I can provide should not be overlooked due to my personal connection to the subject.

I understand the challenges posed by the scarcity of online references from the late 1990s. Yet, the lack of these references should not diminish the historical importance of IBEAM. Existing sources, like Streaming Media Magazine, can provide verifiable information to support the company's notability.

I am concerned that merging IBEAM's history with another entity may lead to a loss of valuable historical context. Therefore, I am eager to explore ways to reinstate the page with adequate references and a balanced perspective. I believe that my expertise and firsthand experience in the industry can contribute significantly to this effort.

As someone still learning the nuances of Wikipedia editing, I seek your guidance on how to proceed with revising and potentially reinstating the IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation page. I am ready to collaborate and provide detailed information to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the article.

Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to any advice you can offer on how to best preserve this important piece of digital streaming history on Wikipedia.

Nilslahr (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The article hasn't been deleted, it's just been flagged for a merge. I don't really know much about this topic, I just closed the deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation (2nd nomination) as a decision to merge, which seemed to be the overall converging view in the discussion. You're probably better off having a discussion with HighKing, who mostly strongly advocated for the merge (in my opinion), who can explain what should be merged with the parent article, Williams Communications. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

ZX Spectrum graphics (modes)

Well, you seem to be the only chance I've got, and the only expert around on the matter. Please, see what's happening in that DRN case of mine, read it a bit. There is some WP:OR in the article, but that's not really what this case is about. Also, I agree that the article has a confusing title, but that's not my fault. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've read through the thread at WP:DRN, but I have to concur with Robert McClenon that I'm not entirely sure what the dispute is about, and the walls of text at the noticeboard make it harder, not easier, to work out what's going on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion at DRN because there are discussions in another forum, this user talk page, and because there are conduct allegations. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I now understand the problem. The truth can only be found by reading, checking and investigating. Here on Wikipedia, either noone has sufficient time for that, or noone really cares. Z80Spectrum (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to point it to you the best I can. Read this: | copyright issues Z80Spectrum (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really get involved in Commons, let alone debates on Commons, so I can't really help you there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You must consider the possbility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers. Even long-time editors might be such. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

They work in groups. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Z80Spectrum, please stop saying things such as you seem to be the only chance I've got, and the only expert around on the matter (my emphasis) - it's long since ceased to be attributable to a new editor, and suggesting that all other editors involved don't know what they're talking about is insulting.

Additionally, I highly advise you redact the above statement that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers. Even long-time editors might be such - unless you have solid proof or evidence of such a situation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have evidence. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Then you better post it for all to see and judge. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

unpipe.js, etc.

File:MagrittePipe.jpg In the light of The Banner's remarks above, could you cast an eye over the discussion here?

I'm very keen to resume my use of Nardog's script, and there's now documentation. Do you still have concerns? I'd be happy to discuss further, but I'd really like to feel that the situation is moving forward. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No piping

No piping

Piping

I have seen your discussion about piping on the talk page of Jean-de-Nivelle. Much to my chagrin, he still acts if removing direct links in favour of redirects is something like mandatory. Recently I came across another editor with the same idea. As far as I read the pages so often liked by Jean, I can not see any obligation to fix these already correct links. Is that my flaw? The Banner talk 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Deliberately posted here as Jean gets upset when his spiel is questioned or opposed

I really don't know which is the right way to proceed with this. I thought that changing lots of articles en masse needed a link to an RfC or extended talk page discussion to show most editors were on board with the changes. There was a discussion, and the bulk of changes has been paused for the minute, so that's my main concern out of the way. To be honest, extended discussions about the MOS start sending me to sleep and I end up thinking "decide amongst yourself what we should do, and let me know". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Mandatory. Let me say, the results are mixed. Jean is jumping up and down and getting personal, others state that the MOS is indeed not mandatory. The Banner talk 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia page

Hello. I created a wikipedia page for a school organization last year by November. But it hasn't been published. I wonder why that is the case. Please can you enlighten me? How long should it take for a wikipedia page to be published publicly? Ivan-Carl (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The only edit you have is this one on my talk page. I don't know what article this is, sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

2024

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Like 2019, remember? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What happened in 2019? If you're referring to this, then the more years between that and now, the better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

My mind is much simpler, Ritchie, I just enjoyed visiting the location pictured in 2019. (And I never looked at any block-log.) When I proudly announced the TFA of 1 January 2019, I wanted to see the location. In 2023, I did, as pictured. (more on Floq) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh right. I watched the traditional 1 January concert at the Musikverein, ending in the usual encore of the Radetzky March featuring the audience clapping along. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! - The 2023 picture is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been busy reading about a different kind of festival. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you for sharing! - Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about userfying

What is “userfying”? You wrote: “If anyone wants this userfying for improvement, let me know.” Under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Estrin. If I can locate enough secondary sources, I might submit this page as a draft. Probably not anytime soon, there are not enough verifiable sources. Is this what is meant by userfying, as in user-verifying? Thanks Christian Roess (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) No, not quite. "Userfying" is Wikipedia jargon for moving an article to a user's userspace so that they can improve it as a draft and eventually submit it to be restored as an article. Even though it has been deleted, Ritchie is offering to take the article and move it to User:Christian Roess/Jerry Estrin, including its contribution history which will be needed if the article is restored (per WP:ATTRIBUTION), and leave it for you to work on. Pages in userspace aren't technically "articles" - readers are unlikely to come across them and they're not indexed by search engines. You can generally have as much time as you want to work "out of sight" so to speak, but you should remove any controversial or negative information about a living person if it does not have a source (you can restore it later when a source is found). Then, when you think you have addressed the issues which led to its deletion, you can ask for a review and for your improved draft to be restored, or if you're confident you can do it yourself. I hope that helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes that’s very helpful. Thank you for your help and time. Christian Roess (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've restored this to User:Christian Roess/Jerry Estrin so it can be improved in user space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. I’ll keep you posted. - Christian Roess (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Your recent Afd close

Hello Ritchie333, Thank you very much for your work at Afds. I don't wish to undermine your recent decision and won't discuss the outcome if you think it's fair. But, for the record, your assessment that "particularly the in-depth analysis from Timothy (that) went unchallenged" is not, in my view, totally accurate. I did challenge it and still think it does not analyse sources for what they are. Maybe my comment quoting it was not clear and maybe I was wrong but I insisted that sources had been presented to show the veracity of the awards not as SIGCOV. Also the fact that all of them were explicitly not "reviewed" and were called spamming (a nice comment, don't you think?) should in my view also have attracted attention. But again, that's only for the record. Thank you again. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I should have been more specific. What I meant was that Timothy's source analysis wasn't refuted indvidually, but rather generally as a whole. Combined with other views that mention the biography of living persons policy, where we must be certain to get the article right and rely on high-quality sources, it seemed to me that deleting the article was the most appropriate thing to do, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Fidelia2006 on ChatGPT (23:39, 23 January 2024)

Hey, I need help writing an essay about major functions of money, including: unit of account, store value, medium exchange --Fidelia2006 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you're in the right place - Wikipedia is for writing and improving encyclopedia articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Since there here however, you might as well write that essay for them, Ritchie. Panini! • 🥪 19:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

About an AfD you closed

Hey Ritchie, you recently closed the AfD for Ring My Bell (webtoon) as no consensus. Aside from my nomination statement, there was only one other editor who participated in the discussion, and he changed his !vote from keep to delete. It looks to me like there is consensus, and should be enough to close as soft delete. Would you be able to elaborate on why you closed the way you did? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake, I missed that toobigtokale switched their view from weak keep (which caused the no consensus close) to delete. I'll close it as soft delete instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Eshetuayele on Talk:666Flash freezing (14:23, 5 February 2024)

Hello how are you --Eshetuayele (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Two AfD closes

Hello Ritchie,

I'd like to raise one AfD that you closed and one that you relisted.

• [13] has two folks wanting to keep (well 3, but one withdrew their !vote) and 4 to delete. The keep !voters cite no policy or guideline in support of their !votes. The delete !voters note the lack of any reliable independent coverage. Could you take another look at that?
• [14] is fairly similar. Here we have 4 folks pushing for deletion on the basis of no sources and one making an IAR argument to keep. I know admins have a lot of leeway on relisting, but this doesn't feel close. Could you also take another look at that?

Thank you, Hobit (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Medical Journal ended up with people throwing policy links at each other as intended insults, which derailed the discussion, so I think it was better to close it out. In this case, there is no prejudice against re-nomination; I would wait and see if the article can be improved, and if not, file a new AfD.

I don't think the two lines going back and forth were hugely disruptive. One person felt badgered, the other (me) felt that it wasn't badgering to ask for more detail about how a link was being used. I don't think being concise is disruptive (maybe rude, but not disruptive). But there were no policy or guideline-based arguments for keeping and the numbers went for deletion also. I just want to verify you're set on this close before moving forward. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I want to note that I also found this close confusing, given the total lack of guideline-based arguments from the keep side. @Red-tailed hawk had even commented in his relist that NJOURNALS-based !votes did not at all address the notability concerns of the AfD. And just to clarify something, the claim that being listed in Scopus equates to GNG coverage is untenable since a) even if Scopus was independent secondary SIGCOV, GNG asks for multiple such sources; b) multiple other RS indexing services provide the same amount of "coverage" (database listings, automated rankings and factors, etc.) as Scopus, but these are explicitly not sufficient to meet NJOURNALS because they are not "selective" enough--which is consistent with the criterion being intentionally completely divorced from the GNG meaning of "significant coverage"; c) even more autogenerated indexing info, including rankings, field-weighted impact, h-index, graphs, etc. is provided by Scopus for every single article and author it indexes, yet Scopus would never be acceptable as a GNG-contributing source for a person or academic paper. JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have relisted the AfD for another week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Journal for Philosophy of Religion has benefitted from further discussion since the relist, with more insights being given. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"LINE Bank" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LINE Bank has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § LINE Bank until a consensus is reached. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 06:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from TruthSeeker1023 (19:33, 16 February 2024)

I am editing to add facts based on findings from a court case and the edit is removed. Why is this? --TruthSeeker1023 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has given you a more comprehensive answer, but the essential problem is that you cited court documents. However, the biographies of living persons policy prohibits this, and assumes people are innocent until definitely proven guilty, or at least enough to be mentioned in a neutral, worldwide encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from ElizaK89 (22:42, 28 February 2024)

Hello, How are you doing? I was wondering if I edit a page, can it be minor, like slowly work at it? --ElizaK89 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You can make any edit, large or small, as long as it improves the encyclopedia. Indeed, I'd recommend starting with small edits, such as spelling or grammar corrections, before moving on to adding sourced content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

February music

story · music · places

My calendar story today is about Michael Herrmann celebrating his birthday. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Today I am happy about a singer on the Main page (at least for the first hours), after TFA the same day last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

As you can see from my contributions, my on-wiki time at the moment is dedicated to giving FAC another go, after years of saying "I can't do it, it's too hard". It'll either end with a) actually writing an FA for the first time in almost 20 years or b) dropping out with exhaustion and taking a sabbatical. Wagers are currently being taken at William Hill to which one will happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Will look deeper before wagers, good plan anyway ;) - I had FA plans for BWV 82 last year, and nothing happened. Too many of our subjects die. When I made today's story I was sure Alfred Grosser would appear on RD today, which may happen or not but I go to bed. And tomorrow more Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Listen to music from Ukraine if you like, - I heard it in 2022, and the November concert (at a different church) raised a truckload of winter clothes. My story today is also from my life: I heard the singer in 3 of the 4 mentioned musical items. I sang in yesterday's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sad that people die, subjects and in real life: Vami_IV, - that was a shock. - Today's story, however, celebrates a woman's birthday. She sat right in front of me when I took the picture at a lovely concert, celebrating her son's 60th. I thought she was 90 today, - no, 91 already. You can listen, starting at the piece he dedicated to her, Op. 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

more music on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Jhonny depp546 (17:15, 29 February 2024)

I would actaully like to edit some news about song righters and some foods and drinks. --Jhonny depp546 (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As Martin would say, Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened

Hello Ritchie333,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from InsertNameHereOrElse (03:40, 7 March 2024)

Saw you were assigned as my mentor. Hi!

I made a few edits, mind checking them out? --InsertNameHereOrElse (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What specifically are you looking for help with? I see you've removed the edit request on Talk:Australia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

NEW PROFILE

Hi @Ritchie333 can you kindly help me contribute to a new profile? I don't have any interest and their information is publicly available but they have no wikipedia profile. They asked if someone can help them put up one for their work to be appreciated. Kindly guide. Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gavin Ngabonziza, I assume you are referring to a new Wikipedia article. Please note that any subject must meet notability guidelines for a standalone article. If the individual is notable, someone will likely create a Wikipedia article about them soon. You can use our "Article Wizard" to determine if your topic is suitable for a Wikipedia article. If it is, you'll have the option to create a draft and submit it for review by experienced editors as part of the "Articles for Creation" project. Please be aware that there may be a wait time for your draft to be reviewed. If approved, your article will be created, and if not, you'll receive feedback on how to improve it. Additionally, if you have a close personal connection to the subject, be sure to disclose any conflicts of interest when creating the article. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. I hope this helps. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)