User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 26

Thanks...

...for doing the right thing, elephant trap though it may be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And echoing the above sentiments: many thanks Ritchie. – SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. In other parts of the Wiki-universe, the baiting recommences. But for the time being it's well worth ignoring. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought about saying "why don't you close this thread and work on The Duke of Hamilton" (the reason I went to Cass' talk in the first place since I saw Blofeld had asked him about improving it too) but that would be stirring the pot a bit too far. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to pop by and say that the protection of the page was just a practical action for me and that I was not emotionally invested in it. I am more than happy to defer to your judgement which in my observation is sound. Chillum 19:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha!

A month in, and your talk page is already full of interesting comments. I might change the Page Notice for my talk page to say "For all admin requests, please see User:Ritchie333, who will be happy to explain/do/serve". Get you a little more traffic. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Threesie joins the "mile high club"

Is this part of the standard hazing ritual for new admins? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just a fact of life. See the first item under "Things I've learned at Wikipedia" on my userpage. --MelanieN (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Becoming an admin is a mixed blessing. You get to do new fun things, but at a price. It does get a bit less fun over the years, and the price goes up as you piss off more and more people for blocking them. It's one reason we keep backlogs....admin get tired of closing ten "things" and having 12 people harass them over 6 of them. AFDs aren't so bad, but RFCs and the like are a huge pain because there is always a group of people to call you an idiot, even when consensus is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But doesn't this really call into question why anyone would ever want to be an admin? I mean, most of what I see is negative. It doesn't sound tempting. :( DBaK (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It is rewarding, and some people are just driven by the idea of a "free encyclopedia" enough to volunteer. It isn't for everyone. Serving at a soup kitchen isn't "fun" either, but it is rewarding. Kind of like that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess. And I certainly appreciate the service that I as an ordinary editor get from good admins. I just worry about the whole setup a bit and what a hostile environment this can easily become. But I should quite probably shut up now and do something productive! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

About deletion

Hello, Richie. I've never tried to put an article up for deletion, so, I don't know exactly how to do it. I found a few today that I thought merited a deletion (because of the circumstances concerning them), but aside from tagging them, I didn't know what else to do.
Would you please take a look at these?

2016_PGA_Championship
2016 Open Championship
2016 U.S. Open (golf)

Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: I think all of these can be safely directed. They might be deleted at a full deletion debate (probably per WP:CRYSTAL) or they might be kept. A redirect is probably best for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Elephant Trap

When you apologized for stepping into an elephant trap, was there already an elephant in the trap? If so, should you apologize to the elephant? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What elephant? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sia Furler

Renew PC or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sound

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I think the best thing to do is to file another request on WP:RPP. We have a few hundred admins bouncing about, so somebody should be along to have a look shortly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Haim

I am not opposed to the sentence. The way it's written is simply misleading. --Mimi C. (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Neil's "idiot" comment

A pony, yesterday

Some buscruft. Notice the ponies have carefully disguised themselves not to appear in the picture.

He called himself an idiot, not any other user. You could've asked him directly before attempting to fuel the fires at his RfA. Alakzi (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not fuelling any fires, I just want to hear his explanation. I assumed it was banter and there was a reason for it, and I'm certain I've said worse myself, but I'm cautious that new visitors at the Teahouse may not pick up on that. I have not made up my mind which way to !vote yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a playful, self-deprecating "I'm an idiot" for having made four consecutive edits (presumably typos or somesuch). He did not call another editor an idiot, so you should consider reframing your question - if not retract it, which would be wiser. Alakzi (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If NeilN is as good as an administrator candidate as everyone says he is, he will answer it courteously and politely without issue, and I will be a happy chappy. What is on my mind currently is the drama with the latest Eric Corbett block. I am very specifically thinking of this scenario and making absolutely sure Neil will not fall into the same trap in 12 - 18 months' time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Neil will respond courteously; I've not come here to defend Neil, but to express my concern with your judgment, for having posed the question, and - now - for refusing to retract it. I don't know what the comment you linked to is about. Alakzi (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You're complaining about something you don't understand. However, I'd like to thank you for your edits on Folkestone bus station as I've just found this news piece that I'm sure EEng can help me work into a fine DYK if we just put our minds to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you can find enough more material to solve the notability problem, I can probably come up with something. It shows promise but for the moment I'm drawing a blank. EEng (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And here's another bored pony for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the bus article is unsalvageable; so much so I've sent it to AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Blimey! Is this a first? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(watching) The comment (linked to) was refreshing a lone oppose during an RfA, which - looking at it now - seems like a good observation which I ignored then. The editor who quoted it was just named WER's editor of the week. - General observation: irony in written communication - such as calling oneself an idiot - is often misunderstood, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand Neil's message perfectly well. Are you implying that your question to him was disingenuous? Alakzi (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I am talking about. If you don't understand why I dislike admins blocking prolific content creators, even out of inexperience rather than malice, then that's a shame. I think our conversation is done, and I will see you around a TfD somewhere, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I dislike it too. What does it have to do with the question you asked Neil? Alakzi (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In case of interest, the candidate had no problem answering the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

.... and I'm happy with the answer and have !voted support. Now, are we finally all done with the conversation or would you like to help get the pony off the bus? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's become abundantly clear that I'm not gonna get a straight answer from you, so, yes, we're done. Alakzi (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's quite simple. If somebody says "hey, you called someone an idiot", do you attempt to quell the situation (as Neil did), or do you attempt to stir the pot? Now, take that scenario and apply it as follows, let's say somebody starts an ANI thread saying "Hey, I was edit warring on Kelpie and Eric Corbett told me to fuck off! Waaaaah!" Do you attempt to quell the situation, or do you say "Well, I don't give a flying toss how many FAs he has, saying "fuck" on Wikipedia is the absolute worst thing in the world ever, OMG block him now please!" I don't want an admin that does that. If you don't understand that, you run a serious risk of creating a massive drama-fest. So much for "like to see everybody here get along just a wee bit better." :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't want an admin who does that either; stop making suppositions, and stop taking digs at my words and work. The question you posed to Neil is inapplicable to the above scenario. Neil was playfully calling himself an idiot; there was no tension and no misunderstandings in his interaction with the other editor. What other possible answer would he have given you? Alakzi (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I happened to read this again, and I think I might've been unnecessarily argumentative with you. Apologies. Alakzi (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. It's text-based communication; we lose all sorts of subtleties when writing and our intent gets lost. I do have strong opinions and occasionally they come out of the woodwork, but they are always with the underlying intent to improve the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to you

Hi Ritchie,

I'm responding to your message you left me yesterday regarding an article I'm trying to put on Wikipedia for a company called "City Winery".

You said: "I've created City Winery as a redirect to Nevada City winery which has an article. If that's the one you were looking for, be bold and expand it. If not, (there looks like there's another one in New York City from a quick scan of sources), drop me a line and I'll see what I can cobble together."

City Winery is completely separate from Nevada City Winery. It's located in NYC, Napa, Nashville and Chicago, with more cities soon to come. Here's the website if you'd like to see more information: http://citywinery.com/

I've tried more than a few times now to create the article/page for City Winery and it keeps getting denied and deleted (Wiki's reason being that it reads like an advertisement.) I've edited it many times to make sure that it is all factual and doesn't sound like an advertisement at all, but it keeps getting deleted.

There's already a page for the CEO of City Winery, Michael Dorf (Entrepreneur), and I would like to link back his page to his company, City Winery. If there is any way you can assist me, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Allison Aporifgpr (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Allison, I think there should be enough to create an article about the New York City Winery, given a quick search for sources. @Dr. Blofeld: can probably assist, though I think he's on a break at the moment; failing that @We hope: may be able to assist. This Rolling Stone Source saying Stephen Stills plans to gig there is enough to convince me I can make an article that will be acceptable for our inclusion policies. Watch this space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aporifgpr: Okay, there is now a City Winery article up, cited to a bunch of sources I'd normally consider neutral and reliable. To expand the article will probably involve pulling bits and bobs from other sources, but it's definitely possible to spin a proper article out of this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie! Thank you so much for assisting. I very much appreciate it. A few questions though - can I make some edits to the page without having it be deleted again? A few of the facts are incorrect. For example, City Winery is NOT related to the Nevada City Winery - they're totally different. Also, I want to include that City Winery is also located in Chicago, Napa and Nashville. Additionally, I would like to mention who the CEO of the company is - Michael Dorf (he has a Wiki Page). Lastly, would I be able to mention the wineries that supply wine to City Winery? Would this be possible?

Thanks again! Aporifgpr (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Audio sample

"Lisp is undoubtedly the greatest contribution to computer languages ever. Don't know Lisp - try Scheme? Don't know either, try shelf stacking."

"Yeah, but Paul, the last time I stuck a drumstick in the back of your Lisp mainframe it shorted a few circuits out and smoke came out. Great for "Rondo", but not so good for starting off "Pictures of an Exhibition" is it?"

Hey Ritchie, can you upload Metallica - The Four Horsemen.ogg from the YouTube link (5:14—5:41).--Retrohead (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Retrohead: Technically, I can, but (unless I'm mistaken) I would rather not take it off the audio of a copyright violation myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not violating any rules. The length is 30s (according to WP:SAMPLE), but you'll need to lower the audio quality using Audacity. I assume you're thinking that downloading from YouTube is not allowed, but 90% of the uploaded files are from there. Anyway, if you're not allowed, can you recommend someone who can? By the way, congrats on your new admin privilege, I'm sure you'll be productive as you are editing music articles.--Retrohead (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Retrohead: I think the best place to go is Media Copyright Questions, somebody will be able to sort it out. As long as you have a very good FUR (eg: you have a few reliable sources talking about the music, but do so in a manner that bores the casual reader to tears) you should get some help. The amount of stuff you can get on YouTube is incredible; after decades of searching I finally found a recording of the full 18-minute performance of Yes' arrangement of America, which makes me (and probably Martinevans123) a happy chappy, but I wouldn't use it as a source or sample here? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite happy to stick with "our Len" done by "our Keef", thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I learned the whole of The Nice's arrangement of America decades ago, and remember a drummer who wanted to give it a go at a jam night around 1996/97, but we couldn't find a bassist or guitarist who knew it. There's a pile of stuff I've learned but I will never get to gig, ever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you could always still climb on top of your Hammond B3 and stick knives between the keys... ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever noticed that Paul Graham and Keith Emerson could be related? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Efram23

Hi, I agree with your unblock of this editor, but as a polite reminder I (as the blocking admin) should have been consulted first per WP:APPEAL#What happens next. Given that the images were prominently labelled as under copyright and not for republishing on the source website, I don't see how this editor could have been confused about whether they could be posted here and at Commons. The commitment to not upload any more images should do the trick, but I'm glad that you're going to keep an eye on their contributions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Hi. Yes I probably should have pinged you first, I think I just assumed his pledge not to upload anything else met your original unblock criteria. I do try and get people unblocked wherever possible if I see any evidence of the editor making good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, but I try and do it carefully with a good consensus, and I'm not always successful (example). In this case, I've upped the ante by them agreeing that any file uploads can be met with a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Graham Chapman

Thank you for creating this article! I added it to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results (along with its quality symbol), a page used to track new and improved LGBT-related articles worked on during the month of June as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you happen to create or improve other LGBT-related articles this month, feel free to update the Results page accordingly. Thanks again, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I didn't create it, I just sourced most of it and improved it to good article status. There is now a Did you know? nomination here where you can add an interesting hook to see if it gets to the main page. One of those is that Chapman was one of the first people to come out of the closet and lead the way for the LGBT movement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah!, I see that now. Sorry, I failed to scroll through to the oldest edits of the article's history. Either way, your work is much appreciated! I also saw the DYK nomination and added the nomination to the Results page, too. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RFA

Is there really much to be gained from challenging supporters on an RFA currently running below 50%? HiDrNick! 17:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case, it's just a matter of stating an opinion I feel quite strongly about. I don't want the candidate to be disheartened or leave, and I hope they do consider an RfA in the future. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ekki ekki ekki ekki ptang zoom boing

It's too bad I named an April Fool's Day DYK template "Throatwobbler Mangrove", so that title wasn't available for the Graham Chapman nomination. Oh, well.

I'm very skeptical about Chapman's ALT1. I don't have access to the source, but it seems to me that there's no way anybody could possibly state that with any degree of certainty. There are hundreds of thousands of British deaths annually; did someone monitor every British memorial service throughout the years? If you want to keep this hook as a possibility, it might be better to do something like saying that someone claimed it, rather than stating it as a fact. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're no fun anymore. I think EEng has the right idea, everyone throw their favourite hook at the nomination and we'll take a !vote on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think we shouldn't not-vote, rather we should yes-vote i.e. just a straight popularity contest (or maybe a queer one). EEng (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, EEng and I ganging up against your hook. I bet you didn't expect The Spanish Inquisition! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that the relevant passage in the article predates your involvement, but that you trimmed it. The original made sense; the trimmed version ... not so much. I'll leave it to you to decide whether to restore the original quote, trim the original in a more appropriate way, or just remove it entirely, but in any case, it shouldn't remain as it is now. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ni! Skyerise (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"St Marks"

Really? New sleeve notes? Could you add a comment at the Talk Page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: No, ancient ones. Sorry, when I see a tag I assume it's been in there for ages, not last week! If you've got Keith Emerson on the "blower", ask him if he can remember talking about the church organ in his biographies. A Google news and book search turns up nothing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made a suitably condescending reply at the Talk Page, ya schmuck. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the first time Emerson's Hammond broke down on stage, he phoned up their IT department, who said "Have you tried turning it off and on?" ... so he did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Main Street America Group page deletion

Hello Ritchie333 One of my colleagues created a wikipedia page for our company, The Main Street America Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Main_Street_America_Group), but I recently discovered that it's been deleted. It appears that the deletion reason was for language of an advertising nature. Can you tell me what specific changes I need to make to The Main Street America Group's entry to ensure it gets reinstated?

Thank you!

Sean 63.151.12.167 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have put the article into draft space at Draft:The Main Street America Group. Have a read through Wikipedia:Your first article and that will give you some ideas of what to improve. When you are ready for an independent review of the draft, click on the green "Submit your draft when you ready...." button and somebody will review it. If successful, the article will be restored to the main area. If not, you'll be given feedback on what to improve. As you are an IP, I cannot notify you that I have replied to this message, why not register for an account? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Red link

You have fully-protected Wikipedia:Red link in the wrong version. I understand that it is normal practice to do so, but I would like to remind you that WP:PREFER advises: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." May I ask why you chose to ignore this advice when the edit-warring you prevented was conducted by a sole editor against three other editors? I have now opened a AN3 report on the editor as I believe that in these sort of cases, it is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with edit-warring. Any further thoughts from you on either issue would naturally be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that's the "wrong" version. Before Richard took that part out in April (without asking), it had been there since at least July 2011. I'd say, page protection appears to have been quite sensible, given the circumstances. Besides, we've all got leaps of judgment from time to time; let's not hang anybody just yet. The other side should've also known better than to edit war their preferred version, while making accusations that do not appear to hold any water ("editor is editing guidelines to fit other guidelines then cross-linking"). Alakzi (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: The "wrong version" links to this page on meta: m:The Wrong Version ("This page contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally.") We all accept that the current version will be the "wrong version" for some editors, and I certainly did not expect the phrase to be taken literally. The current version is normally the one that is protected, but WP:PREFER does suggest that an administrator may restore an earlier version to avoid rewarding an edit-warrior. Although I have no dog in this fight (i.e. the content dispute), I believe that would have been a better course of action as the multiple edit-warring was done by one editor against three others. Such behaviour is simply inexcusable, and I am merely asking Ritchie to share his thoughts on his choice of protected version per WP:ADMINACCT. I hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not found in the oppression of the few. Montana and Softlavender could've joined the discussion on the talk page, which has been inconclusive. Per WP:STATUSQUO, Rob was correct in reinstating the previous wording. He was incorrect in edit warring, as they all were. Alakzi (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It's the version of the strongest edit warrior - simply by that it's the wrong version: 4 reverts of the same thing should not be rewarded by protection even IF it was the "right" version. Different approach: if somebody reverts an edit from April now, somebody was bold per WP:BRD, - a second revert is already a breach and should not be protected. - Thanks for closing the ANI thread, more on EW ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see it differently. It is not about who wins or loses; it's about avoiding conflict. It's OK if the "wrong" wording survives for another day or two, if it means people can get to talking. Alakzi (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see it differently. It's not about who wins or loses. The guideline was changed in April, and nobody objected, - looks like some form of consensus to me. Comes one person weeks later (out of retirement, who had caused the same troubles a year ago) and reverts: should that be rewarded? Several people talked to the one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Rob and Flyer22 objected, and Andy Dingley and DGG concurred in what was a very brief interchange. Alakzi (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is it so important to avoid conflict? Sometimes bashing someone over the head is the only way to get things done, no matter what Jimbo and his acolytes may believe. Eric Corbett 19:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what might merit bashing anybody over the head in this instance. Alakzi (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What you see and what I see may not always be in accord. Eric Corbett 20:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I've been winning the hearts of anybody here. :-) Alakzi (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of a rush because I'm in the middle of setting up a studio and breaking off for the night ... but I deliberately protected on whatever version I found the page in. I would have reverted if the previous edit was a WP:BLP violation or obvious vandalism, but as it was a good faith edit, I had to leave it. When I've seen edit warring coming, I know that discussing on the talk page with the WP:WRONGVERSION on the article puts me ahead.

If somebody shows me that the debate has ended with an obvious consensus, then I can unprotect the page. Or if any admin thinks it was a crap idea to protect, I don't mind them undoing it. I'm not going to wheel war.

Today has been a bad day for me because I've hardly got any article work done - still as Eric is back I'll be motivated to try and get 50 GAs done before the summer ends. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be quite some achievement. Eric Corbett 22:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Less ambitious, I try to have a GA for every occasion of Bach's liturgical year following the year, which means around 50 in a year, - I did 2, #3 is open for review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant 50 total / cumulative, which on current figures amounts to 6, 2 of which are already queued. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You can unprotect right now because a fifth revert is not likely ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Duke (album)

Materialscientist (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Programming in Android

Hi, I notice that you have deleted Programming in Android as a copyvio. I should have checked that properly myself and nominated it for CSD. I didn't, but I did start an AFD. I would be grateful if you would clean up my little mess and close it. I promise to be more thorough in future! Many thanks. Poltair (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD as requested. The easiest way to spot a copyvio is to cut and paste the opening two sentences of the main paragraph introducing the subject, and do a Google search for that around quotes. Check the results to confirm none are obvious mirrors, and if not, report it as a copyvio. Copyright is one of the most misunderstood topics for newcomers, and copyvios can easily be created by accident without anyone realising. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and the tips.Poltair (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for a WP:REFUND here. I edited the Programming in Android article after it was introduced, and while I will readily admit it was not at all appropriate for Wikipedia, it was a valid candidate for transwiki to Wikiversity. The article that you claim it copied is completely different than the version of the article that I had left. I had trimmed a fair amount of "what is android" material from the article as redundant based on the existence of other articles, but the instructional material that was left would have been useful at Wikiversity, and as far as I can tell, not yet covered there. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot undelete a copyright violation simply because one editor asserts the text is not similar. A direct word for word match of the opening paragraph is not "completely different" and I don't believe there's anything salvageable from it. You could ask for a deletion review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Too funny

The minute they get reverted, they will fight back with "Don't revert for no reason"

And how outrageous would that be! Makes me sick to imagine it. Someone getting reverted for no reason having the temerity to complain? What scum. Ban the infidel! We must stop people who complain about reverting for no reason! The very existence of the encyclopaedia surely depends on it!

Do keep up your thoroughly good work, won't you? Improving articles while anonymous is such vile behaviour that there can be no measure too extreme to take against it. 200.119.246.254 (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You can selectively quote anything you like, which Cassetteboy take to an art form. In this case, you forgot to mention that immediately before it, I said "as ever they're probably useful copyedits". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Food for Thought

FYI, another institution around the corner from Denmark Street is closing today. See Food for Thought (restaurant)... Andrew D. (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect Seventeen_(band)

Howdy! I've got a WP:AfC draft here that looks ready to go. Draft:Seventeen_(band)_(2) Would you be willing to unprotect the mainspace article so I can go ahead and approve/move the draft? Cheers, I owe you an ale if you're in the NYC area. E. Lee (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Elee: I've removed the protection. I have family in NY state and CT, so I do plan to pop back there at some point. Sorry about the delay, I was on stage supporting The Kubricks when you wrote this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A+ - get me a signature and I'll buy you dinner =] Thanks again! E. Lee (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of ankylosaur research

Ritchie333, could you please take a quick look at this nomination and see whether the concerns that led you to pull the hook from prep have been addressed? If so, and you feel you can tick the new hook, so much the better. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

La Caravelle

Preparing for GA. Can you delete the first image in File:La Caravelle (New York).jpg, it was the wrong restaurant!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Done! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that one, I uploaded a different one originally in the window at the bottom of the file! Don't worry I'll get We hope to reupload it with a license! Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ack, sorry! I think I need a short wikibreak, as I'm suffering from writers block. Actually I need a rest from life generally, though I did chuckle at the recent Cassianto threads on ANI. As Ian Dury put it, "What a waste". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking more "Dance of the Crackpots"! Cassianto^Talk 22:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Segovia Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Graham Chapman

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I can't remember how to do the stats, but this got 6,560 views so I think it qualifies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It does. How about a deal: I enter it for you, you look at my belle wish? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

done - you find the STATS page off any DYK page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ooooooooh, matron, I couldn't possibly look at that! I've had a look, and I don't think I can do that as the main source for the hook says "There seems to be some confusion here in that some sources claim that Luther first used the melody .... The available sources are unclear about this ... This is a point that needs to be verified". I'd be crucified if I bypassed everything and went straight to queue; if another admin didn't catch that, WP:ERRORS would. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, less poetic. The source you cite is not "the main source", Bach-Cantatas has been found wrong ;)

Do we talk Luther or Bach? Bach composed for 24 June 1724, no "is believed to have". Do we need an extra source for that, from the cantata article? About Luther (about 200 years earlier), it only says "about baptism", for which we have several sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The hook says that "that Luther's hymn about baptism "Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam" is the base for Bach's chorale cantata". When I read the source, I get the impression that scholars do not have definitive evidence that this was so, at least based on reading the two sources that cite this fact in the article. If you know that what is written of the body of the text is definitely true (or at least widely accepted as true by subject experts), then you need a source saying that. What does Groves have? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I added another source, and could add more. A chorale cantata - by definition - uses text and melody of the hymn it is based on. At Bach's time, a contemporary poet typically changed the text for the inner stanzas, keeping the ideas, to make it more palatable for the listeners of the time. Still, the cantata is exclusively based on that very hymn. Bach wrote an (almost) complete cycle in 1724/25 of which BWV 7 is #3, - you could do the GA review for the cantata, how is that? - By now the next DYK set appeared, but it would not be the first time that a hook was added afterwards ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, tell you what, if The Rambling Man and Yoninah say we can skip prep and go straight to queue, it's in, I can't say fairer than that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You did a lot, I was too slow. - OTD is today not tomorrow ;) - perhaps better have it in two weeks than a day late? - I will be better prepared next round, promised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How about a GA review for the cantata? - it's an easy one, no ambition for FA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party, as ever, fending off the ever "helpful" Chillum who seemed content to sanction a racist attack on my talkpage while berating me for calling it out, plus a bonus trip to ANI! Anyway, back to actually improving Wikipedia. I've got a small amount of space in my life to do a GA review, if needed? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to snipe at me please do it on my talk page instead of doing it on a 3rd party's talk page. Chillum 19:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I did, I assume you can read it ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, it's just great to get you two together. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

ever seldom. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Now who in the party will do the review, grin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank for fixing, rambling man! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no worries, review forthcoming! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Heavy weather

Looks like we're in for nasty weather....

The latest appearance of our Sky weather friend from Oxford. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: User:Acroterion has blocked for 31 hours and protected articles. But I feel I can predict what will happen. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the drama. Sorry, I was on a bit of a wiki-break, but couldn't bear to leave Folkestone in a poorly sourced and confusingly written state. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I get the feeling, after seven blocked named sock accounts, that there's plenty more drama yet to be reported, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Seven? Christ on a bike, have you seen how many blocks the Best known for IP has evaded? Probably about fifty. And I've seen worse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mention bad moons, if I were you, or he'll probably try and add those in as well. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Because you have no more space for another GA badge. Esquivalience t 22:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333

I removed my edit because it was actually in the wrong section, it actually made no sense in that section. I saw your note, so is it possible for me to at least strike out my comment, as I understand removing it makes yours look out of place ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, just strike it. If you remove it, it makes me look like I'm responding to Dennis. I haven't supported Kww going to Arbcom, and I made a point of saying he does good work here (which he does), but when I make too many posts on ANI my brain goes "Right, stop that, it's silly" and I need to hide in a good article (not to be confused with a good article...) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1RR

Could you - seeing you active and speaking my mind - help with this? I would explain on a user's talk, but an IP would perhaps not find it. Sorry I misspelled in my edit summary, "note" was meant to be not" (which IP probably also didn't see). I am on a rather strict voluntary 1RR ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. I am on a self-imposed 1RR (not by enforcement, by active choice), but in this case a revert and an explanation on talk with a warning on semi-protection should do the trick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and for the term "self-imposed" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK that I wrote the DYK for the guy who is featured among my images? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Aah, the WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Or is it the WP:Slough of Despond? Who knows? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Search for his name, perhaps? I liked the hook for an article written by an editor facing to be banned a third time. - Thanks for going to the Great Dismal Swamp, commented (4th time), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duke (album)

The article Duke (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Duke (album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblocking Eric

Hi, you've said a few times that you'd unblock Eric if it weren't for the fact that you're WP:INVOLVED, but are you aware that you risk being desysopped by overturning an AE block? I'd definitely not want to see that happen. Alakzi (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think common sense says anyone unblocking Eric in these circumstances would stick their head on a chopping block. I'm afraid Arbcom bores me to tears; pages and pages of quasi-legalese and infighting. As long as I can ignore and stick to articles, I'm a happy man. I do confess I occasionally lapse and post on ANI but it's usually because I'm procrastinating over something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Overturning a regular block on Eric you could probably weather; overturning an AE block requires conviction. Would it be better to do the right thing now, or would it be better to stick around as an admin to try to make a difference long-term? Of course, this is all a bit hypothetical, as you admit to being an involved party - but it might be a dilemma you'll face in the future. I might've read more into your words than you intended. Alakzi (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, just don't even think of it. Sense or no sense is not the question, - I took a few samples of AE: none of them improved the project. I asked GorillyWarfare to unblock herself, as you may have seen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about stuff is okay, as is expressing a strong opinion provided you don't cross the line into personal attacks. I have wondered what it's like to take cocaine and heroin and how it makes you feel, for instance. Doesn't mean I'm actually tempted to do it! I have explained to GorillaWarfare why I strongly disagree with the block and threw a few articles she could work on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship

I look forward to it. I'll be getting my feet wet over the next few days before plunging into my duties in earnest. Thanks for your support at the RfA - I look forward to tucking in and getting things done. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why Cool Automation's page should not be deleted

12:24, 24 June 2015 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:CoolAutomation (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

The reasons we think that Cool Automation has important encyclopedic value: Cool Automation's products are actually new unique products in the HVAC world, which allow the automation of VRF air conditioners. Prior to the first CoolMater's product launch - there was no way for VRF air conditioners to automate the units and control them online. Another point is that CoolAutomation's products allow the connection of many air conditioning units from many different manufacturers with a single gateway. As of today - there are no other products in the world which allow the connection of a variety of manufacturers HVAC units with one gateway solution, and there are no other solutions that allow the smart connection of VRFs. Also, many of our partners have active wikipedia pages, and we think we should have one as well... examples: control4 Lutron Electronics Company

Please let me know if that sounds like a good enough reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imoreno (talk • contribs) 06:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Imoreno: I don't mean to pour cold water on your efforts, but all I, and I suspect many other people, are really interested when it comes to air conditioning is, "does it work?" and "will it continue to work?" You get nothing from writing about your company on Wikipedia except grief, and I have never seen a case where the presence or absence of a company's article has affected sales in any way. So why do it? The two articles you have linked to are of poor quality and are barely above the level where they could be deleted, and should not be used as any example of what to write. I have nominated Lutron Electronics Company for deletion and the debate is here. The technical aspects of how an aircon unit work could go in our article on air conditioning but that's about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Well, homes around the globe are being automated. The need to save on electricity costs makes many people around the world look for solutions that will enable them to control their a/c units from afar, and this has been a valid working solution for 6 years now. Technology develops, and so should wikipedia is how I see it :-)

The principal problem with the article (and, indeed the reason it was nominated for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted) is for an article on the company to stick, it would more or less need to be rewritten from scratch. One option is you can use the Article Wizard to create a draft that an independent reviewer can assess and determine suitability for Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you for clearing that up :-) I will make use of Article Wizard. Thank You!

RPP

When I added an RPP for Talk:Karen DeSoto, I wasn't asking for salting of the article itself, but its talk page. The user who created the page keeps making queries on the deleted article's talk page, which are then promptly deleted under G8 (see history at requested page and Talk:Karen desoto). Hopefully, being unable to create the article talk page will push the user towards their user talk page instead. Sorry if I was unclear on the request. Conifer (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Conifer: I see what you mean. However, the talk page seems to have only been created twice, once on June 11 and once yesterday. In both cases, the article's creator was just trying to find the right place to contest a deletion, and having found the help desk, I don't think she'll be creating it again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - June 2015 Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following: This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here. If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP! The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded. Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification. Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages. Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work. The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1. It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified. Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action! If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here. After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)