User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

DYK for Chuffer Dandridge

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The New Day (newspaper)

Hello! Your submission of The New Day (newspaper) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northumberland Avenue

The article Northumberland Avenue you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Northumberland Avenue 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 Moisejp -- Moisejp (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up on Adam Brewer page deletion & credible significance

Hi Ritchie333! I see that you deleted the Adam Brewer page, and wanted to follow up for clarification. I'm still having trouble understanding the complaints about credible significance, for which the page was deleted. The page indicated two main reasons for significance (including Brewer's music career and his management of an important local venue), and provided a number of sources to verify this significance, including print news and two documentaries. I understand that another editor had a complaint with some of the sources, but the WP:Significance page indicates that sources are irrelevant. I noted this in the page's talk, but the page seems to have been deleted irrespective of that conversation. Can you please clarify why that is?Cogito Ergo Sum (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The general guidelines for musicians, as a rule of thumb, says a musical artist really has to have major, sustained, national prominence to have an article. Otherwise, what tends to happen is somebody close to the artist / band creates the article, nobody can find any sources to help write it, and it sits abandoned and unloved after a year or so. So, we need to make sure any article is one anybody could improve to a good standard. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Xowa

Hello, I plan on creating an new article about the software known as Xowa, which was previously removed by you. May I ask why? Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Similarly to the above reply, there are probably more software products than articles on Wikipedia, and hence we can only include ones that have a significant level of source coverage that would allow anyone, anywhere, to write it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a New Page

Hi there, I would like to request a page to be written about my soundware business, ModeAudio, and noticed you'd edited a page about another business in our niche, Loopmasters. I checked their sources as well as those for a similar page, Prime Loops, and feel we have a sufficient number of reliable links to warrant a new page. How would you recommend I go about requesting the page to be written? I'm more than happy to submit some copy for scrutiny by a Wikipedia editor. Here are some of my sources:

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/10-of-the-best-new-sample-and-soundware-packs-march-2016-635606 [both the reviewed 'Resonate' & 'String Theory' packs are ours and contain links to our website at modeaudio.com] https://ask.audio/articles/fl-studio-122-released-new-plugin-interfaces-sound-content-harmor-flac-export [we're linked to in the 'New Content' bullet point] https://ask.audio/articles/review-modeaudio-raw-material [review of one of our packs with links] https://shop.propellerheads.se/browse/?q=modeaudio [lots of our packs are available here, each with links through to our support page] http://www.emusician.com/search/modeaudio/match/0 [a number of our press releases have been posted on eMusician, each with a link to our site] http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2015/04/06/500mb-free-sample-library-from-modeaudio/ [posted about and linked to a free pack of ours] http://www.bitwig.com/en/bitwig-studio.html [scroll down the homepage and you get to a mention of the presets & demo song we made for Bitwig, plus a link to our homepage] https://www.attackmagazine.com/?s=modeaudio [many of our packs are available here plus we've been mentioned and linked in the main magazine section too] http://rekkerd.org/modeaudio-launches-25-loops-samples-synth-presets/ [post about our launch with links] http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2014/02/04/new-loop-sample-and-synth-preset-provider/ [post about our launch with link]

Rouken (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I generally don't have time to write pages. In fact, I'm taking a bit of a break aside from essential duties right now. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Check out an article?

Hi, Ritchie! I'm out of my depth here, can you advise or take action? I found a music-related article at BLP -PROD that I think might be rescuable: Million $ mano, a DJ/producer type also known as Mano. The article is horribly written, and it has no references, but it appears he was associated, as producer, with Grammy-nominated or Grammy-winning albums and songs by The Weekend. The only place I could actually find him named was as one out of 15 or 20 producers for Beauty Behind the Madness, which won "Best Contemporary Urban Album". I don't know if this is enough to make him notable, and even if he is, if the article worth salvaging. Personally I suspect it might be better to blow up this article and let somebody start over. What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• I deleted it per WP:CSD#G11. In general, I find producers for albums need to be explicitly mentioned as instrumental to a band or album's success, or to have received significant awards for their work. George Martin he is not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The article certainly deserved it. And I knew you would understand music notability much better than I do. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChristopherH1995&diff=prev&oldid=711387718

How about you check out this edit. Might changer your mind about this user. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChristopherH1995&diff=prev&oldid=711387718 2602:306:3357:BA0:3588:A05E:D81C:6280 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If we blocked every time users threw out mild insults, I'd have blocked Cassianto about 15 times by now! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Does this one look like good faith to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto_Blue_Jays&diff=prev&oldid=711388250 2602:306:3357:BA0:3588:A05E:D81C:6280 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

In your shoes, I would be more concerned about the unsourced (and hence unverifiable) content in that article, and less about anyone screwing around in it. (In any case, Cluebot has reverted, as I would have expected). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Either way, you should have blocked this user when I reported him. If the diff I just showed you does not open your eyes, I don't know what will. 2602:306:3357:BA0:3588:A05E:D81C:6280 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

In general you do not need to block anybody unless they are repeatedly being disruptive in quick succession. Often a simple revert (remembering to blank the edit summary so they do not get pinged about it - deny recognition and all that) is good enough. I think we pay far too much attention to "anti-vandalism" rubbish, and I think it plays in the hands of vandals who probably laugh their heads off and winding up those who are too involved in it. Best thing to do is to just revert, block if necessary, then ignore - I admit I sometimes bite but I strive to do better next time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the need to mention me in this thread. There are others who are "mildly uncivil" on here, so why am I being singled out? FWIW, I think the "go die" comment was particularly disgusting and was not a "mild attack" by a long chalk. It is also not something I would say to anyone, even my haters on here. Cassianto^Talk 22:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I entirely agree with Cassianto here. Not cool to have mentioned him like that. And while Cass can be blunt on occasions, he never says that he wants someone to die. Bencherlite^Talk 23:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I caused offence - I think I was a bit frazzled at the end of the day and having to take time out from improving Pall Mall to GA (which is taking forever), and I didn't particularly want to deal with IPs turning up on my talk and badgering me. Still, you gotta do what you gotta do. The point I was trying to make is that I think blocking people for mild insults (it wasn't a credible threat of violence, just a whiny teenager being immature) is as productive as blocking established contributors when they get annoyed (ie: it isn't). I only picked Cass because I closed that ANI thread yesterday so he was the first counterexample to come to mind, and I think if you're going to mention someone like that, it's only polite you let them know you are. Now, who's for tea? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The New Day (newspaper)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you'd seen the latest

here regarding an unblock request. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look. Their unblock request is now in the queue at CAT:UNBLOCK so another admin should be able to look at it (which is, ultimately, fairer). My complaint about the neutrality of the user's edits was rather about excessive balance towards a single event than a problem with the reliability of any particular source. A good rule of thumb to use is "will somebody looking at this article in 20 years' time care about the event?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. Unfortunately, I think some of these for-profit colleges will become more known for their legal battles than their curricula, etc. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Tag Mama, Tag ...

Who's going to clear up this tagging? Moi?

Ritchie, hi there. I've been wracking my brain – was it you that was discussing (a while back perhaps) the need to avoid overdoing it when it comes to adding tags such as cite needed, verification needed, etc, particularly in combination with a general, top-of-article tag? And/or is there an essay on this issue maybe? I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Clarification on tagging articles re verifiability issues if you're interested. If not, no probs of course. JG66 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It was probably User:Ritchie333/Don't overdose on citation requests. I put citation request tags on stuff I'm working on, but always with the mindset that I could and should find a source for it. This is a subtle difference to your typical hit and run editor who thinks "monkey see no little number on end of paragraph, monkey slap " and wandering off to the next article to deface. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not quite that bad(!). No, I'm just talking about a general approach to tagging, being mindful that we really don't need to be telling readers: Are we clear on this? This article is lies, lies, lies – don't believe a word!! And to be fair to the editor in question, they're not of the hit & run variety; they are actually committed to the article(s). Not a case, in other words, of "Right, this article looks far worse than before I arrived – my work here is done …" Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Block message

User talk:Ravicj47 -- you forgot the block message. (Or maybe he didn't even deserve a message but then that doesn't explain the 48-hour block instead of an indefinite. I looked through all his edits and he's a very blatant spammer, nothing good can come out of that.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I was having problems getting the block template message to work, and then got distracted. Now fixed. I tend to go easy on a "first offence" to see if people get the hint and walk away of their own accord. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That's new ...

... that my name is mentioned in an ANI closing ;) - Seriously: the true bete noire is lack of good faith. That discussion wasn't even an infobox discussion, it was about uncollapsing the infobox that was THERE (had been there from 2005). No more. I said I prefer it uncollapsed, - something I said already three years ago, which equals allegedly to not respecting a compromise. - Where did good faith go? - Next, for sure a user asking to have an infobox uncollapsed must have been recruited, - really? Where did good faith go? - I write a GA a day these days, will have both pictured DYK on Good Friday and the TFA on Easter Sunday, - have not even time for recruitments. - I have not "recruited" anyone other than by saying "What do you think of an infobox? Some love them, some hate them, I just find them useful." - Now I used that word again, no supper ;) (I dared to do so only it's already past supper.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What can I say Gerda, I associate you with being kind, understanding, patient and tolerant. With a side order of Bach. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. But it's not easy to ignore ignore ignore (following the best advice I received) these recruiting assumptions. In a different thread, they talk about infobox crusaders. Do you have an idea what that's supposed to mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, but I have seen the industrial size vat of tar and 3 hundredweight of prime feathers ordered for Andy Mabbett, and have stuck my oar in that debate, hoping to be the voice of common sense (or something). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

My AIV report

Regarding this, your response was removed before I got a chance to reply. I stand corrected: thank you. For the record, I had read WP:VANDAL, and I believed an editor removing a CSD tag on an article he had created after having been repeatedly warned about not to do that counted as "avoidant" vandalism.

I'm not interested in pursuing this matter further at the moment, but is there somewhere else I'm supposed to report this kind of behavior? The standard user warning template {{uw-speedy4}} (which I know isn't policy) says that continuing inappropriate removal of CSD tags will garner the offending editor a block, hence my report. Thank you!  Rebbing  20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: There are a number of options. You can report them to WP:AN3 for edit warring if the tag has been reinstated multiple times. If the article is particularly problematic (say, an attack page or a copyvio) you may be able to get a quicker response posting on WP:ANI. Failing that, the other option, and one I quite often go for, is to raise a full deletion debate at AfD. It usually doesn't hurt to wait 7 days . If they attempt to remove the AfD tag, a bot will automatically put it back. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That all seems quite reasonable. Thanks for explaining!  Rebbing  14:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pall Mall, London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athenaeum Club. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pall Mall

Are administrators supposed to edit war and then stop any IP correcting their poor edits? I think not, you are a disgrace. Again I will tell you that a street is NOT a residence and to answer your edit summary question, I live in a house on a road. My residence is the house not the road. 94.196.211.94 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sad about this, because Wikipedia is supposed to be a team, and somebody who hops IPs is at best uncontactable and at worst caught midfire in vandalism collateral, unable to edit. This is a shame as contrary to popular belief, we're not all ogres and do actually want to strike up conversations from time to time with other people, as we can all contribute different strengths. I think you'll enjoy the Wikipedia experience more if you keep your cool, work together as a team, and not throw up your arms up in complaint as soon as you find conflict - I'm sure we can resolve this amicably. I see you have put in a request to unprotect the page on RPP, which is exactly what I wanted, and hopefully a third opinion will allow us to determine what consensus is on the issue. I will say that personally I'd prefer an expansion of the article, documenting information about the 18th century properties and later clubs from some of the Survey of London sources, rather than getting upset over what is, to be fair, a relatively trivial issue. Consider going into a major international airport and blowing up a bunch of people because you think your religion says it's okay - that's a disgrace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think preventing others editing that article while saying we can resolve this amicably is hypocritical. You are an administrator and you have protected your own erroneous edit. That is not supposed to happen. Try looking the word up in a dictionary. I've been perfectly "cool", I am not upset, annoyed maybe, I am not a vandal, I don't want to register, this is how I access the internet but you have escalated the issue by abusing your administrative "power". Don't try to deflect blame onto me by bringing up current events, I was only trying to improve an article. IP's can and do improve articles, it's a pity you are so wrapped up in reverting that you can't see it. 188.29.45.122 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No-one was accusing your ip friend of bombing an airport. Disputes over single words can be such a drag. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to point fingers. If you want to complain about an administrator, file a report on WP:ANI. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

... and here are some fingers you might like to use later... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC) ... "smoke until our eyes would bleed"

Hi. Having reviewed this matter I'm interpreting this as a request and invitation to remove the protection. I'll spare the details. You both know where the talk page is. And WP:RFPP is the other page. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, I just wanted a third opinion, and would have unprotected anyway as soon as I have it. I'm particularly disappointed our IP friend above has forgotten the barnstar I gave him two months ago, but that's life. Some people just hate admins and want to see them suffer and fail. *sigh* Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Fret ye not, Threesie"... IPs can be such fickle things. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 06:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of John Deacon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Deacon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter, Threesie!!

	Some Easter Lead Belly for you!
	"Pasg Hapus! ... Happy Easter to you!" Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Circus Drive-In

I've now bumped this article up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circus Drive-In. Do you have any comments to add to the deletion proposal? Although I am an inclusionist by nature – WP appears to be be turning into the Yellow Pages but I want to be fair about it – so would appreciate your comments. --Aspro (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks by an editor

Hi, so an IP editor, 68.194.58.163 (talk), in addition to making good faith but ultimately nonconstructive edits, keeps cussing at me and other editors, and just left an immature "attack" on my talk page. The IP seems to be a repeat offender that you have dealt with in the past, as have my fellow WP:NYPT editors. Is there any protocol? Thank you. Tdorante10 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Update. The IP is now blocked. Kudos to you Tdorante10 for keeping your cool under those ridiculous and vile attacks. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points. In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, 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) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Weronika Rosati

Hi, I am in the process of expanding this article and I desperately need your help. I started to write about a legal case and I find it really difficult to write about this matter, becuase English is not my first language and when it comes to use specialist terminology I struggle, so I hope that you can help me. I have written everything and all I need you to do for me is to read it through and simply correct my mistakes, grammar, punctuation etc., I'll be grateful. Thanks in advance.

"In 2010, Andrzej Żuławski, with whom Rosati was in a relationship, released a journal called Nocnik. One of the characters included in the book, a girl named Esther, was allegedly based on the actress. In 2010, Rosati filed a lawsuit against Żuławski and the book's publisher and claimed 200 000 PLN, public apology for the invasion of her privacy and the deprivation of her dignity as a woman, and to stop the violation of her personal rights by removing parts of the book on her person from its further releases or completely withdrawing the book from sale. In February 2014, Żuławski and the book's publisher have been ordered by the district court in Warsaw, to pay 100 000 PLN to Rosati and release a public apology for the possibility of associating the actress with the book's fictional character and therefore assigning her abusive and false features. However, the judge believed that because the book has already been sold out before the prohibiton orders have been issued, the offence has already taken place, so withdrawing the book from sale wouldn't have made any difference. After being charged, the defendants launched an appeal. However, in May 2015 they lost the appeal and the verdict from February 2014 has been upheld by the appeal court in Warsaw."

ArturSik (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points. In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[2] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, 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) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

Hammond organ
...you were recipient no. 1138 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Crank it up!"

enjpy! and... 40 years ago... narrated by Raymond Baxter!! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC) By jove! "tunes!!" ... and check out this bad boy... ouch!!!

"Ars longa, vita brevis", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Vita brevis, death's bonds, Wikipedia:Main Page history/2016 March 27, with thanks for your ARCA statement, Ritchie! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK that death's bonds went to FAR? - ... that the restricted is free? - Looking forward: I would like a fast GA review for eternal fire, source of love ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

... found a lover of eternal fire, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, 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) 01:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Deacon

The article John Deacon you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:John Deacon for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: GA nomination for Inside Out (2015 film)

"Crying helps me slow down and obsess over the weight of life's problems."

Sadness

Hi, due to offline commitments -- & some concerns about the article's language not being stable -- I've let this review slide. (Although I feel these edits are improving the article, in general.) Since you've had a good look at this article, do you have any serious objections if I promote this to GA? Since I've taken it on, I'd like to resolve it quickly before something else from my offline life delays me further. Thanks in advance -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Llywrch: I've been away for a bit and it looks like the GA review has been and gone, but I hope I did make some positive contribution towards it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes you did. If you hadn't I might have overlooked some needed fixes. Thanks for your input. -- llywrch (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The film has the benefit of having its entire timeline played out in the era when most people are online and Wikipedia policies firmly established, and was a critical and commercial success, so it was in a pretty good shape anyway when I first looked at it, and there wasn't much of a cleanup that quite a few other GA attempts have. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocks stemming from James Ossuary

You may wish to consider unblocking the IP, as well. They discussed quite reasonably and civilly once they were made aware of the forum for discussion. The slow edit warring seems more of an ignorance of the rules than a deliberate flaunting of them. It's the IPv6 IP editor whom I worry might pursue further reverts, but I personally don't fault them for their prior reverts: they were in keeping with a rather large consensus established at this RSN discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Okay, I think I owe you both an apology as I forgot today's 2nd June, not 1st, and got the dates mixed up and misread it as a live set of reverts happening right here right now - otherwise I would definitely not have blocked. I think the request had languished at WP:RFPP for some time because it looked like complex situation that nobody else was prepared to resolve (which is why I tend to end up tackling the difficult disputes). I have dropped some advice on the talk page; I was hoping actually to make an opinion on the article and give advice on which version to use, but the sourcing in question is in a subject beyond my area of expertise and I really think an expert opinion is needed there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted, with no hard feelings. We all make mistakes! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

hasty close

Hi Ritchie333, as I have other things to do I was stil preparing an answer when I saw you already closed the Beck's promo case. I ask you to reopen it and to add and consider my reply:

@Beyond_My_Ken:

(1) your are creating false evidence buy linking a google search deliberately excluding "beer" and "brewery" and utf-8 variants. And even then you get the beer and company on the first page. And then just click on your manipulated Google link's image search - it's all green and beer over and over. Why didn't you link a search for "Beck's" or "BECK's"?

(2) Would you think the same of user:"Coca Cola", user:"Marlboro" and similar in huge company-coloured letters on their UP? By your arguments we would have to unblock user:Mountain Dew, user:Jack Daniel´s, user:CokeClassic, user:Bud Light, user:Schweppes UK, user:Google map, ... and many, many others.

(3) I never said this is about copyright. But right as you say, it is about a registered trademark - thank you for adding that further issue.

(4) The user has edited the brewery article several times as I mentioned (and even created es:Beck's)

(6) I suggest you refrain from personal attacks.

@all: I am really shocked what methods of IAR are used here to help Beck's to continue their year-long promotion. I didn't ask to block this editor, just to reduce the advertising and change the username. --Trofobi (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If @Beyond My Ken: wants to come here and continue the discussion, he can if he wants, but I don't think he will. The user Beck's (talk · contribs) has only made one contribution in the last 2 years, so this really is a problem that doesn't exist. Looking at the user's page, I see that English probably isn't their first language, so they may not be able to effectively communicate on talk pages. Also, "Beck's" can mean "of Rebecca" in English slang. I really think this is a non-issue, and the main reason for the close wasn't so much to shut out conversation with you as to stop others piling on with "+1" posts agreeing that this is a non-issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I see no need to continue the discussion. The close was justified. BMK (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [4]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, 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) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Brains (web series)

Equal rights for zombies!

You realize, of course, that the "barrage of complaints" on Talk:Brains (web series) is likely the result of sock or meat puppetry, right? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I see a group of people making a self-financed film and promoting on the web, none of whom know anything about Wikipedia or its policies. Think of it as a polite version of Hanlon's razor. I've put the article at AfD, we'll let that run its course. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

RummyCircle

Hi Ritchie333 this is regarding the deleted page which is reviewed by you the said page is regarding online game RummyCircle not the organization or a company the game is about traditional rummy card game played in India now which played online the said game is top online game in card game so I like to create the wiki page of this game like other game page of candy crush temple run. I would like to request you again to review the page and make it live again Regards Bullus 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullus (talk • contribs)

@Bullus: I've restored the article and added an additional news source which confirms the site is big business in India. However, in order to do that, I have to rewrite large portions of the article as the text was too promotional. So even if the article did not qualify for CSD A7 ("no indication of importance") it might well have been deleted anyway per CSD G11 ("blatant advertising"). As it is, the article is now reduced to a stub with a few sentences, but I believe that should be enough to survive a deletion debate. Please make sure you don't add any additional overly-positive terms to the article, otherwise it may be at risk of being proposed for deletion again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

Per this edit, the block was for edit warring on Ken Ham, following the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Result: blocked one week). StAnselm (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it. I don't think negates anything I have written on his talk page, and my general gist was that the block was really for civility, which is justifiable in my view. He's got a choice of showing remorse or having a week's holiday, and I have no strong preference for either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's 1RR

I'm not sure about linking WP:1RR in the wording of the restriction, as traditionally 1RR is one revert per day (it even says sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" is replaced by "1 week" because this is apparently an uncommon exception). The wording you gave was fine in itself, so linking to the policy page, if anything, just clouds it up. Just my two cents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have just boldly changed the text at WP:1RR to "sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" is replaced by some other time period, such as "1 week"" which covers the one month in this restriction, and allows for further discretion, which these sort of drawn-out community discussions will usually require. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right, of course, and your close was a valiant effort. As we say in Japan, o-tsukare-sama. And in the unlikely event that anyone challenges your bold change to 1RR's wording, you can tell them I put you up to it and support the change. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Swanest

Hi Richie333 you recently deleted the page I put up on Swanest, I would like to know why this page is not suitable but Moneyfarm is? I am trying to make Wikipedia a more complete place for robo-advisory as its a new area. I will look to resubmit the page if you have no major pointers for how this can be improved as this is a notable company and is not advertising - purely factual information that I believe is suitable. Many thanks (Marcusw572 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

@Marcusw572: It turns out that MoneyFarm was put up for speedy deletion but declined by Appable as "one of the biggest digital wealth management companies in Europe", so it might be worth asking them. My personal view is that company articles on Wikipedia are a hard sell - I find the business will neither by helped nor harmed by having a Wikipedia page, and information for it can still be easily found on Google. We try to aim for content that is going to important for people in 10, 50, 100 years' time, and base articles around that level of knowledge. There is always the risk that the company may run into financial trouble or one of the directors may be convicted for fraud or embezzlement, and that sort of information can also go in the article. So it's worth considering whether it's actually a good thing to have an article in the first place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I do hope you're not just "feathering your own swan's nest" here, Threesie?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Richie333: Thats understood, as Swanest is a notable company on the Robo Advisory scene and is getting top level national coverage within its country of operation and is set to grow considerably over the foreseeable future I don't see why its not suitable for Wikipedia. If there are to be financial trouble or major news I believe it is of interest that it is recorded so don't see this as a point to work against it. I believe its a relevant feature of the very empty robo advisory section of Wikipedia, additionally the information in the piece (excluding some sources) are not easily obtainable via Google, its only because of my interest in this area that I can help fill in the blanks. I will resubmit the page and I hope it will not again be marked as advertising (which it is not), it would be great if Appable would be able to give his / her opinion having approved the MoneyFarm post. Thanks (Marcusw572 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

I would advise you to use the article wizard which will put the article in draft space where it can be kept for a greater length of time without interference, and reviewed by an experienced editor. In this specific case here, the deletion rationale wasn't for A7 (no indication of importance) but G11 (blatant advertising), meaning I would have had to rewrite the article from the ground up to ensure it was in a suitable state to be improved by others. I can restore the deleted article to draft space and add the relevant submission buttons if this will make life easier? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Too many false positives to the World Health Organisation

Let's rawk (crowd-sourced)

I understand your frustration [5] trying to find information on the Who. It reminded me of the WWF, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (see WWE#WWF_name_dispute). Why do these do-gooders insist on co-opting the brands of our most noble entertainers? Willondon (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, when I was growing up the WWF was the World Wildlife Fund, David Bellamy appearing on television to talk about world conservation etc etc, then a bunch of rasslers (wave to Drmies) hijacked the acronym. As far as the Who / Mandela concerts go, I'm sure there is a source somewhere but the article is pretty large (about 60K of prose) at the moment, so I tend towards taking any excuse to remove content that is not obviously important and cannot fit in another article (which this can, not least 46664's own article). I do admit I got confused with the late 1980s Mandela concerts which were (obviously) campaigning for his release. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• In my position as guitar overseer for AC/DC (ArbCom Decibel Control) I am making some edits to the article. I hope my edit summaries explain what I did. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It did, though I would qualify that Townshend was a Marshall pioneer, being one of the first people on the planet to use a 4x12 stack, but as you say he primarily used Hiwatts for the Who's "prime time" era of 1968 - 1978. (PS: The drummer in our band is related to the notable AC/DC's Chris Slade and got a free backstage pass when they played Wembley - as Slade's article correctly says, he also drums in the quaintly named Centaur Parting). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, maybe "pioneer", but the article is about The Who. BTW, 4x12? 8x12. Have you ever seen one? One of my friends has one, Marshall, 1960s. I tried to pick it up once. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A cursory mention in "equipment" should suffice, but there is one anyway, so I think trimming that stuff out of "legacy and influence" is probably okay. We have a 4x12 in the studio, and I have seen an 8x12, but we have sack trucks over here to deal with them. And even then, that's small fry compared to a Hammond C-3 with a pair of 122s - they have large amounts of solid metal and cause four grown men to weep when shifting it about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)