User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/As_Likely_As_Not_(band)

Ok. could you review the Article now? I put reliable sources now of this band. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabbiosi (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The article is in the queue and somebody will hopefully review it soon. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

AFC Pacific

In regards to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pacific, I left a note for the author encouraging they start a new submission, that way the copyvio won't exist in the history. As a copyvio the page should really be deleted or at least blanked. France3470 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  • You can, but this runs the risk of biting newcomers who don't understand this. Unless they threaten legal action against Wikipedia, it's best to decline it, and then speedy / blank it if it goes round the houses several times. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. I always tag AFC copyvios for speedy under G12, which as far as I know, is the agreed protocol. The problem I see with leaving the copied text is that it encourages close paraphrasing, as generally the material is only altered as opposed to written from scratch. I've seen a number of these cases, which could probably been prevented if the article was rewritten from scratch. France3470 (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to disagree all you like. I sometimes CSD stuff in AfC (in fact I've just done a batch now) but if you ding it for G12, you must be prepared to sit down with the article's creator and explain very clearly what the problem is, because I have seen plenty of first hand experience that people simply do not understand copyvios at all, and/or get confused and upset by big red scary templates. When this happens, they either leave Wikipedia or create another copyvio (sometimes restoring the original content since "that nasty man wiped all my hard work") because they didn't get what you were talking about. Basically, all I'm saying is give the user some grace if there's reasonable assumption they're inadvertently copyvio'ing their own work (as WP:GARAGE bands so often do) - I notice you've taken similar action to what I have done in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Devil. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm just a stick in the mud when it comes to copyvios. Despite how many we find, so many seem to slip by unnoticed. Your completely right that new editors often misunderstand our policies surrounding the copying of content, and I absolutely agree that our CSD process is hardly a friendly approach to dealing with such cases. However, copyright violations are a serious issue, which we editors are rather unequipped to deal with. Getting the balance between "this content is not allowed on Wikipedia, don't do it again" and "please continue to contribute to the project" can most certainly be difficult. On the whole though my talk page is always open, and I'm always willing to discuss anything related to my edits in further detail. (I'm even happy to help rewrite submissions to make them complaint if so asked.) You've got me thinking though; I might work on some kind of personal message I could add to talk pages for users whose AFCs are copyvios which isn't so formal and bitty as the speedy template. My aim is always to encourage as well as educate new editors; Wikipedia desperately needs contributors but at the same time the system is complex, and some understand of Wikipedia's most basic policies is necessary in order to contribute. I really appreciate your replies; It's always interesting to gaining insight into other people's editing processes. I'm also totally enjoying see the AFC backlog going down so quickly. At this rate it will be clear by lunch time tomorrow. :) Happy AFC reviewing, France3470 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well I think the approach to The Devil works well - {{afc cleared}} the article, and then explain why in the comment. The other trouble with CSDs, aside from what's mentioned, is that newbies or casual users often miss them, thinking "where did my article go" and recreate it again with the same copyvios, until it gets salted. I was going to show you an example of a BLP violation I caught today, but it appears that's already been speedied, which isn't really what I wanted - the article had one reliable source but my knowledge of WP:BLP says if you're going to accuse someone of murder on Wikipedia, get a handful of sources first. I won't have much time after today to contribute to WP for about a week, so today is the best chance I have of grabbing a few barnstars helping reduce the workload. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Z Space page - upgrading references?

Hi Ritchie333:

Jethro B suggested contacting you. I've been working on the Z Space page, trying to make sure it's up to standards. (The page has been flagged as needing better references/citations.) I just made a series of improvements that address Jethro B's issues. The article now has more than a dozen citations for what's a relatively concise entry (500 words?), including a cross-section of regional newspapers, national magazines and books. I can always add more, but I'd like to make sure any additional citations address perceived gaps. If all the gaps are now taken care of, that's even better. Let me know if there are specific passages where you had issues with the citations, and I'll try to address those points.

Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorTally (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review :Van der Graaf Generator

The initial review is now finished. The article meets the bulk of the GA criteria, though doesn't quite meet 1B: MoS compliance for lead, and 2B: Citation of reliable sources where necessary. I've put on hold for an initial seven days to allow the work to be done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Richardson

Hello Ritchie, Thank you for reviewing my aricle on Frank Richardson, and I accept your comments. This being my first article to Wikipedia I am looking for any advice. I understand what you say about sources, but my problem is that I am the only source for this data. I have digitised our extensive family archives which consist of newspaper cuttings,personal and profesional photos, documents and letters of 109 years ago, and there are no sources to quote. If you go to Wikipedia>City of Salisbury Police>Frank Richardson, there is a note showing three Chief Constables of the city, one being Frank richardson with a note in blue stating more data would be welcome. That's what prompted me to submit my article. I have called him a notable person because looking at the Wikipedia instructions that was what I thought a Chief Constable would be. He was one of three Chief Constables, each from the same family and each in office at the same time over a twenty year period (1900-1920) which is a unique situation. Any further guidance you can give me to alter the article so it would be acceptable would be most welcome. TimothyWF (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Timothy Walker

  • Hi. Unfortunately articles on Wikipedia must be verifiable - this allows a consistent guarantee that anyone anywhere can read something on Wikipedia and assume that it's correct because of its sources. Also, I'm afraid just being the level of a constable isn't really sufficient, to be notable enough to get an article you have to be at a very senior level, and have been involved in something very newsworthy and widely known, such as Tommy Butler. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

External link

A recent addition to online poker was declined due to external links. It was only really there as an example of a site, if I remove the link can I re-add the submission regarding online poker "ranking"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spackis333 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The article was declined because it had no reliable sources and whose content duplicated that of an existing article. If you remove the references, the article will still be declined due to no sourcing as opposed to unreliable sourcing. By adding the content to the existing article, it has a better chance of being kept. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Kinetic: The First Alliance

Greetings Ritchie333,

We would like to discuss with you why our Wikipedia page was declined. The reason you gave us was that fictional content and that we should cover the real world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance. I was hoping that maybe you can clarify on what exactly was meant by that. What I got from it was that we focused on the world our characters were a part of and who the characters of the book are. What you are suggesting is that we should be writing the page about what the book has done as far as statistics and also where it is along the lines of development. This confused me at first because we looked at other Wikipedia pages as references so that we got it right the first time. When you look at such pages as pretty much any marvel or dc comic page you read about the origin, the powers and abilities and other things that have nothing to do with book sales, what kind of impact it had in the media. What we are trying to do is get our book out there and be able to give people answers to any questions our readers may have. If you can help us fix the page so we can be Wikipedia worthy, then we are all ears. Thank you for your help,

Kinetic Alliance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinetic Alliance (talk • contribs) 23:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing Name

Hi Ritchie333: I saw this question for you at the user's talk page when I was adding a welcome message for him. I'm just passing it along to you. Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, I thought your user name had to be the name of the article you were writing about. Is it possible to request a username change, as I have an article pending review? New username: ESt1845 Henry Heydenryk, Jr. (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
All done --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hugh Banton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radio Luxembourg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Les Halpin

Hi Ritchie333

Just trying to get a bit more clarity on why you have turned down my submission on Les Halpin? I'm new to Wiki editing so not quite sure what I've don wrong.

You're help would be appreciated.

Best,

James Hargrave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.53.38 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Shannon Campbell

Hi Ritchie333

I have been working on the Shannon Campbell page. He is cited in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Hammers page as winner a few times. The sports like rock crawling and ultra racing don't regularly make the main stream news. I have added some other references from sponser like monster energy drinks and other famous racers that reference him. How can we make this work with references so I don't have to guess. Forgive me for not being an expert this is my first submission.

Rob Allred — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roballred (talk • contribs) 15:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of List of Ghost in the Shell chapters

I just meerely wanted to ask what were the unreliable sources? Most of them were primary, so i don't see how it can be labeled unreliable. But if its just the lack of sources, could you let me know where it lacks? Thank you.Lucia Black (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, just read your review. The article isn't a stand alone it's merely a WP:SS. It's a sister article to the articles Ghost in the Shell (manga) (in which i'm planning to merge to Ghost in the Shell main article) and Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex.Lucia Black (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
THe two are now merged, i'm assuming you have time to reply back at least.Lucia Black (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
i just re-submitted.Lucia Black (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, somebody should be reviewing it soon since there's a backlog reduction drive on - I've been preoccupied with things like taking Van der Graaf Generator to GA status :-/ --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok sounds good.Lucia Black (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Syler

In regards to your comment, the two notable sources are related to Newsday which is a verifiable Newspaper. They are footnotes 4 and 5 on my article. It was already confirmed that the topic was notable by another approver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SylerDurden82 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, it is actually footnotes 3 & 4 which relate to the published Newsday articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SylerDurden82 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HAZRAT MIAN MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE DAHIR NAQSHBANDI MAKAN SHARIFI(Rehmatullah alaihe) k KHULFA

Just in case you were curious about context, just by the title and article I'm pretty sure this guy is a Sufi Muslim spiritual leader. I've seen a lot of these; Category:Sufi saints is a pretty terrible mess of only slightly better articles. The term Naqshbandi was the tipoff, as that's a Sufi order, and I would presume that the numbers and names are his silsila, his "chain" through which the tradition has passed to him. That's very common in Sufi articles, and in South Asia I see a lot of religious leader articles that are less actual bio and more just tortuously detailed genealogy to establish religious pedigree. Just in case you wondered what the submission was about. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion and sources

Hello Ritchie. Could you have a look at this? Do you think it's worth keeping?

I'm thinking of taking Piper to GA. If you're not busy, and if you have the book near, could you expand the Mason refs? (I still need to get his book.) yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Hiya. Some of the redirects are worth keeping, some aren't. I'm not fussed. Regarding, DSOTMoo, it's only borderline notable so I'll listen to arguments for a merge / redirect (but not an outright nuke).
As for Piper, well I'm busy with real life (again!) but I can source stuff out of Mason, Povey et al for it. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough.
Ah, life strikes again, and alrighty. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I now have a working spinet Hammond and Leslie - just like the one Rick uses in Pink Floyd at Pompeii - more fun than editing WP articles. (And less arguing!) :-D --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Nice! Have you had it for a while? Or just obtained it? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 19:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Well it's not absolutely identical, but a layman wouldn't notice and it'll make the same sound. It's a Hammond T-402 (like the M-102 which Rick did use on Pompeii, but with a transistor power amp), going through a valve amp simulator box. That goes into the Sharma speaker, and if you look at that article, you'll see my photos of it. Had the Hammond for a month or two, got the Sharma this weekend. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Really awesome pics. Up for re-creating "Echoes"? :) I've got an electric piano (not sure what kind!) that my mate "gave" (at a price) to me, I can't play it though. However, it works well on tempo when I'm trying to play a song on guitar at certain pace. I've got Mason's book (2011 ed), so you've got less of a work(/ref)load. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I can play every part on every instrument (or at least the live Pompeii arrangement), though I've only started working out the drum parts recently. For what I do outside of Wikipedia, see this - it ain't Floyd but it's still fun. Many years ago, I played in a psych pop band and we covered Astronomy Domine on a regular basis, and did Lucifer Sam a few times. Never had the patience or stamina to do Echoes! --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Very nice! (@Echoes and out of Wiki.) I've got a question: At my college, after the half-term break is over, one of the staff is planning to get some students, who play guitar, to play lunchtime sets. So my question is, do you think I should do it? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog Drive

Hi there, can you please clarify exactly what you mean by "speedied" that you have listed in some of your reviews? I know it means speedy deletion but does that mean you did that or it was deleted after you passed the article? I can't tell because the articles have already been deleted.--Dom497 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • "Speedied" means that the article was either complete random gibberish or blatant spam, to the point where nothing of the article could be salvaged and the submitter's good faith would be called into question, so I nominated the article for speedy deletion instead of merely declining it. The fact that article was deleted means an admin agrees with the nomination so could be interpreted as a pass. User:Ritchie333/The legend of crabman is a sample I collected a while back of something which, in my opinion, is suitable for speedy deletion. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, got it! Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
And, for the record, "on the blacklist, speedied" means I couldn't even move it from userspace into AfC space to decline the article, because the name was blacklisted, suggesting repeated attempts at writing the same duff article via AfC. Instant speedy. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)\
Ok.--Dom497 (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie, If I may come back on one of your comments. Re: I called Frank Richardson a notable person because he was a CHIEF Constable, which is a bit different from a constable ! Still in a learning curve in this site. (User TimothyWF) TimothyWF (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(User:TimothyWF)

Take a Break Bingo

Hi Ritchie

After 2 declines I think I resubmitted my referenced version of the take a break bingo page but have not heard anything back. Could you let me know the status of this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj loman (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/S-FRAME Software

I just answered a question on the AfC help desk about your review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/S-FRAME Software. I believe technically your decline reason was invalid: The draft obviously is a duplicate, but the old version, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/S-FRAME, was not submitted for review. Since the new version's title seems more appropriate, I don't think there's something wrong with abandoning the old draft and adding a new one on the same topic. Am I missing something? Huon (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Van der Graaf Generator

Hi. How are you getting on with the GA review of this? I'm doing a bit of expansion on musical style, as suggested in the review, which will hopefully be done by this evening, at which point I think all existing comments in the review are accounted for.

As stated, I will be mostly off-wiki for about a fortnight starting next week, so if you've come across other problems or things that need improving / fixing, now would be a good time to suggest them! --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's been off my radar. I'll take a look today and let you know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. By the way, I found a bootleg recording of Van der Graaf Generator at the Weeley Festival in 1971 online. Just been listening to it. I wonder if I can hear you shouting? ;-) --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection of them at the festival. I think they came on very late in the evening. Perhaps even in the early hours of the morning. I associate them with a very heavy fragrance of joss sticks and marijuana on the night air.....

This user helped promote Van der Graaf Generator to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Otto Hauser

Thanks very much for reviewing my new contribution for Otto Hauser, drummer. I appreciate your feedback. However, I'm not sure what you are looking for in terms of citations. The reviews I quoted for inclusion under "Reviews" reference Hauser explicitly, and laud his performances. They are written by the music critic of the New York Times and the music critic of The Independent of London, respectively. Links to his discographies on reputable sites include over 4 dozen recordings on which he is credited for percussion, keyboard, guitar and vocals. References to other musicians with whom he has collaborated, and who have qualified for Wikipedia pages of their own, are corroborated by third-parties or by the musicians' own, personal sites. Could you please give me some sense of what you have in mind as reliable sources, beyond numerous major label publishing credits and articles in The New York Times and the Independent (as well as the various local papers from major cities, which have also been included)? I would very much like to comply! Thanks in advance for your help.

Ifeagerkeen (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The references are reliable sources, and they mention Hauser. But each one just mentions he's the drummer, and nothing else - and we require significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. For example, regarding the New York Times performance, the only thing attributable to him is "and Otto Hauser’s simple, lightweight drum grooves". That's it. I got an error for the Independent link, so I can't check that. Don't assume that because other people have Wikipedia articles that he can automatically have one - notability is not inherited. You basically need to find articles like the Black Crowes one which is a good reference because it talks about Hauser in depth. If you can find two more references that have at least one lengthy paragraph about him, and only him, that will just about tip it in the direction of a pass. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Alan Cuckston

Hi there, can you revisit my new article on Alan Cuckston (George Alan Cuckston) please? I have listed a number of citations, I hope that this is acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/George_Alan_Cuckston

Jpotter1973 (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Jon

I just had a quick look at those citations. The BBC link was broken, but that source doesn't provide significant coverage of Cuckston anyway. It doesn't even write one entire sentence about him. The Creel seems to list two articles written by Cuckston, but what we need are sources written by others about Cuckston. The two discographies aren't significant coverage either, and his label is not an independent source. That leaves us with the Oxford Dictionary (and Answers.com cites the dictionary); that is a good source, but on its own it's a little thin. Has Cuckston been the subject of newspaper coverage, perhaps on the occasion of his becoming director of music in Leeds?
As an aside, it may be more efficient to ask future questions at the Article for creation help desk; there are more eyes on the help desk, and answers may come a little quicker. Huon (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Huon. I need to update the talk page header to say this - I was off wiki for the past week but that was not very well advertised. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I will search for more news articles as there will be many across the archives. However that BBC link is categorically not broken and demonstrates clearly his performance at the proms. http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/archive/search/1960s/1968/september-11/8001. I think this rejection is quite harsh considering. Let me see what else I can provide if this is still insufficient IYO. Jpotter1973 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Jon

The BBC link has a one line mention of Cuckston. This is not significant coverage. Have a read of WP:42 which specifies a broad guideline to what "significant" means. We need at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more about the subject, and we need them in multiple sources. The rejection is no different to any number of articles attempted to be created on Wikipedia with insufficient sourcing. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, The problem we have is that nearly everything Alan does is in such a traditional sphere that reviews and other biographical material are not digitised. It is blatantly obvious from the plethora of references both from and to Alan that he is both famous and reputable. I have tried to show this by trawling the web some more and have added some references of the type that you mention. I hope that this is compelling enough for you. Jpotter1973 (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Jon

What's "blatantly obvious" to you is not necessarily obvious to everyone else. Books are a legitimate source, and in fact are considered the best sources. See WP:CITEHOW. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Strawberry Mini article

Dear Ritchie,

My article about solar device Strawberry Mini was declined by you with the explanation that the subject was already covered within the article Strawberry Tree (solar energy device). But today, when I went to this article, I saw that there is nothing said about Strawberry Mini. Could you review my article Strawberry Mini again, or should I write the same text about it within the article Strawberry Tree (solar energy device)?

Best regards,

Tijana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renewablesfuture (talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I think I should have provided a bit more of an explanation, so apologies for not doing that. The Strawberry Tree article has been looked at several experienced editors and cleaned up, but it's a bit short. As it stands, your article is referenced and borderline notable, but I thought that a better chance of your work surviving would be to expand the Strawberry tree article and add information about the Mini in a new section. You can still create a redirect from "Strawberry Mini" to the relevant bit of the Strawberry Tree article, so people can still search for it. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ashley Jana

I need help finding resources. It is harder than it looks. Could you please help me?? 75.176.3.213 (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Please can you advise what I can say on this page - Suffolk. As Other local companies are listed on here, but when I tried to add us it was removed. I understand we cannot advertise on here - please let me know exactly what I can say1

Many thanks, Helen — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenLandon (talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  • If you have to think about what you can say in an article, the best answer is "nothing". Avoid editing articles about anything you're associated with, and leave other people to write about them, and things will be okay. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What websites are considered reliable for musicians?? 75.176.3.213 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2012

  • Have a look at WP:NMUSIC - Billboard, BBC News and The Guardian all have regular features about musicians, and all are generally considered reliable sources. "Chart success or equivalent" is a good rule of thumb - having several singles or an album hit a national chart greatly increases the notability of a musical act. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

AfC and spammers

Hi. I don't work at AfC but work at UAA often. It has come to my attention that recently you have accepted articles at AfC by users with a serious [{WP:COI|conflict of interest]] in pushing their products into WP. For example User talk:Tapfortap wrote Tap for Tap.The editor is now indef blocked for violating the username policy (spam user names and pushing his own products). As I am not familiar with the process you use at AfC, could I ask you that when an obvious conflict of interest shows up, you alert us at UAA before accepting the article? Any admin on duty at UAA can make a determination and help you decide, or block the blatant violators outright. Thank you for your attention. I will be watchlisting your page for a little while to see what your opinion on this is. -- Alexf(talk) 19:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Tap for Tap was accepted because it contained information in reliable sources that made it (just) notable. It doesn't matter who created it. The article's creator had a {{uw-coi-username}} on their talk page, so no further action was required. Articles turn up that are self written all the time - very few pass, most are declined, some are speedy deleted per G11 (here's a recent example). I've never heard of UAA before now, but I would suggest a better solution is to see if there is a way of watching new user pages for the appropriate warning templates. As Wikipedia is a voluntary project, nobody is obliged to do anything. Does the user understand what they need to do to change their username, or do you think they might have now been scared away from Wikipedia? Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence! You're probably better off asking this on the AfC project page. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'll go to AfC Project. In any case, keep an eye on UAA when you need it. -- Alexf(talk) 12:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

From Lee-Anne (Cajtri87)

Hi, Thanks for reviewing my page on the new HEART album. I will fill it out more now, but I have a problem. Now that I have created a page for the album, how do I link to that page from the Heart Discography page? Where it just say "Fanatic" for the album name, I change it to "Fanatic", and it says that page doesn't exist? I guess I am not getting it. I am probably doing something incredibly silly with the title name of the page, but any help would be appreciated. I also am trying to upload an image for the page, but, once again, it says that page doesn't exist. AAAAHHHHH. I have done some work in the past, but never where I had to create a new page where I had to link it without at least some prior link. Thanks a lot for the help. Lee-AnneCajtri87 (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

From Seoulseeker re: A Report from Group 17

Hi Ritchie. Sorry, but your explanation for rejecting this article doesn't make sense to me. There are countless articles about fiction on Wikipedia, and vast numbers of them consist almost only of plot summaries or little more. Check out the Wikipedia pages listing novel articles in different categories, including Start-class and Stubs! I'll try to resubmit it, but this process feels a bit like a game of Blind Man's Bluff, and it hardly seems fair that so much is demanded although so many articles already exist that are much less detailed, sourced, and carefully prepared. Cheers. Seoulseeker (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi. Can you give me specific articles that you think are merely plot summaries, so I can check them? The problem we have, and something AfC does try and resolve, is that Wikipedia has many articles created years ago, that would not pass an AfC review today. Anyone could send them to Articles for Deletion at any time, and only their obscurity really stops this from happening. Unfortunately, the quality standards at Wikipedia have risen over the years, and the reason we now require a higher standard is because newcomers got frustrated at experienced editors trying to delete their work mere days after it was created. By going via AfC, your article is still incubated and can be improved so this won't happen. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Silver_Cross_Records

Hello Ritchie I can not understand why my first contribution here is not approved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Silver_Cross_Records Please be kind to explain me if you have time because I just follow other wikipedia contribution with same subjects in Serbia. There is no any doubt about what I write about this subject. Please explain me on this example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_Records_(Serbia) or this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassivity_Music ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_Centar — I try to understand the question of source but I can not because all article with same subject(record label from Serbia) use same source and all is approved --Gisnar 20:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The problem I had is simply that the references didn't appear to contain significant detail for somebody else to use them to verify the article's subject. We don't necessarily require sources from the web, and they can be print-based, but ideally you want to include some more specific information such as an ISBN number, if such a thing exists. Of the other articles, just because other articles exist, it doesn't mean they should. Metropolis Records (Serbia) is a good example of this - it would probably not pass an AfC review because it has a single source that shows the label exists, but nothing that explains why it is notable. Anyone could send that article to Articles for Deletion at any time, and it may be deleted. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Future, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Demos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey, thanks for the help with the Heart album. Got it linked and I added a photo and will work on the links. Big thanks. Lee-Anne

Cajtri87 (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London Heathrow Terminal 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emirates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Connect First

Hi, Ritchie333 - I've made changes to the page to try and neutralize the promotional edge, while also removing press release references. I am confused, however, as to why the page continues to be rejected as there are many other company pages that read very similarly to this one. Can you please provide any additional guidance as to changes that can be made to be accepted? Susan J. Campbell (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the problem with the article as it stands is that it's too long. You really don't need to mention the entire company history, year by year. Even the most notable companies such as IBM or Microsoft don't have that. The best way to write a Wikipedia article is to start with the sources first, and just report what the sources say. Even if you know other things about the company, don't mention them unless a source does. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Nice, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Windsor and Amen Corner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C++ grammar

Hello, you recently voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C++ grammar. Could you have a look at the comments left after your vote and perhaps reconsider your position or give a stronger rationale to keep this article? Cheers, —Ruud 21:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It's a bit late now, but basically I feel an article on this subject can be done from reliable sources, but not necessarily the one was deleted, so deleting it is probably not an issue. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 18:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Yellowstone Country, Montana submission

Hey there, thank you for taking the time to look at the article I'm trying to submit. I have a couple of questions I'm hoping you'll be able to clarify for me. You mention that I need to include references that are more credible. Currently, I've included links to the State of Montana's web site, the Gallatin County web site, the City of Bozeman web site, the Yellowstone Country web site, the National Park Service and Wikipedia. Can you give me a better idea of what you would be looking for, since these are seeming to be not enough? Thanks, again, for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcestensen (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The problem with the sources is they're either primary sources such as the official website, which can't be used to establish notability, they only briefly mention Yellowstone Country in passing, or they're overly promotional in nature, and hence not independent. We do normally give leniency on places per our guidelines on places, but only if they're widely used and recognised terms, which I'm not sure this is beyond the simple bounds of promotion. Your best best would be an independent article on the place written in a major national magazine such as National Geographic. Alternatively, you could take the content from these sources and expand the existing article at Yellowstone National Park instead. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

BBC sexual abuse cases

Why on earth did anyone (= you) approve the establishment of that article? Did no-one think to notify those writing the other linked articles, by leaving messages on those article talk pages? Obviously not. An appalling decision - we now have to consider how best to clean up the mess that has been created as a result. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've largely rewritten the article, and proposed it for deletion at the same time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Harmony James

Hi Ritchie I can work out why my submission got rejected. i seem to have more references than Catherine Britt and she is on wikipedia. The Sydney Morning Herald is pretty reliable ThanksBonrapture (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The article is very close to pass, and I very nearly did, but the problem is simply that the information that will make it unambigiously pass, specifically chart placings, or releasing two albums on a major label, either of which will satisfy WP:NMUSIC, are not backed up by any of the sources. It doesn't matter how reliable the Sydney Morning Herald is (and it is, as you say, a reliable source) - without chart success or major label deals, you need a lot of widespread national coverage to be notable. As I said on the review, find a source that shows a chart position, put it in the article (see WP:CITEHOW for instructions on how to do this), and it will pass.
Regarding Catherine Britt, that is not an example of a good article, as it is currently tagged for attention as requiring more references, and I have noticed one of the references is a dead link. Just because other articles exist on Wikipedia in poor shape, it doesn't mean this article should be too. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

hi Ritchie I put in a reference link to the Country Radio Charts in Australia. They archive all their charts on the site. This chart goes up online weekly and is printed in a Country music magazine. Thanks herm Bonrapture (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2439 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keith Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ready Steady Go (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Dieter Helm

I've improved the article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dieter Helm — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeFreakOnTheInternet (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

LSD article

Hi Ritchie333, I wrote this article as a project for an undergraduate class and I realize it reads like an essay and contains too many 'peacock' terms. Other than taking a more neutral approach and changing the langauge is there anything else that is stopping the article from being published? I just want to make sure I edit it correctly. Thanks, Amandamulder (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC) amandamulder

  • Hi. One of the problems is that Wikipedia isn't really suitable for publishing things for a class project. You might be taking sources, and drawing conclusions from them, or starting with a conclusion and finding evidence. The first one violates no original research, while the second violates neutral point of view. Wikipedia can only be used for taking conclusions that are already published, and reporting them in a disinterested and neutral tone as an introduction to the subject. At best, you could take your sources and research and expand the Lysergic acid diethylamide article, but that article has had a long history, including being demoted as a featured article and not listed as a good article, so if you're new to Wikipedia, that's probably not a good place to start editing. I'd be interested to know who asked you to write something on Wikipedia for a class, as my experience is that colleges don't allow Wikipedia as a research, because an article may not be totally sourced or inaccurate, even if a good / feature article, as anyone can edit it at any time. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul Levy

If you want to start a new article on a fresh foundation, there wouldn't be a problem with that.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • That seems like a sensible suggestion. I was just slightly concerned it could be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4 if I did, but actually thinking about it, it would be written from completely different sources and wouldn't qualify. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiLove

Hello, I'd just like to say I truly appreciate the good humour and diplomacy you bring to this community. thank you, and keep being great.--Zer0n888 (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

mostly for a lot of civility on a few silly talk page disputes I've seen, as well as the contributions you mentioned. thinking of putting a "favourite vandalism" section to my page as well!--Zer0n888 (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

M48 & A41/ A1 in London

Your reply is more than just helpful. Thank you.
My argument is that as it is the original "zone boundary",
and as the Wales section follows the A48,
and as it is a loop leaving and returning to the M4 motorway,
it is correctly numbered.
I also value your replying to me yesterday regarding the A41/A1 in London.
Cheers!  – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 19:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Question About Article

Hello Richie, I wanted to inquire whether or not I should even try to re-submit the article about the Wine By The Glass Format. Considering that it is a new style of packaging wine and there are not many articles on it out there. I'm aware that it has to be re-written into a more neutral tone, but if I don't have many resources is it a moot point? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunbox11 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I think you might find this is a good example of WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is written from other sources, so you absolutely require them, ideally as many as possible, to make an article pass. You can leave the article where it is, and it will be incubated, or, if you prefer, you can put {{db-self}} at the top of the article, and it will be shortly deleted. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Ritchie333! You're receiving the AFC and Teamwork Barnstars because you reviewed 219 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Bootie bicycle

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bootie bicycle.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:A1 road in London/GA3

I think I've attended to all the points you've raised so far. I've been impressed at your attention to detail, and your useful additional sources and suggestions. It's been a very helpful and encouraging review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For reviewing and assisting with the restructuring and copy-editing of the A1 road in London. Thank you for demonstrating how to get the job done properly.‎‎  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 08:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar
For giving an excellent example of how a GA Review should be done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment on User:MEMarraMA/UrbanCode Software AFC

Thanks for your comment on the above-referenced article I submitted for posting, Ritchie333. I feared I'd fallen into a black hole!

To address your question about the company's (Urban Code's) and other cited companies' notability, I can pull my Reference files with quotes, page numbers, excerpts on which I based my REFERENCES list and wrote the entire piece. I'd need to know what specific sources I've cited that you have concerns about.

(1) You mentioned "blogs." I did cite material from a couple of blogs among the 38 References. And I know blogs can be iffy; but it includes a blog from Forrester (a respected technology analyst and consulting firm; Reference #7) and from Microsoft Developers Network Blog (Reference #26). Are there other blog cites you want me to replace or substitute for?

(2) I have sources on the very first "continuous integration" servers that went public in 2001, (UrbanCode's Anthill and ThoughtWorks' Cruise Control). It sounded like tech blah-blah when I first came across it. But the more I researched definitions and timelines and trends in the industry-- those "primary sources" you noted --the more I learned that the first "CI" programs from 10 years ago made all the other innovations in computer software possible (like "agile rapid development" and "continuous delivery" on which today's big computer systems depend).

So, having the first-ever CI servers seems notable. I found "Cruise Control" from ThoughtWorks on Wikipedia (Reference #12); I found reference to UrbanCode's innovation in continuous integration in textbooks (like Duvall's Improving Software Quality from 2007; Reference #3); in Business News from the region's metro newspaper where UrbanCode is still headquartered (Reference #4); and from solid industry journals, like Dr. Dobbs' Journal (Reference #13).

But that was just the first trend I hit: Continuous Integration tools. Developments from UrbanCode and a couple of other companies kept showing up in my research on other software industry trends ... up to the present day in so-called "DevOps" (collaboration among different ends of the IT geek continuum). For all the industry trend sections, I went back to original sources -- writings of leaders in the field (Martin Fowler's postings from five years later in 2006), academic journals and texts or tech analyst papers.

Which leads to . . . (3) For what it's worth: I first thought I'd simply cite Wikipedia pages on the relevant trends and just move on. But I couldn't understand WP's pages on "Continuous Delivery" or "Agile Methodologies." I got lost in the weeds on 'waterfall process development models,' Dept of Defense projects from 1950s, 'siloed skill sets' and way too much jargon. So, in an editor fit, I decided to research the trends I needed as a writing base myself--summarized, quoted, properly cited--and move on. Those "primary sources" you noted.

A few of my primary sources are research and trend reports from technology analysts like Gartner Group, Forrester and GigaOmPro. I cited them in my References list; but a couple are proprietary research only made available to paid subscribers (unpublished) to which I got access.

I can provide back-up documentation on all the above. I just need to know what you need. MEMarraMA (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, sorry for the delay in replying, but when I looked at this article, I couldn't easily tell whether there were sufficient reliable sources to pass the article, and left a note so somebody else could deal with it. You are correct that blogs can be used if the author is well known in his subject field, such as Raymond Chen's The Old New Thing. But per policy, you can never cite other Wikipedia articles, though you can reuse the references in that article. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_5&oldid=1082579688"