User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 → Archive 55

Oi!, Threesie me ol' china...

Martinevans123 (Santa's Drop-in Centre) ... sends you ...


... warmest seasonal wishes for ...
Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you may find your true star...

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
Ritchie333!
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael van gerwen vandalism

Hi how are you ?. I notice you have put a 48 hour ban on Gekhoor for editing above page. Can we get a full ban if he keeps it up he has been doing this for months now ?. Regards 31.200.165.180 (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

See my comment here. Also, while changing sport stats for no reason is a popular form of subtle vandalism, it might just be somebody who's confused, so better to assume good faith and not use the "V" word (hence why the block is for edit-warring). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

They are not confused at all. The person has only ever made edits on van gerwens page and nothing else. Can we keep an eye on them ?. If they continue will they be blocked ?. 178.167.145.149 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Per the comment I left at WP:AN3, if they continue to edit-war on van Gerwen's article, they will be blocked again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


Gekhoor edited van gerwen's page again can you block again please ? 92.251.170.126 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Van gerwen's page edited again

Hi I am looking for a permanent block on our friend he has removed the same content front van gerwen's page again. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.170.126 (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. I still think this is a WP:COMPETENCE / WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue rather than any deliberate attempt to cause malice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The person has been repeatly told to leave the page alone 92.251.135.94 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody else cares, all things considered. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


Regarding speedy deletion of Pink Guy

Why was Pink Guy speedily deleted and salted when it clearly passes Wikipedia:MUSICBIO criteria two? The performer has a album which charted at number 76 on the Billboard 200 chart. [[1]] A deletion discussed back four months ago when the performer did not pass Wikipedia:MUSICBIO criteria two, should never have been taken into consideration as the circumstances have changed considerably, infact Filthy Frank and Pink Guy should be unsalted and redirected to the George Miller (entertainer) article as the other two are characters played in an online series.Either way it should have went to a AFD if anything not speedied. Mind you i don't have any skin in this game but that's how i interpret music bio and it would be good to clean up this mess finally. GuzzyG (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Ask, and ye shall receive - Pink Guy is blue again in a stub version that states the claim to WP:NMUSIC up front but little else. Provided some experienced hands are keep an eye on it, that should sort things out; part of the problem is that so many different versions of the article have been put up and then taken down that it can be a little difficult to see the wood from the trees. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well that settles it, got confused for a bit as i thought charting was automatic nobility, thanks for clearing it up. It is a mess that there's so many different names that this article and its past equivalents has had and i hope someone with more expertise on this matter then me will step up to clean it all up, what would you say with redirecting the other salts into Pink Guy? Thanks - GG GuzzyG (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Having a top-100 album in the mainstream Billboard charts does satisfy the criteria for inclusion; the problem is when such a claim is non-obvious or buried in a sea of red, and has only been made in the past couple of days. (Hey, at least I didn't send Mark Zuckerberg to AfD or speedy delete Twitter!) As for the other redirects, I'm happy to put a link in the basic George Miller disambiguation page, but I'll need a source for Filthy Frank and George Miller (entertainer) doesn't sound like a likely search term, so I don't see much value in it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree although in the Yahoo source in the article it does mention Filthy Frank "On the opposite end of the spectrum as his brash internet personas Filthy Frank and Pink Guy" [[2]], although i was going along more the theory of redirects are cheap and salts are ugly but George Miller and Filthy Frank can be sourced to the Yahoo link. I don't really mind either way. Thanks - GuzzyG (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well for now, I think that first revision needs to be beefed up more than anything else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I will see what i can do the next time i am free sometime next week. Thanks again - GuzzyG (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Where Do They Go To

Although thought by many as a bit of a Cat-Stevens-who-never-really-escaped-the-60s, it seems Peter Sarstedt was still doing good work for many years. This 2013 video, with one of his last pieces, now seems particularly poignant: [3] (cinematography by Chris Connell, supervised by Peter Biziou). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, to cheer me I up, I've noticed Ravel's Bolero is out of copyright, so I can record my long-awaited progressive rock version, doing the melody on Hammond organ, Moog and Mellotron as if Keith Emerson and Greg Lake were there. When I'm done with that, I'll get a video made for it (not ice skating, that's been done already). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
"Ruddy Nora". Ooo, get you, so retro, aren't we. That's going back a bit ... may be a lost cause by now, I fear. But you still have Carl Palmer to reckon with, dearie. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC) p.s.

Speedy deletion nomination of Filthy Frank

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Filthy Frank, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wikishovel (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: Go take the dunce cap and stand in the corner until morning recess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Van gerwen vandalism

Hi Gekhoor is back under a new name henk Gekhoor and is editing van gerwen's page again can you block again please? Regards178.167.185.89 (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You're better off going to WP:SPI in that instance, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

CounterMedia Trust

Hi you declined my A7 for the above company and I wondered exactly why. As I said on the talk page the sources are about the People's Archive of Rural India which is notable and only mention in passing the trust that owns it. There is nothing in the article that suggests the company is important or significant above and beyond it being the owner of the archive and as notability is not inherited I don't really understand why this company passes the A7. There was one line in the article that says "CounterMedia Trust owns the People's Archive of Rural India. It was established by veteran Indian journalist P. Sainath". The mention of the trust in the sources are

  • The site is run by The CounterMedia Trust.
  • it is owned by the CounterMedia Trust, registered in 2011
  • says the website which is run by The CounterMedia Trust.

And that is all nothing about the importance of the trust. There must be something I'm missing about the A7 for companies; From what I read about the A7 speedy delete is to ask is there a "Credible claim of significance" which is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely:

a) is this reasonably plausible? b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?

You suggest that I ask for a merge but I cannot see how to merge 1 line that says that the trust owns the People's Archive of Rural India when this information is already on the page in the info box. The author of the article has just added 5 more sources three of which do not mention the trust at all, and 2 which say

  • It will be registered in the name of a trust we have formed for this purpose, the Counter Media Trust.
  • The site is run by the CounterMedia Trust, which aims to rebuild the people-centered traditions of Indian journalism.

Could you please help me so I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks Domdeparis (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Domdeparis: You are correct that it is a two-part test. The two parts are the claim of significance, and how credible that claim is. Now an unsourced article is making a claim of significance; but the lack of sourcing dents the strength of the claim. But an article with some- at least a minimal- sources is thus making a more credible claim. The test of that credibility is then tested further, but that it's beyond the purview of CSD and into the realm of AfD. At which, by the way, and with the article in its current state, you are almost sure to get the result you want! All the best, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Domdeparis: Sometimes, deciding whether an article can be deleted as A7 is more an art than a science. I think language such as "notability", "importance" and "significance" gets in the way of understanding, and I prefer to think of it as follows - could any independent editor improve this article to an acceptable state? And in the case of A7, could it be redirected instead? Remember that "redirect" and "merge" are valid outcomes from AfD, and A7 is supposed to mean "there is not a hope in hell of an AfD closing any way other than delete". In this specific instance, I saw the opening sentence of "CounterMediaTrust owns the People's Archive of Rural India". The People's Archive article has been around for about six months and has not been tagged for CSD, PROD or AfD, and while it's not exactly going to be GA material any time soon, it is established enough for me to suggest CounterMediaTrust can at least be redirected there. That's it in a nutshell. As FIM says, if you want to challenge this it really has to go to a full AfD debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, @Ritchie333: thanks for your help guys, I think I'll be a bit more reluctant with the speedy deletes from now on as I have had a few refused recently and when I asked for explanations the reply was a bit like yours "more an art than a science" ;o). I get and understand that but recently I was refused New Page Reviewer rights because a couple of my speedy deletes were rejected and what i really wanted was to be able to mark good quality pages as having been reviewed and so avoid wasting the time of other new pages patrollers. I'll try again later. thanks again for your help. Domdeparis (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Domdeparis: Don't be discouraged mate. Can I say, that- with a few tweaks to tie it up with the applicable notability criteria- the reasoning you presented above would be a sound filing statement for the AfD, which most AfD watchers would probably follow? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: AfD nomination done. Thanks for the encouragement! Domdeparis (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Maryland Green Party

Thank you for the second change. However, I wish to point out Exemplo347 (talk · contribs) re-added uncited information to the above mentioned article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've advised Me-123567-Me on their talk page, the article isn't a Biography of a Living Person. If something needs a citation, they should add a Citation Needed tag, not just blank sections. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Any uncited info can be removed by any editor. The entire page was tagged as needing more citations. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
"Can" does not mean "must". Here is an example of what you can do instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As Me-123567-Me has not re-reverted your last revert in that article, I assume my final warning has had the desired effect. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Party probably wants to be closed, but I'd rather an uninvolved administrator did that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
It would have helped if the email hadn't gone into my spam folder, but my thoughts are - I don't think there's anything to worry about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I assumed it was my deoderant or something. Many thanks! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
If you could check your spam folder again, that would be coefficient :) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

It's not easy bein' Green.....

Hail and well met! I am dropping you a quick note because I have created a new Wikiproject - WikiProject Green Party to help expand and improve on the vast number of Green Party articles on Wikipedia! I hope you will consider joining so we can collaborate together instead of disagreeing. Have a great day! Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Caroline Lucas' article looks pretty good. Wonder who had a hand in that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Montanabw: That's a lot to take in, I'll need to grab a coffee and sift through it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Usercart

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usercart&action=edit&redlink=1

You recently deleted and article written where you stated the reason for deletion was Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

The article was about Shopping Cart Software not a website. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autanic (talk • contribs) 02:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Autanic: The trigger phrase "can be used on any web server that has PHP and MySQL installed" made me assume it was web content. In any event, circumstances have overtaken this conversation and the article is now having a full deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usercart. This is unfortunate, because had I got to read your note in time, I would have probably restored it to a draft and side-stepped the debate entirely. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hammond

Who said Rick's organ was "cheesy"? Come up here and say that!

Hi, Richie. The Vox Continental is a fabulous instrument, and was influential in pop and retro-pop, absolutely! The Continental (and the Farsisa, too) are square wave tone generators, not the full spectrum sine wave tone generators of Hammond (and Lowery, etc.). The square wave sonic signature is best described as "gloriously cheesy."

Also, and more pertinent to this discussion, the classification for Vox Continental is that of a Combo organ, of which the Vox is the most popular, certainly the most desired in the current retro-pop world for vintage '60s portable organs.


I hope that this clarifies the reasons for my edit.

Cheers, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmn100 (talk • contribs)

@Jmn100: The principal problem with your edit is that you can't say "it is regarded as the most successful organ", because that's far too subjective. Successful according to whom? I'm not exactly a fan of "has been described as one of the most successful organs", which was there before, if I'm honest, but I can't think of any better way of phrasing it off the top of my head. The mention of the Continental was simply an easy way of showing you that "successful is in the eye of the viewer". Or something like that. Mind you, if you've heard the rendition of "A Saucerful of Secrets" on Ummagumma (played entirely on a Farfisa Compact Duo), or some of the early work of Van der Graaf Generator (done on a Farfisa Professional), "cheesy" is about the last word I'd use to describe it.
(For those keeping score, in the past I have played a Hammond L100, M102, A102 and C3, Vox Continental, Wurlitzer EP-200A and Rhodes 73 Stage, though nowadays all I've got is a Nord Stage and Logic Pro X. Never had a Farfisa.) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Threesie... all very impressive. But, quite frankly, if you've never used the classic funk-a-tronic-machine known as the Clavinet, then well... you know... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The bestest bit of Saucerful of Secrets is the lyrics, actually. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Is that anything like a Brimful of Asha?? Cornershop Barratt 123 (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I refer the honourable gentlemen to this discussion thread, started by some bloke called Ritchie333. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
"Ruddy Laura". Just as long as you don't start "pounding a grand piano with your fists"... we should be safe. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

:(

Howard Hawks'Rio Bravo trailer (32)

You shouldn't drink "ale". My grandpa died because he drank to much beer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlitterPeace (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The key here is too much. My grandmother smoked like a chimney yet was the only one out of all four grandparents to make it past 80. Actually, I don't believe I have had a single alcoholic drink all year so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

My RFA

Could you please take a look at the second neutral !vote. I have no idea where the editor is finding those stats ("his last 2.5 years of deleted edits only contain 6 G11 and 4 G12 taggings"). I quite often do that many in a single day when I do a longer session of reviewing at AFC. Some of the other arguments also seem a bit "off". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea for nominators to get involved with RfA debates, but I have clarified some of the figures and that seems to be a straightforward good-faith mistake. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Great Marlborough Street

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Great Marlborough Street 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 Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

'Trafalgar Square - History' sources

You updated "Trafalgar Square - History" stating 'sources don't agree on that, try a balance'.

However, I think the the original source was wrongly cited ...

"Among the findings, dating from approximately 40,000 years ago, were the remains of cave lion, rhinoceros, straight-tusked elephant and hippopotamus. (Franks, 1960)"

In the article it cites, Franks doesn't say it was 40,000 years ago, but does refer you to Sutcliffe for further reading. Upon further research into Sutcliffe, I found in various instances that he says it was 120,000 years ago.

I therefore think that changing the source from Franks to Sutcliffe, and changing to "120,000 years" is appropriate.

(Additionally, the wikipedia article for the straight-tusked elephant says it became extinct in Britain about 115,000 years ago - therefore "40,000 years ago" is unlikely)

(This is my first Wikipedia edit, so I hope I've done things correctly. If I am right, would you please remove your edit?)

Simonxyzoo (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Simonxyzoo: Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia, and secondly, there was nothing wrong with your edit as it was a bold and good faith edit to try and improve the encyclopedia. Trafalgar Square is a good article (it was on the front page on Christmas Day 2015, featuring the tree) which means a lot of work has gone into evaluating the factual accuracy of the article, and it has been formally assessed at such. This means any challenges to its integrity need to be carefully looked at. When somebody comes along and changes something and supplies a source, I like to look at it; unfortunately I was unable to access the source online. I looked for another source, but it said nothing about the timeframe of straight-tusked elephant. I then wondered how important it actually is to state the timeframe, and I think it's probably not much. So, we've now got a compromise of "late 1950s" (sources vary between 1957, 1959 and 1960 about the year of the discovery) and just a mention of the remains. It side-steps the discrepancy between sources, remains factually accurate, and I hope is something everyone can live with. And that, in a nutshell, is how Wikipedia articles grow and evolve. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Thanks so much for your reply. As mentioned, the previous "40,000 years" couldn't be found in the Franks article, but "120,000 years" is mentioned throughout Sutcliffe's book "On the Track of Ice Age Mammals". Apologies that the link to the source didn't work ... here's a working link - https://openlibrary.org/books/OL2543098M/On_the_track_of_Ice_Age_mammals - providing you have a free openlibrary account. There was also a lot of information here regarding the excavation - https://repository.royalholloway.ac.uk/file/7833cc50-46be-4086-5834-2881e1d5fb63/10/2011JubyCPhD.pdf (page 276). The excavation was at Uganda House, 58-59 Trafalgar Square, in 1957. Although Franks et al didn't write about it until 1958, 1960, etc. I think it would be better if the "120,000 years" fact was included, but will listen to your experience on this one. Thanks also for the welcome note, I'll read through the various links. simonxyzoo (talk) (cont) 13:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Simonxyzoo: To be honest, this isn't my area of expertise (I have read several books about the history of London streets, but they don't generally cover this ground), so if you are certain that 120,000 years is correct and is backed up by a source, then please re-add it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Subjects Being Conflated, Infused with Bias

Hello Ritchie333,

You helped me 3 years ago when I started with Wikipedia, and thank you.

I'm asking you, today, to help me understand what I may do here per a certain concept that seems to have no place on Wikipedia: sex identity. My first thought would be to create a page for sex identity, but the concept seems to be unwelcome at Wikipedia. Terms about sex and gender are being conflated, especially where identity is involved, even on pages where they're to be distinct:

Sex and Gender pages try to make their respective meanings clear, but Sex and gender distinction, which should use the concepts distinctly, doesn't make them clear, very well, and (IMHO) expresses bias by the 2nd sentence where it (a) excludes transsexualism and (b) an attempt to insert chromosomes into the concept of physical sex within this page was undone;

Gender identity says it's "...one person's experience of one's own gender," but Sexual identity does not say anything like "...one person's experience of one's own sex." It says, instead, that it's about "...how one thinks of oneself [per orientation]," who one is attracted to.

...on and on.

There are determined people who want to make trans issues about gender, conflate sex and gender, and downplay genitalia in transition, where there are fewer (though still real) people who want to be able to address that and make distinctions, not just as an addendum to a sentence that some disagree.

It seems to me that there should be at least one article in Wikipedia, somewhere, where the differences between sex and gender could be clarified without conflation and that sex identity is a person's identity of physical sex and gender is a person's identity of their own gender, where sex and gender are not the same thing.

There is a controversy, here, between ideologies, but when I've seen that made clear at times in the past (over years), I've seen the distinctions erode and morph into a dominant view, the loudest voice needling at concepts until they're changed.

I realize Wikipedia is driven by zeitgeists, prevailing ideas, but widely supported ideas should not prevent also the sharing of less widely supported ideas.

Best

Almhath (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)almhath

@Almhath: To be honest, this isn't in my area of expertise and I don't know what to suggest. I know that Flyer22 Reborn is pretty experienced in sexuality / gender related articles, so they might be able to offer further advice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Live and Dangerous

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Live and Dangerous 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 Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Miron Topciu

Hi, Ritchie333. I noticed you declined the speedy on the above referenced article and said that there are sources. There are sources in the article, I am aware however those sources don't support any credible claim of notability and I'd argue that the article itself doesn't really make any claim of notability or significance - credible or otherwise. I also searched the first time (before it was deleted earlier today) and found exactly zero results on this subject that could be considered reliable. If there are sources that are not in the article that support some notability, would you please add them? I also am confused as to why an A7 would be declined under the guise of "having sources" when the criteria is claim of notability... Cheers! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's because A7 is not at the same level of WP:AFD, and can only be used for very obvious cases that any reasonable editor would conclude are completely impossible to improve to any standards of inclusion. Things like "Suzy is my pet cat. She likes purring and playing with toy mice." Hence why I said in the edit summary, try PROD / AFD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand it doesn't have the same standards of a prod or AfD but I also don't see any claim of significance here either. In any case, I think that deletion of A7 is inconsistent which is why I find this so confusing (and the lack of consistency is evident by the fact that this was deleted just two days ago for A7 and G11 though this is not me ragging on you, just genuinely curious) but I'd say the previously deleted article made more of a claim than the current article does... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
A Google search reveals some hits in Albanian books. I don't know the subject and don't speak Albanian so I can't offer any more evidence than that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand there are results but my question was about the article itself, I don't see any claim of significance of notability. Moreover, those book results were written in 2012, 1986, 1984, 2002 and 1992 however Miron was born in 1992... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333 not to bring up an old topic but I am still confused as to my previous question and now also the speedy decline for Daniel A. Norman. I think it can be argued that a vague claim of notability is made and the A7 itself isn't the issue (for me) but the decline reason "has sources". What does this mean in terms of an A7 decline? I didn't think that sources were the criteria for tagging A7 so much as a claim of significance or notability? In this case, I'd argue that the sources are pretty irrelevant to the subject since only two mention him (in passing) and the other 2 make no mention or reference of the individual. Thanks! After reading a comment from another user above explaining, I think I have a better understanding, though I really don't believe it applies in this case since the "claim" in the Norman article is vague, if it is considered a claim at all. It seems there are several editors confused as to the wording of "has sources" as a decline, so can I ask in the future for A7 declines you expound a bit on that? Thanks! :) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: : SoWhy has written quite a lot about common errors made at new page patrolling. In this case, WP:A7M#CI says anything that has any coverage in possibly reliable sources might mean there is more coverage out there, so an A7 is inappropriate. Have a read of the rest of the essay and that may clarify things some more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Thanks, I'll read over it again. I think this may just be a case where we have differing views of certain things and what a reliable source is. A RS isn't really reliable if it's totally irrelevant to the article, is it? In this most recent case, I think the only possible RS used was the NYTimes article, which made no mention of the individual in question. The others were event/museum information. So I think that a quick evaluation of what exists in the article is well within the scope of A7 tagging. In my opinion, it is very much in the realm of A7 to take 30 seconds to assess a.) the sources included mention the subject, reliable or not b.) evaluate the potential reliability, not for depth but is it self-published? social media? etc.. Not all sources are ambiguous as to whether it could ever be considered reliable or not and c.) establish there is an actual claim and I don't believe that any of those things should necessitate an AfD just based on existence. (Personally I find prodding useless by nature but that is neither or nor there.) I also think of RS in context. If an article includes an expose from the most reliable news paper on earth, it isn't reliable in the context of the article if it doesn't so much as mention the subject. Anyhow, my two cents. :) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Chrissymad: The basic rule of thumb I have is that unless there is a really urgent need to delete the article (which is usually because of vandalism, an attack page, or a copyright violation), it won't hurt anyone to leave the article up for the full 7 days and see if anybody objects to the deletion. New users don't check Wikipedia too often, and the speedy tagging and deletion can arrive and depart before they've had a chance to comment, and we're not exactly short of disk space, so another AfD isn't going to be too troublesome. For example, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usercart, there didn't seem to be any real chance that the article would be kept at all, but having been speedied a few times only to be recreated, I think everyone felt it was best to have the discussion once and for all and get a firm consensus. In general, the more eyes you get on something, the better. (Incidentally, on a totally different subject, how is File:Chrissymad in Turks & Caicos.jpg "own work" if you're in the picture?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Chrissymad: Timer+ a lot of rigging with selfie sticks and tripods and sand... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I have a photo of me, Mrs 333 and the kids by a lake constructed in a similar manner. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ben Sharpa

Hi there, I was writing regarding the recently deleted article of South African recording artist Ben Sharpa. I did not create the original article, but feel as though Ben Sharpa is well worthy of an entry on Wikipedia. He is an award winning recording artist who has toured around the World, and has a substantial amount of accolades to his name. I am not sure what was deemed wrong with the original article, but would like to ask permission to rework the original piece and improve the quality of it. I will add a better, well sourced article and give it the attention it deserves. Please let me know if it is possible to restore a draft or whether I can recreate the article from scratch. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC))

@Subzzee: No problem, I've restored it at Draft:Ben Sharpa. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Mellotron Yellow?

As our own resident master of the mighty Blackpool Tower Ballroom Wikipedia Wurlitzer you might have a view on some current changes over at Coldplay songs. The Mirror is probably not a good source, but perhaps there is a better one? I trust you're not too yellow to take a peek. The new editor there obviously has a good ear, but few sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't a clue, except to say The Mirror should not be used as a source, and also that a GA should not have {{refimprove}} maintenance tags on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
A GA. Oooh, I'd never dare touch one of those. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
p.s. "Whole Lotta Love" like you ain't never normally heard it (Billy Preston on Hammond). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Great Marlborough Street

The article Great Marlborough Street you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Great Marlborough Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto

You unblocked him two weeks ago, with the same promise. His actions don't show that he wants to "stay out of trouble" and he doesn't want to be unblocked. This pattern has repeated itself way too often. He could have easily stayed out of trouble. He gets another chance to do so when the block has expired. Fram (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Ron7905/sandbox/Ron Franklin - Drifter

This page was undeleted so that it could be discussed at my RFA, I'm thinking it should now be returned to the dumpster, but if I did it some might think it a bit pointy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I think the best thing to do is send it to MfD. I did this with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AceOfSpades14/sandbox. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I will approach the editor who undeleted it. I'm treading softly as a newbie admin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3.

In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. 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 decreasing the backlog.

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. 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 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant 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) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Regent Street

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Regent Street 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 Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Great Marlborough Street

The article Great Marlborough Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Great Marlborough Street 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 Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Filthy Frank for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Filthy Frank is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filthy Frank (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN: I've already deleted this article once. Jeez, make your mind up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I see it has been speedy kept. FYI, AfD nominations without sufficient WP:BEFORE are a growing concern with this editor; also @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Rose de Viterbo Catholic Church. Not counting the spurious SPIs, lack of communication or acknowledgement, and general biteyness. If that's a word :) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 21:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, I've snow closed that. I'll have a word. If that doesn't work, we'll see what his unblock request writing skills are like. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't looked at the actual user page, either: you were rather on the nose with that one! I think they've got potential as an editor, especially in basic anti-vandalism, etc., but tends towards adminstrative and authorative areas (you noticed, then!) anyway thanks for handling that. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 22:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Ritchie333,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 810 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Regent Street

The article Regent Street you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Regent Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

SMILE!

Hello Ritchie333, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_51&oldid=1083625772"