User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 → Archive 60

LISELLE at "List of songs about cities"

Hi Ritchie, may I ask you to keep my entry "Liselle" in the a.m. list ? It"s a song about the 600th birthday of a small city in Germany, written by one of Germany's most successful songwriters Tex Shultzieg. From my point of view it should be in this list as it shows the variety of songs not only about capital cities and from my understanding it underlines the wide spectrum of songs about cities. I very much appreciate if you give this entry a chance on Wikipedia. Thks a lot, Ritchie, Leslie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslie Chester (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Leslie Chester: Schade, aber kann Ich nicht gut Deutsch sprechen. :-/ Translating the text as best I could, I still wasn't certain of the significance between Liselle and Marienheide; if there has been national attention to the song and its contribution to the town. Has there been any mention in Der Spiegel or Die Welt for example? The best advice I can give you is to speak to Gerda Arendt, who is a native German speaker and a keen enthusiast of traditional and classical German music, with a particular interest in Bach chorales and cantatas, and who may be able to advise further. In the meantime, I have restored the article to Draft:LISELLE where it can be worked on further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the flowers, Ritchie. Bach chorales? There are very few, he set the chorales of others. Look at Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, and please comment, - that almost derailed FAC needs fresh eyes. - Now to the singer: "small city" is a contradiction in terms: project Germany regards only places with more than 100k inhabitants a city, and I tend to follow, - smaller places are towns. (We had an interesting discussion on Schloss Weimar a while ago.) So the song doesn't qualify for the list by definition sorry. We might start a second list, on lovely little places. - I wonder if this song would be sufficiently notable, though, - it seems a local hit, - again sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
HEY MAN APPRECIATE YOUR ACTIVITY but guide me as in what was wrong with the article Rohan Barad

and how do i modify it? Citymun (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Citymun: As the notice you should have got on this page said, you ask nicely (which you have) and I restore it to Draft:Rohan Barad (which I have). I can't find any reliable and independent news or magazine coverage about him, but perhaps somebody else can? TBH, we need more Indian admins around here (paging Yash! and any established admin who fancies starting RfA round 2). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

If you look at User talk:83.148.95.197 is it time for revoke talkpage access? Also what do you say about the editor removing "their" content at 2016–17 Liverpool F.C. season? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qed237 (talk • contribs)

@Qed237:I'd leave it for the minute, there's no real need to turn it off. As for the Liverpool FC article, it's always hard to hit a moving target (in this case the progress of a team mid-season). The content is well-sourced, particularly to BBC Sport, but it's also true that an overview of the season doesn't need to go in as much detail. You're best off asking on WP:FOOTY or chatting to our more football-savvy admins such as GiantSnowman Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
And now they restored the attack message again (diff) clearly only here to provoke and not use talkpage for purpose of discussing the block. Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm an admin; people can call me a (Redacted) if it makes them feel better - it just makes me laugh. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
True, but that does not make it acceptable, and usually when the behave like this their talkpage access are revoked. I guess you have more patience than other administrators. Qed237 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I just turned talk page access off. You're right that people shouldn't say this stuff, but the recommendation under WP:NPA is to ignore it and brush it off, which does make sense. I know it doesn't make it a nice editing environment some of the time, which is a shame. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, to ignore it is often the best solution and that is what we did the first time. But then he started again after 2 hours just to try and push our buttons, and then it is a block in my mind. But, I am not an admin so you have to decide. Anyway, have a nice day! Qed237 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK credit

MjolnirPants felt upset about being left out of the vaginal steaming parade.

It was very nice of you to include me as one of the creators of Vaginal steaming for the purposes of the DYK. LadyofShalott 21:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well we wouldn't have cleared the article through WP:MEDRS without your research (and Drmies' coffee machine). By rights I should probably credit MjolnirPants but I only credited people who'd actually edited the article, as opposed to just the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I did add just now Hap400. LadyofShalott 22:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
At this rate, we're going to need a new joke : "How many wikipedians does it take to write about vaginal steaming?" All I wanted was a way to top Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators for April 1's main page this year. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
There's gonna be some stiff competition. EEng 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Whoa. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, boy. Funtime's over. EEng 03:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Gerda (with glowing green wristband and face averted) and other groupies
Tempted to join the fun: I'd drop two letters from "that is used to health reproductive organ ailments", or I learn English. - EEng: can you - after you portrayed me and my flashmob - find a funny image to picture me as a groupie? (named so because of this edit)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the images, one better than the other! I'm dressed in red right now, may buy green wristband to match. Perhaps change the fiction title to "non-notable songs about lovely little places in Germany", because no village in Germany seems without an article in the English Wikipedia, including the one mentioned above, with the poetic name translating to Mary's heather. - The below I'd call "The steamy-juicy credit". More seriously: to my understanding, there's no verb "to health", but "to heal", - if health is wanted we need a different construction. Also more serious: the discussion on my talk which mentions BLPDELETE and argues that the existence of articles may rest on the permission of the subject, - which I didn't hear until yesterday and find unbelievable. The relevant discussion is here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Ever since Van Der Graaf Generator's Peter Hammill turned up to complain something I wrote (that cited a source generally considered reliable and perfectly within policy) was in fact factually wrong and a bit upsetting, I have been sympathetic to BLP subjects' concerns about their own article. There are zero policies and guidelines for the reader of the encyclopedia - all you need do is open your browser at the right place; so arguing the toss over notability etc is missing the point, particularly if the subject has influence over the press as we've recently seen. That said, I hope common sense would prevail and nobody would kick you off this place if it was reasonably obvious you thought you were doing the right thing; indeed this eventually happened to Blofeld and he was unblocked.
I occasionally get off-wiki communication about my work on here - the (then) management of The Minories, Colchester gave me a free lunch and coffee for fixing that article, and I got a thank you note in the post from Kat Wright (all the way from Burlington, Vermont, although I had paid for a CD which explains that) which brightened my day. (Her band is flippin' great as well, though I think Rhonda has the edge). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining, however, I did nothing, - how could I, about an article that was deleted so I don't know about who did what, based on what sources. That's why I voted to have a draft version, for a bit of transparency. - My day was brightened (2016) when a strange idea I suggested on my talk was realized in real life! (Gedenkkonzert means memorial concert, + my German article was printed word for word in the concert program) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I hereby award all involved one steamed fish in a dressing of chopped garlic, chillies, lime juice, fish sauce and chicken stock. The spearmint (bai saranae, Thai: ใบสะระแหน่, Mentha spicata) is used to cover up the somewhat strong smell of this particular fish but it is more common to see this dish served with coriander/cilantro leaves (phak chi, Thai: ผักชี) instead of mint. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, pictured signing her recent work, "The Lonely Planet guide to lovely little non-notable German places"
Alright, who put a bunch of yappy teenagers on my page? Tell them all to pipe down and go on a nice course of .... well, I can't even say the name, it's so nauseating. BAN THIS SICK FILTH and VOTE LEAVE Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells (talk) (cont) 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That little boy looks so much like my son my mind started playing tricks on me--like, our faucet doesn't look that new, where did I take this picture? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I know that little boy for so long that it's probably not yours ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

reverting over zealousity

Thanks for repairing some largely inoffensive refitting, rephrasing, and refactoring. But be careful, just because you run a recording studio, your expertise may be in-Wiki-adequate... 69.118.209.149 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Apologies for an addition. I followed mlpearc (the electric guitar reverter) to his talk page and left a note. His response, at that talk page, which I just found explains that intimidation is not acceptable. ???? It's in his talk archive nr 32 (IIRC). I see that I shall likely be reverting to Wiki-vacation status again. Kudos to you for hanging in there and fighting the good fight which drove me to the sidelines. 69.118.209.149 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I complained about Mlpearc on WP:ANI, though I might as well have found a brick wall to bang my head against. I can't find my copy of Ralph Deyner's "The Guitar Handbook" which IMHO is an excellent source for the anatomy of electric guitars and amps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Chapman

Well, I was about to restore the cats, but since you've invoked the Flying Welshman I think I'll wait and see if any cool YouTube links are forthcoming. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Some day, somebody may do Colin "Bomber" Harris vs Colin "Bomber" Harris in Lego and everyone will be happy.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

For your enjoyment

As you pointed out on SK talk page the Colonel would say that's silly :-) Enjoy your St Patty's day and your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hah I didn't see that the thread above was about the same delightful person. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: I take it you were unaware of {{colonel}}? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Almost - I stumbled on it for the first time on Tuesday but I thought it was a bit to big to place on your talk page :-) Many thanks to you for creating it!! MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thought you maybe interested.

Hey Ritchie, it has been long since we last talked. Hope everything is going well! I thought you might be interested in this project and this project. Thanks! Jim Carter 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

WIK Code

I would like to discuss the relevance of the deleted page. I'm the author.

You have not yet given my page a chance to blossom and grow in its own time. I can only assume that you did not read the statement on my page...

The requests for urgent deletion were made before I had the chance to post any content. However I since have.

I am requesting that you please leave the page be for me to later add further content. Thank you. Willmckissock (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Willmckissock: The text in full was : WIK Code is a new 2D Symbology created by William Mckissock. The creator of this page is requesting for viewers not to bestow it with a speedy deletion notice or to be flagged. The relevant information with regards to WIK Code will be provided to all users over the next 3 weeks, when the final development of the symbology has been completed.
You cannot request that anything happens to a page - it is against the terms of the Creative Commons licence that Wikipedia uses, and also the ownership of articles policy. This is why you always get the message "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone" whenever you edit or create any page.
Secondly, anything that is new or recently invented is not appropriate for an encyclopedia that documents historical facts for all time. You need to wait until the symbology is in widespread use and has been comprehensively documented in third party books and papers; and even then you may find it only warrants a cursory mention in our Data Matrix article instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your response... I understand the usage policies and terms in full now. However I was merely asking for the page not to be taken down, I was entirely happy for people to contribute -the purpose of Wikipedia. I understand that it is still young, and need to be more well known. How can people write about something that they know nothing about... I will endeavour to make the symbology known in full as there are over 40 different types of simple, undeveloped barcode already written about on Wikipedia. Mine should not be an acception. I do understand where you are coming from.

People should not ask for a page that was created seconds ago for to be taken down, you should have consulted me about improvements upon the page before removing it. Perhaps you would consider doing this next time?

So once again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmckissock (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Also in the terms of service, I have been led to believe that you can appeal or ask for a page not to be taken down, that is what I was doing. Accept I posted on the page itself getting viewers to show some support while I was uploading relèvent content... @Ritchie333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmckissock (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Shrek Hollywood.JPG
Administrators are not ogres[citation needed]
But neither are they kittensCoolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem is I'm not quite sure what your actual end goal was for using Wikipedia for this purpose. Google tends not to front-load Wikipedia articles on web searches so much these days, so there tends not to be an advantage for using it over your own website. Indeed, with your own website, you pretty much have free reign to do exactly what you want when you want, which sounds like a much better fit for some things, and people are not really any more likely to find your information on here given we have 5 million articles and rising.
The reason things get speedy deleted is because sometimes somebody comes along and creates a short stub about something they're making, or know personally, or have a vague idea about. Unfortunately, nobody else can do any work on the article without the necessary knowledge, and if its not documented somewhere that can be believed to be factually accurate, (this is what is called "significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources" in Wikipedia jargon) that means work on the article stalls. You probably won't want to be continually nagged to do updates on the article in 1, 2, 5, 25 years' time - the whole idea of a collaborative project is that you do a little bit, somebody else does a little bit more, and so on, until you have a cohesive whole. If it's not possible for any typical editor to do any work, the article will get deleted. Speedy deletions happen because we have had so many articles of a specific type (such as garage bands or YouTubers), that administrators get a broad prerogative to delete these classes of articles without discussion. My essay User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has further information (in this case, the article was deleted per WP:CSD#A11 : "obviously invented by creator", but the basic principle holds).
All that said, administrators are not ogres, and if you ask for deleted content, most will give it back to you as they fully appreciate people don't like losing work. In your instance, the entirety of the article has been quoted earlier up the thread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Vaginal steaming at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 05:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Several years?

This edit seems to go too far in the other direction, no? We've had 1-2 year candidates do just fine, and when there's text like this floating around, it encourages people to peg their stated expectations to it. How about something vaguer like "candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors for a significant period of time" or "candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors who have invested significant time in the project"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I see what you mean, but I like "years" because it's concrete and easily identifiable as a frame of reference, whereas your definition of "a significant period of time" may not be the same as mine. Nobody has passed RfA with just a few months' tenure for a long time, so it does need to be changed to something, and over the past year I don't think we've had many people pass who haven't had multiple years of service. There's a nice page somewhere that tabulates various statistics for successful RfA candidates over the last couple of years - where is it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Heh, being "concrete" is exactly what I don't like :) It implicitly gives people justification for perpetuating the trend you're documenting - "See, you can't be an admin if you've only been here for two years, because two isn't 'several'! The admin page says so!" There's a table here, and I have some general stats here, including time-of-service averages. But those are a little hard to interpret, since was no such thing as a ten-year veteran at the RfA peak in 2007. Still, there have definitely been successful 1-2 year nominations within the last few years - including someone I nominated, who I think is the modern recordholder for time from registration to successful RfA. (I confess that the reason I object to letting the written documentation further perpetuate the trend toward longer service time is that I think the data shown in this graph reveal a serious problem for the project. In any event, the data elsewhere on my stats page suggests that no amount of changing the written text of any RfA-related page has made a dent in the rate of unprepared nominations, which have fairly closely tracked overall candidacy numbers since at least 2008.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I have seen it before but couldn't remember where from. I don't think anyone except BU Rob13 has passed RfA in the last year with less than 12 months' service, so maybe changing it to "at least a year" is realistic. What's also interesting about Rob and Primefac is they were both contentious RfAs which threw up quite a bit of opposition (and in the case of the latter made me to step out of character and criticise a few oppose votes), though you can get that on any level of service. While it's true that not-ready people will file RfA despite all the "don't do this" warnings that get thrown up, it seems to be happening less often these days as people drift towards the candidate poll instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
"Successful RfAs in the last year" is unfortunately a statistics-of-small-numbers problem. In the last 5 years, it's around 7% who registered their account less than 2 years prior, which is small but nontrivial. (And for some reason people elected some weirdo to arbcom with under a year's recent experience, under two years total, and under 10k edits at the time... ;) I don't think I posted a chart, but I've never found a correlation between percent RfA support and anything else of interest. "At least a year" is better, but how about just linking to that RfA study page? Now that I've actually read the admin page (much like "not now" candidates, I don't read that stuff :) I'd prefer no implied de facto criteria at all. Either the written documentation should be purely descriptive (and thus link to or include some actual data), or if there must be numerical criteria, they should be defined by consensus with explicit agreement that meeting the criteria is sufficient and any opposition based on personal preferences beyond those minimums should be discounted or removed. (But, oh god no, not another RfA RfC... :)
As for the poll, I haven't looked recently, but the last time someone asked whether it was deterring unqualified candidacies, the answer was... they're exactly at the historical average. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I can live with chopping it out, as Blaise Pascal once said when he was originally drafting the first set of Wikipedia space pages, "I have made this policy page quite long, because I lack time to make it shorter". All said, we don't get very many obvious NOTNOW RfAs; certainly quite recently we've had a bit of a purple patch which has unfortunately come to a crashing halt. It's a shame; I think CaroleHenson has already convinced me she understands the CSD policy standing upside down in shark-infested custard from just a week's worth of heavy annotation of what's turned up at NPP, but general "convention" says there's no point re-running for another six months. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Does this work?
Ugh, apparently that withdrawal was so fast I missed the RfA completely. I'm stealing "shark-infested custard", though ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The-Go-to-GA-guy- of course :)

A-1, a-2. FYI. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I would take British Army to WP:MILHIST, who can properly review it; Romania should not have passed GA as it has far too many {{fact}} tags and unsourced content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Right! Yeah, I didn't mean you should actually re-do them , which could take years off your life... so British army to MILHIST, Romania for reassesment? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I've reversed the GA review and quickfailed it. I would have probably done this anyway had I reviewed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
OK; saves a job! I'll pass the other one along too. Thanks for helping out. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Your A7 essay

I've just seen your essay. An excellent start. Keep it up! Now my essay has another to compete against!

Nah, just kidding about that last bit: my essay was never intended to "compete against" anyone else's or anything like that. But let's pretend for a moment that this is a contest: things are not looking good for my essay right now. You and SoWhy are alright, but I've been declared disqualified pending outcome of an investigation into illicit activities (yes, I "handed myself in". I felt I had no choice given the feedback I was receiving .). Thought you might be interested as you gave me a barnstar for it, although I have made some changes to it since then. Adam9007 (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: The essay was CaroleHenson's idea. (Kind of). I put in a keep vote at the MfD without realising you were the nominator. Oops. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Lol! The last bit was a giveaway (or so I thought ). But anyway, I know it may seem weird to MfD my own user page (has anyone else every seriously done so?), but I'd have thought that common sense dictates that if there's a problem with my A7 application, there's a problem with the essay, as it's a reflexion of my application. Following essays is supposed to be optional after all. But if it's going to cause disruption, then we have a problem. Besides, if I had a choice between the essay going and another episode of this, I'd choose the former. I genuinely did think there's a chance that some may consider it so far outside the norm that they will ignore all rules and !vote delete. Given recent discussions, I had to see if that was the case. Adam9007 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You gave no rationale at your closing of the deletion discussion for the blp Benjamin E. Park

I would hope to resort to WP's appeal process owing to the fact that you gave no summary/rationale at your closing of the deletion discussion for the blp Benjamin E. Park, a subject who is obviously notable per wp:BIO. Could you reconsider/rectify this oversight?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Essentially, nobody except you wanted to keep the article. That's it. I have no opinion on the article myself; that's just how I read consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
You missed the other !vote for keep, so I question your efforts to adjudicate the question properly. Indeed you are supposed to research the !votes vis a vis the guidelines. wp:NOTYET refers top actors who haven't been written about, for example, and other !votes gave as justification for their conclusion statements that are patently untrue, as the discussion makes clear.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That's consensus for you. See also Brexit and Donald Trump. Certainly the article as I looked at it did not look in particularly good shape. Find another topic to write about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

why did you delete my article

i am curious to why you deleted my article. i am a published artist, and have work in line fgor distribution. what about my article displeased you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bymistaclean (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bymistaclean: You shouldn't write articles about yourself. I have music for sale on iTunes here but I do not have a Wikipedia article and if I tried creating one it would be deleted for the same reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
-oh by the way, which one's Pink...?!  :)
We have to lose that sax solo! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm an admin! You address me by my proper title, you little bollocks!
That was so cool :) just play the ******g chord! not that ******g chord! The other ******g chord!!! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 10:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That's it------>
"We call it, riding the gravy train..."!


to keep it fully honest i hadnt created the article about myself it was done with a 3rd party using my account. as well as you are an admin not an artist obviously so that example is pointless. i have interviews in line for publishing as well as new musci and videos. so again i am not understaning your reasoning except to flex admin power. if an article is made of me by a third party account not just someone else using mine then will my article be eligble? its hard for a blog to reference me when they cant find my page. theyve expressed they do not want to create the full page for me because for most artist worth mentioning theirs is already done so please guide me. and not with a witty assinine comeback.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bymistaclean (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bymistaclean: The reply to you was serious; if Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has been watching too much Father Ted then that's his own lookout (in this instance, the line "you address me by my proper title, you little bollocks" is a quotation from a character in the sitcom, and funny because you would never expect a Roman Catholic bishop to call a priest a "little bollocks")
.... anyway, User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has more information; as does the reply on this page entitled "WIK Code". The simple question to initially ask in this case is : has Mistaclean had a Billboard chart hit? Administrators are required by policy to answer any grievance or complaint, and I never delete things for fun. If I hadn't deleted this, another, more prickly admin might have done so :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Father Ted? That was you... I waz on the Floyd boots earlier :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)
It seems SineBot is not signing your posts on this page, which does result in an outside appearance of me waffling to myself. If you want to help (and I mean FIM, not Bymistaclean!), add a hook to Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I think a hook is the last thing they need, steamed or not. But thanks for the verrrry tempting opportunity to suggest a hook based on hot rocks and smokin' ... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)

ok so i had to cut threw the exrta stuff to get the basic answer i needed. well i guess im happy you deleted rather than a douchier admin. so i suppose when my fader interviews etc publish then ill have a better shot. its just ironic you have to have a bilboard chart when ive read artilces that dont but ok.. guess by the time i have the right notoriety to your standards i could just wipe my tears about this situation with the money im making... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bymistaclean (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The full list of general guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (music), which explain a fuller set of inclusion standards. Having a chart hit is a general rule of thumb, but not an absolute (eg: Van der Graaf Generator have not troubled the British or UK charts much, but their article is assessed as a good article). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Question re: speedy deletion request reversion

Hi Ritchie, it looks like you reverted my speedy deletion request for Cell_Phone_Signal_Booster, declining the A7 reason because it has sources. Those sources look like they are all fake; the A7 reason is that the subject is not of importance, so the validity of the references doesn't matter - none of the references indicate importance of the company (who appear to be a small eCommerce site). I'm trying to help clean up some of the content around signal boosters on Wikipedia, but am new to using the site, so I acknowledge that I may be doing some things wrong. But I do think this particular page probably shouldn't be on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whenthebellsgo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I spent some time procrastinating today by looking into this. Article now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Phone Signal Booster. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Whenthebellsgo: See my essay User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7. In this case, I found one source in a news search. More significantly, the article could be reappropriated as a redirect to the prosaic cell phone signal booster. Together, these mean a full discussion is probably required (which Floq has now set up) so we can't just short-circuit it via A7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Aaaaaaand... deleted by @NeilN:. My new IAR hero. FWIW, Ritchie, I don't think the article you found is even about this company; it's about a signal booster (no caps) by some other manufacturer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It's always worth having the discussion and having it logged, which you can't do with A7s. Turns out the article is about another signal booster, yup - but still we ought to log these things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I had no real problem with you declining an A7. Although such a quick AFD close makes it harder to get a wide audience to appreciate my extraordinary detective skills. Wheel war to reopen!!!--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for this. And sorry for being a beginner - hoping to learn and contribute more, particularly on subjects around RF. Whenthebellsgo (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

CSD Decline

Hi there! I wanted to ask a quick question. You've declined a couple of my CSD nominations recently with a rationale roughly paraphrased as "has sources." Am I missing a guideline somewhere that says an article with sources isn't eligible for CSD? Thanks! —Non-Dropframe talk 23:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Non-dropframe: The best guides in my view are Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion and User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Severn Railway Bridge

Thank you for your comments at the poll page. In my opinion, the West Country Challenge and similar contests where you are trying to achieve as much as possible in a limited time probably don't produce the best articles. With regard to the Severn Railway Bridge GA, I did not deal with your comments as well as I should have. I have now replaced the information and found and added a reference for the completion date. Mind you, as the bridge was opened in October 1879, the chances of it having been completed in 1878 were pretty slim I thought. The Huxley book was really too detailed and yet unspecific in some aspects to be an ideal source.

With regard to the other main point you raised at the poll, it is not so much my attitude towards the other individual involved as their attitude towards me. I don't go out of my way to quarrel with anyone, but do try to defend myself when attacked. I can and do react to that person perfectly civilly but don't really see how I am going to be able to resolve any underlying differences between us. However the atmosphere at DYK is much more pleasant this year than it was last. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I think the atmosphere at DYK has got better this year, but to be honest last year I typed up a whole thread entitled "Fram and Cwmhiraeth" and was close to posting it on WP:ANI, when I thought I'd have a cup of tea first. I then thought the drama levels would explode, and closed the browser so it was never posted. I didn't want to take sides; I think you are committed to the project.
I did pass the Severn Railway Bridge as GA because the issues were ultimately fixed, I just needed to do a bit of badgering first. The thing about the sources and deadline was more a nagging doubt, and it probably didn't help that I'd witnessed the drama regarding that feud on the Editor Review from 2014 and all the fisticuffs with Fram. I think that'll stick in people's mind. Still, I'm pleased to see The Rambling Man has come out in support of you, which I didn't think he would. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your essay

You should also take note of Mob psychology which I feel greatly influences our votes/consensus debates. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Which essay is this? I've written quite a few now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for my vagueness. I was lurking the incidents board and saw your essay on how we apply sockpuppet policies inappropriately. You mentioned consensus and at this point, I feel so-called consensus is run by mob mentality. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah right, User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful. Yeah, that's just how I feel and what my opinions are, and I suspect more than a few admins don't agree with it. I think it helps on this project to have close family and friends who don't edit Wikipedia much if at all, and treat it with a little bit of suspicion - you get another angle on things. Still, maybe another admin can write "SPI considered essential" and I'll link to it so readers can make up their own mind. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
That would be great if someone wrote an opposing view, but nobody has stepped up to do so. In all honesty, I think Wikipedia's administrative processes need to be refined one way or another. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically if you run into trouble, get blocked, take a year off, then come back with a new account and don't cause any trouble (emphasis mine), I don't see an issue. The problem with actually problematic socks is they revert to type and cause exactly the same disruption as they did in the first place, as sure as the sun coming up in the morning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Upsetting people

You're not alone: I'm on a roll in upsetting people too. In fact, at times like this it seems like it's all I ever do. John Tyndall? Never heard of him until now . Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Well I don't like upsetting people, it's not conductive to a productive environment around here. Now, while you're here, I have a couple of bits of advice for you, Adam. First, I know your heart is kind of in the right place for A7, or at least in a similar place to mine, but I think for the good of the project you might want to consider giving it a rest and doing something else. Sometimes you just have to earn respect, and that means holding your tongue a bit. Secondly, I've had a word with Iridescent - he does a lot of really good work around here but has a low tolerance threshold for time wasters. In particular, you really need to get rid of that "This user is a British Nationalist" userbox. You are asserting that only white people should live in Britain, and if you think that's not a problem I'd like you to look at this picture of me, my other half, and Dominic King, and then figure out why I might have a problem with it. Hopefully, that will be enough to make the penny drop and you to remove it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it was never my intention to state that only whites should like in Britain. I am not a racist. Nor did I have any idea it could cause offence. Probably another shortcoming of having Asperger's. I'll see if I can replace it with something else. In fact, my entire user page could do with a good revamp. Adam9007 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I was certain it wasn't the case, but "British Nationalist" does mean "racist" (think British National Party). Best get rid of the nationalistic userboxes - I get in enough hot water for the Sun and Daily Mail boxes on my userpage. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If memory serves, I was going by the definition given in British nationalism. I can't see any mention of racism there, although it could be that certain groups have hijacked the term. Adam9007 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
That article mentions the BNP in its lead! I have some friends who've done door to door canvassing for the Lib Dems in various parts of Britain, and the responses you get from some people are truly jaw-dropping; things like "I'm English not British like all those ****ing immigrants". Seriously, did you think Leave won Brexit because of the £350m for the NHS, or the distrust over red tape, or over concerns the EU was getting too large (or any number of reasonable reasons to vote "leave") - no, it was because of latent racism. Anyway, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to rant about Brexit, so let's draw a line under this conversation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion decline?

I fail to understand this decision. There is no such a word as "himn", it is "hymn" and the subject has a new page as I indicated, Hymn of Valledupar Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: In this specific case, it was because you tagged it as {{db-g6}}, which is for technical and uncontroversial changes. Since the redirect has been present for over 11 years, I really didn't think it could fall under the G6 criteria; hence why I suggested filing a report at Redirects for discussion instead. The case you've just stated above should be sufficient. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for taking the time to explain. I really struggle with these nominations and however seldom I make them, invariably end up picking the wrong option. Keep up the good work — and your constructive work ethic. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

John Hair and Son

Thanks for rescuing the above page. After I thought it had been deleted I started again in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Histman/sandbox What's the best way to move this over to the present John Hair and Son page? Thanks again. Histman (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Histman: The easiest way to do it is to click on the "submit your draft for review" box. This will put it in the Articles for Creation queue, where an independent editor will review it. If it's accepted, it can be moved over an history merged with the current version. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Amazon.com

I think your closure might be problematic: I see WP:NOHARM and WP:ITSUSEFUL on the keep side, and WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research WP:Neutral point of view on the other side. The keep comments are NOT telling why the neutrality problems indicated by these who wanted deletion; especially the positively skewed selection that has been identified as violation of WP:NOT#Advert and WP:NPOV. The deletion guideline to admins includes the following at WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS: "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable." which you might have failed to apply. Please act accordingly.Burning Pillar (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Burning Pillar: Just waving a policy isn't really a convincing argument, you need to state exactly how a particular policy or guideline applies in this instance. IMHO Beyond My Ken made the best argument : "[you] may well be correct that there's listcruft in there, but that can be taken care of by the normal editing process". The pertinent part of the close is that you can selectively merge and redirect these articles through normal editing, and indeed people have already cleared out cruft and worked towards this. A "no consensus" close in no way implies the current version of the article cannot be improved further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_53&oldid=1088054083"