User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 → Archive 70

Wymondham

Was going to start an article on the manor but couldn't find enough and added to this. Such a poor article, I've proposed nuking and restarting from scratch on the talk page. You're probably not interested in working on it but feel free to comment on what you think we should do with it. I think it would be easier to rewrite from scratch in a sandbox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You can if you like, I know some people like to work on stuff in sandboxes and then move the whole lot over. The article as it stands could certainly do with some sources, but I'd have to go and look around to see if I can find anything. I generally work piecemeal; currently I'm slogging through The Carpenters, and it's probably going to be 50K when I've finished. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Excellent choice! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good old We hope has pointed me towards a huge corpus of images. I see the article has had several does at FA, and maybe now's the time to actually give it a serious push. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on Mandalay (poem)

Hi Ritchie, I wonder whether you'd like to step in and resolve this? Many thanks, Ericoides (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If it's not vandalism, it's 3RR, so they're blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thanks. Would it be OK if I were to restore the material I added, or would that be 3RR as well? As far as I can see the material belongs on the page given the multiple WP:RSs that have reported it. The phrasing of the material is neutral and in no way partisan. Ericoides (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd leave it for now - go to the talk page and start a discussion. The IP does make a valid point that the Boris incident might be kind of off-topic for the article, and there's only one really good source (The Guardian) reporting it, so it's worth talking about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, good advice, I've responded there. If the story gets more widely reported I will put the information back, but will wait for now. Ericoides (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I'm really not sure Johnson is worth quoting when it comes to Kipling. That fact that he had an Empire poem drilled into him at prep school and can recite it forty years later, is not a huge surprise, is it?. The fact that he's Foreign Secretary just makes the incident embarrassing. If he actually had got the Buddha lines out, I guess it might have been more notable! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If you read the story, it looks like he might have been reading it from his phone (although that can only be inferred...). Ericoides (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Now does that inference make the story more or less notable in your book? So it seems I've mistakenly credited Johnson with mental qualities he doesn't really have. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC) p.s. and really not sure why The Guardian describes this poem as "colonial era"!

Philippines at the 2018 Winter Olympics

Actually yes it is a hoax. It was made up by someone who did not understand the qualification process. I left it until there was no longer a reasonable chance that it could be true. What, it your words, is "probably likely to happen"? Do you have some kind of private inside scoop about a qualified athlete that is going to withdraw, it has not happened in the male competition in the last 3 olympics.18abruce (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It didn't look like an obvious hoax to me, hence the downgrade to a PROD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

RE: Maria Kanellis

Thanks for your note on my talk page regarding this edit by me and your fix here. It was not my intention to add back in the information about pregnancy that was cited by The Sun...I was actually only trying to add back in the part about a previous relationship that was cited by a different source. Somehow the part with The Sun got by me. It was a mistake, and I'll be more careful in the future. Quick question...was it your intention to also remove the part about dating CM Punk that was cited by [1]? Nikki♥311 14:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nikki311: I'm don't know much about slam.canoe.com, so I can't advise you about putting that back in or not. The specific problem with The Sun here is - is Kanellis' pregnancy important to the career? We can't take The Sun as a good source for that. Anyway, since you said it's a mistake, then we're on the same page as to what we think of the UK's most controversial tabloid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Grand Prix (disambiguation)

Usually when a discussion is closed in favor of a minority, it's wise to leave an explanation as to why it is being closed that way. Could you please do so on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Grand Prix (disambiguation)? Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I've added my thoughts in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I thought that's why you closed it the way you did. However, none of the particpants advocating for deletion agree with the notion that WP:TWODABS is no longer relevant. If I thought that way, I would have changed my !vote, but I didn't. If you need that to be explicit, would you mind relisting so I can state that (and ping the others who weren't explicit after the relist so they can do the same)? That might help clarify things a bit. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the discussion has run its course on this page for the time being. Maybe give it a week or two, and then if you still feel the DAB page is problematic, file a fresh AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inayatullah Faizi

Hi,Ritchie,

I was a bit surprised to read your assessment of consensus at the afore-linked AfD. I am unsure as to why you wrote and were not challenged in your explanation.L3X1's !vote was well-challenged and so was the first !vote.And I don't find the number of source(s) and covg. shown by Mfaraz to heavily tilt the axis either.Thus, a better call would probably be a No Consensus?Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

All it talks about is the "number of citations", not the quality or appropriateness of them. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Tom Petty

Can you unlock the fucking page ! - FlightTime (open channel) 19:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, follow instructions I left on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlightTime (talk • contribs)

1) That is not what I asked you to do. 2) That's a tabloid newspaper (rough equivalent to the Daily Express IIRC). A litmus test for all musician deaths is a report in BBC News and The Guardian, and they are pretty on the ball. BBC News' "Entertainment" section has got nothing - a confirmed death would have a "breaking news" entry. So just have a bit of a patience. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
And WP:CIVIL. There are two edit requests on the Tom Petty talk page which need saying no to as well. Ref (chew)(do) 20:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Rolling Stone We hope (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
O'oh.. in case you haven't seen this yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like your instincts were spot on, Ritchie! Page is now re-protected due to the retraction of CBS's report. Interesting developments. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

While I should not make black humour out of an obviously upsetting time for his family, I can't help thinking of this. And well done BBC News for not taking the bait. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
UPI We hope (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems CBS have changed their tune. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC). 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.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"deep, lasting disgust"

Re: discussions in other places, my "deep, lasting disgust" is for the gravedancing trolls who leave petty little barnstars and pour petrol on flames. Particularly true when TRM has done a damned sight more for this encyclopaedia than the peanut gallery trolls who spend more time on talk pages, thinking WP is a social media site, not a fecking encyclopaedia! - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)↑ -Wot he said. — fortunavelut luna 14:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at Talk:A82 road/GA2 (and the previous failed GA and FA reviews) - who did the work (aside from me) to actually improve the article to the desired status? TRM of course! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Because - and this is unlike the contemptible gravedancing trolls active elsewhere - TRM knows that this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. Quite a few people forget that, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Feck me, it's turning into troll town... what a bunch of ......... (fill in a suitable term for these children: arbs and admins trolling, grave-dancing and enabling. What a brave new world we live in) - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Another admin trolling. How these people were ever thought suitable for the mop is beyond me. Pot-stirring dramah queens are less abrasive than this. - SchroCat (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ekaterina Gorokhova

You deleted the page Ekaterina Gorokhova not long ago per G11. The page has since been recreated by the same editor (who seems to be acknowledging to being a paid editor in edit summaries). Since I can't see the deleted version, I don't know how similar it is to the existing version, so can you have a look and see if the page again qualifies for speedy deletion? Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Deli nk: It's an exact match (or near enough to be non-obvious) of the version I deleted. If an article has never been to a full debate at AfD, you can just respeedy if the new version meets the criteria. In this case, it does, so I have re-deleted and salted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Plummeting admin standards

Plummeting standards...
Please take care of the bungee cord as it could come in useful for the next ArbCom candidate. Thank you.

Is it me, or have half the admins gone for trolling lessons? There has never been a golden age, but I remember when admins used to decrease the heat, not stupidly raise it unnecessarily. It's a shame admining is a job for life - sadly idiocy like this won't lead to a striking off the list, but it really should do, even if temporarily. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a simple cause behind this, that I'm sure you'll appreciate. It's harder to write a good article (not to be confused with a good article) than it is to do basic and rudimentary admin activities. You can delete expired PRODs with your brain turned off and most AIV reports take about 5 seconds to evaluate. On the other hand, once you've exhausted all the topics you know about already, to write more articles you've got to read the sources, understand them, digest them and then use them to write the content. I don't know about you, but stuff like Charing Cross railway station took about a week from grabbing the sources to submitting to GA - and that was lightning quick. The trouble with "community desysopping" is that everyone's got their own ideas about who shouldn't be an admin, and I dare say there'd be a few queuing up to get rid of my bit by now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You're quite right Ritchie, the vast majority of administrative tasks are by far much easier than writing a well referenced article. Thank you for hatting a "discussion" I caused with a needless comment -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey man... I’m at the front of this queue if you don’t mind!! And it seems it’s lot longer than we expected. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC) ...."Threesie Isn't Working"...
Ahem... We're just "BUIL ING AN EN YCLO EDIA THA WO KS OR EVE YON".....cough, cough, splutter... Martinevans P45 (talk) 18:18 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Can I interrupt...? - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
lol Schro, ur such joker. innit. Martinevans G4S (talk) 19:46 4 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. Don Ritchleone333 he always say "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

Re:Carpenters pix

"Say cheese!"

The author on these should be A&M records because they paid for the advertising special section. ;) We hope (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, dodgy copypasta again :-/ Still, things are taking shape, 11 {{fact}} tags to nail now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Holding out for a cheeseburger. :-D We hope (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Some nice quotes here, even one from Karen herself re: her voice. We hope (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Trying now to add some variety to the refs. If there's anything you don't agree with, please remove. This 1976 People Magazine article has more on their private sides. I added refs to The Carpenters article from it using <ref name=act> Probably have more to dig from the musty cyberstacks. ;) We hope (talk)
That's fine, many hands make light work and all that - I trust you not to cite the usual tabloid trash! Meanwhile, I am having a go at some multimedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We hope (and Cassianto, SchroCat, Dr. Blofeld, Sagaciousphil, and old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all) - I am done with the initial improvements here and have stuck the article up for peer review here Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  • No probs. I should be through with the Stones in a couple of days and I'll be onto it then. (Although give me a nudge if you don't see me there by Tuesday!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It looks great, Ritchie. Alas, I may be a day or two longer as my wife is currently laid up in hospital, so I’m flying solo at the moment. CassiantoTalk 16:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I give FAC another go about once a year, and this seems like a suitable candidate :-) I do mean to comment on Aberfan's PR, but it seems everyone else has got there and said it all before me again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Help on Article Deletion

Can you help me understand how to improve my article, which you closed/deleted? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rushika_Fernandopulle)

I thought I had compiled good, relevant sources, but it was deleted for not being notable enough. But when I read the guidelines, I feel like I followed them. What would make this article more acceptable? Zapfdingbats (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zapfdingbats: Essentially, nobody thought there was enough information to be able to write a substantial and neutral article on this person. The detailed breakdown of why your sources were felt to be insufficient was dealt with adequately by Ravenswing in the AfD (in my view), but essentially, we need to see lots of dedicated pieces about someone in prominent and national media, such as newspapers and magazines. What "lots of" is open to interpretation, but essentially you shouldn't have to struggle to find the relevant source material. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a tough one, because I felt like Ravenswing cherry picked a few slight sources and ignored some of the bigger ones that justified the entry. A profile in the Financial Times and articles in the New Yorker and Atlantic seemed pretty substantial to me. Certainly as much as or more so than any other health care CEO in the category. Do you think there's opportunity here to improve and try again? If so, any tips would be appreciated. I'm still learning the platform. Zapfdingbats (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Looking back at the AfD, I addressed all the cites that were in the article. The FT article you cite later on in the discussion's behind a pay wall, but the Atlantic article you claim here as being "pretty substantial" isn't. It is, indeed, a pretty substantial article ... but it's not about the subject. Everything that article tells us about the subject is contained in this one sentence: ""Medical care is dangerous," says Dr. Rushika Fernandopulle, the co-founder and CEO of Iora Health, a leading practitioner of a more holistic approach to health." It is a longstanding and explicit element of BIO/GNG that a source consisting solely of quotes from the subject cannot be used to bolster the notability of the subject, but beyond that, a source bolstering notability needs to provide "significant coverage" TO the subject. Fernandopulle is mentioned in six paragraphs of that article, none of which tells us anything about him other than that one sentence given above. What they consist of is him telling anecdotes about patients, about this particular health care situation, and about his company. It's one of a piece with the other sources. I'm not saying you didn't include several in-depth citations from reputable, reliable sources. I'm just saying, as I did in August, that they're not ones that meet the GNG when it comes to Fernandopulle. Every other editor who put in his or her two cents' worth agreed. Ravenswing 22:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Ritchie, thanks for info on formatting sources - I didn't know how to do it. For the 'unknown' streets I am hoping that the Gillian Bebberton book will help with some of these. I doubt that they are really 'unknown', it's just finding their etymologies would take a lot more intensive research using local history books etc. which I don't have the time for atm. Hopefully someone with better local knowledge will be able to fill in some of these blanks. Thanks again Sdrawkcab (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)sdrawkcab

@Sdrawkcab: Well, I started Cranbourn Street yesterday and it is a piddly little stub at the moment awaiting expansion. Also, I can't recommend the London Encyclopedia enough, it's a 1000+ pages of rich information (and that's over a thousand densely-packed pages too!) that if London streets are your topic of interest, will be an absolute treasure trove. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thanks! I'll have to check that out :) User:sdrawkcab

Is this a threat?

Hi Ritchie. Bit concerned about a post on RolandR's Talkpage here. It sounds threatening. Didn't know whether to delete it or leave it if deletion would piss RR off, but in any case I thought I would inform you. Don't know what you think on the tone. Simon. Irondome (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Somebody's been trolling RolandR for years and years. Blocked, reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice one Irondome (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, and for deleting this. However, it is unlikely to be the Runtshit vandal, since the person many of us believe to be behind that account died earlier this year. Feel free to delete any future such stuff that you see on my talk page.RolandR (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Whoever it is, it's the same behaviour as this account from a few weeks ago, so as far as I'm concerned it's quacking through the Grateful Dead's multi-channel PA system. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
...who'll be in the Mouth of the Beast...? ;) — fortunavelut luna 18:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Music for thought

I like the header

Chicago (Graham Nash song) We hope (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you want to me to listen to it, improve the article, or both? ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Whatever you please-it just seems quite pertinent as of late. ;) We hope (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I like the header. Posted to AN one more time. That exceeded my chosen limit of 2 comments per discussion (which would be kind of wise for anybody any discussion) already, so I can't be one to discuss that protection of a talk page - never a good idea if you ask me - should end. Not even talking TPA. Among grown-ups, to tell someone that I know better than he what is good for him, seems so - lacking a word. Kafkaesque. This made Wikipedia better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I was involved (but not involved) with Mick Jagger's GA review, but I didn't have anything to do with the DYK, and I'm certain that had TRM been around, he would have seen it, we would have pulled it, and it would never have got as far as the main page. And yes, you are right about Kränzle too. And in a discussion, if you're not agreeing on stuff it's a good idea to duck out after two shots at the conversation; I do that a lot. Saves disk space on weighty ANI threads. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I try to stay away from AN and ANI, period. Once, I requested talk page access to be restored, and got it. - I wasn't blocked ever (but with an IP range), so don't know exactly what I'd do if I found myself blocked. Probably not waste time appealing. Same for arb, - I felt like giving up my pride when I gave in and did, and would not do it again. Experience gained. - What do you think about Der Messias. (Different topic, same feeling). - Sitting in the sun on a boat and trying not to let any of that disturb my peace of mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
hope in red silk, feel free to copy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd love to go and sit in the sun on a boat and try and not let any of this disturb my peace of mind, but pragmatic circumstances means I'll have to settle for a cup of coffee and a Mr Kipling apple pie instead. And listening to the derange warblings of the bonkers but loveable Thijs van Leer. I do remember you criticising somebody for leaving a barnstar like this once. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for having critizized. Yes, Hawkeye, I remember. We are on good terms again, and I asked for a cat to illustrate ignore ignore ignore. Waste of time to take any barnstar to heart, - see, I'm learning. Had another good day in Berlin, just - in the train back - checking the watchlist.
That AN close is the next thing one can only ignore. I really need a good icon for that. Let me see if I get the logic right: an arbitrator made a trout-worthy block, but protection of the talk page needs to be kept because she's an arbitrator. How can we prevent such a thing from happening again? Abolish arbcom seems the most promising solution. If you ask me: an arbitrator should NEVER block for arbitration enforcement, - those powers should be strictly divided. End of ignoring. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
As for the admin barnstars: they bother me more by a member of the cabal of the outcasts. I updated that list for some other edits that I found are not compatible for members (by what they do) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
One of my favourite diffs is this : "Really, no one should cheer after a block in the first place. Doing so trivializes the most powerful tool in our toolbox and celebrates a power that should be handled with care." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree fully. That would be a nice addition to some barnstars, instead of saying that I'm easily upset ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I also note this comment from Eric seems to be quite insightful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, by the other notable victim of that kind of blocks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I made a redirect He was despised for the victims, DYK? Working today on its German equivalent, concert tomorrow! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Did I mention I got roped into a chorale church concert to sing bass on the "Hallelujah" chorus from Messiah a few months back. Talk about a fish out of water.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Mmmmm ... nice
No ;) - The first time I sang that chorus was for a memorial service. The deceased, a tenor in a choir, had expressed the wish to have it there, I was asked to help out, and much needed, because those who had known him could barely sing. I struggled only with the English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Dress rehearsal went well, concert later today, Halleluja! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Different style: the tandem of Vincent Peirani and Michael Wollny, pictured on my talk. Looking for links, I found Jazz in France leaving much to be desired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Well at least it name drops Quintette du Hot Club de France, though Django Reinhardt was Belgian. As is Philip Catherine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
More work: Klaus Huber died. I'd normally ask what needs to be done to make him appear on RD. Huber received the Nobel prize of music, studied Arabic music, set texts by activists from Isaiah to modern ones, ... but the article is rather silent. Help? No time today, naturally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
With some help, namely Martin and Francis, he is on RD the third day, with amazing statistics. - Different question for you GA expert: It never happened to me until today that an article was changed right after becoming GA. What do you think, you and watching experts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, people don't notice that an article's been improved to GA, and only catch it when it's on the list. And because a GA is normally only two people's views, there's always room for more work. Same reason DYK can be used as a device to improve an article, in order to get more eyes on it to put in the improvements they think are needed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, blimey! I just realised the significance of those initials: ". ."!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC) " ... ere I 'ad that Bog Scratch in the back of me lido cab the uvver week, an' all.

Useful link

discogs.com has got lots of them, and https://rarerecordcollector.net/ is brilliant for late 60s / early 70s rock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Eagle Express

Hello there, Ritchie333. Please note tha the creator of the article is persistently removing the deletion tags from the articles they created [3] [4]. I've renominated the article for deletion.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: You've actually restored a proposed deletion (PROD) tag; since those are only for uncontroversial deletions, you can't restore it. You need to raise a full debate at WP:AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the heads up. I will wait a while to see the outcome of this [5] and then will move on to the AfD process.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

RFA clerked

Hello Ritchie333, part of your response on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 4 has been moved from Question 8 to the talk page. Your response was stating an opinion on the entire RfA, while this may have been in line with an Oppose statement, or in the general discussion area, placing it in the questions section gives it undue weight to others reading the RFA. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you wish to withdraw your support, or even your nomination statement you are welcome to, with strike-though marking (withdrawing your nomination support will not stop the RfA). — xaosflux Talk 02:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC). 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.

Marvellous Spider-Man 14:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If you're suggesting I nominate that editor for RfA, the first thing I looked at was a WP:CSD#G12 notification from six months ago, that was upheld and deleted. That's an instant "no". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Query about GA review

Hi. I started reviewing India national football team (at Talk:India national football team/GA1 on 2 September 2017. Initially the nominator did not respond to the comments (even though he was active) I wrote. First, I pinged him on the review page which he replied. Then I gave a reminder at his talk page. Even though the nominator responded to some of the concerns raised, he has again ignored the review even though he is active (evident from his contributions page). I just want to know provided that the review is open for such a long time and the nominator seems to be ignoring it, would it be correct for me to close the review? RRD (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Royroydeb: Essentially, it is the nominator's responsibility to do the work required to make the article meet the GA guidelines, and while it's great if the reviewer pitches in and helps, if you think the article is nowhere close and the required work is not being done, and you're well over the 7 day limit, I would simply close it with no prejudice against a renomination in the future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Carpenters

In all the kerfuffle there, I became third highest contributor (in terms of edits) to that page, so I demand at least two barnstars, one for the typically awesome review and one for the copyedits. I even fixed a few piped redirects (but don’t tell anyone!!) My mum used to sing “On Top of the World” to me when we drove home from school when I was about six, so it was a pleasure to help (assuming I did, of course). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been very helpful indeed; I will get to the remainder of the issues over the next day or so. Unfortunately, I have been suffering from a bad overdose of RfA-fatigue this week, which means my motivation to do what we're all supposed to be here for has taken a bit of a nose-dive. This is not good. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Dunno. Might keep you quiet for ten minutes — fortunavelut luna 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad revision

Hi.
In my mobile browser there was an open tab. It must have been there since a lot of days. The diff must belong either to a deleted page, or to a rev-del. special:diff/801864615
The contents arent necessary, but would you kindly tell me the name of the page? The curiosity has been bugging me. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 17:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The page was Vicky Kadian and the diff was you putting a {{db-person}} tag on it, which was obviously upheld and carried out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It is appreciated a lot. Actually, that might be the reason why the tab was left open. Socks had kept on removing the templates. A sys-op (I think Alex Shih) deleted the article when he saw the SPI. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to this diff, and conversation; two more socks have been spotted lol. See you around.
—usernamekiran(talk) 20:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just worked out why I can't find any matching socks when I get dressed in the morning, half of them have ended up on WP :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

For some reason-

I'm beginning to feel ed re: the 2 Carpenters articles-what about you? We hope (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It's the Wikipedia way - everyone's nice as pie working on articles, then a bunch of people turn up doing silly reverts and everyone starts going loopy. Are people just following The Rambling Man about and trying to get him into trouble? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Still have the feeling. ;) We hope (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A puzzle from a vandal

Do you know someone who would be interested in figuring this out? I'm a bit stumped as to how to find the offending pages and edits. --Slashme (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a clue (plus there's alway the possibility they're just lying). WP:AN is probably the best place to go in the first instance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Slashme: (talk page stalker) I had a look through Category:15th-century Russian people, but only two of the articles had any mention of "Cardinal", and they were of notable people. Looks like I'm back to square one... Adam9007 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't find the edits. I've posted a thread at AN as there will apparently be more such hoaxes soon. Adam9007 (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking! I've also done a PetScan or two now that I know about the tool, and I've posted the results at that page. I'm also slightly skeptical, but I'll see the investigation through as well as I can.. --Slashme (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Comic Con Baltics wiki entry

Hello sir,

may I inquire why you deemed the information on the page not relevant, by that standard you can delete most of pages about different Comic Con events happening around the globe.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovaras (talk • contribs)

@Jovaras: Pages are generally deleted when they are left in a state where no independent editor can improve them to an acceptable quality; in this case, the problem is talking about an event in the future. While some future events can be immediately important to an encyclopedia, such as the next Olympics or World Cup, most others are not. In the meantime, I've restored the article to User:Jovaras/Comic Con Baltics so you can retrieve the content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovaras (talk • contribs)

A blues?

Incoming dumb question: is it grammatically correct to call a song "a blues"? The context is in a GA review (my first!) for "Red House": "...it is a slow blues with lyrics..." and "'Red House' is a moderately slow blues...".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: I think so. In the first Back to the Future film, just before playing Johnny B Goode, Marty says to the band, “Okay guys, this is a blues riff in B, watch me for the changes and try and keep up.” Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Looks fine to me, as it does to Ernie. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

The very small Barnstar
For calling Kernow by it's proper name without being prompted, or it having mentioned just before on the same page. Sensitivity to all peoples is a great thing, so here is a very small barnstar made of Cornish tin to show gratitude. Dysklyver 19:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yma encyclopedia rydh nowydh hag yw as tasty as ("Jimbo - the Cornish for encylopedia") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy Friday 13th

Happy Friday 13th, Thirteensie. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's spooky in here, watch out for Android trying to hack your phone. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 22:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
How very app-ropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Or should I say it's Apple-roprite :P KGirl (Wanna chat?) 22:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that Steve is not right behind you. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Megyn Kelly is behind you who has the iPhone X while she thinks Android is the worst. lol 😂 (personally, I love to sneak in my phone during the the night to edit WP. But I don't have a phone yet. -__-) KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I had noticed Megyn. But I was too embarrassed to say anything. Personally, I think Yardley is a lovely name. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Maurício Abreu

Hi - you intervened on this article but the portuguese version likewise has no sources beyond the authors own. Highly questionable inclusion. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: All I did was remove the {{db-person}} tag, which just means I didn't want to unilaterally delete it without getting a full consensus at WP:AfD. I'd suggest filing a discussion there. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has more info. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok thank you. Have now followed up as you suggest. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The Who ‎ →‎1978–1983

I'm surprised by the replacement of my Phil Collins quote by a "better source". I would have thought Phil Collins was a pretty good source on the activities of Phil Collins, especially as the replacement text suggests that Genesis were on hiatus (they'd played at Knebworth a couple of months before) and that his marriage had failed (it was in trouble, but his divorce was still two years away). BrunoMacDonald (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It was more that I wanted to move away from direct quotations to a source that summarised the events. Bowler & Dray's biography is rather old, but it was officially authorised and covered the events between And Then There Were Three to Duke in detail, including Collins' marriage breaking up and going into complete workaholic mode. He frequently visited the Marquee club in his teens, so it's perfectly believable he would have seen the Who in their early days there and jumped at the chance to join them. On the other hand, he wouldn't have turned into a prolific songwriter (he didn't write much with Genesis up to that point) in the Who and we might never have got "In The Air Tonight" which we'd all have been the worse for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

For General Goodeggery

The Original Barnstar
After a short read of your user page, I was inspired to say Thanks. So: Thanks. Carrite (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Carrite: I'd say exactly the same about your page; the comment about IPs being treated like crap is spot on, and the note about GA being non-compulsory is also fair comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Basshunter

Hello. I think sources from deleted content were okay. Is The Sun problematic? Eurohunter (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Google for “stick it up your Junta” and “justice for the 96”, or see the many threads on the reliable sources noticeboard. The Sun is a sensationalist tabloid trash paper that is in complete violation of WP:BLPSOURCES. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
There were also other sources. What about them? Eurohunter (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Looney's Pub

Thank you for the link to Plain and simple guide to A7, I will use this in the future! Thsmi002 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thsmi002: You're welcome; a quick news search brings up lots of hits so it definitely doesn't qualify as an A7. if you've got any other questions, SoWhy's another admin to ask about speedies, including User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Advice!

Hello there, Ritchie! Dileep Kandula was recently deleted, but the author has created the same page again with the very same bit of information. More problematic seems the probability of the author to be the very same person whose article is being written. It may constitute WP:COI! Any clue on what should be done? Thanks a lot, and have a wonderful rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Observations on Wikipedia behaviour #28 : "Any new article with exactly the same name as its creator can almost always be immediately deleted as CSD A7" and that seems to be the case here. Nobody has tagged the recreated article yet, so I have put {{db-person}} on it; if that is deleted, the deleting admin should salt it (ie: protect against recreation). If the creator tries to circumvent this by creating under a different name, we can think about a block then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a ton, Ritchie! That was really helpful. I wonder how you get all those hidden links. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
....and the article has now been respeedied, so I have salted it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That seemed a really speedy action. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC). 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.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

... made his ears burn

Is that the Hohner Cembalet that Greenfield plays or just an over-amped electric piano? Can't seem to find any good source that ties it down. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

Looking at this picture, the rig appears to be a Hammond L-100 (or possibly a T?), a Hohner Pianet (as used by Genesis up to Foxtrot) and a Minimoog. The middle keyboard is too small to be an electric piano. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I was just going off the personnel credits at the album article (which does indeed say Hammond L-100) Maybe it's the minimoog then? It's a distinctive part of that song with it's very metallic sound. The TopPop clip suggests it's the Cembalet?Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
That clip's miming (kind of obvious really) so I wouldn't pay any attention to it - listening to the audio, it sounds like a Minimoog on square oscillators with a Hammond sans Leslie underneath. The actual sleeve for No More Heroes just credits Greenfield with "keyboards, vocals" though, so how the article knows is .... a matter for the community. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Miming?? On Top of the Pops!? I'll have none of that, thank you. But thanks for your expertise. Looks like the album article needs some attention. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
No, TopPop, Dutch TV show - probably done while they were out on tour there. At one point, Jet Black plays the drums facing the wrong way, so at least they're not trying to mime convincingly. There is a genuinely live Rock Goes to College (?) Stranglers performance when the group stormed out mid-set because they wanted anyone to attend the gig, not just students. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, tarnation! That's my theory blown to smithereens, then! Yes, that's not the most convincing drumming in the world, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_66&oldid=1139290658"