User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Took it to AFD

As you have declined the speedy deletion of Uncial reparto corse, I have taken the article to AFD. Please feel to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncial reparto corse. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: That's fine. Not sure whether to go for "delete" or "redirect" but I'm sure consensus will play out properly, as it usually does. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Many people are still convinced that such articles are valid A7s per WP:NOTINHERITED or WP:INHERITORG. Never mind if the statement can provide an alternative to deletion should the subject not be notable (which is not even a certainty). Looks like I have some work to do on my essay... Adam9007 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, currenly working on Katy Katopodis which today has been A7ed, G11ed twice and now AfDed. I should be able to wangle something other than "delete" out of it, though I don't want to spend hours on pulling sources together for a biography nobody else wants. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say there was a claim of significance when you declined it. But here, the evidence suggests the other person wasn't even listening to me (He just kept banging on about notability not being inherited and that I don't understand Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability if I remove an A7 tag. Never mind that A7 is not about notability.), rather than merely disagreeing. Adam9007 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Y'all should try being an admin - you get a lot of attention when you delete stuff that other people disagree with! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think my chances of passing an RfA are all that great (mainly because of all the hoo-ha about A7), would would be happy to be proven wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll be honest - you are future admin material IMHO. From a cursory check, you appear to meet most, if not all the bullet points on User:Kudpung/RfA criteria including the content (I appreciate there were extenuating circumstances behind Theme Hospital's GA review). The main stumbling block for you is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#Concerns about Adam9007 declining speedy deletion nominations, and even then I see Peridon saying "There's quite some way to go, but I think some day he would make a good admin". Seriously, I'm trying to work out what exactly is the difference between what you've accomplished now and what I had got when Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ritchie333 ran - it seems to be mainly I'd just done more of it. Pop over to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll and start a poll to see what other people think. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just to poke my nose in where it's not needed- I'd say that RFA seems more forgving nowadays of small lapses in the past if they can be outweighed by the greater good: last year (say?) ancient deeds could be sinkable couldn't they? _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Who knows? Unless you have never put a foot wrong, create perfect GAs and have outstanding CSD and AfD logs, there are always going to be skellies. Everybody has skellies, the question is will they create enough of a "pile on" oppose at the RfA? Adam's basic stats and AfD score checks out from a cursory glance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Not sure what you mean by "extenuating circumstances" about Theme Hospital though? If I run for adminship soon, I think the skellies will create a pile on oppose, but I could be wrong. My ANI isn't exactly ancient yet is it? Adam9007 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Extenuating circumstances" here were about the article not passing GAN straightaway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hammond organ

Thought of you when I added hammond organ to Tamar Halperin, yesterday's article. I wrote one every day since you demanded content, all but on Sunday when I was a choir singer in the premiere of Laudato si‘ ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I'd go as far as demanding content, that's not nice. Asking nicely to produce content is better. More content, less drama. I'm a bit caught up in RfA chat at the moment. Also hoping beyond hope I don't have to change an infobox on my userpage to "This user despises President Trump" tomorrow.... :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why wait? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just seen in the news that two topless women were ejected from the polling station because they wanted to have a go at Trump. That was probably for their own good, knowing Trump he'd probably think Christmas had come early or something.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Could be worse. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC) .... oh dear, it is worse

Sorry if I misunderstood the tone (and was too lazy to look at your archive, but I will now have to look for the link to the flashmob image). It came across as: the only remedy against drama is content, and I vaguely remember having mentioned 3 TFAs and GAs that I didn't count, so thought I had given enough already. - Your infobox is concise so far, and should not be changed, imho. Mine is a little more informative. Did you notice that every "singen" has a different link"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ja, du kann mir (und auch Rhonda) singen singen singen singen. (Sorry, my German's rusty). I have a potential RfA candidate in mind who you think is Precious and thinks if you're going to have an infobox, have a good infobox. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your candidate, - many qualify for that statement, - is there anybody who wants a bad one? Wish I had an image of Tamar. I actually took one here, but you can imagine how much you saw of her from that view point. The strange looking thing at the bottom is the open cover of her harpsichord. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ps: I stood in line with her for the ladies after that concert, and could tell her about her (then future) husband singing Messiah for us: He was despised. When he sang we held our breath. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Chavster01 (he's not on WP much but I know him from elsewhere on the net) is passionate about organ music c. 1830 and has a particular interest in the 32' stop at the Grote Kerk, Haarlem. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

(light relief) I made my Dead-hating friend a Bob Dylan cd- Dylan at Club Front. She hasn't twigged yet… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I've always thought Dylan's songs were better sung by other people, and his own work is best when viewed on paper, but that's a bit of a sacrilegious view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

AffeL block

Not entirely sure this block is really 100% preventative or necessary. User seems to have been working with a...less than accurate...understanding of what constitutes vandalism, as they indicated when given the 3RR template by AlexTheWhovian. This misconception was explained to them, which they seemed to be receptive to, and the content dispute was then quickly resolved on the article talk to the apparent satisfaction of both parties, and done prior to the block. TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I just unblocked anyway as I am satisfied neither is going to violate 3RR any more - the last revert was just very recent which gave me pause, and there were too many other editors affected by a full protect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. And here is the perfect example of how it's completely acceptable to blindly violate 3RR. Alex|The|Whovian^? 16:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I think what happened here is that AffeL incorrectly filed two AIV reports as part of the content dispute without any other context, which immediately raises a red flag to me as "disruptive", especially when there seemed to be no obvious vandalism in the article history at all. It took me a while to backtrack through all the threads. In the meantime, I thought I'd have to block until I can work out exactly what's going on to stop even more reverts happening on the article. If I'd seen the protection request first, I'd have probably done things in a different order and just declined everything as stale. What I'd recommend going forward is when you file a report against another party, be like Pompeia and completely above suspicion - say what the issue is and point directly at a talk page conversation that shows you have sorted this out. (I appreciate TJW did do this, but it wasn't obvious from first parse without a direct link). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

But...Pompeia... oh nevermind. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think he means, if you're going to party at WP:ANEW, put on a woman's toga first... ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh my god. Does no one here history? TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

History? That's classics. Or elementary dress-making. Or to put it another way, moon ≠ spacestation. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA, Hi Ritchie!

Dear Ritchie,

Thank you for your previous help on the Symphony of the New World page. I received this message from a bot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barbara.steinberg#File_permission_problem_with_File%3APhotograph_of_premiere_concert_of_the_Symphony_of_the_New_World_at_Carnegie_Hall.jpg

I added that I gave permission under the CC-BY-SA to the Evidence section of this photograph's information page. I also added this sentence to the web page that gives permission. Then I wrote to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. My ticket # is Ticket#: 2016111010005211.

Did I follow the instructions correctly? I own the original photograph. I couldn't part with it. It's in my house. I am the sole copyright owner. But instructions from a bot confuse me. I just want to check that I followed the rules.

Thank you for your kindness and help,

Best,

Barbara.steinberg (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Barbara Steinberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara.steinberg (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Barbara.steinberg: Your license looks fine and the bot seems to be in error, so I have removed the tag. @Fastily: Looks like your bot has a bug, can you fix it, cheers! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions about the 12:18, 7 November 2016 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) deleted page Lepar Messiah (A7: Article about a real person, ...

I have a few questions about the reason this page was deleted. I believe that I am being lied to, and I have a feeling this page will be at the bottom of it.

Thanks, TheRandomOwl (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC) The Random Owl

The Bishop

you deleted a page that I was given 7 days by one of the editors to find source materials or the page would be deleted. Can I get the page restored please.Tom27jr (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tom27jr: Done - restored at Draft:Thomas Henry (bishop) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

John Deacon GAN?

Hi, any chance you'll ever return to the John Deacon article? If it ever happens, give me a ping! FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I was never quite sure whether it was a good idea or not to take the article to GAN in the first place, but yeah, I can give it a go now I'm "off break". Shall we just revert the "not listed" tag on the talk page and re-open the review where we left off? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what happens under such circumstances, if it's allowed, why not... FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we're back on. I need to see what's changed in the article since I last looked at it (I don't put articles on my watchlist usually until they've passed GA), and work out where my sources have gone, but I should have this wrapped up in the next day or two. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, no rush! FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, it seems the main changes have been edit-warring over the infobox and adding unsourced trivia which other editors then reverted. Doesn't look like it's in too much of a different shape to when it was reviewed earlier in the year. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Ritchie333.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Ritchie333,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What has TOTP got to do with this? Are you a closet Noel Edmonds fan? And please don't use "utilize", it's such a stupid word to use in articles; you'll be dropping in comprised of next. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, both TOTP and TOTP share the theme of people penetrating things they shouldn't. (Programmers tend to use "utilise" a lot, probably because "user" so often has a different meaning to them that they do so out of habit.) ‑ Iridescent 09:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess the moral here is : don't use 01 811 8055 as your password. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: I cannot believe I have dropped two references to Multi-Coloured Swap Shop in this thread and Martin hasn't turned up. Is Wales on strike? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Just leave me out of your multiracial swapping parties, if you don't mind. Am already in enough trouble for being part of "gay-bashing lynch mob", thanks to "LavaBaron Vs EEng." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not only part of the same lynch mob, I'm "an excitable person of many assumptions". I am not entirely sure if that is a compliment or an insult. ‑ Iridescent 12:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like typical politician speak if you ask me - insult somebody without them actually realising you're doing it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

But if you really want to get the party started, maybe can you get your hands on a couple of sporty escorts?? K. Vaz 123 (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Rather proud to be part of such an exclusive lynch mob but gay-bashing? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

There are worse lynch mobs, I bet. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at EvanDanielCollett's talk page.
Message added 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Evan Daniel Collett 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't like WP:COMPETENCE-related blocks, but sometimes you've just got to do something and eat humble pie when the affected party complains. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Simple 2FA

Thanks for helping de-tech the page - hopefully it'll improve the uptake -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

BlaccCrab continuing to edit war on my talk page

Hello Ritchie, but BlaccCrab is still edit warring on my talk page, claiming it his right to remove his own past comments from it, even after you warned him. I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid if this goes to WP:ANI nothing will come of a warning again. I have not broken/will not break 3RR. Just see the history here: [1]. Ss 112 05:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I've notified ANI, but he has also attacked me on his own talk page, blanking a section with the edit summary "Power Hungry Pseudo Intellect Sydrome". Can his own edit summaries on my talk and this on his own page be RevDeled? Sorry, I'm only notifying you because you warned him. Ss 112 05:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I blocked. In the meantime, everyone else has a very legitimate point that you need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe talkpage

I've filed an ANI in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TeeTylerToe is abusing the help templates after indefinite block. The responding admin suggested messaging you instead. The issue is that TeeTylerToe has been using {{help}} and {{help admin}} (and also {{to|Jimbo Wales}}), as detailed in the ANI. Could you remove talkpage access, and close the ANI? —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 08:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

In popular culture

"In popular culture" is a.. what? It got cut off? I'm wonder how you thought my edit was incorrect? --Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 06:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: So it did; what I meant to say was : "In popular culture" is a controversial term and best avoided. Firstly, what you think is "popular" may not match with mine, so it's a bit of a loaded word. The other problem is that some Wikipedians dislike "in popular culture" as a section name as it tends to end up as a bin for lots of unsourced or poorly sourced trivia, which then needs to be weeded out. Easier to nip the problem in the bud and avoid it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: So are you saying that I shouldn't be converting them from "Cultural references" to "In popular culture" then? For example, if there is a "Cultural references" on the Beatles page, it doesn't make sense, "In popular culture" would. However, if it was the Simpsons page with "Cultural references" on it, it would make sense because that show references a lot of pop culture. I'm only going by the manual of style guide.. and I am working my way through many pages trying to clean it up. --Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 09:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a really bad idea. Effectively you are going through a bunch of articles and changing them without really understanding why the change is needed on that article, or even if it is needed. Stop, read WP:HITANDRUN and find something else to do. For additional reading, I can recommend User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts; a long but thought-provoking read that's well worth the time to digest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: report at AIV of 2600 IP(s)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol

On 17 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought "we'll never see the likes of him again", but if we get Nigel Farage, 1st Marquess of Rochester, you never know.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Oxford Circus tube station

Hey there! I've bet this article has the potential to go further. Do you want to help out to bring it to Featured status? I'm still working on it. VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: By extraordinary co-incidence, I have a tube history book open on my desk right now (for sourcing dates in Marylebone Station, the next one to improve in the User:Ritchie333/Monopoly miniproject), and I found a couple of really good tube book sources yesterday in the library, but I couldn't take them out as they're reference only. Remember that FA criteria 1c says you pretty much have to have considered every available source going, so we have to look at this, before we even think about copyediting. Sentences such as "Station reconstruction to accommodate the Victoria line was described as the most time-consuming for the Victoria line project" won't pass muster for FAC and can be trimmed to something like "The Oxford Circus interchange was the most time-consuming reconstruction project for the Victoria line". I'll hunt through my book sources when I'm next near them but I would say there's a lot of work needed to be done before we'd be in a position to go to FAC. Aldwych tube station might give you some idea of the direction to go in. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I see. Thanks for the info. It indeed needs a lot of work. I'm already having a hard time expanding about the "umbrella" HAHAH. VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Advice please?

Hi, Ritchie! I need advice about a music article I userfied recently. It's here: User:TheMagnificentist/Said the Sky. The author has expanded it enough that it would not meet G4, but I don't know about notability. Basically I am not familiar enough with the music criteria to judge if it qualifies for an article. Could you take a look and advise? (You will note that the author initially got into considerable trouble for edit warring and socking, but that seems to be behind them.) Thanks a bunch! --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm generally not too familiar with youngsters these days, but the sourced claim for a hit means it should meet WP:NMUSIC, however consensus seems to be that's not enough to sustain an article. All the other sources are minor, so I think the best I could hope for is to put it in mainspace and file another AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I value your opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Azzura Birleanu A7 decline

I'm curious about your A7 decline on this article. None of the sources mention the subject, the article was written in a promotional tone that makes it a G11 candidate as well in my view, and while I generally support redirecting new articles over deletion if they are plausible search terms, I don't really think your redirect to the parent makes much sense here. If you're fine with it, I'd like to restore the A7/G11 tags. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I was a hair's breadth away from deleting it per G11, but as the user has only just started writing it and is new, there is a chance they may just rewrite the article again. I have told the creator I have reduced the article to a redirect and given them some advice on creating articles about children; specifically unless this subject is as significant as Madeleine McCann, they should avoid doing so - it's a really bad idea. PS: If you are certain that Azzura Birleanu does not exist, period, the redirect can also be deleted per WP:CSD#G3. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I think we probably still disagree here, but I understand your reasoning on wanting to prevent recreation. I might list the redirect at WP:RFD if the editor doesn't try to recreate it from your redirect. Redirecting children to their famous parents doesn't seem like the right move here for me as it could cause confusion (on the off chance someone was actually searching for the child because they saw the name somewhere, and they now are at the parents page). I'd still like you to reconsider the G11 because of this, but like I said, understand the reasoning against repeat recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The canonical guidelines are at WP:INVALIDBIO and suggests turning non-notable children of notable parents into redirects, citing Brooklyn Beckham as an example. Another related example is Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester, which is a complete can of worms but in short consensus is he's non-notable and gets a redirect. You can't generally G11 a redirect (since all of the promotional content, if there was any, has been nuked); you can G3 if you sincerely believe it is made-up nonsense, and you can G10 if you think it's offensive (eg: Hang Hillary Clinton). Other than that, I think RfD is your best bet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for the response. Still think this was the wrong call, but respect the disagreement of opinions :) I'll take it to RfD in a bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just listed on today's RfD log as an FYI. (Promise this will be the last notification on this!) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure Martinevans123 will be along with his witty puns to keep the conversation running. Or perhaps Gerda Arendt will put up a nice picture or an extract of some Bach to lighten the mood. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Woman looking at Homeopathic Bach flower remedies, extracts developed by Edward Bach

I think I'm doing this right. TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Bingo TimboJo! Ooh, thank you dear Threesie. I must go and have a good rummage around in my new bottom draw. Yes, it was Bach obviously, but with a "bit of touching up" by his close friend August. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Take the pic of the day (and new article), perhaps, or the one I took at the same location, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't even know how to contain myself at this moment ... He child isn't a can of worms and it's a shadow of her father ... That child has been featured in her own right in those campaigns with supermodels and top actresses .. In Elle link you can clearly se , if you bother to look, her name credited.. Alao in the other public links .. credited just as azzura .. Was not that they didn't want was simply because they didn't have the right on paper to publish the name .. I amcompletely astounded on the language you use which aside that is profane and insulting it is Los bass in absolutely nothing valid. She is a star child .. Somethingspecial2014 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

forgive missspeling .. I honestly forgot to look and just sent it .. Wow.. The way you talk it is a serious eye opener .. Please reinstate or help reinstate properly Azzura Birleanu page Somethingspecial2014 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Azzura Birleanu exists are you serious ?! It's in the Elle link her credited name .. As well as the other Ines.. You want me to send the dolce Gabbana contract ?? I will .. Reinstate the page for Christ sake .. where I can send the contract ?? Somethingspecial2014 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Something, but what's a "Los bass"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a mistake you imbecile Somethingspecial2014 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just like you being editor of a subject you know nothing about but hey.. someone has to be there to be the winning loser . Don't make me explain .. you're the imbecile that said "no sources mention the subject"? .. Did you look ELLE link ?? You smart editor you Somethingspecial2014 (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making that so clear, Something. That really is special. I've not actually edited Azzura Birleanu. But I can easily undo all my edits to Andre Birleanu if you really want. Whoever he is. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC) I said, "no sources mention the subject", did I?

@Somethingspecial2014: I think you've misunderstood what I've said. "Can of worms" is a British English idiom that means something is complicated or difficult to resolve, and describes the question of whether or not there is a 13th Duke of Manchester. Simply having a link to a source does not mean writing an article about somebody is a good idea; my kids have appeared in the local news once or twice, which can be considered a reliable source, but I would be upset if somebody created an article about them as I do not want that attention fostered on them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The next station is Marylebone....

....please mind the gap between the article's state a few days ago and an up to date article. Change here (well, the edit button) for a much better article. This is a Bakerloo line train to Good Article status. In all seriousness - hope my edits have been helpful, and please feel free to revert anything you think isn't (or tell me to leave it alone entirely)! Just thought I'd jump on board a bit (pun not intended) with your Monopoly challenge, which I think is a great concept! Mike1901 (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(Also, just noticed in Wikilinking the header: it doesn't follow the usual formatting for UK stations of "X railway station". presume there's a particular reason for this? Not that it's a big issue...) Mike1901 (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mike1901: That all looks great, as far as I can tell. I'd personally move unsourced but possibly true and verifiable content to the talk page as well as taking the scythe to it, but that's not a major issue. The original plan of the Monopoly mini-project was to get everybody on board and complete the good topic in a few weeks, but nobody else volunteered so I've done all of them up until now. I don't have a book source beyond the mid-1980s at the moment, so I'm not particularly focusing on anything below the station's nadir at that point, where it seemed almost certain it would become little more than a glorified car park. Would have been the first Monopoly square to cease existence too. A couple of the streets still need a GA review, and then we've still got King's Cross and Mayfair which are probably the two hardest squares to improve to GA status.

PS: For basic formatting and consistency stuff across railway articles, you're best speaking to Redrose64 (or indeed the whole of Wikipedia:WikiProject Railways and Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport), I just deal with the broad detail and sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's Marylebone station not Marylebone railway station because there are two systems ("mainline" rail and London Underground) in one station, see WP:NCUKSTATIONS, last row of table (Any two or more of the above). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ritchie333. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, where's Trump and Clinton? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not for arbitration ;) - I asked one candidate the groupname question, so nicely illustrated on this page by Eeng, but got something I understood as a warning, so didn't dare to ask again. I knew the candidates by Precious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Gerda Arendt... I illustrated what, on what page, by what? E Eng 12:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You illustrated me and my flashmob, on this page. If you follow my arb cand question (link above), you'll find the link easily. At that time, I didn't like I it but tried hard to take it with humour ;) - I lost the humour over being blamed for FA writers leaving, without evidence of flashmobbing, but it's always easy to blame me ;) - Seriously: I have no flashmob and no gang. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

But as I recall, you specifically asked me to find a flashmob image for you. Sorry for any offense. I knew nothing about this political brouhaha. E Eng 16:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I hoped to be clear: I wanted it pictured, in the attempt to add some humour, - you did well, I thanked you, didn't I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ps: I can't handle my watchlist today, with thousands of notifications which take minutes to be assembled, so don't look often, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I got about 35 notifications yesterday, all from List of Hammond organs being linked into a template. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That's about one percent, and not notifications but items on the watch list, + not only that every time you click watchlist it takes minutes (and sometimes ends with an "unresponsive script" error) but also every time you return from using it for what it is meant to do (look at things) it takes those "ages", - Mdann, do you hear me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

How many items do you have on your watchlist Gerda? o_O -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The number is high but not relevant. I normally get a response within seconds, resulting in an average of 1k changes in 24 hours. What's a problem is the number of recent changes today, resulting in three times that number, but taking much much longer than three times the time. I'd love to have a watchlist option for just the last hour! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! Not sure if I've understood you correctly, but this will show the changes on your watchlist only in the last hour -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, I'll try but am on my way out right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That IS nice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"there's no puffery without copyvio"

Good one. I am currently mostly active as an article expander, but back when I was working on new pages I did notice that a very large proportion of promotional or resume articles are copyright violations. And not just articles, also userspace pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It fits the proverb well; if a brand new editor creates something that looks like a bad cut and paste job, it probably is. I wonder what other wiki-proverbs people can come up with? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Many of the best ones are here User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 23:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Coats of Arms Galleries

So, I saw that several of the Coats of Arms Galleries I created about a decade ago have been deleted (e.g.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coats_of_arms_of_U.S._Artillery_Regiments) since Commons has been designated the property place for galleries. I was hoping you could restore the one(s) you deleted to draft so I can get them in the right place. Thanks! Hammon27 (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hammon27: The images haven't been deleted; only the placeholder article. I can restore the article in your userspace so you can keep cross-referencing it when setting up the categories in Commons - would you like me to do this? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Yes, please! Hammon27 (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Done - User:Hammon27/Coats of arms of U.S. Artillery Regiments Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Hammon27 (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Ritchie333. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Maurice Gaffney

On 24 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maurice Gaffney, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Maurice Gaffney was the oldest practising barrister in Ireland when he died aged 100? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maurice Gaffney. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Maurice Gaffney), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi Ritchie333,

I've made a few nominations at WP:GAN and thought it was time I helped out with the reviewing. I had a look at the list of mentors but couldn't find anyone with a strong common interest; then I remembered that you reviewed the Bournemouth article for me. If I picked a similar article, would you be prepared to oversee my review? I've commented at WP:PR and WP:FAC in the past but haven't always felt that my feedback was well received. I am hoping this won't be hard work for you; just checking that I haven't missed anything obvious and that my remarks aren't overly harsh. I have a lot of work and family commitments so I hope that my sporadic editing won't be an issue.

Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Oh yes, I remember doing Bournemouth, that was a good review, lots of work done. I see you've picked Pembrokeshire, that's a bit of a long slog but should be worth it. Immediately I see problems with a lack of sourcing, plus I don't really like "notable people" sections as most of the time they can be worked into the narrative. The history section is probably too short, as Pembrokeshire is a melting-pot of communities over the last 1,000 years, there is a lot of ground to cover. I personally think General Sir Thomas Picton needs a bit more than a cursory mention, as I believe he is one of the most famous and historically important people from Pembroke, and his namesake castle is not in the article. I'm not sure if the article could pass GA, maybe it could with some substantial work; but leave some comments and I'll keep an eye on the review and see what else I can suggest.

One of the problems I see with GA reviews is too little attention is paid towards an article's factual accuracy and scope; I'm pretty sure I have failed at least one GA review whose prose was acceptable and everything was cited to a reliable source, simply because it missed out too much important detail. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

My first thought was that it was a quick fail but if the nominator is prepared to do the work, I'm quite happy to keep it open for longer than usual. I immediately saw the lack of references and quite a few issues with MOS Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. I don't like notable people sections either as they are prone to vandalism and much prefer them in the "Culture" section. Anyway, thanks for agreeing to keep an eye on things, it looks like are ideas are similar so hopefully things will go smoothly. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I think you'd be well within your rights to fail the review with the feedback presented, particularly since the nominator only put it there to see how close it was. That's an abuse of the process - don't put an article up to GAN if at least you don't think it meets all the criteria! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I've given the nominator plenty to be getting on with. He's yet to make a start, which makes me think I'm wasting my time, so I've called a halt to the review until I see significant efforts to improve the article. If that happens, I will continue, otherwise I will fail the nomination after 7 days. I've pinged User:Tony Holkham and explained this on the review page. Could you quickly check to see that my comments are acceptable? If not, feel free to remove or edit my post. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That all looks fine, you've done a thorough critique of the article and pointed out major areas for improvement, which are always worth keeping around for reference, regardless of which way the review goes. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Re Pembrokeshire I see I may have been premature in putting the article up for review for GA. I have left a note at the GA talk page. I do want to process this, but perhaps I should have read Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties more closely. You haven't wasted your time, though, as I will be tackling your comments; the article is important to me. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that's all for the best; you can always ask me or someone else to take a look at it later on.--Ykraps(talk) 06:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Tony Holkham, To answer your questions at Talk:Pembrokeshire/GA1:

a) I’ve closed according to instructions here [[2]]
b) You can re-nominate. In fact it ought to be the main contributor so if you are doing the work, it’s best that you re-nominate.
c) I thought it was a two week wait but [[3]] suggests that there isn’t a time limit.
d) Yes

Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD outcome

Hi Ritchie. Following the outcome of this AfD, does this sandbox copy by the page's creator come under any deletion criteria? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's not edited for six months, it can (but not must) be speedied per WP:G13. All of the "G" criteria apply to sandboxes, but I don't think any are appropriate in this case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Cafe Royal Cocktail Book has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Ritchie333. Cafe Royal Cocktail Book, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic so moving to your talk page. Don't want to distract from the poignant part of the discussion.

I agree with all of those things myself - what's wrong with the last one? yeh, believe it or not, some people still care about building a relationship, not a daily rostered fuck buddy system (intentionally super-exaggerated just so we're clear). I don't disallow others to do it - that's your choice - but I think none of it is good for you - again the last one is just a plain personal choice neither good nor bad. I didn't say that this specific user (Sk8terPrince) didn't hold some negative views. I expressed dismay at their battleground mentality, their inability to collaborate with others, and their tendency to dismiss genuine criticism - and guess what, that has nothing to do with your political stance. I said your clumping of all right-wing leaning people under a monolith is just plain wrong. Take a look at right-wing libertarians, they're opposed to being commanded over by governments first and foremost. I'm left leaning for the record. For that matter your example of a right-wing view isn't accurate either, that's a personal view of random people strung all across the political spectrum. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As you can see from my userpage, I love a nice pint of beer, and the last time I smoked is when a pack of Marlboro cost you about £3.50 (which IIRC was about 20 years ago), but anyway.... The point I was trying (and seemingly failing) to make is simply that Wikipedia is a pretty diverse place with all sorts of opinions, viewpoints and cultures, and some of your (and my) viewpoints may be viewed as offensive by other groups. It's pretty obvious I'm not going to warm to The Sun, the Daily Mail and Nigel Farage simply because their views fly in the face of what I believe. What I really think from the userboxes is that the user is quite young and naive, and it reflects on how he operates on Wikipedia - I suspect he's young enough to be able to mature over time and become a bit more tolerant. I'm not honestly expecting him to read Alan Turing's article in depth and come out the other side thinking that government prosecution against gays is really wrong; rather it might just prod something that makes him wonder if all his views are accurate and whether he should keep a bit more of an open mind instead.

I really don't want to talk about my personal life here as it's off-topic and (to paraphrase Facebook), "it's complicated", suffice to say I strongly identify with asexuality as a sexual preference despite being in a healthy and stable relationship with kids (and now stepkids), and none of it really has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

None of the things you listed above are wrong in any way shape or form. I have nothing against you or your personal views. I just find that taking a diverse range of views that encompass both good and bad things (small government a normal view, alongside homophobia and religious conservatism as more extreme views), and choosing to label them all of them as bad because they belong to the same subset (right-wing), is the wrong thing to do. In any case, you're right about this discussion not having anything to do with building an encyclopaedia. Cheers for this off-topic semi-discussion, happy editing, and byeee :) Mr rnddude (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)