User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ritchie333. 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 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

The big question looming over "Cultural references" is surely this one? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC) [1].... ah, what a fag...

I can't find any source that says where it comes from, but then it seems to have been from an era where some songs could throw together Ibiza, the Norfolk Broads and Rule Britannia for a giraffe. Anyway, looks like this will be the next one on the pile. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"Don't Waste My Time". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Well at least keeping busy with articles means I won't get distracted by the odd cowboy unblock again, so it's not all bad..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"Lou Reed was often quoted as saying that the Cowboy Junkies' version was his favourite." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fleet Street may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Mrs Salmon's Waxworks]] was established at [[Prince Henry's Room], Fleet Street in 1711. It included a display of macabre and [[black humour|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bootleg recording you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I've got to nip out in a mo (this blasted Christmas shopping won't buy itself - grrr) but hopefully if I get an hour or two tonight in front of my books I should be able to finish off the remainder of the comments (can't believe I left out Zappa, that's unforgivable!) In the meantime, I can review passenger pigeon if you think it's ready for GA as I see you've been working on and I read the article no too long ago in complete fascination that mankind could do that sort of mass extinction. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No rush with finishing up the article, I can keep it open as long as it takes. As for the pigeon, thanks, though I'm not nearly where I want to be with it yet... Will have to read through a few more books and tie up some loose ends... I'll give you a ping. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you're still interested, I'll GAN the passenger pigeon some time today... FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that, fascinating story on (lack of) wildlife conservation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I've now nominated it (though the intro will be expanded later today). Should be in US spelling, but I'm not too familiar with that... I also need to add more measurement conversions, and make their order consistent (as well as standardising citations). FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Strand, London page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello
I notice you deleted this template on 19th November: Could you advise me please on how to protest this TFD, as it looks decidedly dodgy to me. This was debated first in February this year (here), and closed (No Consensus) in March with 4 keeps and 2 deletes (3 with the nom). It was debated again in September (here) and closed 23 Oct (again as No Consensus; 5 keeps and 3 (or 4) deletes). Then it was proposed again about a week later, got 2 votes to merge, was relisted on the 10th (Nov), got 3 votes from previous participants to delete and got a non-admin closure on 18th Nov as a Delete.
I feel this was inappropriate because:

• There were 9 keeps to 6 deletes (3 were repeated) overall, and 2 for mergers; that isn't a consensus for “delete”.
• There were 2 votes (a delete and a merge) that look like sockpuppets (this and this).
• The other Merge vote clearly said “Not okay with 'delete without providing a replacement that clearly indicates to everyone else that this editor's edits may be reverted'”, though this is precisely what has happened.
• The delete opinions varied between “too harsh” and “not harsh enough” (which generally suggests things are about right)
• A number of editors thought it should be incorporated in a more comprehensive banned template, towards which nothing appears to have been done.
• We operate on the notion that once something is decided it stays decided for a decent amount of time (per this), so re-listing after 10 days and closing on 3 repeat votes looks to me like gaming the system.
  

Thanks, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xyl 54: The recommended venue for challenging a deletion discussion is a Deletion review, though recent consensus has decided that due to a lack of inactivity, TfDs can be "closed" as delete by non-admins and put in a holding pen, so the deletion is also an endorsement of Primefac's non-admin close. I also thought Opabinia regalis, who voted "delete", gave the strongest argument, and others argued the template was unnecessary and inflammatory. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the recommended venue is that one only after talking to you about it here: "Deletion Review should not be used: [...] when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination". LjL (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I missed the discussion but would also support the delete rationale of Opabinia regalis, in case you need more voices, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ditto; I can't see any circumstances in which this particular combination of sneering and stigmatisation would ever be appropriate. ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Xyl 54, a few brief points, as to not clutter the talk page. If you bring this to DRV I'll provide a more in-depth response.

• The first discussion was in 2012, not 2015.
• The "no consensus" result is one of the acceptable reasons for a speedy renomination.
• I took into account all of the discussions, including the TfD for {{banrevert}}. I didn't count the !votes, but rather took the merit and strength of each argument as part of the whole.
• I did overlook the merge option, but in looking back there was no consensus as to where that information should be added. Fortunately, the original text is preserved in a note by Scott, so that discussion can still continue somewhere (maybe on the talk page of {{banned user}}).

At the end of it all, my decision came down to the fact that the delete camp had a more compelling argument than the keep camp. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

First, thank you, one and all, for replying.

Ritchie: I had wondered about deletion review but thought I should take it up with you (as the deleting admin) first.

I take your point about endorsement, but (even if an impartial acceptance of a better argument then translates into wholehearted support of that position) that would still have been 8 editors in favour of deletion (7 if we discount the sock-puppets) to 9 for keeping, which isn't even a majority, let alone a consensus.

On the subject of Opabinia's argument, it was her comments in September which I interpreted as thinking the template was not being harsh enough.

Primefac:I feel I am missing something here; Scott's note refers to this as an “unpleasant template”, placed by people “claiming to represent the community”. And the close was that it constituted “harassment” and “gravedancing”.

One of the arguments for deletion with T:BMB was that it was being used willye nilye (it had 149 transclusions; is that a lot?) while T:BR was under the hammer because hardly anyone used it. Was there any evidence that either were being used for “gravedancing”? I didn't see any presented.

On the subject of harassment, I notice our policy on that says it is “unacceptable to harass a user … who has been banned..” (though I also note that was added en bloc with this edit, which is ironic, considering). It also describes harassment as making editing “unpleasant for the target”, or “to discourage them from editing” Well, isn't that exactly what we are seeking to do with people who persistently disrupt the project? I'm kind of concerned that this decision is labelling efforts to deal robustly with persistent dickheads is being regarded as harassment.

Is the problem here that we aren't actually serious about WP:BMB? Because I thought JamesWatson's observation at T:BR (that making a banned users editing a waste of their time is a deterrent) was a good one. If having this template is seen as sending the wrong message, I'm wondering what the right message is, and I'm wondering what message is being sent by deleting it.

As for the speedy renomination, it just seems wrong (esp. in the light of DPAFD; it wasn't as if there were no comments from any editor besides the nominator); the only purpose seems to have been to pull a fast one, particularly as the three delete votes were all from people who had already contributed.

Finally, if T:BR was also deleted as being redundant to T:BMB, we've now deleted BMB as well; and as there were some suggestions to incorporate the reasoning for it into another template, it seems premature to delete this one until that has been done. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xyl 54: I'm not really here this week due to travel IRL, but just for reference, my September comment was supposed to be sort of a joke, and I think this template is horrible. Not really anything to do with "harshness" - it's both unpleasant and ineffectual at the same time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis:: Thank you for clarifying that; I really got the wrong end of the stick there, hey? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking back on this, I wouldn't have minded a reply to the queries I raised here; but, what the hell...

Just to let you know I have raised the one issue at WP:Harassment and opened a discussion on the other at Template:Banned user if anyone wishes to comment further. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello
I notice you deleted this template on 19th November: Could you advise me please on how to protest this TFD, as it looks decidedly dodgy to me. This was debated first in February this year (here), and closed (No Consensus) in March with 4 keeps and 2 deletes (3 with the nom). It was debated again in September (here) and closed 23 Oct (again as No Consensus; 5 keeps and 3 (or 4) deletes). Then it was proposed again about a week later, got 2 votes to merge, was relisted on the 10th (Nov), got 3 votes from previous participants to delete and got a non-admin closure on 18th Nov as a Delete.
I feel this was inappropriate because:

• There were 9 keeps to 6 deletes (3 were repeated) overall, and 2 for mergers; that isn't a consensus for “delete”.
• There were 2 votes (a delete and a merge) that look like sockpuppets (this and this).
• The other Merge vote clearly said “Not okay with 'delete without providing a replacement that clearly indicates to everyone else that this editor's edits may be reverted'”, though this is precisely what has happened.
• The delete opinions varied between “too harsh” and “not harsh enough” (which generally suggests things are about right)
• A number of editors thought it should be incorporated in a more comprehensive banned template, towards which nothing appears to have been done.
• We operate on the notion that once something is decided it stays decided for a decent amount of time (per this), so re-listing after 10 days and closing on 3 repeat votes looks to me like gaming the system.
  

Thanks, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xyl 54: The recommended venue for challenging a deletion discussion is a Deletion review, though recent consensus has decided that due to a lack of inactivity, TfDs can be "closed" as delete by non-admins and put in a holding pen, so the deletion is also an endorsement of Primefac's non-admin close. I also thought Opabinia regalis, who voted "delete", gave the strongest argument, and others argued the template was unnecessary and inflammatory. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the recommended venue is that one only after talking to you about it here: "Deletion Review should not be used: [...] when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination". LjL (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I missed the discussion but would also support the delete rationale of Opabinia regalis, in case you need more voices, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ditto; I can't see any circumstances in which this particular combination of sneering and stigmatisation would ever be appropriate. ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Xyl 54, a few brief points, as to not clutter the talk page. If you bring this to DRV I'll provide a more in-depth response.

• The first discussion was in 2012, not 2015.
• The "no consensus" result is one of the acceptable reasons for a speedy renomination.
• I took into account all of the discussions, including the TfD for {{banrevert}}. I didn't count the !votes, but rather took the merit and strength of each argument as part of the whole.
• I did overlook the merge option, but in looking back there was no consensus as to where that information should be added. Fortunately, the original text is preserved in a note by Scott, so that discussion can still continue somewhere (maybe on the talk page of {{banned user}}).

At the end of it all, my decision came down to the fact that the delete camp had a more compelling argument than the keep camp. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

First, thank you, one and all, for replying.

Ritchie: I had wondered about deletion review but thought I should take it up with you (as the deleting admin) first.

I take your point about endorsement, but (even if an impartial acceptance of a better argument then translates into wholehearted support of that position) that would still have been 8 editors in favour of deletion (7 if we discount the sock-puppets) to 9 for keeping, which isn't even a majority, let alone a consensus.

On the subject of Opabinia's argument, it was her comments in September which I interpreted as thinking the template was not being harsh enough.

Primefac:I feel I am missing something here; Scott's note refers to this as an “unpleasant template”, placed by people “claiming to represent the community”. And the close was that it constituted “harassment” and “gravedancing”.

One of the arguments for deletion with T:BMB was that it was being used willye nilye (it had 149 transclusions; is that a lot?) while T:BR was under the hammer because hardly anyone used it. Was there any evidence that either were being used for “gravedancing”? I didn't see any presented.

On the subject of harassment, I notice our policy on that says it is “unacceptable to harass a user … who has been banned..” (though I also note that was added en bloc with this edit, which is ironic, considering). It also describes harassment as making editing “unpleasant for the target”, or “to discourage them from editing” Well, isn't that exactly what we are seeking to do with people who persistently disrupt the project? I'm kind of concerned that this decision is labelling efforts to deal robustly with persistent dickheads is being regarded as harassment.

Is the problem here that we aren't actually serious about WP:BMB? Because I thought JamesWatson's observation at T:BR (that making a banned users editing a waste of their time is a deterrent) was a good one. If having this template is seen as sending the wrong message, I'm wondering what the right message is, and I'm wondering what message is being sent by deleting it.

As for the speedy renomination, it just seems wrong (esp. in the light of DPAFD; it wasn't as if there were no comments from any editor besides the nominator); the only purpose seems to have been to pull a fast one, particularly as the three delete votes were all from people who had already contributed.

Finally, if T:BR was also deleted as being redundant to T:BMB, we've now deleted BMB as well; and as there were some suggestions to incorporate the reasoning for it into another template, it seems premature to delete this one until that has been done. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xyl 54: I'm not really here this week due to travel IRL, but just for reference, my September comment was supposed to be sort of a joke, and I think this template is horrible. Not really anything to do with "harshness" - it's both unpleasant and ineffectual at the same time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis:: Thank you for clarifying that; I really got the wrong end of the stick there, hey? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking back on this, I wouldn't have minded a reply to the queries I raised here; but, what the hell...

Just to let you know I have raised the one issue at WP:Harassment and opened a discussion on the other at Template:Banned user if anyone wishes to comment further. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fleet Street, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Strand, Owen Williams and Curtain wall. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

.

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

2016

peace bell

Thank you for inspiration and support, including two excellent GA reviews in 2015, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I've achieved my aim of getting all three "red" property squares on the London Monopoly Board (ie: Strand, London, Fleet Street and Trafalgar Square) to GAN (and of course, the latter passed and ran as DYK on Christmas Day with its festive tree) and my recent contributions show large swathes of contributions to mainspace, which makes me a happy chappy. Let's make 2016 the year of "more content, less drama" and with a bit of effort, we can get every square to GA status! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I just finished review of the Music Machine article, and have now listed the article as G.A. I inserted the G.A. tag on the talk page. However, perhaps you could go take a peek at it to make sure that I did it just right--just so that everything can proceed accordingly. I'm guessing that the bot does the rest. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

	Happy New Year
	Ritchie333, wishing you peace, happiness and every good thing in this New Year 2016. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 13:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

What a perfectly delightful greeting. Happy New Year from me too, Threesie. And to Mrs Threesie, naturally. Have some blistering guitar from John Sterling and some scintillating keys from Terry Ryan: [2]. (A wonderful 1975 album). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC) What's your guess? And where is List of unusual album covers?

The article Oxford Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oxford Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fleet Street you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I completed a sentence that had been partially redacted at some time past. It didn't make any sense. It obviously referred to the dustup at the recording of a track on Quadrophenia. 'Unfortunately, the technology was not sophisticated enough to deal with the demands of the music, and Daltrey knocked out Townshend in an argument during...' "...during " what? I posted a link to the most informative and most recent interview that dealt with the fight. So what is your purpose in restoring a senseless and incomplete sentence and getting upset with the correction I'd made? Activist (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's simple - don't cite the Daily Mail in a BLP and edit war over it. I've seen admins (wave to John) block over this. It's also factually incorrect as the Quadrophenia film was six years later, this bit here is talking about the album. Two wrongs don't make a right! It seems JG66 has picked up the baton and fixed the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

Yep, I went back (and back, and back) to find the text that appeared there previously. Besides the chronology issue (late 1972 tour vs filming in 1978), the mention of filming anything just made no sense in that context.

With the Daily Mail, btw: would it not be okay to quote from an interview such as this if we needed to or, say, use a book extract appearing in the newspaper? I mean, we wouldn't use the Mail to support anything factual, quite right – but if someone gives the paper an interview or chooses to publish an extract there, it's their own words that are appearing (and they presumably vet the copy with a greater eye for accuracy compared with the standards typically applied in-house …) JG66 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm hardly a fan of the Mail and find its usual editorial standards to be execrable. However, in this case its a well-written, unique and informative interview and shouldn't be buried because of the reporter's despicable paymaster, and then first replaced with the preexisting sentence fragment. Here's the accessible context that was removed and replaced by the earlier, far less accessible Fry book excerpt:

Both born to hold opinions and prepared to die defending them, it is remarkable that two such diametrically opposed souls have only come to blows once. ‘Ironically, we were filming Love Reign O’er Me for the Quadrophenia movie,’ chuckles Daltrey. ‘Pete was very drunk and has come at me with a guitar, then he’s tried to punch me so I ducked the punch and hit him. It was a very clean uppercut and it knocked him spark out. He still reckons that’s what caused his bald spot.’ ‘I probably deserved to get knocked out,’ sighs Townshend, tugging at the collar of a stylish black shirt. ‘It wasn’t a fight, I just stood there and let him hit me. 'What’s interesting is that he could have killed me. I went out like a light. It took me a while to piece things back together. 'It was a hell of a punch. But it was the only one – there was too much respect there for it to happen again.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2803957/The-s-Pete-Townshend-Roger-Daltrey-Pete-came-knocked-spark-Roger-Daltrey-Pete-Townshend-interview-decade-just-cause-big-sensation.html#ixzz3wCxynCGw The article deserves a better fix but I'm not going to war over it. Activist (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) At least Pete is not as big a dick as man-crush Jagger. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

But Dave Marsh's book (p.427) says "During the second day's rehearsal, after a long struggle with '5:15' ... Daltrey finally lost his patience .... Townshend snapped. He based Daltrey on the head with his guitar ... Daltrey knew how to exploit. He stepped inside of Townshend's reach and threw one perfect punch." Other books mention the incident, but none say they were doing filming, all are talking about the original tour rehearsals in September 1973, well before the film, and I believe "Love Reign O'er Me" was not played live on the first Quadrophenia tour (see the infamous bootleg "Tales From The Who"). So the Daily Mail tells us things that we already knew about from other sources, and gets a few things wrong too. Plus ca change. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely not "based"? That would have been the OXO man!? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie and Activist: is it accepted that this was the only time that Daltrey punched Townshend (as stated in the Mail piece)? I was under the impression that Rodge often got physical with him during the '60s – must've read it in a Mojo or Uncut Who special I've got here somewhere … In Who I Am, Townshend talks about arriving at Shepparton for tour rehearsals with the stage backing tapes, during what appears to be late Sept/Oct 1973, and then describes the fight much as Marsh does. JG66 (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same incident document above and it is from that time period. There were lots of dust ups before late 1965, then Daltrey was sacked and only allowed back in the band on the condition he never hit anyone again. Until Tommy made him a superstar, I think he'd have been daft to have hit any band members as he was terrified of having to go back to being a sheet metal worker. So it was only after they became one of the biggest bands in the world that he did it, and even only then in self-defence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

On 3 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bootleg recording, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first popular bootleg rock album was Bob Dylan's Great White Wonder? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bootleg recording. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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) 12:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leicester Square you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Victoria League, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I think the bot sent this to the wrong place; I did make the first visible edit, but it was via a third party request on a help desk (probably WP:AFCHD) who got the other notifications (per some of the variables in Template:AFC submission). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The bot goes after the first editor of record in the edit history and doesn't go after the AFC submission template editor. If you think this needs to change, please feel free to propose a change at the AFC project talk page. Personally I'm opposed because we'll hit a lot more false positives by parsing out the submitter names from the templates (AFC volunteers who submit the draft but forget to replace their name in the template) Hasteur (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely it's better for the bot to pick one method and consistently stick to it. Having this notification appear over here and that one over there seems to be the worst of both worlds. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Euston Road

added a link pointing to Automobile Association

Fleet Street

added a link pointing to Automobile Association

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Keep up the great work Ritchie! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not that I particularly disagree with you.[3] There's too many proxy-using banned users on this subject matter. This (as well as the reporter) is almost certainly another, who will not be missed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The article Fleet Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fleet Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The article Leicester Square you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leicester Square for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For good works on Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You participated in an AFD on the Death Before Dishonor (band) article supporting keeping the article based on references you'd located that demonstrated notability of the band. Please improve that article with those sources. The article has sat with a reference concern tag for 3 years. --RadioFan (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

[4] What was the script you used? WCM_email 20:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's User talk:GregU/dashes.js, quite a useful script to clear up dashes that always confuse me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the ban discussion on WP:AN. If I run into the editor again I will no longer feel like I'm on the edge of a precipice when rolling back their edits. BMK (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WP: It's not at the level of being struck, for that you need grossly offensive comments. Nice to see that you realise this now. It's about time you restored the edit summary of mine that you deleted for containing the word "idiot", isn't it? And that you stop falsely accusing me of vandalism, encouraging people to undo my work, and forcing spelling mistakes into articles. 192.121.113.79 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Just ignore them and go about improving the encyclopedia quietly in the background, ent-like. I'm gonna dance like I've got no worries (COI alert - I'm playing guitar and organ) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ignore your persistent fucking up of the encyclopaedia and attacks on me, and just improve the encyclopaedia? Clever advice there, yeah. Fucking genius you are. So, you believe that "idiot" is grossly offensive, do you? 192.121.113.79 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I do admit people have said "fucking genius you are, mate" at the end of a gig, so I'll take the compliment as it comes. Anyway, I care about my family, kids, job, recording studio, writing online encyclopedia articles is distant in importance, arguing about who said what on them is probably below whether or not I should have muesli or granola for breakfast tomorrow, and I hope everyone sets their priorities in the same way. It's only the internet. What would Gerda do? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

IP should have the last word. (For the model, see my 2016 archive). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Too childish to reply properly I see. 192.121.113.79 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What an obnoxious little shit you are. Next time you spout your bullshit about "oh I would love to just talk to this guy" I'll link to this conversation. 192.121.113.22 (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You need Samantha Hess and fast. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt the conversation. I blocked the IP, they are a sock puppet of a blocked user. HighInBC 00:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

With a good following wind and a cup of tea, we may yet kill it off with a heavy dose of sarcasm. I'm off to bed now, not enough article space edits this evening. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, Ritchie, you got the ban you asked for, and it makes me very sad. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

These sorts of things are never nice. The truly sad thing is you can find threads where I have defended his edits and been torn a new one for doing so. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What I've found is that first impressions seem to count - this is probably why I will defend Eric, Giano, SagaciousPhil, Dr Blofeld and Cassianto because my initial encounter with all of them was working together on an article somewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(What a list) This person is a true gnome, and as I said at AN I have often wished they would fix all the grammar errors in an article. But that's the beauty of a wiki - we can all contribute our small or large bits whenever we have a spare moment. But he's been treated like the worst vandal. Meanwhile I see via The Unnameable Site that you deleted The Californias, but that WCCCasey, a clear case of WP:NOTHERE who has repeatedly harmed the encyclopedia, remains unblocked. Isn't that the wrong way round? What the hell is intrinsically wrong with refusing to register? I'm really unhappy about what this says about how we've strayed from the focus of the project. I'm sitting here surrounded by books for a touchy expansion that I plan to make on my one day off. I've spent significant time the past few days saving articles by a new editor on a topic that leaves me pretty cold and trying to nudge him along in our ways (and he's been genuinely nasty and gotten blocked for it already; and I'm not the only one trying to assist him). At least every two weeks that same awful site points to some article that desperately needs fixing and all too often, it's me that does it. And we have just thrown away someone who is eager to polish up our articles, and has a broad range of knowledge including science, and whose insults pale beside most of those I saw when I was an admin. And while the editor in question is cruelly intolerant of fools - including me and poor Hafs, who really didn't deserve their scorn - several cabal members rival him, though maybe behind semi-closed doors. (And frankly, the diffs from his lambasting you above are by no stretch of the imagination as bad as I imagined they would be when handed the line of said diffs at AN.) I'll cut my rambling short here; you've heard much of it from me before. But I sometimes wonder why I care about this project. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC) PS: For anyone who cares, I hang out in the corridor on IRC as Rihan. However right now I have to take a knockout pill and try to get some sleep. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have endorsed reopening the AN thread so more points can be aired. However, I will say that my recent comments that kicked off this (unsolicited) thread included "I checked the edits, all reasonable copyedits aside from one bit of section blanking" (an opinion I have aired several times in the past) and refusing to take administrator action against him, so I do not appreciate being tarred with the same brush as those you disparage above. I would note also that I have encouraged our good friend 75.108.94.227 to have a go with resolving this dispute and it seems they received nothing but insults for their time and efforts. So I have to conclude that your thoughts and knowledge are out of date and things have got worse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So did I, so did I. In fact I owe him one for trying. And I'm not sure who you're referring to when you refer to my "tarr[ing you] with the same brush as those [I] disparage above" - the cabal? WCCCasey, a self-admitted hoaxer but one editor? (and not, incidentally, WCCasey, who complains below that I slanged them - I assume the now blocked hoaxer was spoofing their user name.) Maybe it's my effort to use singular "they" causing confusion and I should revert to using "zie". Maybe I was ruder than I intended to be. However ... I hadn't even looked at the debate on the LTA page; what distresses me so is that you called for the BKfIP to be banned. I simply don't agree and it disappoints me greatly, and if you still agree that his edits are generally good, that doesn't help me understand your decision to do that. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel like that, but ultimately Wikipedia is far too large to even get a majority to agree on anything. Simply put we do not have a consensus on whether or not point-blank reverting of blocked / banned editors is okay, some think it is, I think it isn't (this is what I meant by "tarring with the same brush" incidentally). I think Drmies put it best here to be honest : "Sweet Jesus IP you sound like a broken record. If you have a life partner, do they have to listen to this all the damn time? Yeah your edits are good but holy moly you wear me out.". And the seminal Observations on Wikipedia behaviour says "One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia." Calling for a ban at ANI is not subtle, collaborative, nice or friendly, but it is a good place to get the full gamut of views and opinions and I would only do it out of a profound sense of utter exhaustion of the issue, pleading with it to stop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

On 22 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elephant & Castle tube station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first baby born on the London Underground was delivered at the Elephant & Castle tube station (pictured) in 1924? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elephant & Castle tube station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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) 12:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

On 22 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elephant & Castle tube station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first baby born on the London Underground was delivered at the Elephant & Castle tube station (pictured) in 1924? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elephant & Castle tube station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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) 12:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you found it! Seem to remember us talking about that months back … JG66 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Another editor dropped it in, so it seemed like a good cue for finding a source for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the "speedy deletion" process - is there an explanation somewhere of how this decision was made? User:Wighson, who promoted this deletion, is a persistent promoter of unsourced POV revisionist California history. The slanderous attack on me by Yngvadottir two sections above (who I've never heard of before now) demonstrates more of the same anti-editor mindset. WCCasey (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@WCCasey: The procedure is to ask the deleting admin, so you've come to the right place. The problem I found with the article is that it was largely devoid of any sources to be able to fact check, and the 1847 map of the area showed "Alta California" and "Baja California" without any obvious reference to the late 18th / early 19th "Las Californias" province. I have restored the article and trimmed it back to obvious information that can be proven by a reliable source, leaving out all unsourced and off-topic content. Part of the problem is a book search for Las Californias brings back mainly Spanish books, as I might expect, and as I struggle beyond "Hola, como estas?" I can't easily restore and fix the article. The supporting text is all in the article's history, though, so it can be cross-referenced. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the article (and Talk page). It's not very well-written, and certainly needs more sources, but it's not a "hoax". The Spanish "Las Californias" province was a real thing, and 15-25 other early-California history articles link to this one. I'll continue to work on improving it. WCCasey (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem was the sockfarm and other articles that contradicted this one, but on closer examination showed a complete lack of citations to reliable sources, which suggests somebody was indeed pushing a viewpoint, and using the lack of hard evidence to justify it. This is why sourcing text is important! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The hit-and-run deleters are at it again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Californias (region) WCCasey (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that article is that it's unsourced, and I can't think of any obvious way that modern North America seriously recognises the term, unless there's some change in US-Mexico foreign policy I missed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As noted in my objection to the deletion, I quickly found three sources using "The Californias" or "Las Californias" to talk about a modern geographical region rather than a political unit, and was in the process of adding them to the article when the deletion nomination blocked my edit. The edited article is posted on the Talk page. WCCasey (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gallions Reach Crossing page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Poor ReferenceBot. I did hear the rumours that CitationBot "wasn't ready to commit to a relationship" after your steamy-in-a-server room affair. You'll get over her. ..... I did ...... So did ClueBot actually. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

... but you never forget your first. :) — Ched :  ?  15:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)