User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 65

• Ritchie, I have to say I don't really appreciate you hosting Kumioko talking shit about me here. How about you two start emailing about me if you want to, as much as you want, instead of letting Kumioko spew his fuckwittery about User:Kudpung and me in public? If Kumioko wants to evade his ban to talk about the weather or something with you here, I don't much care. But I would never consider letting him talk shit about other people on my talk page. There is 1000% no question who this; for weird reasons known only to himself, Kumioko always pretends to be some other person who just happens to be deeply concerned about how everybody treated Kumioko. Perhaps he's ashamed of what he has become? I would be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a clarification. The email suggestion was rhetorical. You haven't annoyed me so much I would wish that on you. I really wouldn't suggest giving Kumioko your email address. If he ever decides he doesn't like you after all, he will create multiple email addresses to harass you daily, and it will take you some time to create a filter that catches them all. Fair warning. At the very least create a throwaway email address just for him that you can walk away from. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ritchie I am surprised to see you entertaining this troll and allowing personal attacks about your colleagues to stand on your talk page. I have made a report to Arbcom about this recent spate of trolling, and am about to retire if this trolling about me and being drunk at 10:30 am in the morning coffee room at George Washington University in the presence of Drmies and Beeblebrox is allowed to continue. These screeds are classic Kumioko exactly as described by Floquenbeam and the IP has been blocked already by Bishonen. If anyone would like to take the time, they will discover that contrary to the almost pathological lies by this poster, Floquenbeam and I were the only admins who treated him kindly and tried to reason with him before he was finally banned by the Foundation. As it stands , admins are perfectly within their rights to summarily block any IP addresses or even make range blocks on anything that reasonably resembles this user and his 200+ sock farm, and to summarily delete their posting and edits. If I do retire from from Wikipedia, I won't be going quietly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just coffee, though I think I did go out to the terrace to smoke delicious cigarettes. Those were the days. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, after the reply today where I wrote "ignore all dramas and go write something in mainspace", I haven't read anything else that was posted here as I've been either busy in real life or working on another GA. At this juncture, I would like to apologise to Gerda Arendt for being a bit of a grump yesterday, and draw her attention to the fact I got my 100th GA passed today, which means the two main goals I set for this year (the other being Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of London Monopoly locations) have now been achieved, which makes me a happy chappy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever makes you happy, but your GAs are not an excuse. Please try to carryout your part as an admin responsibly, not encourage trolls, and please not make excuses for me on my behalf that are little more than conjecture and an attack. It might have been in good faith, but it was very misplaced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed another diatribe of PA about me and other admins from this talk page. If you can't be around to do so, if there is another one I will semi protect your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been away, singing Der Messias in preparation for this years concert. Apology taken. More important: congratulations to GA 100! Content is what we are here for. I think my ratio of content to dramah is not to bad, and invite sceptics to check that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said (or at least implied) earlier, I was out all day yesterday (which Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi can vouch for as I was in the pub with him!) so I have not had a chance to address any of this until now. Now it seems everyone has over-reacted and got angry, it doesn't seem much point in saying anything else, so I think this conversation is over. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I can follow this being over, but think it would not hurt to say am sorry to Floq (with whom I was out). - On a different matter, perhaps you can elucidate me how G7 can apply to a page that A wrote, and S moved and then requested to be deleted. Who is the author which the G7 rationale mentions? - I am A, I want it deleted because that move was wrong, but that is not G7. Anything else in the reasons-basket. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You can basically delete per G7 if the page creator blanks it, or asks anywhere (broadly construed) to delete, and if there are no other significant edits on the page (so any bot-gnoming on tags, spaces or general cosmetic stuff is okay). If anyone else has done anything of value to the article, it has to go through the proper deletion procedure. As for Floq, well I'm sorry that I did something that I thought would reduce dramah and did precisely the opposite, but I am not responsible for other people's opinions. Certainly, if somebody else says "Floq abuses their tools", it doesn't actually mean that's it's true, or that anyone else shares that opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to reduce tension, even if it doesn't always work. (I know the feeling.) - The G7: define "asks anywhere (broadly construed) to delete". With only me the author of the content visible on the page, it would not even have to be deleted because I didn't put it on the page that was formerly deleted, I wanted that to stay a (somewhat interesting) red link. Nothing should have been moved there, only to claim it needs to be deleted, - do you understand? It's like moving something from a closet to a table, where it is found disturbing, and request destruction. Why not let it sit in the closet where it doesn't disturb? - I would have stopped talking about it per ignore ignore ignore if I wasn't concerned about such a waste of time thing please not happening again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

By "asks anywhere" I mean you can write on the article or the talk page "I don't want this, please delete". Or you can write "please can [x] by deleted, I can't find the delete button" on your talk page or any message button. Any positive endorsement that you want to quietly undo the page creation in the first place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Understand. No help yet to prevent that someone moves again "my stuff" to where it's not wanted, then makes noise about it, attracting the crowd that seems to wait for the "or-no-supper-word" (which is in the article title, can't get around it), - I listen to being told about lack of smiling collaboration, - sigh. - How about protecting the page from recreation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, I am trying to publish a page but you recently deleted it - "Livetecs". I was wondering if you could give me any direction so that I can successfully meet all publishing criteria, and also if you could send me the page so that I can work on it? Thanks Richardaldinho (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Richardaldinho: I have restored this to User:Richardaldinho/Livetecs so you can retrieve the text. I don't think there's a good chance it will be acceptable in the long-term as a Wikipedia article, as the encyclopedia focuses on topics that anyone in the world could potentially edit and have long-lasting significance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie - what I don't get in this case, is why comparable pages offering the same thing, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickTime.com or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicon_(company) are acceptable pages, where mine was not. Perhaps you can help me understand where I lacked? Thanks a lot for restoring. Richardaldinho (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Usually, it's because the pages were created years ago, when quality control was a bit more lax. In the case of Clicktime.com, it seems to have been created as a one-time advertisement with no thought to long-term quality, so I've started a deletion discussion here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the info. I might try something else then. Richardaldinho (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Bobherry's talk page.
Message added 15:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I got alerted to that whole zoo thing through word of mouth, just wanted to drop a friendly note that if there's copy/paste material placed onto a page that it should probably be revdel'd after removal. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was copy pasted from a public website or just something that had been drafted up. There's a whole bunch of book sources about the zoo, and it's historically important, so when I get a chance I'll expand it - might even be GA material. I've emailed the zoo's marketing representative and they plan to list the most serious errors in the article (which is largely unsourced) so I can try and fix them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 

Much appreciated. I had contemplated doing that myself, but had considered it may get a drive by G11 even as a draft. TJW^talk 16:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if does get a drive by G11 they can't say they weren't warned, but hopefully drafting it will give them a chance to tone it down a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Eh... I had also considered whether they might actually be better off starting from scratch, but... I guess we'll see in six months whether there's still a draft there. TJW^talk 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I also had a bit of a trim, so it looks less G11ish now anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oh Kudpung... you rascal, you... TJW^talk 21:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Aaaand zero. In other news, three out of four admins recommend Efferdent®. The fourth deleted Denture cleaner. TJW^talk 12:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

They quit after the second time, but for something like this, and esp. with content like this, semi-protection is well warranted; this isn't just about some content dispute. The banhammer (well, block hammer, Mr. Admin!) only does one thing and it's not preventative. You should see what's been coming my way... Drmies (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wonder if anyone will listen to this? There've only been two blocks on that talk page, so if IPs are on 5RR on the talk page, maybe we can semi-then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It was less than a day.... now that's S-P-E-E-DY WITH A CAPITAL "S" It seems lately that editors have no idea whatsoever who is notable in MUSIC!!! Plenty of references and sources... It was clearly not promotion... Phil Orsi is one of Chicago's legendary music artists...just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjay331 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jayjay331: Okay, I've just listened to "Loving On Borrowed Time" three times, and I've restored it, I just need to clean it up a bit first otherwise another admin might delete it again. Give me a few minutes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much Joseph L Pytel Jr 21:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjay331 (talk • contribs)

The problem with this article is that most of the important sources (that confirm record releases on major labels or chart positions) are all buried away in back copies of Billboard that take a bit of sleuthing to uncover. The best advice I can give you (for future articles) is to put a clear and obvious indication of importance right up in the opening paragraph. eg: in this instance, "his single, "Loving On Borrowed Time" is regarded as a Northern Soul classic." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. Bit of a kerfuffle at the Barbarossa article at the moment. Can you take a look? Ta. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a bit - that should keep things at bay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated Ritchie. I doubt if the i.p wishes to discuss using WP:RS but I have left a note on his/her T/P recommending just that. Suspect it's futile though. Cheers mate. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello "Ritchie" there is an active rock band from huntington beach california called the whining pussys, I attempted to create a page for them with references, media reviews, etc yet the content was deleted. They play all original music and I am a part of the wikiproject punk rock and bios. I would like to create the page again (I believe it was nominated because I didn't have a chance to include references, I put them later but it was still deleted.) I didn't even get the chance to finish working on the page before it was flagged for deletion and removed. Earl E. Smith (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have restored to User:Earl E. Smith/The Whining Pussys so you can retrieve the content. I had a look for references myself, but I couldn't find anything at the level of Billboard and Rolling Stone which are good base sources to show a group meets our general level of inclusion. A Facebook and Reverbnation page are not suitable references (anyone can create one of those and say anything) and small local blog reviews aren't either (they cover thousands of bands all the time, so it's routine coverage). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Victoria station 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've left a few minor comments and quibbles on the review page. Tim riley talk 22:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for declining the suggestion for speedy deletion of article titled 'Ashok Vaidya'. He is highly notable person in my opinion considering his huge work in the field of research in medicine. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As I've said before on this talk page, in general the online web coverage for notable (or possibly notable) people in India is much lower than in Western countries, and this should be taken into account. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie: As I look the edit on Abbey Road, I realize that the sentence isn't clear which album is being referred to: Abbey Road or Let it Be. My attempt was to clarify that but I may be wrong. TdanTce (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, but to me "the" is just slightly quicker to parse. Not by much, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The article London Victoria station you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:London Victoria station 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ritchie! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Waterloo station 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The article London Waterloo station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:London Waterloo station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - Just going to do a bit more St Pancras before signing off for the night, so it'll probably be tomorrow or Monday before I tackle that lot (unless any talk page stalkers fancy giving it a go) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No deadline. I had a spare half an hour, so I did something positive. Take your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I for one appreciate your daily comments on ERRORS / OTD, even if I never get the chance to fix half of them, so for the "we hate TRM crowd" I say ppfffffftftftf :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Here. There may be other edits in the Jemele Hill page history that qualify, but the majority of it is accusations of her being a racist, which I'm not sure qualifies. The one I linked to, at least, clearly should be deleted. Thanks. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: Done, thought it was 2:30am when you posted this, so I hope I'm not too late on the ball. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please put the deletion tag again in Carlos Becker Westphall? Thanks. 208.73.21.13 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I come here to write content, not destroy it, plus an article gets protected on whatever the status quo is. Get an account and file a discussion at WP:AFD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with this but rest assure I will make good with my promise to report Rubin each and every time he makes unfounded claims about me or my motives. I'm sick of it being one-way traffic. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Arthur Rubin, aside from when Dennis Brown says Arthur shouldn't be an admin, I'm prepared to take that opinion at face value. I see John has read him the riot act and he's on thin ice, so I wouldn't worry about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but this isn't about whether he's fit to admin, the answer to that is obvious. No, it's about whether a normal "editor" is entitled to continually level unfounded accusations at another and refuse to provide evidence, time and time again. That should result in a site ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I am the source of both content.

You could have at least asked me before deleting.

I wrote BOTH versions and it is my right to use.

Shame on you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wightlight (talk • contribs)

@Wightlight: - Copyright infringement means something very specific on Wikipedia. We used the CC-BY-SA licence (which appears on every page just above the "Save changes" button - "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL."). The licence means that you can take any text on any article and redistribute it, even printing it in a bound book and selling it for profit. Most website owners do not want their work copied and sold by other people indiscriminately, so unless the site has a specific and appropriate CC-BY-SA licence, it will be deleted (per the "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" notice the appears above the editing window). And no, we cannot ask before deleting as we need to prevent violations of the terms of service, and you did agree to them when you saved the page, even if you may not have noticed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That picture of Dick Cheney you put up on AN/I was much too complimentary, and not at all like the "classic" Cheney as I remember him. Couldn't you find anything with him holding a shotgun or something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I could, but my photoshopping skills are not so great. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't you pretend this is fair use or something? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so Merlin Sutter is still in the NPP queue and has been since June 2015. It was already redirected once with an AfD template that resulted in redirect but a new editor reverted the redirect stating in the edit summary that the guy joined a different band. Should it still be blanked and redirected as was done before per the AfD, or should it be deleted? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: (talk page stalker) It seems I dream of horses has already taken care of it by re-redirecting it. I've marked the redirect as patrolled so it shouldn't come up in the NPP queue any more. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: As Anarchyte said, I already found the article in Category:Stubs and reverted the edits. IMO, consensus still applies; at most, we might have to redirect to a different band, but only if that band is notable.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Karen Carpenter.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

I have left a note on your talk page; in the meantime I would remind you that you were closed to violating the three revert rule, and in future you should attempt to discuss issues on the talk page. Now, be off with you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, crimony. A "big red error", eh? Is that anything like a Big Leg Emma?? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Martin, making crude jokes over something like The Carpenters, whose reputation rests on being ultra-conservative, clean cut and generally so bloody nice, is just so .... wrong Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Only the start, I assure you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, thank you for all your comments and kind words at my RfA. Your support - though it'd only be worth half of mine ;) - is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh666 19:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I would just like to ask why you deleted the page. It asked me why it shouldn't be deleted and when I clicked submit the page was already gone.--Siberix (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

From a web search, Civanism appears to be some sort of in-game plot, or something like that, so there was no obvious way to see how anyone could write an encyclopedia article around it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

all of those useless articles were tagged fro AfD when I did the New Page Patrol. I have no idea why you didn't delete them. What should I do next. Roxy the dog. bark 14:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: They were all relisted by CAPTAIN RAJU yesterday so in theory they had a week to run. However, via a combination of WP:SNOW and WP:IAR, and particularly since not a single person wants to keep the articles, I've deleted them per the original AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I confess I was angrier than that post above conveys, and I should not have been. I've handed in my user right, as it obviously doesn't suit me at the moment. I saw that you had deleted them all before I arrived here. Thanks again. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully now that WP:ACTRIAL is up and running, NPP should give people less of a sore head - the CSD queues seem to be right down. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

... played a great concert with friends, so I translated more than a stub from German. I am not too familiar with jazz terminology, - please check. I'll add, and translate the refs, later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Sorry, I've been busy with getting GA #100 passed (nearly there now, touch wood) and finishing off Mick Jagger's GA review (ditto) - what did I miss? I see you've got the Grauniad reference already.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have the time, you could check the translation, and meet great music! I called you to a deletion the other day, but that seems to be over. What's 100 GAs for you is 888 DYK for me, - didn't count my GAs, had problems with one the Yash! started, - could you - or a friendly watcher - perhaps take over? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

A funeral day, - sorry about the revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am certain you know I was being honest and straight up, not mean - it's like Mhairi Black calling a spade a f***ing shovel. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Who said "mean"? How about AGF? How about this approach? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I nominated Wollny for DYK, and will be away for 3 days, preparing Der Messias for a concert 3 Oct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, no, no .... my point is, I could create Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gerda Arendt this afternoon and write you a glowing reference about how you are a prolific content creator with numerous FAs, GAs and DYKs and an excellent track record in civility and being nice, and you would be able to work in areas like the DYK queues and ERRORS (such as finding classical music events to go on the OTD queue) .... I predict you'd get about 60 - 65% support, and some of the opposes would upset you (and, you know what, I'd probably wince at them too). Why am I telling you this? Well, to coin the saying from Harry Potter - "It takes a lot to stand up to your enemies; it takes even more to stand up to your friends". Still, if you want to run, and you pass with flying colours, I will happily concede that I was wrong. Have a good concert. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I said in 2013 that I don't want to be an admin, and I still say the same. Why contemplate what might happen if I felt differently. (Did you follow the links, including my friend's RfA?) - Can we just stop using the "or no supper"-word? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If I was an admin, I'd promote (overdue) DYK prep to queue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If I was German, I'd be ticking the "anybody except the AfD" box round about now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That box - sadly - wasn't available, - no veto-voting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London Paddington station 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The article London Waterloo station you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:London Waterloo station 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Perhaps a filter to trap IP socks of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stylized_as_%22stylized%22_currently;_formerly_%22stylizeD%22/Archive could be launched as well? Regards,   Aloha27  talk  14:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aloha27: You're probably better off asking at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard - more edit filter writers hang out there, but I can take a look if you want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The article London Paddington station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:London Paddington station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The article London Paddington station you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:London Paddington station 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey for the chewing gum page can you please add a lock at the upper right hand corner? Thanks. Hummerrocket (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the value of these much myself outside full-protection owing to a content dispute, but I've done this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking back through the OTD archives, it appears Beatles-related articles have made a lot of appearances this year: The Quarrymen, the 1964 tour, Imagine, and now Hey Jude. I know you tend to put music articles in for OTD, but I think it would be best if we lay off Beatles for the remainder of the year. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 21:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Howcheng: In this case (as it has been with several others) it was simply a quick fix to swap out an article with multiple {{refimprove}} tags with a GA, to showcase higher quality content in OTD with minimal effort. That was pretty much it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah I totally get it. I'm just saying let's try to refrain from Beatles-related articles for a bit, that's all. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 15:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, per the AfD discussion, could you please either userfy MrBossFTW or move to draft space? Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Done, restored to User:TheSandDoctor/MrBossFTW Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, did you even read my contest before deleting a page of my creation by translation (Murder of Atena Aslani)? It took some time and effort to translate that page and your action was utterly unnecessary. Where can I protest this action? Sinav666 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sinav666, read WP:BLP and WP:G10, then seriously re-think your actions before you end up blocked. No reasonable administrator will allow you to protest Ritchie's deletion. Patient Zero^talk 12:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Patient Zero, I am aware of mentioned policies and rules and I still am sure this action is unfair, and without sufficient reasons. At very least, I demand to recieve a copy of my translated text, and if this remain unjustified, I shall never participate in wikipedia as protest. With regards! Sinav666 (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sinav666 - you cannot create an article about a murderer without citations to reliable sources as it may be considered libellous and open the Wikimedia Foundation to a potential lawsuit. I'm normally comfortable with restoring deleted articles to userspace, but I cannot do that for libel. Consider the murder of Joanna Yeates - the article has multiple citations to respectable sources such as BBC News, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph all of which reliably confirm Vincent Tabak was responsible and Christopher Jefferies was completely innocent and had an undeserving character assassination by the tabloid press. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (sorry Ritchie - I've just come back after two months and I didn't know there was a new EC tool!) Sinav666, you are clearly not aware of those policies. Put it this way: G10 applies to BLP violations. So the article you created was about a real person, which was completely negative in tone, not written from a WP:NPOV, probably libellous, and with no sources. Yes, any reasonable person could see that this might not be allowed on Wikipedia. I'd also stop with the demands if I were you. You won't get anywhere - Ritchie and I, as British editors, value manners and politeness above a lot of things, I reckon! Patient Zero^talk 13:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Patient Zero and Ritchie333, I apologise for my attitude, I understand your worries, but I assure you, the original article (in persian) was fully​ refferenced to the most reliable sources in it's own language. So if you would please return this article to me, I can transfer those refferences​ to the translated article. I accept my error, I will perform better on my later translations. Sinav666 (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sinav666: I have emailed you the text of the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld Well I might be able to get a tenner out of this, but if I'm up against Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl I've got no chance - what happens if I get distracted by a mini-project to create articles about bus shelters? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, well I'm also putting in a grant request to WMUK for another £250 prize for most Oxford dictionary women bios, I don't think Ropsie and Mega work much on UK so always a good chance to win!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Not likely I'll will as I'll be on international travel through Nov 8th, Ritchie333, but I will try to keep up with your contributions! Win or lose, it's all for a good cause. Hope you go for it! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Hear, hear! Let's all do our best to support these articles. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie,

I noticed that you have a lot of experience improving articles to GA status. I would like to do the same, starting with memory cell (binary). Before nominating it, I would appreciate it, if you could give me some advice or point me to someone with experience that could. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Firstly, I'm wondering if the title should be "memory cell (computing)", just a thought. It may be seem obvious, but possibly a sentence explaining why computer memory was necessary would help the nontechnical reader. You should put the "Description" section up front, explain how memory can be built (I know it's a combination of NAND gates but can't remember the rest) so the reader isn't staring at a circuit diagram and scratching their head thinking "what does this mean?" You've jumped straight into jargon like "flip flop", which for the layman reader is something you put on your feet when going to the beach. Elsewhere, in prose, use the third-person wherever possible; "we" is good for the Open University and interactive courses, but not really for encyclopedia articles. So while you've got the source material, I think it needs quite a bit of restructuring before it can be considered ready for a GA review, I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your insight. That's exactly what I was looking for. I will get at it and if its not too much bother I will ask for your advice again once I'm done. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ritchie,

I'm a bit puzzled about this speedy decline. Your summary says A7 doesn't apply to guitars which is indeed correct but the article is about a company which makes guitars not guitars themselves. I also tagged it for deletion per G11 which your summary didn't address and whilst your copyedit has improved it a little bit I think G11 could still apply - any thoughts?

Best,

DrStrauss talk 14:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You can turn an article on a company that makes guitars into one about the guitars. You can't do that with your local mayor, bank manager, best friend, pet cat, local garage band, YouTuber or any of the other stereotypical A7 candidates. And it doesn't meet G11, at worst case scenario you can trim it down to a basic description - I've just done some copyediting on it and added a source. What you've got here is a classic case of systemic bias of a company that had widespread news and magazine coverage in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but pretty much nothing beyond that, so you go to a web search and turn up a blank. Or you see the article asserts that Rick Laird played a Curlee, well that's got to be some sort of claim of notability, then you do a web search and find plenty of mentions, but nothing in what we would normally call a reliable source. I'm just going to ping Jackiekoerner in on this conversation because she's doing a lot of research into bias on Wikipedia and looking at the well-known facets of it, such as biographies of women in science and academia, or people in high positions of office in Africa, but I wonder if she's considered 1970s guitar manufacturers? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to do a collaboration if needed. DrStrauss talk 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You deleted this article after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Garcia (basketball) with the reason "Consensus is that the source supplied are not sufficient to show notability of this person." How is this the case? I had added more sources to the discussion - three articles with significant coverage of the subject specifically and from independent reliable sources. After I added these, the discussion was relisted and one user voted delete without a sound, policy-based reason and the another voted keep in light if the new sources. This was done too quickly. I also find it ironic that the article is being deleted literally hours before he makes his debut in the ABA League, which is a league listed in WP:NBASKETBALL, and failing to meet that guideline was a major reason given by many of those chiming in early in the discussion. I would ask that this be allowed more discussion and that any arguments stemming from meeting the SSG be struck once he does so later today. Rikster2 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rikster2: You did add additional sources, but not enough people thought they were sufficient to meet the notability criteria for a standalone topic. The article had been listed at AfD since 6 September, so it was time to close it one way or the other. If you think he's more likely to be notable in the future, from now starring in the ABA League, I can restore the article to draft space so you can work on it - then if circumstances change, the approved draft can override the result of this deletion debate. That's probably your best option. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

only two people chimed in on my new sources, so that is not correct. Dammit_Steve voted keep based on my sources. DJSasso took issue with one which was a blog on a newspaper, which I replaced with a full article and he subsequently said this was acceptable to him (he didn't comment on the other two, because those were clearly acceptable). JohnPackLambert's !vote should be discounted as "college and semi-pro is not enough for notability" is not accurate or policy-based. It is true that college career only (without meeting GNG) isn't basis for notability, but many, many American college players meet GNG based on the sport's popularity. The basis of the initial AfD and a number of the votes is that the subject didn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL, which won't be true in 5 and a half hours. This feels like a very clear case of WP:COMMONSENSE. The article wouldn't have been up for AfD if he'd played a game in the ABA League, and in reality he probably met GNG already (if barely). Why the process for process' sake? Rikster2 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

A salient point mentioned in the AfD was this : "With football players, the solution seems to be delete-and-recreate-when if they're on the books at a team in the relevant league and just haven't played yet, so that suggests this is the same process here as well", which seems like a good solution that will please all sides. I've just said how you can get your content back, so I don't see the value on rehashing the debate here. I have no opinion on the article, if I did, that would be bad. Do you want the article restored to draft or not? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but I will offer that to the article creator. I think that football policy is great for players months away from their debut, but hours? That completely rubs me the wrong way and sounds like the opposite of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Rikster2 (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie - if the offer to recreate the content as a draft is still open, I would like to take you upon it. Part of my frustration with this process is that we are working with a new editor who created many articles that didn't obviously meet GNG and didn't meet the SSG for basketball. He voluntarily deleted those that wouldn't meet the SSG when informed of guidelines, leaving just 2 who were signed with clubs meeting NBASKETBALL and had imminent debuts (this one and Daniel Jansen (basketball). I have communicated with the editor and he is willing to recreate the article after he debuts, but it would be a nice gesture to save him some work. I worry that jumping through process hoops can turn off new editors that come in good faith and are learning the rules. As an aside, I never thought you showed any bias in closure of the article and apologize if this is how I came across. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I know that once an article is deleted, nobody can look at what was there again until an admin restores it somewhere, which can be frustrating. Anyway, it's now restored to Draft:Eric Garcia (basketball) and can be worked on without the threat of deletion. Hope that helps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)