User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 63

 

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cannon Street 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) 11:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 You inspired me and your kindness is appreciated. I have been overwhelmed with back to school activities, and look forward to the teahouse suggestion this weekend. Mbarywiki (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You're inspired by Cannon Street station? Crikey, I think it's a soul-less concrete shed myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Brighton Palace Pier you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Brighton Palace Pier 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) 09:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

you suck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.120 (talk)

 

I don't delete articles for fun, and I have responded on your talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Like: "I bet you read The Downing Street Years while you're doing number twos :p" ;) — fortunavelut luna 10:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You know that Donald Trump? That's like your best friend. You are him. Fortuna Imperatrix Donald Trump. (For context, go here) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's face it, Threesie, it was you who put the suck in the dumb-fuck-suckery. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Hyde Park, London you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Hyde Park, London 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) 18:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richie - I see the superb job you did with Brighton Palace Pier article and have taken it upon myself to develop Southport Pier, taking some pointers as you how you laid out the Brighton article. I am hoping to take it to GA in the near future, but perhaps with your previous experience developing Brighton Palace Pier, I wonder if you could offer your opinion on Southport Pier article as it stands now, or perhaps any suggestions for additional content inclusion? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: As a brief "finger in the air" estimate, you're going along the right lines - 11K of text and 30ish citations is basically what the Palace Pier and West Pier both have, and you're using a dedicated book source. Provided you give everything a good copyedit (the best way to do that is to gain a following and have lots of good copyeditors watch your talk page, but obviously that takes time and effort!) and ensure everything is properly sourced and structured, you should be good for GA before too long. The other slight advantage I have is that I've been to the pier several times so I've got some "on the ground" experience of it. This is useful when reading sources as you can spot what you ought to cite and what you should maybe leave out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Cheers - I am reasonably ok at copyediting and what now so I hope the quality of prose will suffice GA at the least (and indeed be suitably paraphrased). It's good to know you can't see anything glaringly obvious (and I appreciate it would have been a sweeping look). Always useful when you can compare against a very similar article that has been through the process! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, my article is currently protected. In this case, how can I be unblocked from editing? If still there is a possibility that i can create an article with the name of "DFRobot", I would like to take time and write it again . Could you please tell me what i should do to unblock it? Should i revise it at Draft page and click Submit for review? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy.kwon (talk • contribs) 07:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Charing Cross railway 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:Charing Cross railway station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Broad Street railway station (London) 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) 13:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Broad Street railway station (London) 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:Broad Street railway station (London) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I will take the Requiem to GA, promised, as I did with Fauré's, but not now, better for November ;) - I am more in the mood of waiting, Es wartet alles auf dich, BWV 187 is waiting for you, to be reviewed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and I am waiting for a move request to finish before I put Waterloo to GA (see above thread). If I get a chance today or tomorrow, I will look at BWV 187. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I put the other plan on my user page, - one a day, today Ubu Rex. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Just returned from this (details in German): very impressive. Moar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I added refs and external links to the Requiem, now anybody could write the article. Not me, going on vacation tomorrow. The tags on the article are a disgrace, imho. We know that the refs tag didn't work for years, - I have no idea what added stuff is supposed to change, especially the part that concerns the template, not that specific article. - Do you have an idea how to find a common phrase for both "Op." and "Catalogue", between just "Number", and "Number by which the composition is known"? Nobody ever complained about Beethoven's and Reger's works showing the opus number under Catalogue number, see here and here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Chance was mentioned above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You still have the chance! Has it happened to you that right after your article was taken for GA review, a third editor came and changed it to his liking? To me, yes. I asked for a close, because when I revert (I did, some), it's not stable, if I leave it it's not what I'd support. Take this one, the same will happen, so it won't take much of your time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your July redirect was reverted by an IP [1] then reverted back by Sro23 [2] and reverted back by another IP. The article is still in the feed, and I thought maybe you might have a better alternative to NPR's continuing to revert process. Thx. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There was only a weak consensus to redirect, following a CSD A7 nomination by Light2021 who is now blocked for persistently disrupting the deletion process. If the redirect has been challenged back to a full article, I'd say that's a valid application of BR, and since I can't be bothered to D, I think we'll take that as a consensus to keep the article. Although I will say I look at it now and haven't the foggiest what it's talking about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Me, either   which is why I brought it to you. Maybe David Eppstein knows. I would be much happier if it was off the NPR feed so we can get a more realistic picture of what we're dealing with re: new pages. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

BRD doesn't apply to A7 speedy deletions, which is what this looks like (effectively) to me: an article about an organization that doesn't credibly indicate its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Tagged - now we'll see what happens. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It was nuked. As you can see from User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 60#rationale, I agreed with the A7 originally and deleted it, but then had second thoughts and felt a redirect would be better. Hey ho. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I hate to contradict you but User:NetWitz is already socking as User:NetWitz830, so it's not just IP editing. --Tarage (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, that was an accident, I meant to write NetWitz, but autocorrect screwed me up, because NetWitz830 is my email. NetWitz (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

(edit conflict) @NetWitz: Wait, NetWitz830 was created five years ago - given you managed to log into it, it must be one of your accounts. How many other accounts do you have? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

NetWitz830 indef blocked as a sock. Use one account only or you will be kicked off the project - last warning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, There is no NetWitz830 account, that was just a typo. Please stop overreacting NetWitz (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

Yes there is Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

NetWitz is my one and only account, and that is the honest truth NetWitz (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

But you managed to "accidentally" log into an old account and make recent edits with it? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't log into another account, I don't have another account, if somebody would check to login history of NetWitz830, they can see that it hasn't been logged into. NetWitz (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

@NetWitz: Yes... it has been logged into (by you)... can you tell me who made this edit then? Ritchie, I'm losing the will here.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've dealt with Trump supporters on Facebook, this is mild by comparison ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Brave man.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That was me making an UNINTENTIONAL typo because autocorrect changed it because my device has NetWitz830 as my email address. If somebody can check the timestamp of the the the account was last loggged into they would see that I didn't log into it. NetWitz (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

Last edit two hours ago, so I'm gonna go with last login two hours ago. It's blocked now, and I'm tired of the back and forth - next slip up is an indefinite block -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why you are rudely attacking me just because of an accidental typo NetWitz (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz And also, the time stamp I meant was last login with password NetWitz (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

 

 

Hello, Ritchie333. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Miss Black Universe".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I was wondering why I was getting this, turns out I restored and moved it to draft after I deleted following a complaint. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank Twinkle or AFCH :) Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

When you added the AFC template, you set yourself as the 'owner' (|u=Ritchie333), so AFCH sends you the notice. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Aha, that explains it - the editor who wanted it restored, KrisangelaW hasn't edited since asking for it to be restored. Unless Megalibrarygirl can do something with it, I'd suggest deleting it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, Legacypac, and JJMC89: the subject of the article is TOOSOON. I'm not finding any RS in my databases, and only mentions. I'd say delete without prejudice for recreation in the future if it does become notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've binned it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 

As the lovely Mel Sykes might say "... when I think about your GAs, I wet myself": [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I keep getting Melanie Sykes (northern "luv") mixed up with Melanie Phillips (scary right-wing nutbag) - or is she one of the Spice Girls? - who I also get mixed up with the one in the Mamas & the Papas who wasn't Mama Cass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

... and talking of Northern beer adverts... 'ave it!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Yash ^talk stalk 05:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

:-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

 

The article Broad Street railway station (London) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Broad Street railway station (London) 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, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Bit of a damp squib really is Broad Street, nemesis had it marked pretty much as soon as the Tube took off in the early 20th century. Still, it might have had a renaissance as an interchange on the revived East London Line to compete with overcrowded tubes. We'll never know. Right, shall I put Waterloo or Victoria up next? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Either, let me know if you'd like one of my pedantic and clueless reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It would have been useless on a revived and expanded ELL, as it's oriented the wrong way—the trains would have had to reverse out of it. What it would have been a shoo-in for, had BR hung onto the site a few years longer, would have been as the London terminus of the CTRL; through Liverpool Street it would have had just as good onwards connections as St Pancras, and would have avoided the need for the white elephant vanity project of the twelve-mile tunnel between Dagenham and St Pancras as HS1 could have just taken over the little-used section of ELL from Broad Street to Custom House via Dalston, and thus the only new construction would have gone through derelict land between Custom House and Dagenham. This would not only have saved billions but would also have put City Airport on the route of the CTRL, making LCY only 5–6 minutes travel from the City. Plus, the Eurostars would have had short direct routes along the NLL from Dalston to Canonbury and Willesden, providing a direct route onto the ECML and WCML and making such things as Paris–Edinburgh in six hours and Paris–Birmingham in three possible without the need for any upgrade works north of London. ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting idea; obviously the underground would have had to been integrated into that. Although Kings Cross St Pancras looks convenient on a map, to actually get from platforms 11-13 to the Victoria Line platforms is about half a mile (or at least feels like it is). More prosaically, it would mean on a train home, I wouldn't have to say "aargh I've got NO BLOODY SIGNAL" for the first 20 minutes. In fact, if you want any sort of consistent signal between St Pancras and Ebbsfleet, forget it. And who goes to Ebbsfleet International anyway? When I get on HS1 at Ashford on a Saturday morning, it can be absolutely jam-packed, standing room only, but hardly anyone gets on and off at Ebbsfleet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Come out of platforms 11-13, ignore the signs to the Underground, walk straight through the station concourse and out the front exit onto Kings Cross Square (where the street market is), go down the steps into the Underground there (the entrance outside the BR station), turn left at the bottom of the steps and you're on the Victoria Line without any wandering through twisty passageways.

Ebbsfleet International is there because there needed to be an station in North Kent, and Maidstone NIMBYs refused to allow them to route the line near the town. The equally pointless Fréthun exists on the French side for the same reason. Integrating the underground into Broad Street would have been easy, since Liverpool Street needed to be (and was) rebuilt at the time anyway—all it would have needed would have been to align the northern Central Line escalators east-west (coming up where the Richard Serra eyesore currently is) instead of north-south to their present exit next to Liverpool Street platform 1, and renaming the tube station "Liverpool Street–Broad Street". The Waterloo and City Line could have been extended from Bank to Liverpool Street with minimal effort (the right-of-way has been reserved since its original opening) if they'd wanted to make cross-London travel a bit easier. ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I've always thought that item looked more reliable that most of the rolling stock on the Northern line. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Christ on a bike, do we really need an article on that? The only thing it's notable for is as a way for drunk Essex lads to avoid the 20p charge for the Liverpool Street urinals. ‑ Iridescent 21:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A fitting tribute, I think. Glad you don't live in somewhere fashionable, like Prague? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

What is (AFAIK) unique to central London (and a few areas of outer London with big sporting crowds like Twickenham) are the pop-up urinals, which emerge automatically from the ground shortly before pub closing times and big sporting events and disappear once the crowds have dispersed. Amazingly, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article. ‑ Iridescent 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably because everyone thinks you're taking the piss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised by this edit at WP:AIV where you suggested reporting at WP:SPI. I had previously understood that WP:SPI was for reporting named accounts only, rather than IPs. The long term abuse by IPs in the 112.210.x.x series has involved numerous IPs apart from the current 112.210.70.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 112.210.70.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is currently blocked, 112.210.8.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked not long ago, & there have been numerous others including 112.210.74.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 112.210.39.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 112.210.60.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 112.210.15.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), &112.210.85.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Targets of the IPs' vandalism include Commonwealth of Nations, Non-Aligned Movement, and various others. At least one target of his vandalism was protected, but he continues to vandalise other articles. Are you sure that a report of these IPs to WP:SPI would be more fruitful than reporting the vandalism to WP:AIV? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

AIV is for editors of IPs who need immediate action, and this seemed to be just a long term block-evading disruptive editor, but not necessarily one that needed an immediate block (if it did, I would have blocked them). If there isn't a page on WP:LTA for this already, consider creating one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that vandals get blocked at AIV if it's their first appearance there, but the same vandalism is allowed to continue if the vandal is a persistent offender. Aren't we trying to protect the encyclopedia from vandalism? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So why is this blatant, obvious, and immediately blockable vandalism? I don't get it, sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Pure invention, just as the numerous other instances of vandalism to that article by this LTA's other aliases, such as this addition of Afghanistan, this addition of Bhutan, this addition of Benin, ... --David Biddulph (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I will grant you, of course, that if the single edit to which you refer had been an isolated instance from a new editor one could have assumed good faith, but the long-established pattern makes it as plain as a pikestaff that this is deliberate (which is why I referred to some of the previous instances). - David Biddulph (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I still think that in this instance, where you've got a possible good-faith edit, you're better off creating an LTA page where you can collate information together. AIV should be reserved for cases where any admin can be expected to unilaterally block, possibly indefinitely, without requiring any community consensus whatsoever. I realise you don't need consensus to block, but for non-blatant scenarios, you are generally always better off getting it, otherwise you run the risk of being hauled off to ANI and getting the community to do the consensus for you :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

OK--in that case, it's...well, you know. Snapping. Later! Drmies (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It does sound bizarre, but if you google for "michigan glee club finger snapping" you'll find it does tie up - though the first news hit on that is Fox News - yuck. A bit of an odd choice of GA for me, though Rhonda very much likes classical choral music, so maybe not as odd as you might think. And as my first AfD -> GA exercise, it was a good discussion point when I first bumped into MelanieN, who subsequently convinced me to go for adminship .... funny how these things turn out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your help with The Rolling Stones article and for suggestions to improve it - it made my day. TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I really want to get Queen to GA, because then that pretty much puts all the major rock bands up to at least GA, but I have no decent book sources, and the few I have looked at seem to be full of factual errors or skip basic information, like what exactly did the band do between 1970 and 1973, for one thing? And a problem for me personally is that for me, Queen basically finished on 24 November 1991 and I don't particularly give a monkeys about anything since then. Mark Blake's book is probably the best one going, so if I can pick that up, I will see what I can do about it, though even the reviews said "oh, this fact in the book isn't true" which doesn't exactly give me confidence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at some of Thememeshiterisdanker's other edits. They are clearly vandalism. Such as this edit on Johnny Test. The example I gave you before was of genre warring and the use of profanity. Bowling is life (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I saw that one, but the later edits weren't obvious vandalism, so I've given them a straight warning to stop it. If they carry on edit-warring on that article, I'll block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Bowling is life (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, since you deleted the article, I will ask you, how do I create an article which is legitimately encyclopedic about the Nicknames of Donald Trump, that is, from secondary sources which talk about the use of and the impact of those nicknames? I tried a second time, but it was immediately deleted as a "recreation" even though it was substantially reduced to only secondary sources about notable nicknames. Here is the text and you can see for yourself that this aims to be encyclopedic. I feel like there might be forces that want to avoid controversy which are subjugating genuinely relevant material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keizers (talk • contribs) 20:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Ask the community members who all voted "delete". Essentially, there are no sources that show the list itself is notable. Don't post text of deleted articles here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It's no longer a list, as I wrote, this is not helpful or constructive, so I will seek help elsewhere. Keizers (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	For bringing back no consensus as a reasonable closing option after one week at AfDs: I think that does a lot to promote community health and I am glad to see an admin choosing it, even if it means an article I think should be deleted stays. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, this is entirely unrelated to the above section. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to know is it okay if a source Wordpress is fine? 173.33.242.218 (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not - I could write a Wordpress blog this morning saying that Trump is secretly gay, for example. There's no possibility of establishing a reputation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, and only because I want to perfect my understanding of policy and so on, what potential administrative action could there have been, and on what basis? Really, I'm just asking for my edification. EEng 02:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well technically any admin could have full protected the talk page or blocked everybody for edit warring, though as I said that would be a dumb thing to do and create a nice Streisand effect. (We need WP:STREISAND). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

... you admins have to know where to draw the line, don't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I suppose an admin could have done that, but I don't think it would pass muster as appropriate on review. Appropriate would have been a strong warning to whatshisname to stop removing the post, to an article talk page, of an experienced editor in good standing, regardless of his personal opinion of the post's worth. EEng 17:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a "tell them to stop squabbling and go write an encyclopedia" man myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me, just so long as it's clear who's in the wrong. Your comment at ANEW made it sound like that might be me. EEng 08:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding but the other editor you blocked is now operating under at least two other new IP addresses to make a number of fairly dubious edits. Grateful for thoughts on what might be done to sensibly handle this. This is quite unusual in my experience. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed this on your talk page. If things get particularly bad, we might have to semi-protect the articles. In the meantime, lay off the reverts - I know having the article on the wrong version (particularly on an article you created from scratch) can be irritating, but sometimes these things are not as vitally important as you might think when you're not in the thick of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The same editor that caused problems yesterday is back again today - they are based in Venice and their IP is 5.170.196.51 They have made repeated reversions to the Robert Sarah article without engaging in talk or justifying the amendment which has failed to achieve consensus and is designed to make a political statement (use of the term "LGBT ideology"). Any advice on how to handle please? I think they may be connected to editor User: Claíomh Solais (if not the same person). Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for 3 days. That should put a lid on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about this closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Van Thyn. All but one of the delete comments talk about the article having all it's sources from a single local newspaper. But that's clearly not true. While many articles are from The Times (Shreveport), one significant article is from The Town Talk of Alexandria, Louisiana which is half-way across the state, 200 km away. And these aren't small community papers either, they are both over 130 year old daily broadsheets each service a population of about a half-million people. If you were to eliminate all the deletes making this false claim (why haven't any of them retracted this statement?), the result is clear.

I'd have thought it would end up keep, or relist. Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well NC defaults to keep, and the temperature on that AfD was so high that relisting would have caused more harm than good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes a relist probably wouldn't have helped. Though given that almost every delete claim was simply not true (with the second source, from half-way across the state), I thought a keep would have sent a clearer, unequivocal message. I understand why the keep folks were upset (even though they article is somewhat borderline if it's all based on a single source - and that's why I'd failed to opine myself until I took a close look at what the sources actually were (major broadsheets), I was getting ready to say something when I noticed the close). But I don't really see what the deletionists are upset about (but I seldom do); normally show them the two sources, and they move off in search of weaker prey - I couldn't see a link between this, and ongoing cultural wars in the USA. (a watcher is quite happy to answer that one on my talk page!). But as you say, same net result. Nfitz (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

 

Hi there, I just found your comments on The Rolling Stones failed FA nom I nominated back in April of this year (here) and wanted to thank you for your comments and taking the time to write them. After it became clear that the nomination would most likely not succeed and the fact that it was nearing final exams, the discussion fell off my radar and, truth behold, I forgot I had even nominated it until I stumbled across the failed FA noms on the talk page a couple days ago.

I just thought I would thank you, better late than never, and wanted to let you know that I have nominated it for Good Article status per the recommendations and have made a number of the edits you have suggested (i.e. removing Daily Mail references, renaming Golden age section etc.) and continue to make more when I have the time. In response to the "golden age" point you raised, I renamed the section as I was unable to find a reputable reference referring to it as such, however I am sure that I have seen them years ago and am familiar with the period being called that (which I disagree with the timeframe of personally but that's another story and off topic). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal opinion - the Stones should have split when Mick Taylor left, they'd be much more fondly remembered than they are nowadays. Anyway, I have started the review, but it's a biggie so it may take a couple of days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I certainly can't remember them, so there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

...if you can remember them, you weren't there.... — fortunavelut luna 13:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I love the caption on the pic  . I was not expecting to have it reviewed for some time, but am glad that it is being reviewed now while I am still on break and able to do more quicker. Haha Martinevans123.

As for splitting, let's agree to disagree on that. I have loved the Stones all my life and am glad that they are still together as a band - if they weren't, I wouldn't have been able to see them in Vancouver in 2006 at the age of 8 - a dream come true and remains one of the best moments of my (admittedly short/young so far) life and really would love to see them for a second time if they ever come to this neck of the woods again. Oddly enough, I have only managed to find a couple of their songs that I didn't like (which, I don't actually remember what they are  , but would if I ever heard them again). As a kid, it was always a dream of mine to meet them (sadly haven't...yet, though I have met a few that actually have). As for the fondly remembered bit, I didn't know that they weren't.

That aside, thanks for taking the time to review and please, do take your time - there is no rush. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help Ritchie! Do you have any suggestions for DYK hooks? Also, at first glance, which do you think closer to the GA criteria? Gimme Shelter or Tumbling Dice? If it is Gimme Shelter, I would happily switch out my nomination from Tumbling Dice for it, otherwise would you be interested in reviewing, Tumbling Dice (I already have it nominated)? It should be definitely a quicker review than The Rolling Stones and I believe I have addressed the issues that caused it to be delisted from good article. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah right, I think Tumbling Dice is closer to GA myself, though it still needs work. For a DYK hook, maybe "... that Keith Richards described The Rolling Stones mid-80s feud with Mick Jagger as "World War III"?" I deleted the mostly unsourced "Awards and nominations" from the main Stones article, although a good effort to source it, the burden of effort is on the editor who decided to add a massive unsourced section to a GA - except they can't because they've now been indef blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, what would you suggest adding to Tumbling Dice to bring it closer? Do you think it is close enough for a GA review? If so, would you be willing to review it when you get the time? As for the indef blocked editor, I did try to source the section myself after I saw that they were indefinitely blocked as it may be a useful section to have, though possibly in a list like/in the form of List of awards and nominations received by the Beatles --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Of the top of my head, not everything has an inline citation, the quotations are too long and I don't think setlists.fm is a reliable source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the setlist.fm references and replaced one where possible, but could not find reputable reference for one sentence so removed sentence (whole sentence also seemed somewhat trivial/unnecessary). I have also gone ahead and added some more references to the article. Are you referring to the quotations in general or to the critical reception section specifically? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you be willing/like to to start a review of Tumbling Dice or Mick Jagger some time (there is no rush)? If not, that is totally fine - I just like your in-depth reviewing style. Thanks regardless. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Had a quick look at Jagger, you need to sort out the unsourced paragraphs and some of the prose from 2000 onwards is a bit "bitty", very short paragraphs. I'm a bit busy this week but if nobody else takes it next week, I'll give it a ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I sorted out the 2000 and 2010s sections, I will add more sourcing asap. Thanks for your help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man has been editing today, so I don't know what you're talking about. I've never particularly dealt with FPAS, and AFAIK I get on with Bishonen. And I wasn't even editing Wikipedia regularly when my son was six months old (November '08). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Get over yourself, IP-hopping troll. Alex Shih has semiprotected The Rambling Man's talkpage against the likes of you, exclusively. Semiprotection doesn't stop the page owner or any other autoconfirmed editor from editing it. That's not even a little like the poorly-judged full protection I once removed from the page. Ritchie, yes, I love you too, but please don't leave those kinds of attacks on your page. Btw being from Neptune isn't a problem on Wikipedia. Bishzilla is from the bowels of the earth. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC).

And I happen to hail from the bowels of Bishzilla. It's bowels, all the way down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This is all a complete waste of time and energy. This banned editor pops up all over the place, time after time, providing quotes, diffs etc (all of which are real, most of which are pertinent to the flagrant abuse that goes on around here) and eventually wherever the IP frequents gets locked down, so a new location is found, that one's locked down, a new location, a new IP, same material, that's locked down, rev-del'ed (for whatever good that does, it's all accurate). FPAS blocked me for reverting edits made to my own talk page when it was claimed I was proxying for this banned editor, where in actuality I was conversing with an IP I was unaware had been banned from the project. The current approach is completely unworkable and results in frustration and annoyance for regular editors and IPs (I don't actually want my talkpage to be semi-protected – there's nothing being written that doesn't have a basis in fact, and other IPs regularly contact me about the goings-on here, especially after various "admin" treatments, I don't want that to suddenly become unavailable at the whim of an admin who didn't even discuss it with me). There's too much "act first, think later" attitude going on at Wikipedia for the last year or two, it's not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I don't feel as if I'm being bullied by Alex Shih at all, I think Alex is carrying out the standard approach which will not work, that's by no means bullying, just going with the masses. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Has anyone asked The Rambling Man if he wants to be prevented from conversing with unregistered editors? How would Bishzilla feel if an administrator put it about the entire community and the Arbitration Committee that she had alleged him to be "a self - declared sex worker"? That was done to poison the Arbitration Committee against The Rambling Man and encourage them to throw out the case (which they did), the result being that a fine administrator (The Rambling Man) has been de - sysopped. Check his contributions - he works his socks off for Wikipedia. Future Perfect at Sunrise, on the other hand, just goes around annoying everyone (the recent tip of the iceberg here: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]).

This one I am quoting in full:

• Future Perfect, You may think that you can fool Pincrete by playing the role of the nice guy who wants to save them from my logorrhoea, and perhaps you may believe that this will work as to draw away attention from your failures, but we know you better than you think. Have you forgotten these old days where several users across Wikipedia accused you for abuse and misuse of admin privileges? Well I don't. Remember how you nearly entered the List of Former Admins? I am sure you do not want to risk this again, so please leave your WP:PA aside and comment about the discussion, not me. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

God bless, 77.98.55.85 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

77.98.55.85 - either find an article to write, or fuck off, it's up to you. TRM has done several GA reviews and helps keep the Main Page in good shape. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

77.98.55.85, please, I don't know why I am being quoted with my stamp in a discussion I am not even involved in, but I could prefer this doesn't happen again. And if you HAVE to refer to past discussions, then at least do it properly by using the appropriate coding and diffs. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 07:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that discussion. However, it's clear that my actions at AN/I over the past 24 hours have caused considerable disquiet and I'd value your feedback, if you have a little time to spare. GoldenRing (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: The only legitimate bit of criticism I can really give is that if you close an ANI thread, and the participants carry on discussing anyway, then just leave it -another admin will come along and whack them on the head. Reverting tends to add more fuel to the fire. I have worked with John and Flyer22 on several occasions; I think it's obvious that I tend to take John's side on BLP, but Flyer22 is a good-faith editor who contributes hugely to articles I don't want to go anywhere near, so respect to them is due. I remember a blazing row over Brad Pitt about 4 years ago, so I think these two just aren't going to see eye to eye, and it's best to just let them have their say and ensure that it doesn't disrupt any content or other editors. The thing about your narrow pass at RfA was below the belt and uncalled for, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid the old Orry Kelly proposal has come up again at Cary Grant via an IP editor. The IP has added the information twice and been reverted. Basically the same information & ref from last year's discussion about it. Possible sock? We hope (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue about socks, but as far as content goes, that appears to be not a particularly great source to cite to, particularly with all the book sources used, so I don't think there's consensus to put it in. Plus you've got the talk page discussion showing consensus anyway. So I'd say if the IP does one more revert, we could be looking at sanctions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Have asked the IP to start a TP discussion, guess we'll need to see what happens. Thanks! :) We hope (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)