User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 82

Hello sir! Here is something I happened to have saved on archive.org. Might be useful for the Victoria line article — https://archive.org/details/op1265392-1001. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I wasn't planning to improve Victoria's article so much, but in the words of MelanieN, "Finding an article that is lacking something or needs work - well, that is like a dog seeing a squirrel, I am immediately distracted from whatever I was doing." (WP:SQUIRREL on standby). I did do a search on "London Underground" on archive.org texts, but didn't find anything useful. Day & Reed's The Story of London's Underground and Woolmar's The Subterranean Railway seem to have most of the facts; for individual stations and tidbits, M.A.C. Horne's The Victoria Line: A Short History seems like a good detailed source for everything else, but I don't have a copy. DavidCane has done a lot of tube GAs, so he may be able to advise on these. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. I must get my hands on a copy of those two books. Prog on. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Horne's Victoria line is very good on specialised history. I used it quite a lot on my recent update of Green Park tube station which has just been made a good article and is currently a featured article candidate. The others in the Illustrated History series are also excellent. Unfortunately, they are mostly out of print and hard to get hold of. Day and Reed and Wolmar provide good broad coverage of the Underground's development. I've used both extensively as sources. Antony Badsey-Ellis's Building London's Underground, is a recent book which provides a lot of technical information about the actual processes of construction for the tube lines. If you have a membership to your local library check to see if they subscribe to Gale Databases. This has digitised archives of The Times newspaper and Illustrated London News both of which contain articles that show how developments were reported at the time. The free access The Gazette website contains the London Gazette archive in which all of the private bills for new railways were published. For early lines the published bills often describe the plan line in some detail.--DavidCane (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I do have Gale access through my library card and it's invaluable. I don't think Victoria line is too far off GA; it's been there once before and had a PR since, so it was in reasonable shape when I got to it. I've got most of the history done with Day / Reed, Wolmar and the Times archive, which (once I'd gone through the relevant search results) managed to verify a lot of the unsourced content in the article. There are still some {{fact}} tags, and the technical / rolling stock information needs revising, which really isn't my area of expertise. It strikes me though, that armed with Horne's book, it shouldn't be too hard to make Victoria line a good topic, given several station articles are GA or could be without too much effort. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 

Sir Ritchie333, you are hereby awarded the Diffusing Conflict Award of Extreme Merit (with Gold and Silver Stars) [1]. EEng 13:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed I managed to find a diff of "civil and constructive manor". I see this sort of mistake more on what youngsters call "social media" (and I call "arguing with random strangers on the internet"), along with things that really get my goat like "wouldn't of done that", mixing up "were" to "where" (as Aleksandr Orlov said - "DON'T EVEN SOUND SAME!"), and "damp squid". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Damp squid?!? Allow me a LMFAO on that one. Never heard that abomination. Irondome (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's right there with 9 others! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's there! Its all true! Nip it in the butt!! That is my favourite now. Nip it in the butt hahahahahahahha!!! (snort) Sigh. Yes. Irondome (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 

Hi Ritchie hope all's good. I seem to have created my first article. Well it's now a blue link anyway. It is Saturday Zoo (TV Series). I think it's notable and will not get wiped. I did not use the article wizard. Should I just beaver away at it, and will various bots sort it into categories etc? I've only been a regular since 2012, but better late than never I s'pose. Irondome (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's already got ominous-looking tags all over it. Looking for sources now. Irondome (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it meets WP:TVSHOW : "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)". Was this the show where Nirvana went on and played "Territorial Pissings", trashing all their gear at the end? That's a DYK hook and notability right there. Let me see what I can find regarding sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah! It was also Steve Coogans very first TV break and it had John Shutteworth giving Danny DeVito and Christopher Walken some of his music tapes. I still remember DeVito's face lmao! It had some A list guests. Cheers for any help mate! Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah no, Nirvana was two years earlier on Tonight with Jonathan Ross. But yes, it was Coogan's first TV moment ("bag o' shite") and Shuttleworth, and I've got a source here that said Madonna was on it too. Give me a mo and I'll beef it up a bit more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It was Coogan's first outing of Paul 'bag o shite' Calf yep. The show is also strongly mentioned in this bizarre little spat [[2]] from 2009. Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the help Ritchie. You are a great colleague. I am just a bit paranoid that the speedy delete crowd would trash it, which would not be good for my content creation confidence :/ I owe you several dozen pints at the next London meet up. Si. Irondome (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As stated in a recent above, things like this are like a dog spotting a squirrel. I've got some admin stuff to attend to, and shopping in real life, but no - one look at that stub, and .... "SQUIRREL!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been trying to give up shopping in the real world. But I know just what you mean about squirrels. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry Martin, e/c):::::::::Glad it got your interest Richie! I love odd little things like that. I have ideas for other stuff in pop culture and other areas that has not been touched by WP. My age I suppose. I am just too bloody slow, and I suppose I should prepare my sources before creating a stub. I dunno. Now I am aware of why there is the schism between deletion and project growth. Anyway, it is scary to think something may be wiped. Gotta get my head round that. Really cool how you (and others) immediately pitch in and improve when you see something worthy. Really restored my faith in WP. Ta. Si Irondome (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry Domey. We all get fits of paranoia now and then. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Did I see a volcano mentioned here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 

Well, we've done the hard work of getting it past stub-stage, so now let's think of a good hook for Did you know so we can get it on the main page? And yes, the rumours are all true - when you get a team working on an article and pulling it together like this, it makes you think that WP is something worth persevering with! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's actually quite moving. Don't laugh now! I am now reading up on DYK..Thanks everyone. Sydome. Irondome (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Am pleased to say that there are some gems on YT, including the magnificent John S aka "The Shuttmeister" with the enchanting "Pigeons in Flight". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Used to like it when we used to put up YT to express a point or just for the lulz. But we can't now, I know. (Sigh) Si. Irondome (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No, we still can if we're planning a little holiday from Wiki and want to stir up a little mini drama. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Right then ..... Template:Did you know nominations/Saturday Zoo Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow so those are the 'hooks'? Cooool! Si Irondome (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Curmudgeonly commentary - I was going to review this to encourage Irondome regarding how much fun and profit there is in article creation, but I've run into a little snag regarding the first hook. I can access Easily Distracted via Google Books, but it says that his first television appearance was on a show called First Exposure in May 1988. Am I missing something? I can't give you a page number, because Google isn't kind enough to provide me that information. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the "It was also Steve Coogans very first TV break" comes from this talk page thread, not the source, so I obviously got the two things mixed up. I've adjusted it to say it was the first TV appearance of Paul Calf, which is what it should be. The source is here if you can access that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting much deeper into curmudgeon territory than intended, but the source says that it was the first TV appearance of Pauline Calf, yes? I don't want poor Irondome's DYK experience to end up at ERRORS. <shudder> 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That was also debuted on Saturday Zoo but after Paul Calf (who had been first tried out at live shows). AFAIK, the source means the first appearance of Pauline full stop was on the show. Or we could just cut out the middle man, ping The Rambling Man and send the whole shebang to WP:ERRORS2...... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Got it. By context, I gather it appears on one page I can't access via the link. Alright, I'm going to do the review now. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, enshrined at YT, I'm glad to say (published on 31 May 2012, 70,057 views), but it is possible that "eurochrissy2" is not the true copyright owner. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A throwaway source here, but it does show some of the characters - "Simon Day and John Thomson play Bruce and Larry, with news from Hollywood." .... "Penn and Teller rodent roulette etc " (... their first time in the country? - now that might be worth a DYK hook?).. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I get that you have to source hooks, and I don't know if they were in the same episode, but how about 'DYK a rodent and a calf both appeared on Saturday zoo?' Irondome (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That's much better than the starter for two I put in - if you can get the sources, we'll have that. In the meantime, I'll run off and create WP:SQUIRREL..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Haha, what a cool hook. Not real rodents alas, only rat-traps, but at least Lazy Susan gets a look-in.... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bugger. If only we had YT, it's like we are working blind. This is a three pint problem Dr Evans...Irondome (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, I expect the high-priced lawyers over at Sue, Grabbit & Runne, acting for the penniless Mr Ross and Channel X, are even now waiting to pounce on the slightest link to a copyright infringing clip of a 25-year-old show that most people had forgotten about..... but, as you know, policy is policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bag o' shite Irondome (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that somebody once got Jonathan Woss deleted without even going to Wediwects for discussion. Witchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You are cowwect. It was the well-meaning Anthony Bwadbury I believe. Irondome (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 

 

 

This nonsense explanation is evidence that you have no business being an administrator. That "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)" repeatedly inserted unsourced, contentious content into a BLP, which you would have quickly discovered yourself had you taken just a minute to look at the recent edit history of the article. I did precisely what Wikipedia expects in this situation with a BLP: removed the unsourced content and explained why via edit summary. It wasn't a subjective matter; it was obviously objective. So when the "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)" repeatedly inserted the inappropriate content, I issued a warning on their talk page. The editor then immediately (one minute later) retataliated by issuing a warning on my talk page, even though I had done nothing improper. But she knew that a biased admin like you would see what was going on, jump in, and take the side of the editor with an account and go after the IP editor, even though the IP editor was completely correct. You took the bait. And after all the ridiculous battling, the "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)" finally admitted that she knew all along that there was no source for the content she kept re-adding, but that she just assumed it was probably true based solely on her her own beliefs and logic. And when I asked you why you issued me a block but not her, you said you didn't want to "whack (her) over the head with a silly block!" because she's been around a long time. Did you even hear yourself as you typed that? Talk about gutless. Well, guess what, I didn't ask you about blocking her. I didn't even say a word about a block. I simply asked why you didn't warn her on her talk page, as you did me? Although it's amazing I have to explain this to you, what you should've done to immediately put the dispute to rest was to simply tell her, "Stop re-adding unsourced content to that BLP. The sources do not say that!" And then you should've thanked me for protecting the article. But you took the easy, cowardly road by using your powers to go after an IP who was clearly right, and protecting an editor with an account, even though you knew damn well what that editor was doing was not only disruptive, but a clear BLP violation. Finally, you said, "And 'I am right and the other party is wrong' never gets you off the hook with a block. Actually, that's total bullshit and is obviously completely wrong. But you already know that. Do you think when there is a dispute between two editors on a noticeboard, and one is determined to be right about the issue at hand, and the other wrong, that the editor who is right is "not off the hook"? So, when you say, "the job of an admin is to try and reduce disruption and defuse difficult situations," is that what you accomplished in this situation? Think long and hard about that. Grow a spine. An admin's job is to protect the encylopedia, not editors. That is the most basic tenet of being an effective, fair and competent administrator. You did the opposite. You should resign. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered the merits of a nice cup of tea and a sit down? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

More evidence showing why you should resign. You posted your response literally within 15 seconds of my comments appearing on your page, which proves not only your immaturity but also your inability to be trusted to do what's in the best interests of this project. Resign. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The current version of Edgar Snyder says "After 32 years of marriage, Snyder and his wife Saundra (Sandy) began divorce proceedings in 2014." which I believe is what you wanted the prose to read. Regarding "Finally, you said, "And 'I am right and the other party is wrong' never gets you off the hook with a block. Actually, that's total bullshit and is obviously completely wrong" - the remark is part of the examples of bad unblock requests, which in turn is part of the appealing a block guideline, which in turn is described as "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". Furthermore, the edit warring policy says "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." - so far from being "total bullshit and obviously completely wrong", it is actually "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I timed it at 15.8 seconds. I think a resignation is called for only below 15.3. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

15.3 is the bright line standard. It's still up for debate whether 15.8 seconds calls for a resignation. 15.9 seconds is pretty much in the clear, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, hang on, 15.9 was done in the Suzuki Liana, didn't they all change when we switched over to the Kia Ceed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's true, but until you manage to up your drifting game, you can expect editors to continue to call for your resignation. How can you mop if you can't float, bro? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

But please don't be quite so waspish with the passive-aggressive and petulantly condescending tea advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You are the prince of red herrings, sidestepping the real issue: your behavior as an administrator. But you know exactly what you're doing by this tactic. It's classic trolling. The content as it stands now is completely irrelevant to this converstation. When you issued that bogus warning, you completely disregarded the fact that an editor was repeatedly inserting unsourced, contentious content into a BLP. A quick look would've shown you that. So you're either incompetent or lazy. Or you just didn't care; you saw a named account vs an IP, and you went after the IP, regardless of what the edit history was showing. You still have yet to acknowledge that what the editor did was an indisputable violation and that she was fully aware when she did it that no sources existed for that content (even though she subsequently admitted it). And you keep blabbering about blocks when no one, except you, has ever said a word about blocks. It's clear that you're afraid to even mention the edit-warring exemption for contentious, unsourced content in BLPs? Why didn't you stop it from happening? Why didn't you address it with the editor who was doing it? Why did you choose to issue a warning to the editor who was removing the bad content, but not to the one who was adding it? We already know why. Because she's a "longstanding editor (with a clean block log)". Your words, not mine. Regarding "Hang on, hang on, 15.9 was done in the Suzuki Liana, didn't they all change when we switched over to the Kia Ceed?", again proves your inability to act fairly and professionally in your capacity as an admin. You've proven yourself to be a childish little boy, afraid to directly address any criticism. I guess you'll need more help from you little friends to protect you. Resign. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Going off topic a minute, if you haven't watched the brilliant Rules for Rulers, watch it now. As you can see, the best way for rulers to optimise a democracy towards their needs is to gerrymander and bias the voting system so that your popularity is super-duper low, but your electability is, if not super-duper high, just enough above everyone else. (And, oh look at all those tax cuts, straight out of the "how to make democracy play into your hands" handbook). And that's where we are. So impeachment is still a very long shot, and heck I'm not even sure about the Dems (or even a Republican who's not a total nut-job) getting in in 2020, because I'm fairly confident that Trump will play his "the establishment are out to get me WAAAAAH" card, and he's only got to get one vote above the competition and no more. Still, unlike Brexit, it's statistically likely there will be a time when I am still alive but Trump is dead, so that gives me a ray of optimism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

One issue I take with these sorts of videos (though I'm watching it now) is that each one presumes itself to be 100% correct (Yep. It's that tired old problem again), even when they contradict each other. It's really not something that we can say "Do X, Y and Z to succeed as a ruler" and be accurate with any certainty.

That being said, the claims here seem to have some meat to them. It's describing pretty much exactly how Trump won; he got the Electoral college votes by taking advantage of republican gerrymandering and low Democrat turnout. Remember, Hillary lost that election as much as Trump won it, even though she carried the popular vote (by quite a margin, no less).

I haven't given up hope, and the current trends seem to back my optimism: Republicans in much of what was Trump Cuntry two years ago are not only getting more critical of Trump and his broken promises to bring back the manufacturing jobs they wanted, but some are even switching sides. On top of that, Democrats are mobilizing in record numbers. The "blue wave" seems to actually be a thing at the moment, though of course that might change.

The South might still be 90% Trumpsters, but the midwest is changing from a slightly purplish red to a solid shade of lavender. It's actually rather shocking.

Despite my inability to give up hope, I'm actually resigned to another Trump/Trumpesque term, though I would bet good money that an impeachment would happen before 2024.

Honestly, the best hope for America is for Trump to have a heart attack and die (which is quite likely, all things considered) before the end of his term. That, or an impeachment, because Trump would almost certain screw himself over during impeachment proceedings. Pence could never run that election against any decent Democrat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I hear he does like a burger. Rather puts our puny UK politicians to shame. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, after events of the last few years, I have kind of given up hope in the democratic systems we have being able to insulate us from stupid people. Sample comment from a forum yesterday when I complained about Brexit being economic ruin and a house price crash was "money isn't everything" (except if you're homeless and starving to death, when it does mean something). Democrats might be mobilising in numbers, but they mustn't make the mistake they did last time of putting up a candidate that is "eh" at best, and the "Trump killer" (who is basically going to get all the moderate Republicans and Libertarians to switch without losing any Dems, which is what you need to win) has not turned up yet (or if they have, they're not making enough noise about it). As far as dying of natural causes, it's possible and could happen at any moment. I'm wondering if his (current) wife is going to leave him before he dies - if you saw all that misogynistic groping and affairs over the news, and you were spending lots of time apart and not allowed to stray from the party line, you'd feel like jumping ship wouldn't you? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I never had any hope in Democracy insulating us from stupidity. But I've noticed that the level and type of stupidity is fluid, so I push for the nicer, lesser stupid.

I like you example. It reminds me that America doesn't have a monopoly on astronomically stupid political arguments. I'm still chuckling over the sheer vapidity of that.

The lack of the Trump Killer is not as much of a problem, I think. Or rather, I think most people have set their bar for whom they would consider a Trump Killer too high. Any charismatic, centrist politician who's not afraid to take on Trump's level of bluntness can do it, and Trump has certainly been making politicians more blunt. The main problem I see is the Dem's rush to push progressive candidates. Yeah, I want the Dems to move to the left, but that's not gonna win over republicans, except for a very few who feel completely disenfranchised, like minorities and women. But that's always been the case: the Republicans have been bleeding women and minorities for decades, a slight uptick won't change anything.

As for Melania, I bet there's a prenup standing between her and the door. Or possibly (just speculating here, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit) the actual threat of violence. But I would laugh my ass off if she filed while he was still in office. Maybe that would be enough to set his fatty black ticker off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're going off-topic. Because that's what you do; run from criticism and questions about your actions. It's what children do; change the subject, try to bury it, and hide. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If I wanted to run from criticism and questions, I would have deleted your edits and blocked you, yet you are still here to tell the tale. I've given you an answer; it's just not the one you want to hear. If you feel hard done by, you can raise a complaint on WP:ANI. I would suggest that the light ribbing you have received from other editors on this page suggests that nobody else actually cares about your complaint. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I dunno about that. I know I would show up at such an ANI thread and having something to say about it... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. First time a sitting Arb blocked! EEng 17:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih isn't a sitting Arb. Softlavender (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Our dear friend EEng is late with the gossips. Alex Shih (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess so. OK, well, let me rerun a similar joke from the past. [3] EEng 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the best hope for America is for Trump to have a heart attack and die (which is quite likely, all things considered) before the end of his term. That, or an impeachment, because Trump would almost certain screw himself over during impeachment proceedings But then we get Pence and honestly I think, if I believe in Satan, he may actually be him. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That reminds me of a joke. Trump and Pence are sitting around the oval office talking about Trump's critics.

Trump: The less people talking about this latest scandal, the better!

Pence: The *fewer*.

Trump: Shhh. Don't call me that in public yet.

But in direct response; like I said above. There's no way Pence could win an election against any reasonable Dem candidate, especially if he'd had a few months or a year in office already. He's further to the right than Trump is, and has none of the buffoonishness that some people interpret as "charisma". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to say it took me a while to get that joke - if you read it in a British accent it doesn't scan as appropriately as a Deep Southern one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to read it in one of those funny London accents, *tee-hee*. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Pence is the human embodiment of this scary guy. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure he's not this guy? I mean, if Pence turned up in the sewer outside my house and said he'd found the paper boat I lost as a 6 year old and that life down in the sewer was good for the economy, well ..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, clowns, even killer clowns smile too much to be Pence. Also he'd probably catch fire if he were caught in rainbow. ;) Besides, blood sucking secret vampire seems right up this administrations alley. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Chrissy. Trump himself might be a stupid version of Pennywise, but Pence is more like this guy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My new campaign slogan, thanks MPants at work!I've been reading this book and in my head it's a dystopian novel but then I remember it's real life. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, regarding this, Leadsoprano1 (and Leadsoprano2) are not socks of Leadsoprano - it was Nsmutte being disruptive. He has created quite a lot of pretend socks of people who've been reported to WP:3RR over the past couple of weeks. --bonadea contributions talk 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

+1. These two numbered accounts are Nsmutte. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a checkuser (waves to BU Rob13) to confirm this? If so, I will reduce the block accordingly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Compare [4]. I guess I got the "simple and obvious" wrong! Bishonen | talk 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC).

Checkuser needed and endorsed, fwiw, to expedite loosening the block (I can't comment for certain that Leadsoprano is not Nsmutte, but I'm very certain of the others) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Not too familiar with the technical markers of Nsmutte and haven't looked into whether the accounts are them, but I can say they definitely aren't socks of Leadsoprano. Completely   Unrelated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who chose the final decision to make a redirect form a company to a single group ^[1], so I am writing to you. I submitted a semi protected edit request to get the page restored with evidence of how it fits the WP:NCORP standard. The issue is the label is a smaller one that is not anywhere near mainstream, so articles wont be as plentiful as say Universal records articles. What other information do I need to supply to get that page restored? Froggyfixit (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Froggyfixit: I think John from Idegon has given you the appropriate advice - you can challenge the deletion debate at a deletion review, or file a retargeting request at redirects for discussion. As the closing an administrator, I don't have any strong views on the article - if I did, I would have a conflict of interest, which would be bad). Looking at the page's history, I see a huge amount of disruptive back-and-forth editing, which is what led to the page being semi-protected. I think at this stage you're probably best of forgetting about this topic and looking at one of the other 5 million articles on Wikipedia to improve instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: So if you as the closing one shouldnt have any conflicts of interest, should the nominating one not have any? John from Idegon was the target of verbal harrassment due to his repeated deletion of linked content (not from me, I saw those last night) before he proposed deleting the entire page; and relenting to the redirect. I feel that may have created animosity there. I will challenge in the other spots you have mentioned, but if the final decision cant be biased, why can the one who initially proposed it have bias? Froggyfixit (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply put - nobody who participated in the debate said they wanted to keep the article. That's pretty much the extent of my involvement. For the record, John from Idegon should not have violated the three revert rule on 27 August, and had I been around at the time, I would probably have blocked him for it - but blocks are not punishment so doing it retrospectively is against policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, one of the readers of Faygoluvers.net, a website that I have owned and operated for nearly 20 years, brought to my attention that the Majik Ninja Entertainment page has been unpublished due to unreliable sources. Most of those sources are from my website, and attributed to myself (Scott Donihoo aka Scottie D). I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that we are unreliable, as we work directly with Majik Ninja Entertainment, as well as other artists and labels that we cover.

This is the link in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Majik_Ninja_Entertainment

Please respond or feel free to contact me directly at (Redacted) with any questions. Thank you.

04:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Scott Donihoo (aka Scottie D) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.179.232 (talk)

As stated above, I have no opinion on this article, I simply closed the Articles for deletion debate. See the above reply for suggestions of what to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the level headed response. I see in the admin chat that I was accused of a conflict of interest, or being a sock puppet. I dont really like that, and it appears I was away too long ot be able to respond there. is there a way I can clear that up or should I just let it go? Froggyfixit (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This IP keeps on adding fake content, for example changing names of contestants on the polish show to those from philippine version, or changing them to names of movie characters, such as Fluttershy or Frankenstein. This is obvious vandalism. Lupus28 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There have been no edits for 12 hours, so I'd leave it be for the minute. If they start up making rapid-fire unexplained changes, we can block then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. Just a question that's been bugging me. Was there ever formalised admin coaching on WP? It came up because I checked out the essay WP:TTR and it has a couple of rather enigmatic references to it. Just wondered what it's history was, and does it have a place in today's WP RfA scene. Cheers mate Simon Adler (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think admin coaching was popular back in the old days when we had 10+ nominations every month. You basically got somebody to tell you when to !vote "keep" at AfDs and up your "AfD score" and which noticeboards to post on, in order than everyone would support you. Nowadays, people can spot when you're trying to game the system, so it doesn't really apply anymore. Instead, we've got Request a RfA nomination which is more or less the same thing, adjusted for the fact we now have about 1 RfA a month, and it can be contentious and unpleasant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah right. Yep that would account for the references to it. Appreciated. Simon Adler (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not able to find evidence of notability for Thieves and Villains, but I was wondering if you could take a look before I send it to PROD or AfD. Thanks in advance, Vanamonde (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The litmus test is to type "site:billboard.com <band name>" into Google. If you get nothing back (and I didn't), then it might be an AfD candidate. A genuinely notable band should at least trip up on one search hit there, ideally showing a chart position. The nice thing about WP:NBAND is that having a hit is an easy bright line that you either have or you haven't, so it tends to stop arguments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, good to know! I'm confident in my ability to search for conventional sources, but there are obscure but reliable music sites I know nothing of. Appreciated. I've sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thieves and Villains. Vanamonde (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Old 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering why an entire record labels page was deleted by you? All company history information was deleted and was redirected the page of a band on the label (and founders) wiki page.

There are 24 current and active bands and artist on this label. and it is a subsidiary of Universal Music GroupI have read the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majik Ninja Entertainment and as I am not an admin, therefore I don't really understand the reasoning of "Absolutely no indication this endeavor meets WP:NCORP" so can you explain?

I am currently a member of the labels promotion street team and a major fan of this label. Maybe I can help with some of the information or conversation. At the very least, can you explain why this company and its artist don't meet the requirements for a page?

--Privitor (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Privitor: I didn't delete this article, the history is here. There has been a follow-up discussion here which you should read carefully first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok, I looked but didn't see other questions on your talk page. But I understand that this has been a continued conversation for you. I did see in the history that you didn't "delete" the page, just redirected it to the artist's page which then got redirected to a sub-header. My opinion on the matter is I know its hard to find a source of information for this and that is what is needed for wiki content. The primary source typically comes from interviews, live streams, videos, social media, and newsletters from the founders about the label so it's hard to pinpoint a direct source. Wikipedia was used as a collection place for most of the data making it the official source of content. I can attempt to add verifiable information about the company to the band's personal page if that's what we must do. and as for the now deleted Majik Ninja Entertainment Discography, maybe we can start adding the information in the individual artist pages. Just thought it was silly to delete (redirect) all content to an article when the band originally started the independent label. Would it be better to leave the formation info on the band's personal page and add a new header explaining the new status of the label and merge the old page into the band's personal page? --Privitor (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when an admin closes an deletion discussion, they can only go on what people asked for. It's a bit like blaming the returning officer for an election result you didn't like - they just did their job and did what people wanted. There are a number of options available that were discussion on the noticeboard thread; the most obvious is to use the article wizard to create a new draft article that can be independently reviewed and then put back into mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This may be of interest, or not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thanks for the heads up. I think the four threads at the top of his talk page right now are reason enough for me to think an RfA from that user would at best get no consensus, and at worst get SNOW closed, depending on how mean spirited the first opposers were. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. At least one of those represents poor editing judgement and it's too recent. It would become a lightning rod for opposition at an RfA. It doesn't help that they didn't admit the mistake although they did disengage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

On occasion, I have done a couple of WP:BOOMERANG blocks at AIV, where the user reported was not unambigiously editing in bad faith and where the reporter had continually reverted them to the point of 3RR. At that point I've got a policy backed reason to block, and I've used the occasion to explain WP:NOTVANDALISM very carefully. The minute they "get it", I unblock. It's a bit of a blunt instrument, but it can be a useful learning tool. I think one guy retired, but had about 2-3 other admins (who aren't particularly close friends of mine) telling him the block was good and he should have seen it coming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 

 

 

Hope you and family are doing well. You must have been asked this before (I've not checked, but assuming so...); I'm wondering why haven't you considered running for arbcom? Given your experience here, I, for one, would look forward to having you as one of the arbs... Lourdes 05:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've been asked directly, but I find Arbcom work as about as exciting as watching grass grow, I'd just procrastinate over everything, and tell all participants to go and look at kittens. What was that screenshot Iridescent posted a while back saying "You have 793 unread messages"? That just makes me think "I don't get paid for this - forget it". Unfortunately, that means that Arbcom is a perfect example of the Peter principle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have indirectly asked Ritchie before. Arbcom work is flexible, as you choose your own workload; meaning that you can just stay inactive for the entire year while telling people to watch kittens in the background. That's entirely acceptable. At least for the sake that one of the critics would now need to think of a new line to critcise, eh? What have you got to lose Ritchie, other than 1 less GA a month (I guess that's a lot to lose though). Alex Shih (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There's little point in criticising Arbcom for anything. It achieves nothing at all. The latest episode where an IBAN was extended without appeal for six months just for asking if it could be considered to be removed sums up the futility of it all, and demonstrates that those individuals believe they run Wikipedia, not that they're a service who work on our behalf. Don't go there Richie, ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie, I agree. Better do GA reviews ;) - On the committee, all you can do is agree with Opabinia regalis. Alex, you could have done that, no? Instead of leaving them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can agree with OR (eg: "hey, aren't cats wonderful?") without needing to join arbcom to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Strictly for arb matters of course. I asked all these candidates if they could agree, most said yes, then I voted for some of those, then they didn't. Disappointing. - I'm happy that Joe returned, even after this waste of time of two cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a quick read through Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a now and see if I'm up for reviewing it. In the meantime, here is a lovely four-part fugue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the music! - I should probably not interrupt your reading, but now I typed it (ec): How about being a candidate, if only to prevent that another valuble content editor gets banned for 6 months? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not expecting her to say "yes" but I think with all of the management of Trump articles this year (what a masochist), MelanieN might make a good arb .... if we can keep WP:SQUIRRELs away from her, at least. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not expecting her to say "yes" Your expectation is correct. Thanks for the thought, but I'd rather drive bamboo splints under my fingernails. Flaming ones. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And that's very much the issue, isn't it; anyone who wants to be an Arb really badly shouldn't be one, and reluctance to be on ARBCOM is very much a feature of some of the best candidates (you included, MelanieN). Vanamonde (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The article Old Street station you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Old Street 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)