User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 126

Archive 120

←

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

→

Archive 130

Double vote

Hi. You have voted twice in this poll: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#Passed:_7D_Remove_autopatrolled_from_default_toolkit 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

4nn1l2, Oh yeah, so I have. Duh. I've struck it, I don't think it affects the end result of the discussion, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

... and that's been reverted by Primefac for the (not unreasonable) view that the discussion is closed. I don't suppose we could IAR a little and let the strike for a duplicate vote stand? I just think this is important because anyone who objected to the proposal can look at the double voting and object. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I will make a note of it on the page. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Barkeep49 gave me back the autopatrolled right. I assume this was procedural, since I had the right before I became an admin, or perhaps it's because all admins who have been awarded "Precious" by Gerda can be intrinsically trusted to be autopatrolled. (Well, I can dream). Looking at the logs, I can see I created six non-redirect articles this year, which is better than none I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Your score for this year seems to be a bit higher at nine. That's not including "Rebecca Wrong Daily" which xtools attributes to you but, as you deleted it, I suppose that was some sort of admin action. Here's the count:

1. Aerodrums
2. Ben Comeau
3. Candace Brightman
4. Eargasm
5. Land of Lost Content (museum)
6. Memphis Soul Stew
7. Royal Hibernian Hotel
8. The Land of Lost Content
9. Welbeck Abbey Brewery

The Land of Lost Content looks most apposite. Note that there's a closer place in London – the Museum of Brands, which I have visited myself. There's some lost food brands which I recall with some nostalgia: the Allinson Roll, Creamola Foam, St. Ivel Lactic Cheese. Hmmm... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, XTools says that I have Cerro Torta, Salar Ignorado, Lake San Agustín, Nevadaplano, Rodwell-Hoskins mechanism, Tahoka Formation, Lubbock Subpluvial, Nevado Tres Cruces (that existed before but I wrote an userspace draft and overwrote it; not sure that this is kosher), Yonaguni Knoll IV, Eifuku, Radon storm, Fixed anvil temperature hypothesis, Monturaqui, Ocean dynamical thermostat, Cerro Overo and Megaherb (same as NTC). However, as I've said elsewhere the annual upkeep of all my articles is becoming increasingly time consuming and I am not sure how long I will be able to do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, Andrew, I've created more articles than I realised. "Rebecca Wrong Daily" was a bad idea, even though it's in reliable sources and not technically a BLP violation as a result, I still thought I'd get flak for the redirect one day. Although we have a far worse one that's still around. Still, I'm surprised I created that many, I'm more into rescuing articles other people have created and making DYKs out of them, or beefing up the quality of what we already have (witness the recent WP:SQUIRRELish activity on various Floyd articles). I do agree with Jo-Jo that it gets more difficult to create new content, particularly as it becomes more obvious existing articles often need good work and sources on them. Maybe I'll get 200 GAs one day, only 47 more to go, so if I can do two a month I'll get there by Christmas 2023. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Old Street station 1920.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old Street station 1920.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcY3W5WgNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcY3W5WgNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcY3W5WgNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcY3W5WgNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcY3W5WgNU Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Request

I reverted vandalism by Special:Contributions/85.116.80.12, but I feel it's RD2 and needs revdel. Could you take a look? Thanks. (I made a mistake there flagging copyvio, sorry.). Hemanthah (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemanthah, That's a serious BLP violation and unambiguous vandalism. Revdelled and blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Potted Shrimp

Hi Ritchie, thanks for your timely redirect suggestion. I've added Potted Shrimp to the list. As far as I can see the book doesn't mention who wrote the piece, nor do less reliable sources; I guess we can either assume that it was probably Jagger/Richards or just leave it blank. Lennart97 (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Lennart97, It's bizarre how I can't find any reliable sources for this. It's also known as "Tell Her How It Is" after Jagger put some vocals on it, which was considered for a reissue of Exile on Main St. according to this source. As the fan sources say Keith Richards isn't on it, it might be Jagger/Taylor, but I guess Keith wouldn't be happy with that. Until it's officially released, we'll never know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Quite the mystery! At least this song now has the distinction of being the first sourced entry in that list ;) Lennart97 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD Clarification

User:Ritchie333, I noticed you recently closed out an AfD nom process as no consensus, with no votation for deletion, merely all of them as a 'keep.' Can you explain how the AfD nom reached a no consensus? --> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlottetown Police Service Multi7001 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hrm, I'd imagine it's because Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does put some pretty strict limits on when newspapers are proof of notability and the keeps are somewhat skimpy on tha point. It may be a misclick, on the other hand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Multi7001, It was a marginal case. Most of the "keep" arguments were refuted by the nominator, Apocheir, who was the only one advocating deletion. Despite multiple resists, attendance was still sparse and I think "no consensus" reflected that not many people were interested in keeping the article. Since this type of close results in the article being kept, it shouldn't matter too much, I'd have thought. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333, per your mention: "I think "no consensus" reflected that not many people were interested in keeping the article." I have not spent much time on AfD noms, but I did notice that the only nom for deletion was the nominator, while all users who actually voted, including myself, requested for a 'keep,' and one user was impartial and did not favor either. I could not see how that was a no consensus, as the subject had multiple reliable, independent sources. Multi7001 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to improve the article further, expanding the work that TheWolfChild and others did during the debate. For instance, the history has one sentence for 1973 and then suddenly jumps to 2009. I don't see any value in arguing semantics here; the article isn't going to be deleted, and that's the important thing to take away from this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, improving the article further is the next best step. Also, I am only seeking clarification here, as I have not spent much time on AfDs and don't know much about them and was not aware that a no consensus can be reached with no deletion votation. That is good to know and thank you for clarifying that. Multi7001 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A "no consensus" means "no action is taken" or "the status quo prevails". In other words, the article stays. When there's few votes, it's considered a lack of a quorum. – The Grid (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Musician sources

Musicians are really not my thing, so I'd figured I'd ask you: do you think es:Nil Moliner meets en.wiki's inclusion criteria for Musicians. YouTube randomly put one of his songs on for me last night and I've become somewhat obsessed with it (Libertad for reference... it's an earworm.)

Anyway, I was somewhat surprised we didn't have an article on an artist that looks to have at least one studio Album certified gold, and multiple singles that have been certified platinum, but I'm hardly the expert on this topic, and while my Spanish is decent enough to read through Spanish-language sourcing, figuring out what is a reliable source for a BLP of a musician is difficult enough for me in English, so somewhat out of my league here :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, Hard to say; the Spanish Wikipedia article doesn't appear to have BLP quality sources. However, a quick news search does bring up many hits, albeit all in Spanish, so it's possible he does meet the standards for inclusion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

At least some of these look like local/regional newspapers and one academic-ish source. Although I'll voice my scepticism on writing articles based on newspapers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yah. That's kinda where I am. Pretty sure he meets multiple criteria from WP:NMUSIC, which I think there's reliable sourcing for from a notability perspective, but I don't really want to create an article on someone where I can't get decent sourcing to expand beyond a stub, and what counts as decent sourcing for contemporary musicians has always been strange to me when looking at our existing pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on my first review of an FA nomination

I found your name listed in Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor. I attempted my first review of a GA nomination for China–Pakistan Free Trade Agreement here at Talk:China–Pakistan_Free_Trade_Agreement/GA1. I didn't use a template as it was optional. Is there anything else I need to do or should keep in mind? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah I don't think there's anything else you need to do at the moment. If the nominator doesn't get back to you in a reasonable time period (say, 7-14 days) to address the immediate issues on lack of scope and balance, then there shouldn't be an issue failing the review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ben Comeau

On 14 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ben Comeau, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ben Comeau invented a fictitious student of Franz Liszt so he could write a 45-minute piano sonata? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ben Comeau. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ben Comeau), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"ummmm ... Ben who? Er, tempus fugit, something about Peppa Pig, Omicron, waffle...."

Super DYK! I'd give you my monthly calendar image but you got it already. Sharing the page with Gianni Schicchi which I saw - my second opera - as a girl. I miss Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Shame we didn't get the hook I really wanted, but that's consensus / compromise for you. I remember about 25 years ago, I was moaning about Peter Hitchens being some grumbling right-wing nutbag (I think he was on Wikipedia but got indeffed, which figures...) and my then flatmate said, "That's nothing, there's a journalist called Boris Johnson who just makes things up about the EU and talks drivel, he's a mental head-case". Man, he saw it coming before we all did.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

today, an Italian opera, my second ever, as the TFA written by two dear people, and a park where I went with dear people, as pictured DYK - I'm not making this up (that line quoted from Anna Russell --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For putting your decision out there as the first to be reviewed at XRV. Thanks for being a trailblazer and showing an openness to feedback.Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've left a comment. I am hoping that the messageboard goes well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. I think having the first review be self-initiated sets a really healthy precedent. Thank you. Since Barkeep beat me to the barnstar and your user page says you're not a big fan anyway – I hope I'll get the chance to buy you a pint or two one day instead. – Joe (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Echoes (Pink Floyd song)

The article Echoes (Pink Floyd song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

December songs

That's great! - Today: sharing symphonic music - happy listening! - I asked the arb cands if they'd listen, which is an art. - Listen to what de:Jerome Kohl wrote about Zeitmaße, premiered by Pierre Boulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• "So I throw the windows wide. And call to you across the sky." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Gerda I think half the problems we have around here are from people not listening, or at least understanding what the other party wants for the project. Indeed, as Zeitmaße says, "We are seeking to find something. But at bottom, we do not know quite what we are looking for." As far as Arbcom elections go, I do admit to having a bit of a bias towards Thryduulf. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you do ever get the bottom, please let me know. I think I lost some loose change down there a few years back... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That's what happens when you browse EEng's talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yay! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

vacation greetings from Munich, rich in culture, culinary events and meeting dear people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

back home on Beethoven's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

today memories of singing Monteverdi, Handel, Rossini - a triple nod to Brian, an unsurpassed model of constant kindness and helpfulness coupled with competence! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Antonio McKee

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Antonio McKee. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. HeinzMaster (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Echoes (Pink Floyd song)

On 19 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Echoes (Pink Floyd song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Roger Waters thought The Phantom of the Opera's main theme was ripped off from Pink Floyd's "Echoes"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Echoes (Pink Floyd song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Echoes (Pink Floyd song)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays...

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda

		Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda
		So here's some Jingle Wings and some Jingle Navidad Cubana and some Bryn and some Crickmore:Crewe just for you!! Very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Ritchie333! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 22:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!!
	Hello Ritchie, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. Best to the boys. Hope you get to spend some time with them and that all is well. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you everyone for the Christmas messages. I was a bit worried, because some friends of mine I met at a jam session on Sunday tested positive for Covid; fortunately I haven't, and I've been negative for the last few days, so I don't have to isolate away from the rest of my family, and they can all come round and spend Christmas together. Hope everyone's well and wishing you all a happy Christmas. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick, everyone.... all round to Threesie's place for a knees-up!! You can't beat a good bit of jam. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

... and Good Yule and my best wishes for a joyous and safe holidays and for all good things in the coming year. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlottetown Police Service

Three people commented on the nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlottetown Police Service. All were keep. Can you expand the closure to explain why there is no consensus? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm going to take a guess, and suggest looking at #AfD Clarification a short way above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Essentially, there weren't quite enough counter-arguments to discount the opening rationale of the nominator Apocheir, especially " I think much of the disagreement here results from different conceptions of what "significant coverage" means with regards to WP:ORG", which shows generally there isn't a strong consensus for this type of article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there an effective consensus-building mechanism that would be appropriate to apply here? I feel like an RfC would probably meet with just as much apathy from the community. -Apocheir (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ritchie333!

Happy New Year!

Ritchie333,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Rather Rude On RVV's part

I’m not sure why a 12 year old editor who should know better would call you a “wanker”, that really is tasteless, unbecoming of a senior editor, & very poor form. More puzzling is why they chose to retire despite Nosebagbear returning the perm. Very puzzling! Celestina007 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Ritchie333! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Karen Townshend for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karen Townshend, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Townshend until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I only made a few edits to stop a speedy deletion nothing else - I've !voted "redirect" on the relevant AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

AN thread of interest

Unless I missed it, you weren't notified of this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request lifting of editing restriction. I doubt you object, but (a) I could be wrong, and (b) maybe you have a comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, As I recall, I was just attempting to prevent Guy from shooting himself in the foot, and advising him to point the blunderbuss somewhere else and just blast a STOP sign instead, which would involve less pain and a small fine for minor criminal damage .... umm, yeah, this analogy isn't going particularly well, but I don't really have much to say, and I'm happy to go with consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request lifting of editing restriction. Thank you. — Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Mail Notice

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Epiphany

6 January

in friendship

Happy new year, in friendship! - Epiphany seems like a good day to say so, after a Bavarian peasants' mass (sorry, on the train home, no recent pics of that - just keep watching), and two DYK, even with a pic I took. I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, it is Epiphany but it's also the anniversary of this, so I've been watching the biggest and most important diss of Donald Trump, who hasn't gone away yet and who still needs to be kept a close eye on to make sure he never gets near any position of responsibility ever again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Is he safe to use the crayons and safety scissors again yet? Or does he still need supervision from Nanny? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Mali Surmame

Feel free to punt me elsewhere but seems a new editor has made a mess of this article including moving to a misspelled name. Picking a random admin because no idea where besides ANI this would go. Entire recent edit history concerning, so no diffsSlywriter (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really my area of expertise. For Indian Caste articles, Sitush is (I believe) our resident expert. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clavinet

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clavinet 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dark Side of the Moon Tour

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dark Side of the Moon Tour 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 Artem.G -- Artem.G (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clavinet

The article Clavinet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clavinet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar of Good Humour!

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		Your punning on Meat Loaf's RD nom demands recognition by more than just a dashboard light. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP discussion and indirect mention

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. You are also indirectly mentioned in this comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar of Good Humor!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I see that someone has already acknowledged you Meat Loaf RD humor, but for crying out loud, I thought I might as well say something about it too. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Query about likely COI

Hi Ritchie333, hope you are well. I thought I'd come to you directly as you've had prior experience, rather than going straight to COIN. Jhuma1971 is clearly involved with Global Newborn Society, and hasn't responded to my message on User_talk:Jhuma1971#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest, though is still editing Akhil Maheshwari, so wasn't sure if you wanted to step in? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is we need to explain that Wikipedia is not the correct place for what Jhuma1971 is trying to do, and why it won't particularly help their organisation. They aren't editing in bad faith or with malice, but genuinely think they are trying to do the right thing, out of conviction for making the world a better place. So tact and care are required; coming down like a ton of bricks with a block or template is the wrong answer. As for what the right one is, I'm not sure. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

tw^sabin 00:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: I have dealt with the matter. Note that it was a quarter past midnight when you wrote this so I only just got onto actioning it now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review

Morning! I am currently reviewing a good article, can you check my review is all ok before I do my final assessment, the article is on track for a pass! As its my first review, I wanted to discuss with a mentor further, thanks! Trains2050 (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Trains2050: The review doesn't appear to go into much detail. Even an article written by an experienced editor can have comments or ideas that can be discussed. Some examples might include:

• Are you sure the images are well laid out? There are three images on the left-hand side of the article, all placed next to each other.
• There are some repetitive words, for example: "On the platform are two small red brick buildings under a single terracotta tiled roof. Between the buildings is an undercover area for seating. The building displays elements of the Federation Bungalow architectural style." and "The station was constructed during 1923 and the first part of 1924. During construction, the station was often called the Lawler Street station"
• Relating to the last sentence, who often called the station Lawler Street station, how often did they call it that, and why?
• The service information is out of date. How has COVID affected the passenger figures?
• "Christmas Day has a different timetable to other public holidays. At night time, trains are half-hourly or hourly" This is confusing. Does it mean trains are half-hourly or hourly at night time on Christmas Day, or night time in general?
• Have there been any accidents or incidents at the station?

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you, sorry its my first one so wanted to make sure, Can I add the changes that you said to my review, I will credit you. Thanks and sorry Trains2050 (talk)

Yes, you can add them if you want to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibles

Maybe this or this from 2019. There were two other possibles, but both of them have mostly stopped editing.

From 2018, this and this and this may be be possibles. valereee (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm just in the middle of composing an email about this, gimme a sec. (For talk page stalkers, I prefer strong and blunt criticism of editors to be off-wiki from time to time). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Rhodes Piano

Hi Richie333,

I was tasked by our CEO to edit the Wiki page as there were a few inaccuracies and a lot of missing information about the companies new history. Can I still add the sections I did (Rhodes Music Group, Rhodes MK8, Matt Pelling & Dan Goldman)? These topics are all key elements to the companies history and none of which were included in the Wiki page. I don't believe I attempted to advertise in favour of the company, I just believe all the information I put in was all key elements. How would we go about including these sections without COI?

Thank you very much and I apologise for causing any issues, I wasn't aware of these guidelines.

Thanks again, Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Dumouchel (talk • contribs) 11:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Christian.Dumouchel: The first thing to explain is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That might be stating the obvious, but what separates an encyclopedia from a business directory or magazine is it summarises what is already known using the best quality source material available in a neutral and disinterested manner. Writing such as "The Rhodes brand exists because of the unmistakable sound of our keyboards and our incredibly loyal fanbase. Love for Rhodes electric pianos has created extensive online communities of passionate owners and enthusiasts, which we celebrate. Dedication to progress fuels our passion for music performance and production, along with our desire to see the legacy of the Rhodes keyboard continue far into the future." has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch is a good page to have a look at.

As for what we could additionally include in the article, my obvious thought is the source Classic Keys: Keyboard Sounds That Launched Rock Music isn't used much. In my view, it's probably the best source material to use on "classic" electromechanical keyboards, and has received rave reviews and endorsements from established musicians such as Rick Wakeman, Donald Fagen, Steve Nieve and Chuck Leavell. In terms of Rhodes personnel, the book mentions design engineer Mike Peterson, quality engineers Mike Kahrs and Paul Gagon and R&D engineer John R. McLaren. There is nothing about the people you mentioned above, and the history stops at CBS' closure of Rhodes in 1985. So I don't think they can be included. The article must give due weight to the appropriately important parts in the instrument's history ie: from the 1950s to the early 1980s, which is what the majority of available sources do. I have to disagree that the topics you mention are "key elements" - if I wanted a Rhodes sound in the early 70s, I needed an actual Rhodes; nowadays I can use any number of emulations that are sufficient for the job. What's the new Rhodes going to give me that the Nord Stage and Logic Pro can't? I can recreate Richard Wright's Rhodes intro to Pink Floyd's "Sheep" in Logic and I seriously can't tell the difference between that and the real thing.

I completely understand you weren't purposefully trying to cause trouble and thought you were trying to do the right thing (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). The best analogy I can think of is to imagine that you've got some bricks and cement, and tried to build a wall, only to find it collapsed during the first bit of bad weather. Much of the easy work on Wikipedia has already been done, and the hard work of improving the prose and factual accuracy takes more experience and skill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Richie333,

Thank you for the very well written response. I should have done some research before going straight into an edit. At least I am fully clued up on how Wikipedia actually works.

I do need to mention that the founder of Rhodes (Harold Rhodes) gave the rights to the company to Joe Brandstetter of Rhodes Music Corporation in America, who then created the MK7. After an unsuccessful run of the MK7, Joe Brandstetter sold the rights onto Matt Pelling of Rhodes Music Group - which is what Rhodes stands as today. I strongly believe we are part of Rhodes history as we own the original rights and trademark. But maybe I'm missing a point you're making. Surely we are a part of the Rhodes story. I 100% agree that what I wrote on the Rhodes Piano page does not belong on Wikipedia as it was borderlining on advertisement. But I disagree that the information regarding new ownership and products should not be included. Legally, we ARE Rhodes. We are listed on company house as so, and we own all trademark and rights to the original brand.

In terms of emulations, there is always an argument on emulations vs the real thing. Our product IS a Rhodes, we bought the company which included all original designs and all intellectual property. We aren't copying, we are developing.

Again, apologies for causing an issue. I truly thought it would be a simple 15-minute task. I respect the skill that goes into writing these Wiki pages. I really appreciate you pointing out my error, and it won't happen again.

Thanks again, Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Dumouchel (talk • contribs) 14:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Christian.Dumouchel: I think I need to clear up some misunderstandings. I'm not saying that the sale of the trademark and ownership shouldn't be documented - it should, provided it can be cited in reliable sources. It's more a question of how much information should be included in the article. I've added some information about the sale from Joe Brandstetter to Loopmasters, which is documented in an All About Gear and MusicRadar source, which are sufficient to document the basic facts. So the article now says, "In 2007, his [Rhodes]' former business parter Joe Brandstetter acquired the rights to the name and re-formed Rhodes Music Corporation. The company introduced a reproduction of the original electric piano, the Rhodes Mark 7, housed in a molded plastic enclosure. In 2021, a new company, Rhodes Music Group Ltd, was formed by the audio company Loopmasters who bought the rights from Brandsetter.", which I think is broadly speaking what you were looking to include.

For now, I think just having that should suffice - the time to add information on new Rhodes models will be when they receive coverage at NAMM and are written about extensively in Sound on Sound. Even then, I think for balance, we probably won't be able to say anything more than a sentence explaining the new instrument's features. If the instrument progresses to be used on a majority of Billboard hot 100 singles, that would be the time to give greater coverage and prominence. But we don't know that it will; we can only report what we know now, not what we hope will happen in the future. (See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). To give another example, the Hammond SKX Pro has been recently released, but until I can see a Sound on Sound review of it, it can't be mentioned in Hammond organ yet.

I hope that all makes sense. I wouldn't worry about making "errors"; longstanding editors can generally tell when somebody is trying to help and when somebody's just messing around, and if it's not obvious, we'll always assume good faith that it's the former. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Richie333,

Thank you for understanding. I largely underestimated how much actually goes into creating and editing these Wikipedia pages. As I stated on the COI board, I really wasn't aware of the guidelines.

I am glad this matter has been resolved, and I will certainly refrain from making any further blatant edits in the future.

I appreciate and respect your work throughout this matter.

Kind regards, Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Dumouchel (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Richie33,

There has actually been a Sound on Sound article written about the MK8: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/rhodes-mk8

Not sure if this is what you were referring to.

Thanks again, Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Dumouchel (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking of. I've dropped a bit more information; I think of particular importance is to show the designers' connection to other notable music companies like Moog Music, which will help strengthen the importance of this bit of the article. I would add that while new users aren't up to speed with the finer points of Wikipedia policy, they are sometimes subject experts, and therefore we need to recognise that and take their expertise as and when we can get it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review

Since it does not look like you, as the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Marsh (writer) (2nd nomination), were notified, I am notifying you about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 2#Ian Marsh (writer). BOZ (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration

My wiki-friend, I've written a statement 5 times and deleted it before posting on the ArbCom case. I don't know why but I get deathly afraid of ArbCom. Maybe it's because they do have so much control but not really much more than the average admin and I do believe most every admin has a healthy view of their position within the community. Arbs are no different. I appreciate you recognizing my comment there. It definitely was a plea to the editor Timwi and not the admin Timwi. I don't know why it's so hard for some admins to separate themselves from it. I just didn't want to see another Rexxs and I wish I had been here to at least offer the same plea to him. I can't express how much I believe in the principle pillars/foundations of this encyclopedia and community. I don't write many idle words here if any at all. They all have purpose geared towards building the community and by that improving the encyclopedia. I believe Admins should be held to a higher standard and the community seems to agree with that. Timwi's admin actions were a problem because of how involved he was in the situation and because he couldn't separate the editor from the admin. I don't want to lose the editor Timwi but if he can't separate the two then the problem will repeat and we will lose him anyway. ArbCom has to take the case or rule by motion. I know it. I just feel for Timwi but at the same time I know his actions caused this and I believe we must protect the community and encyclopedia from admin actions like this. I'm saddened in my heart that Timwi hasn't responded because it means the potential loss of an editor, even though it is his own choice, and that might not matter to some but to me every single one of them counts for something. My hope is he returns but that hasn't been fulfilled in most cases I have read or been introduced to. Yet I still hope. --ARoseWolf 14:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: If Timwi was a regular editor, had argued at the AfD in exactly the same manner, and then ducked out and taken a break, then at worst there would be a closed ANI thread with a result like "The issue is stale. No further action needed." In the grand scheme of things, this is not a major issue. While there's evidence that an administrator reversed a clear consensus to do something and didn't communicate effectively when challenged - the thing they are being challenged on has already been overturned (by me deleting the article). I think people are frustrated that they aren't getting any response or closure on this, and that causes people to get cross. It doesn't help that there are real life events with those in charge attempting to brush aside issues without comment.

Looking back to the reasons I've taken lengthy sabbaticals on Wikipedia, they largely haven't been because of any on-wiki activity, but more that I've felt my frame of mind is such that I can't realistically see myself working on Wikipedia in the near future. I don't like the "Retired" template, and the "Taking a break" template is too subtle - on the couple of times I've felt like "I'm taking a break - please don't tempt me back here until I'm ready". In the case of Timwi, I think it's just a case of losing interest and going onto other things. I'm not sure what to do other than wait indefinitely with a resolve to not just close the issue as "stale" but to ensure to our wider readership that admins can be properly held accountable for their actions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of, I'm working on something right now that may lead to me not being here until April. A sabbatical sounds nice. --ARoseWolf 21:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)