User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Article about old bike

Hi Ritchie333

Thank you for reviewing the submitted draft article on the Bootie bicycle. I note your reference to the golden rule and notability.

I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, so I'm a bit confused by this. I do understand the need for independent verifiability, but does wikipedia just ignore stuff that is not covered by multiple sources elsewhere?

There is an independent source, just the one (about 2 pages in the 'It's in the bag' book, and 2 small b&w photos, pp55-57). While describing the bike and providing much background info, it does not provide the sort of measurable, observable detail (eg model number of the front brake caliper, or the wheelbase) given in the draft article nor does it provide a large, clear colour photo. There is simply nothing else about it apart from bootiebike.com.

The information given in the submitted article builds on the info in the book rather than repeating it. It may not be independently verifiable by another source, but it is measurable and observable and obtained from a real life example and supported by the clear photo (and more available). They are facts, not opinion, and cannot be refuted.

In addition, I think the notability of the topic is strengthened, not weakened, by the fact that there is so little else about it elsewhere. Surely this supports wikipedia's raison d'etre?

I have the bike in my hands. I have written about it factually and objectively. I don't think it reads like an advertisement, and it doesn't offer opinions. The content is all observable and measurable. Why is this so difficult?

regards Brian

Conollyb (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Basically, Wikipedia requires multiple, independent, reliable sources to verify that what is said in the article is correct. Once an article is proven to be notable, it will stay in Wikipedia, but it is a ground rule that you must have multiple reliable sources. I have seen quite a few article that have one reliable source end up being deleted via Articles for deletion, so our aim at AfC is to avoid that entirely.

The other issue is that bookiebike.com is a primary source, because it is closely affiliated with the article's subject, so cannot be accepted, which just leaves the book reference as a reliable source. I did have a quick search to see if there was something else (BBC News or The Guardian occasionally have "do you remember" news pieces which can be used as an acceptable reliable source).

I appreciate that this all sounds frustrating, but it is a consistent policy across Wikipedia that applies to any article. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Professional Loudspeakers

Thank you for taking the time to review my article on Community Professional Loudspeakers. Can you please provide some more specific suggestions on how I can revise the article? I received an identical set of comments one month ago, and dramatically revised the article by providing citations and sources for everything in the story.

Thanks, SFall34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFall34 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is, the references were mostly primary sources. What we really need is completely independent people (such as a news or magazine organisation) reviewing the article's subject in depth. Generally, if we can find two or three articles written about a company that has no affiliation, and talk about them in some depth, it can be considered notable and pass. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Declining the article on Gold Dust Magazine

I can accept that you require secondary sources regarding why Gold Dust Magazine is noteworthy, but I think your remark that 'Also, if the magazine has to resort to self publishing to produce content, it probably isn't notable' is rather ridiculous. Surely more or less every magazine in existence 'self publishes'? Time Magazine is published by Time Magazine, National Geographic by National Geographic, and so on. Who would publish a magazine if not itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirat (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• What we mean by self publishing, is that so called "self publishers" will publish anything for a fee, without any editorial or quality insight into it. In your example, Time Magazine may be published by Time Inc, but Time Inc won't publish a book I've written, no matter how much money I throw at them. Because self publishers don't check the quality of anything, they're considered unreliable sources. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nord Stage

The article Nord Stage you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 4 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Nord Stage for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. When you recently edited ZX Spectrum, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PCB and ULA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

ZX81 GA review

I think I've tackled everything now. Could you take a look? Prioryman (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Had a look, and it's all good, so I've passed the article to GA status. Well done. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nord Stage

The article Nord Stage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nord Stage for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 17:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for helping out with the review. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Gold Dust Magazine article declined

I questioned your use of the pejorative term 'self published' with reference to Gold Dust Magazine. You provided me with a definition of what 'self published' means. That was not my point. I am perfecftly aware of what 'self published' means. I am trying to understand your associating the term with Gold Dust Magazine. Are you implying that Gold Dust publishes everything that is sent in? That is total nonsense. Gold Dust now receives approximately 100 prose submissions for each edition, of which about 6 - 8 are published. I don't know the statistics for poetry but I could obtain them. How that can be called 'self publishing' I don't understand. Gold Dust has published continuously for eight years and has a circulation of more than 3,000 in free electronic downloads alone, not counting sales of printed copies. It has also organised numerous live events in London and published (so far) three anthologies of different types. That makes it one of the most successful small press literary magazines in the country – a great deal more prominent and significant than many that currently have Wikipedia entries. That was why I took the trouble to construct an article about it. I am happy to find the 'secondary sources' that you want in order to back up my claim that it is noteworthy, but the 'self published' smear is meaningless and therfore difficult to counter. Is Wikipedia also 'self published'? What is the term supposed to mean in this context?

The comment in question reads as follows: "Comment: The references are all or mostly primary sources, which cannot establish notability. Also, if the magazine has to resort to self publishing to produce content, it probably isn't notable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirat (talk • contribs)

Sirat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirat (talk • contribs) 23:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think you're reading too much into this. Click here to read what we mean by self-published sources, and why they can be (note : not must or are definitely) unreliable. The important thing is to make sure that the subject of the article is notable, and which can be verified by significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Need more information on your decline for my eBaoTech article

Hey Ritchie333 I was wondering if you could give me advice on how to improve my article to get ite published? All of the company's competitors have articles on wikipedia so I would like to know how to show the significance of the company to you.

Thanks Dudenice (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• You basically need independent coverage in reliable sources. Ideally, you want at least three, preferably more, news or magazine articles about the company, that have it as its main subject and talk about it substantially for at least four or five paragraphs, hopefully more. The fact other articles are on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean they are correct either - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

3d password - Major Reference Cited Successfully

Hello Ritchie333, Thanks to your guidance i was able to cite the IEEE research paper successfully, which is the major source of reference. Please have a look at it again. I look forward to your response. Thank you. Simplycyrus (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bootleg recording, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Jazz-Iz-Christ

I think the most reliable source there could possibly be about this topic is the Official Website of Serj Tankian, so why do you decline my article because of the unreliable sources? Thanks for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardcaine69 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• The trouble is, that's a primary source which, while it's useful for information such as personnel and track listing, can't generally be used to establish notability. Albums need to stand on their own rights as far as notability is concerned, independently of the artist concerned. When an album is released by a major artist, notability is reasonably straightforward as a major music magazine will cover it, or it will chart. In general, unless an album has a particular amount of national newspaper or magazine coverage pre-release, it probably doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article yet. Of course, when the album is released, the situation may well change. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Map House

Apologies for premature saving! The note was to verify a different point not yet made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.197.226 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• No problem. I maintain (though I'm on a break at the mo) a maps website here and I might pop into the shop at some point to see if there's anything that might help the project. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Madonna

Thank you very much for sifting through all that - you must have the patience of a saint. I'm just alerting you that I have made the necessary changes so I will be ready whenever you want to resume - I think you deserve a break! :) Jennie | ☎ 09:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Gosh, that was quicker than I had anticipated! Basically, this GA review is going to take a while - to be honest, I'll be surprised if I get everything I want to do by the end of the week at this rate, given I need to go back and check everything you've done so far, and review and (if required) respond to the "Not done" actions. Still, if we get GA status out of it, and it doesn't get challenged like the FA demoting did, then it's a job worth doing. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

RE:Image for Mothers, Birmingham

Are those the only free images of the club? (from around the web?) yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, yes. This page has several, which how, combined with GSV, I could tell where it was, but there is no obvious free licence on any of those images. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess the one from a distance will have to be used then (until a replacement can be located/taken in the future?). yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it. Since Pigsonthewing is reasonably local, he might see if he can grab a copy himself. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, okay then. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Lil Bub the Cat

thank you for reviewing the entry for Lil Bub. I'm going to work on the text some more for her entry. I was inspired to add Lil Bub to Wikipedia after seeing an entry for Boo the Dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil Bub (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/David Rolt

Sorry you had to reject the submission, but many thanks for your prompt response and useful comments. I shall now look for the kind of reference sources you require and re-submit in due course. The main challenge is that as the artist died in 1985 there is not much about him on the www - and I guess a bunch of newspapers cuttings are not quite what we need. I'll see what further research may yield. Pace your comments about notability, Rolt was a very good and original painter, currently unfashionable maybe, as many become 30 years after their death - but worth an entry. Or at least that's what I hope to convince you of!

Thanks and best, Roberte207Roberte207 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm surprised I didn't give any pointers in the review, but of the existing set in the article, only the Eagle TV reference is non-primary and mentions anything about Rolt, and even then only a short paragraph. Hopefully you'll find some more things that can establish notability. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bootleg recording, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Madonna GA

I will try to address the issues of the article later, ok? 11Jorn ^{Time goes by so slowly} 15:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• No problem - anything you can do to help will be appreciated. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Atom Heart Mother

Hello again Ritchie. I see you plan to work on AHM, would you like some help? (I've renewed my Floyd library books for the fourth time now, so I've got Shaffner for some more time.) yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, definitely. As mentioned elsewhere, I am all wiki'd out this evening from having GA reviewed Madonna (entertainer) (years ago a friend of mine had "stereo wars" with his house mate and I can recall The Immaculate Collection blaring in one room and Ummagumma or Meddle in the other. Anyhow, I digress....). I'm busy with real life (gosh) for the next few days, but I will then start to go through what I can remember of Schaffner (I read it cover to cover quite a few times before it had several coffee related accidents and disintegrated) and piece together the plan as stated on my user page. Yeeshkul! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like your friend's house mate is a really awesome person :') (slightly on topic, slightly off at the same time – I'm getting AHM in Quad (no way to play it Quad though!)). Fair enough, life can get busy at times. I'll start working on it either tonight, or tomorrow. I'll check the Afd now yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 21:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Two day's later and the page looks in a lot better form. I don't have Mason's book, so you'll have to cite that. Uh... I think there's another two or three refs I can get out of the Rough Guide, then I'm out of books (onwards to Google). yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As you'll see, I managed to mine some nice nuggets out of Mason and Povey's books, so we're getting there. It's looking a lot more informative now. Really frustratingly, there are some nice audience taken shots of Gilmour and Geesin with Mun Floyd in 2008 on Flickr, but they're using a non-commercial CC licence. I need to go and create WP:BANGHEADONDESK in response :-) --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice. I'm sure they'll be a free image from '08 performance somewhere, but that's for another day. With Ummagumma and AHM both GA nom'd, wanna work on another one? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit of tinkering with Obscured By Clouds today, but I think A Saucerful Of Secrets is the next target to improve, it's only up to Start Class and there are numerous cns (okay, I just added one myself). There's a lot of stuff that can be added to the article. I'll see what I can do. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, Saucer it is, I'll do some general tidying then start reffing. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits on Madonna

I'm done, feel free to continue! I forgot to add those earlier - I especially thought we needed a new infobox image. Thanks for your hardwork and patience in reviewing this. Jennie | ☎ 19:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Olivia Da Costa article declined

You said that the article I provided only gave the title of the subject, however if you scroll down the page (which i'm not sure you did) you will see that there are full details of the award. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.67.163 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ummagumma

The article Ummagumma you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 5 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Ummagumma for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 11:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Studiocanal Films Ltd.

Hi there,

did you have a chance to look at my updated entry?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moretzwiki (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• That's a little better, but there's a key problem in that I can't tell what bits in the references relate to where. You should put the references as inline citations - see WP:CITEHOW for information on what to include in book references, and Template:Cite book for the specific instructions on how to add a book citation. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject tool

Saw your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Autoremove of inactive project members - was thinking best to post this here so you can find it in the future if you find it useful. Active WikiProject members .Moxy (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie,

I have acquiesced to the fact that I am more than a little confused. Not your fault. I have (some leftover dyslexia) but can read (it's just hard to absorb a lot of light hyperlink, symbols etc) But still trying.

Another issue I'm confused with is that the article needs to be neutral/with no hype ..and I understand why.

What I need to know is how to write the article; if the main fact is that the cartoon was launched in a tiny shed (in rural Ms) with just $300; Rick (London) was homeless and living in a tin shed with his dog.

In 2005 he was back in school at Western Governors University (WGU.EDU) and had given up on his cartoons (though he had 5000+ of them) and suddenly he was receiving requests for signed cartoons, publishing rights, licensing etc.

And that's the most interesting part of the story (to me); It has been the #1 ranked offbeat cartoons (Google ranked) since 2005. You can see that it still is simply by typing "offbeat cartoons" into Google and not only does is it always ranked #1; it "owns" the entire page.

So...that's hypish of course, but it is true, and easily checkable. So...how do I write the story; giving those facts; showing the proper resources, etc; and still keep it neutral?

Or is that the best route? Should I just write about Rick and what happened in his life? (I worked with him for years).

Thanks!

Ltcartoons (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ummagumma

The article Ummagumma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ummagumma for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 13:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks for doing the review. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thesaurus Software, Ltd Article declined

Hi there,

The article was deleted due to the lack of verifiable sources. I would like to ask you if I can edit and submit the article again since I have compiled a list of verifiable sources that highlight the importance of the article?

Thanks, Pedro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro.adcom (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have a copy of the article. You could try asking Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs), who deleted it, for a copy to put in your userspace. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Elvis' Greatest Shit

Nice. Have you considered dyk? pablo 11:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Never submitted anything for DYK, but I think linking Elvis' Greatest Shit may be just going a bit too far. Unlike the bootlegger (who I have to take my hat off for taking WP:BOLD to a whole new level), Wikipedia's front page isn't exactly anonymous! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it does need pointing out. I am thinking of compiling a couple myself. Probably enough for a 3-album set of Paul McCartney. pablo 13:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating The Beatles vs. the Third Reich (created by the same guy who did Greatest Shit) as a follow up, but I can only find one reliable source for that. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice find Richie. Would make a heck of an entry for next years April Fool's day :) Calmer Waters 11:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I solved the problem about linking this article to others. Used the Elvis template. I took the liberty of adding me to the DYK nomination. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, our article got accolades from a superlative Wikipedia editor here. Thought you might like to know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, put it up for a DYK then, if you want. I'm amazed how much attention this article has got, and it's been expanded quicker and better than I ever could single handedly. Hurrah for the collaborative power of Wikipedians! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are too late. It's already up for a DYK. See Template:Did you know nominations/Elvis' Greatest Shit‎ The bull is out of the pen, so to speak. I do think that we've put together a product that we can all be proud of; and it took a team effort. You did a superlative job getting past the initial daunting bureaucratic hurdles, and then put together a wonderful foundation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sergey Brin GA

If you do find any problems, just report them to me in case I don't see the GA comment and I will get them fixed ASAP. Thanks for offer to review the article. John F. Lewis (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Thank you for making me smile and making my day for doing Elvis' Greatest Shit. It also got me to reflect on the when and what of my greatest. Bgwhite (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Watts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

VdGG as Dunhill-Vertigo-Fontana Records artists

Hi Ritchie333! You recently reverted another editor's addition of the categories: Dunhill Records artists, Vertigo Records artists and Fontana Records artists to the Van der Graaf Generator article. Now I have no clue whatsoever as to how many albums a band should have on any particular label before that band gets to be called an "X Records artist", but I thought it might be wise to inform you that VdGG have indeed released some of their albums on each three of these labels. The three labels are mentioned as well in the infobox of the article. The album The Aerosol Grey Machine was released on Fontana Records in Germany (my own CD copy reads "c 1969 Fontana, c 1997 Repertoire Records") and apparently on Vertigo in 1974 in Italy, and the album H to He, Who Am the Only One was apparently released on Dunhill in the US. I think it is a bit strange that it now looks like the labels in the infobox and in the categories contradict each other. I'm probably nitpicking here ;-) and like to thank you again for keeping the VdGG-article on your active watchlist. Groet, Mark in wiki (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Info Box

Hi Ritchie333, i am trying to create an info page, but cannot do it correctly. could you please help? Here is the code that I am trying to use :

"Rocket Girl" redirects here. For other uses, see Rocket Girl (disambiguation).

{{Infobox Record Label | name = Rocket Girl | image = Rocket_Girl_Logo.jpg | caption = Rocket Girl Logo | landscape = yes | background = Record Label | alias = Vinita Rocket Girl | origin = London, England, United Kingdom | years_active = 1997–present | genre = [[Eletronica]], [[Alt-Country]], [[Ambient]] and [[Indie]] | founded by = Vinita Joshi | website = {{url|rocketgirl.co.uk}} }}

Look forward to your response. kind regards, --jugdev

• All done. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rocket Girl (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Rocket Girl (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cheers LittleWink (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars - just ask me and I'd have G7ed it myself. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Musicians Handbook

Everything with this article was correct but someone edited it right before I submitted it. I had no red links like you say, I do see them now, and I see how they got there, that is one of the things this person must have changed. Taking them out redirects you to ALL of the correct articles. I'm doing that now, can I have you take a look at the article again or should I resubmit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.156.182 (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC) ---Jaimielp---

• Although fixing that is worthwhile, that's really only a side issue - the main problem is making sure there's enough coverage in reliable sources. I'd take time out to search for some more sources, such as the Amazon book review I uncovered, first, before resubmitting. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 20:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2440 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

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

Rocket Girl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ambient and Indie

Long Sutton and Pitney railway station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Upton

Sophie Morgan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elgin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Comedy World Cup

Hi,

Please find that the page for Comedy World Cup has been updated for revision, with more detailed references as you suggested. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.108.144 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Drive Award

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Your recognition for 1 GA reviews at the last June-July GAN Review Round. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at John F. Lewis's talk page.
Message added 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John F. Lewis (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Atom Heart Mother

The article Atom Heart Mother you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 5 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Atom Heart Mother for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 11:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Atom Heart Mother

The article Atom Heart Mother you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Atom Heart Mother for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 08:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for another good review, Kürbis. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sergey Brin GA

Hello Ritchie333, I have just completed all of the things listed on the GA nomination page for Sergey Brin. I believe all of the problems raised have been solved now. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Dark Side of the Moo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Dark Side of the Moo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Side of the Moo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is this karmic retribution for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Floyd bootleg recordings? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 10:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moo —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Your signature is unreadable, and when I went to your talk page I did not find any messages. However, I did find a complaint from an admin about incomplete speedy CFD nominations. Seriously, lay off Twinkle and put a bit more thought into what you're doing. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

M-102

The sort of M-102 I'm more likely to edit articles about....

Speaking a bit candidly, considering your outspoken opposition against WP:USRD expressed here [1], your choice to review M-102 (Michigan highway) was probably not the best option, as it makes others doubt your neutrality; I foresaw that this review would be problematic for the above reason. For the record, as stated on my userpage, I monitor all USRD GANs nowadays, since we nominate so many articles, and thus have a high number of substandard reviews, so I'm not picking on your review unfairly. --Rschen7754 19:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I actually felt the article was pretty good, in as much as I found less problems than Talk:Sergey Brin/GA1, Talk:British rhythm and blues/GA2 or (especially) Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/GA1. I felt I should at least give the review a go to make a concerted effort to work together. Still, I concluded if things carried on, somebody (possibly me) would have shot their mouths off and dragged it into WP:LAME territory, so best to walk away from it and let somebody else have a go. It's not my Wikipedia or yours, it's all of ours together and we can't all win at everything. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  I'm wondering if you'd consider revisiting M-102. It has been a few days and I'm sure everyone has cooled off by now. –Fredddie™ 03:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I'm busy with other projects, so my time on GA reviews has suddenly become a bit limited. Plus, a third party looking at both sides of the argument in the GA review and making a decision is fairer all round. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Second opinion has been rendered. The ball is back in your court. Imzadi 1979 → 03:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• As stated above, I am stopping my involvement in this review, as I believe abstaining from it will be better for the encyclopaedia. The second opinion reviewer should make a decision on whether to pass or fail. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

article submission declined

Hello:

I submitted the article about The Kind (band). I am just a fan of this obscure band. You wrote, "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability." I understand what you are saying. However, I checked another band on Wikipedia -- De Film. They had no hits but the article was included. So I am wondering what is the difference between these two bands/submissions? Why was De Film accepted but The Kind rejected? The Kind was a Chicago favorite 30 years ago and did release a few singles on their own (independent) label, 360 Records. I have them!

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.23.219 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Basically the fact another article exists does not necessarily mean that that article is suitable for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. However, I can't see an article on De Film, which suggests it might have been deleted per Wikipedia policies. Also, just having singles released on your own independent label is not sufficient to establish notability - I have recorded an album on my own label for commercial release, and I (rightfully and per policy) don't have a Wikipedia article. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Pizza cheese merge discussion

There is a merge discussion in which you may wish to participate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Kind (again)

The band was De Film but you have to enter it as DeFilm in Wikipedia. The article is a only few sentences, band lineup, and a discography. So this article about this band somehow made it through. The Kind band is similar in that two albums were released. The Kind also had several singles released and received much radio airplay in the Midwest. Their record label, 360 Records, no longer exists, but you can still find their albums online. I have not researched other obscure band articles on Wikipedia, but De Film comes closest to The Kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.23.219 (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've had a look at the article, and can't find any evidence that the band is notable, so I have suggested it be deleted from Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ARS History

• Hey Ritchie, I saw your comments re ARS in the ANI. I stay away from ANI so won't comment further there, but if you are interested in the background of ARS, you can also see User:Milowent/History of the Article Rescue Squadron. There has been tension between the purposes of AfD and the goal of collaboratively building an encyclopedia (which can never be perfect) since the very early days of the project. This tension only erupts in a very small percentage of AfDs on the margins these days. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. I like {{User Article Deletion Squadron}} - that tickles my sense of humour. I think I'm on the ARS membership list, but I don't really participate in AfDs under it as I tend to only participate in ones where I've actually gone looking for sources and understand the topic material. Most contentious arguments I've seen centre on whether sources are significant enough to convey notability. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Very true, and in fact it would be easier if everyone admitted there there are a small percentage of AfDs where this happens and there is no "right" answer. People fought over high school notability for years and spent endless time on it (see my other history, User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs) before most everyone realized it wasn't worth it. But bright line rules can't necessarily develop in all areas.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing I've mentioned, and WP:EOTW kind of references it, is that sometimes you just need to say "is it worth the hassle", step back from an AfD, and do something else. Also, a lot of people don't seem to realise that "Merge / redirect" is an option - "Delete" in my view should mean "no random person would look for this article, ever" Justin Bieber on Twitter is a good example of both of these. If the article really is notable, somebody else will create it again. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• To give you the other side of things, there are some of us who find certain ARS regulars to have a massive battleground attitude on the "deletionism-inclusionism" debate. It has been common for the most devoted ARS members, such as Milo, to cry about "censorship" or "freedom" when confronted with determined criticism about canvassing or other issues with the ARS. Milo makes it seem like this is about deletion, but for me it has nothing to do with that at all. Too often I find the ARS members who go to the AfD of a tagged article are not offering anything in the way of compromise, are not addressing the actual concerns raised by an AfD nomination, are treating an AfD that is essentially a merge discussion like it is the same as a deletion discussion, or some combination of the above. Essentially they show up geared up for a fight and they then wage it without thinking of how their actions negatively affect the project or other editors. To go with what you mentioned, I actually voted to keep the Bieber Twitter article, but I was not annoyed by the merge votes as much as the delete votes as it seemed to be nothing more than an emotional rejection of the content that was not allowing for an obvious compromise. I see the same behavior evidenced in many of these ARS regulars.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oy! Squatters! Get orf my talk page!

• DA, you should know by now that my pizza jihadist claims and the like are not truly serious. I am trying to draw attention to certain problems at AFD, but I also find things like this userbox hilarious. When discussions get absurd, I can't help but get absurd as well. I do think the mentality that favors deletion over improvement (when possible) is very very bad, but that should be about as controversial as opposing the senseless murder of kittens.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• It took you all of one hour and a couple reasonable comments disagreeing with you to throw out the "pizza cheese jihadist" nonsense. The discussion was not "absurd" and that points to the problem I am talking about. You may have jokingly thrown out "heathens" and "jihadists", but you seriously accused people of ignorance. Obviously, the humor is just a more comical presentation for your actual opinion. You are the one who made the discussion absurd by lashing out, presumably because you were frustrated with people not agreeing with you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• When debating whether an article about pizza cheese should be merged or not, calling other people "pizza cheese fanboys" or whatever, even in jest, suggests that you may be taking things a bit too seriously. An AfD is just a discussion, not a fight. If an article gets deleted when there's no-one around, does it make a sound? If an article gets kept that's a bit stubby and might be better off with a merge, will it be of major detriment to WP? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do not recall anyone calling someone a "pizza cheese fanboy" and I know I didn't throw out such a comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited B.J. Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lulu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Nice to meet you at the London meetup earlier today - I hope to see you at others in future! The Land (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, yes it's nice to put faces to names behind this project. It helps foster a more collaborative attitude. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I keep meaning to go to a London meeting, but I've not managed it yet..... SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi there, I see that you have shown interest in participating in the October - November 2012 BED for the AFC WikiProject. Because you have already seen the page you may think that the drive will begin on November 1, but due to the rapid increase in submissions these past few days, I am pushing the start date to October 22, 2012.--Dom497 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cheers Dom. I won't be online much after about 21st October through to the end of the month, so I probably won't make the top entries due to a severe late start, but if my wikitime picks up again, I'll happily pick up the slack. AfC is one of the best ways you can get new editors on board with maximum support and minimum hassle, in my view. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bauhaus Entertainment

Thank you for taking the time to review my article about Bauhaus Entertainment. I was sad to find it wasn't approved. I am a long time Wiki user and I finally got the courage to contribute something, but I'm a little overwhelmed with the different set of rules. In regards to the article, I'm afraid there isn't much written about the company. It's kind of a "ghost developer" (not too different to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tose_%28company%29) However, the contributions the company has made to other gaming companies is undeniable since the name of the company can be seen on the staff rolls and credits of their clients' products. I think that the reason that there is so little material written about the company is because it isn't known outside of Japan, which I wanted to revert with the creation of the article.

What kind of source should I need to find to get the material approved? Also, 90% of the material I can find will be in Japanese, does that matter?

Sorry for bothering you and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by San.ake.00 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• The best references are news or magazine articles, so if the company had a particular write-up in a videogame magazine, that would be an excellent source. Individual credits in games are useful to assert facts such as who they worked with, but might not be significant enough to count towards notability. Japanese sources are not a showstopper - while we prefer English sources, if that's all you have available, they can be accepted, though any direct quotations should be translated into English and peer reviewed. For what it's worth, you may have more success on the Japanese Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Barrack Point

Hey Ritchie333

My article for "Barrack Point" was declined as you said it already existed as "Barrack Heights". This is incorrect as they are both two different suburbs. Barrack Point is even mentioned in the Barrack Heights article.

I shall resubmit, and hopefully it is accepted :)

Cheers, Nikachu88

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Barrack_Point,_New_South_Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikachu88 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)