User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 80

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

→

Archive 85

A7 decline

Just curious why you declined this as "sourced", when A7 has nothing to do with sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 and User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes - in short, anything with a vaguely reliable source should not be speedied, but given a chance to see if it can be improved first, then taken to AfD if not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I'd have declined this too. With multiple reliable sources about the topic already present in the article, it has a plausible argument for meeting GNG, which is a higher bar than "credible claim of significance". Vanamonde (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Polish supercentenarians

Hi Ritchie, as the admin who closed the AfD for List of Polish supercentenarians, would you mind weighing in on developments since then? Newshunter12 has removed a large section of the article saying consensus exists that it violates BLP, V and OR. I have disputed this because I think the AfD supercedes the previous talk page conversation. They have since re-reverted and commented to reinforce their position. I'm not sure how best to proceed, and thought you might have a view on what the current consensus actually is. › Mortee _talk 01:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I hope it's not too late but may I discuss with you your recent close as keep for the List of Polish supercentenarians (2nd nomination) deletion discussion. There were four votes cast, two keep, one redirect, and one merge. I think it's clear both the redirect vote and the merge vote were on substance votes to delete. As I stated in the discussion, there is essentially nothing to redirect to the List of European supercentenarians page because the only person on the Polish page at the time old enough to be on that page is German woman Augusta Holtz, whom left the German Empire as a small child for the United States, long before Poland even existed. She is already on that page as a European emigrant. For the merge vote, there is nothing to merge to either the list of List of European supercentenarians because the three Polish women in this article are too young to be listed there or the List of oldest living people which already has the one living Polish supercentenarian. They used different words then delete, but it is clear on substance that is what such actions would mean. Only one person gave a substantive Keep vote and counting the nominator, there were three substantive delete votes. I believe based on the merits and common sense, the discussion should be closed as delete or the article otherwise deleted upon review. On a side note, I started editing the article to clean it up, but realized I had not pursued appealing your verdict. Despite the edits, I still solidly support deletion and believe that is what the consensus was to do. Sincerely, Newshunter12 (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"I think it's clear both the redirect vote and the merge vote were on substance votes to delete" You might think that, but our deletion policy says otherwise - if nobody explicitly calls for deletion, an admin will not delete the article. While there was certainly no consensus to keep, merge or redirect, none of those activities involves administrator action and can be done outside of the scope of AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If you feel there was no clear consensus to keep the article, then why wasn't the Afd closed as no consensus instead of giving the false impression we agreed to keep it? Also, on the edit summary page, the person who voted redirect labeled their vote edit as delete, so it is clear there was open pushing for delete, just using a different word for the actual vote. Deletion was their intent. Did you miss that before you made your closing decision? Does this fact change your closing decision in any way? Newshunter12 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"No consensus" means no consensus to do anything (keep or delete), where there was clear consensus to not delete at the very least. The strongest counter-argument to deletion was the "keep" rationale from Mortee, and the only opinion that was agreed by another editor. Since it materially makes little difference over "keep" versus "no consensus" if the article is retained, I don't think there's an issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The redirect and merge votes both explicitly wanted this article's content to end up or be discussed on the List of European supercentenarians. By their own words, they didn't think this article should exist and there was an explicit push for deletion by one editor besides myself. How is it that, including myself, three people wanted to get rid of this article and two wanted to keep it (one of whom said three words) that we are keeping it as is? The redirect voter also said per my nom in their response and described their actions as delete in their edit summary, so they explicitly agreed with another editor's opinion (me). Newshunter12 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well you can take this to deletion review and overturn "keep" to "no consensus" if you really want, but ... what's the point? Sometimes AfDs don't close the way I'd like them to, but that's just the way things go sometimes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Is there any time limit on when it can be re-nominated for AfD in the future? If there is none, I might have another go someday with a more concise argument. It's funny though that I'm the one who wanted to delete it, yet I'm the one who took the time to follow polices and consensus, and took the time to clean up the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any set time. For anything that closes as "no consensus; no prejudice against renomination", you can pretty much start a new AfD immediately. For everything else, it's a balance between believing you'd get a better consensus next time round against annoying people who will say "aww jeez, we just had this discussion". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

But what about List of Polish supermarkets?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ask the staff at Cafe Polski, Islington : "Gooden morning sir", "Ah yes, umm good morning", "Nice to see you, I have been away seeing family in Poland", "Oh ... I missed you", "WHAAAAAAT???!!!!!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A303

Stoned.....

Further to Sunday's discussion, just read the whole article, and it is fascinating stuff. Perhaps you should be Ritchie303. Did not even know we had an A333. Edwardx (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't call myself that, as LP records don't run at 30 1⁄3 rpm. The original A333, for what it's worth, was at the notorious Hockley lights with the A33 Winchester Bypass, the history of which is documented most appropriately in Twyford Down, and what was the most god-awful frustrating source of congestion on the road network. People were so fed up of it they ultimately turned a blind eye to the government carving a huge chunk out of the nearby countryside for the sake of everyone's sanity. (WP:NPOV? What's that?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How very mundane. And we all thought you were quadruplex fly-by-wire. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I got on the bus instead. (I guess that's the one that goes via Jade's Crossing). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"All human life is here" (?) [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh gosh, that brings back memories .... I think during the mid-90s, just about every British woman in their late teens and early twenties thought The Divine Comedy was the best band in the world and fancied the absolute pants off Neil Hannon ... or at least that's the way it seemed to be at the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Have all the albums. He's a pretty talented guy. Pants or no pants. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Aretha Franklin

On 16 August 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aretha Franklin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Strikerforce^Talk 16:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article talk (Big Les)

Hey man! I had written an article for a rapper, Big Les and you had deleted it. I was wondering if it was possible for you to restore the article and move it to the Draft stage and help me in getting the article improved and approved, if possible. Thank you!

Thekiddl (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)thekiddl 8/16/18

@Thekiddl: As the article was soft deleted, most certainly. Restored to Draft:Big Les. Follow instructions at the top of the page to see what to do next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The Who/Tommy

I decided to remove The Who/Tommy from the August 17 OTD. One of the rules is that the date in question should be especially relevant to the bold article(s), and it doesn't seem to be the case for either one. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Howcheng: No problem. I did think (as you did) to save it for the next year when it'll be the 50th anniversary, but there were plenty of other notable performances at Woodstock on the same date. In any case, it was simply a "quick win" as I thought it would be easier to swap a problematic hook for a simple one linked to two GAs. Getting Aretha in the top spot on ITN is enough main page excitement for the minute ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Content Creation Question

Hey Ritchie, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable in the realm of content creation and I wanted to run an idea by you for an article. I was thinking of starting an article for the California Peace Officers' Memorial. From what I can see there appears to be quite a bit of information on the memorial, but I was hoping to get your opinion first? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: I would start off by seeing if you expand its mention in California State Capitol Museum first - it's currently an unsourced sentence. If you find you can write several paragraphs from 3/4 sources on it and it starts to dwarf the rest of the article, that would be a good time to create a spin-off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ritchie! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Houses of the Holy

"I know you're all bored senseless with me just randomly banging the guitar with this, but half of you lot are bootlegging the show and I'm going to make you run out of tape by making the solo extra long. Ha ha ha ha ha!"

The article Houses of the Holy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Houses of the Holy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK anyone? I think I'm going to plump for "...the cover art for Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy was inspired by the ending of Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

....anyone .... anyone ... Bueller? ..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Way to piss of the Zepheads by sneaking in a Floyd number :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

When I went to see Floyd in Earl's Court on the Division Bell tour, the programme had a short quiz. If you got 0, the result was "You really like Led Zeppelin, but they aren't touring this year". :-D Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How about a DYK about the title? It could be something off-the-wall like "...that Houses of the Holy was Led Zepplin's fifth album, but the first with a title? Or somesuch. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"'...that Houses of the Holy's "Rain Song" was inspired by George Harrison complaining that Led Zeppelin never did any ballads?"--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That was the story that jumped out at me, reading it. › Mortee _talk 14:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

... that the cover of Houses of the Holy was designed by Hipgnosis based on a photograph taken at Giant's Causeway? - Mysterious enough? - Having said that, I'd appreciate an admin swapping one hook from queue 4 (for tomorrow) for The Little Nigar, to honour Debussy's birthday. It's in the special occasions on the approved hooks page, and discussed on dyktalk, look for Debussy, but so far without response. I believe that any other day would be a mistake. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Venting

This is amusing. 81.2%, that's reasonable. 81.3%, oh now that's just too far. I know, I know, 17.4% vs 8% in the other department (or whatever), but still... are you serious? Where's da consistency? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin III

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin III 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request to edit summaries on Dave Rubin article

Hi Ritchie. When you've a moment, could you take a look at the recent edit history of Dave Rubin, and consider whether it's appropriate to redact the series of edit summaries made on 21st August by an IP user? The repeated edits and reverts themselves don't need to be removed, but I'm of the view that the very visible edit summaries are akin to shouting "Jew! Jew! Jew!" in a grossly offensive and highly visible manner on the View History page, and should be removed. I've reverted the edits, of course, and have warned the editor at User talk:67.1.130.20. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Revision deleted and blocked. There is absolutely no need to say those sort of things in a global encyclopedia project that encompasses all cultures and ideals. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I completely agree. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced info

How is tagging unsourced information "not constructive"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it's trivial and easy to find a source in two minutes, as I did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Then why did you find a citation and remove the info...? How does that make sense? Also, are you saying the burden is on me for whenever I see any claim that I have to prove it's true? The burden is on the person who posts it. I have no time to check every unsourced claim to prove it for the person who posted it in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well it improves the article, that's about all there is to it, really. The trouble is that, unfortunately, tags tend to linger for years (and in the case of {{unreferenced}} templates, there are some well over ten years old). I don't really have a good solution to that, other than just make sure we can keep new editors, and stop old ones leaving, which is easier said than done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles are worse off for unsourced claims. I agree that retention and invitation are important but so is quality. Again, you claimed that it's easy to source this info but you also removed it, so I really don't understand your solution here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

citation needed

Hello Ritchie333 - just as information:

citation needed it is funny if a BOT now asking for citation in this way. I am interested in this article, but never adding any citation - no use for this. just my point. Best. --Maxim Pouska (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I generally use {{fact}} tags when I'm busy improving an article, something I've just added a source for isn't in that source, and I need to break it up into what is verifiable and what's not. It's always my intention to come back to tags I've added and fixed them. If you just want to tag an article and move on from it, forgetting about it, what's the point? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Just two points

I have no idea how this Thank you for supporting our RfA system. Please read WP:RFAV before you vote on another RfA could be remotely interpreted as a criticism. It's a perfectly neutral link to an advice page for a beginner. Secondly, nowhere on Wikipedia have I hinted, inferred, or otherwise, that I have, or my be retiring. I will thank you for sticking to facts rather than making assumptions and publishing them, especially where it inappropriate. All you do is fan the flames yourself. More on this when my health improves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I must have got a joe job from someone. It did seem odd that it didn't come from your usual email address. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

My last email to you and other involved parties, was sent on 12 August 01:47 (my time) from my 'C' email, the full text of which was:

Hi All,

I'm sorry I've taken a while to get back to you but I had to do my own research besides one or two unconnected commitments.
I concur fully with Ritchie's findings. There is a need for the tools here, but the voters want to see some creations and content despite the very high number of minor maintenance edits to mainspace.

There is also the fact that the JBH RfA has left things in a bit of a turmoil among the entire regular RfA voting community and feedback is still drifting in. The dust needs to settle and this is not the time for anyone to be considering an RfA that does not have an extremely high chance of passing. When I say 'extremely high' I mean being almost a dead cert. That's not something that Ritchie or I or any other prominent admins can guarantee as nominators right now.

Regards,

Kudpung

Beyond the reference to a recently closed RfA, no mention of any other candidate name was made, but the caveat was clear whoever was to be next in line for one of your nominations. There was absolutely no indication whatsoever that I have any intention of retiring. All I have signaled, and on-Wiki, is my desire to withdraw from NPP after mollycoddling it for years, and the fact that this will be my last month as E-in-C of The Signpost. - which is what I intended from the moment I took over the temporary editorship. I have slowed down in the last week or so due to some personal circumstances which are no one's business but my own. There is also the fact that joe job or not, anything I might have imparted in an email to a Wikipedia colleague, should be accorded the respect of confidence and not used in a PA on an RfA of all places. Suffice it to say, your comments have caused quite a flurry of genuine emails to me, all in a very positive nature about my work and engagement to Wikipedia. You need to start looking around you for who you can trust - aye, there be trolls... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for The Carpenters

On 27 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Carpenters, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Carpenters received hate mail because they combined a soft ballad with a loud electric guitar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Carpenters. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Carpenters), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Global IME Bank

Hello, Global IME Bank is a major bank in Nepal, thus I'd prefer adding reliable sources instead of deleting it. Germartin1 (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Germartin1: Unfortunately I cannot restore it as it is a copyright violation, being copied and pasted from another website. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios for a fuller explanation. However, you can recreate the article from scratch, provided it does not copy another website's words. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Philafrenzy's RfA

Hi Ritchie. I don't know that we've ever bumped into each other, though i have seen your name on a large number of occasions; anyway, i just wanted to say that i, at least, appreciated your comments/clarification in the general comments section, even if another editor (whom i also respect) did not. I've come here, in line with his suggestion, because i want you to know that your addition was not, in mine opinion, "an out-of-the-blue comment about your reasons to nominate" the candidate. I found it useful, though i didn't see it till after i had !voted.
I will confess i have, in the past, thought, "Good grief, another nominated by Ritchie333; how he does churn them out!" but, you know what, i'm glad you do, and glad you clearly give them the thought they deserve. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@LindsayH: Basically, 2018 looks like to be by far the lowest intake of admins we've ever had. Now, there's a point to be said that there's only going to be so many editors interested in adminship in the first place, but we're now at the point where we're consistently losing 4-5 admins a month. It's going to take a long time before we're in serious trouble over a lack of administrative presence, so the "not enough admins" argument isn't really true as such. Rather, if admins are leaving, it makes sense to have a net churn and bring in new people, who can come in with fresh ideas, their own ideals and views, and stop the admin corps getting stuck in a rut and doing the same old thing. That's pretty much why I look around for new candidates.

I don't know why nobody else seems to be putting people up for RfA. I certainly wouldn't do it if most of my nominations hadn't passed; and having had one near miss, and another probably near miss on the way, I really think now is time to stop and let somebody else have a go at it. I have turned down far more people than I've actually put up for RfA, some of whom I really think should be admins but can't pass because of content creation / inactivity / civility, or one other showstopper that doesn't really mean they can't do the job in my view. And that's the context to which I made the post on the RfA; if somebody had advised me there might have been a problem, or I had seen evidence of a problem (and that was the central point - I hadn't), I'd have not gone forward with the RfA, told Philafrenzy to check earwig for every new article he creates, and in 6-9 months, ask me about a nomination, which would (probably) have then passed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Before giving up on recruiting, I would suggest reaching out to a small handful of non-admins or voters, and more recent newer voters, who have been casting RfA votes in 2018, to join in on the next time candidates submit for the Optional RfA candidate poll. I just recently stumbled on that and I think that's a helpful tool. However, I see too many of the same people there that give opinions and comments, which is still a good indicator of voting, but to get a more broad view on how candidates would fair, I suggest reaching out to a couple of random users you have never seen participate in stuff, I think that would be a better indicator on potential votes. While I have not seen eye-to-eye with you on some of the candidates that you have nominated, it doesn't mean that you do not do a good job as an admin. Don't get discouraged just because a couple of RfAs did not go the way you intended. Neovu79 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I've done enough (indeed some might say too much) - it's time to give someone else a go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sad that you want to stop. You're rather good at it. And you do Wikipedia (and Wikipedians) a huge service in your informal role. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't be that good at it, we've got an RfA that is going to close as "failed" imminently because it has less than 65% support. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

More than 5,000 failures. I'd assess the value of your successes, if I were you. Everyone else does. And we're all benefiting from them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

An award. Yes, for you, Ritchie!

	The admins' admin and admin of making admins award
	For successful and valuable efforts to find new admins for Wikipedia over a long period of time, I award this big stick with a floppy head thingy to Richie333. You're the best admin of adminning admins. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear!! Not that you're ever conflicted in your approach, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

ECP

Hi, Ritchie, thanks for closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Extended-confirmed protection doesn't need to invoke any ArbCom case any more; as of 2016, it can be applied as needed, see WP:ECP. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC).

No problem; I was trying to search for a suitable WP:MEDRS related Arbcom case that might cover it, but I thought "well everyone who turned up at the AfD is an experienced editor (or a blocked sock) so I'll assume consensus". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Moves Like Jugger?

I saw this and I thought of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Martin, I am absolutely terrified to discover what might be going on inside your head. I fear it would be like opening Pandora's Box. Or even actually getting hold of the Brexit assessment papers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And I thought my secret was safe with you. *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"In Wikipedia, everyone can hear you scream"..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, well anyway, my very best wishes and such. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC) p.s. but while you're there... any guesses as to the organ used on this classic? It seems it IS a Hammond, played by Winston Wright, although he is un-credited on the record.

Oh yes, I was going to look this up. Sorry, I was busy watching the old Red Dwarf video clip where Lister is teaching Kryten to call Rimmer a "smeeeee heeeeee"..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, you high-voltage flouncey Admins, just real jet setters, ain't ya. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop your putrid whining you dank tuft of rectal pubic hair! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"You're about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp

Given the weakness of policy-based arguments to keep this, and the very clear arguments against the article - the creator and several supporters explicitly wrote it was a memorial, and the obvious canvassing, this should not have been closed this way. The “additional sources supplied” included Revolvy and Reddit. Qwirkle (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

In terms of who turned up, keep vs. delete was about even matched. The clinching argument for me, however, came from E.M.Gregory, where he supplied a good list of sources, including multiple citations to the Herald Sun which were unchallenged by anyone else. The only counter-argument I saw was "but there are unreliable sources in that list" and WP:NOTNEWS. It would have been nice if E.M. had expanded the article as well as supplying the sources, but there you go. At the risk of invoking a well known essay, Murder of Deborah Linsley has just passed GA and is queued for DYK, and that seems to have a similar level of source coverage, multiple news pieces over an extended period of time. Possibly I should have just !voted "keep" instead of closing it, but I don't think it's a major issue. I'll have a go at expanding it; if you still think it's a non-starter, re-nominate it at AfD and I'll stay out of the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding more sources to the AfD discussion found in a Proquest news archive search when this discussion closed. I found sourcing entirely persuasive. Much of the discussion was about an ongoing dispute among several editors about activity on other pages, which I did not attempt to decipher. I often do expand pages at AfD. This one certainly needs it. Kudos ot Ritchie333 for undertaking an expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333,“who showed up”, of course, is one of the issues. The article’s creator blatantly canvassed. The Herald Sun itself is another. Murdochian yellow journalism only is notable in the long run if it has practical effect, or it manages to infect other, better sources, and re-adding it through a different archive doesn’t improve it.

Ms. Linsley’s murder affected transit and long-haul rail design, planning and operations worldwide for about a decade, to say nothing about the effects on greater London’s commuter’s psyches. I’m not sure that is comparable “other stuff.” Qwirkle (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the !keep voters were canvassed; they all seem like regular participants in these sorts of debates. I think we should see if the article can be improved further before doing anything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that far more people buy and read the Herald Sun than buy and read The Guardian or The Age so Qwirkle dismissal of it is snobbery and snooty intellectualism. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Portland Historic District

Hey, I disagree with your close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Portland Historic District. I think there was enough of a consensus there to conclude "Merge" or "Redirect" rather than "Keep" or "no consensus". Did you see my note within the AFD, asking for any closer not to just "kick the can down the road" (which linked to a deletion review about that issue)? Your closing did exactly that. Would you mind reversing yourself and reopening for further discussion? sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a subtle distinction here. I concluded nobody wanted to delete the article and people weren't really sure about a merge / redirect - after relisting there were three "keep" !votes, one merge !vote, one "not sure" and you restating your viewpoint. Additionally, the article was improved significantly by Another Believer during the course of the AfD, which means some of the earlier !votes might be out of date with respect to the current state of the article. So I think the best thing to do here is to conclude a "keep" result and invite those who want a merge / redirect to invoke WP:BRD and simply do it. You could argue that "no consensus" might be more appropriate than "keep", but I think the end result is the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cominar

Hi Ritchie. I am contacting you as you are an admin I trust and respect and are upon a review of your talk page on good terms with Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cominar, Serial Number 54129 repeatedly collapsed my "keep" rationale over my objections.

The first collapse, I uncollapsed and added a comment about this breaking the page's formatting, the second collapse, and I uncollapsed and added a comment about Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments saying "normally you should stop if there is any objection".

Serial Number 54129 collapsed my "keep" rationale a third time and then closed the AfD the same minute after several editors who supported deletion no longer supported deletion. The collapsing has broken the formatting of the page again in that all subsequent comments are now indented under mine. My signature is collapsed while Serial Number 54129's signature appears below the first sentence of my "keep" rationale. My comment about the analyst reports that establish notability and my objections to the collapsing are also collapsed. In addition to collapsing my comment, Serial Number 54129 also collapsed part of another editor's "keep" rationale which is unnecessary.

Serial Number 54129 communicated only through edit summaries and did not respond in the AfD to my objections to collapsing so I have not contacted them first. Given Serial Number 54129 was involved in a dispute at the AfD, I consider the collapsing of my "keep" rationale and in the next edit the closing of the AfD to be improper. It violates the "lack of impartiality" clause of WP:BADNAC. The close also was done a day early with two outstanding delete votes. Would you review this? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Modified comment to note two points I overlooked: that the AfD was closed a day early and two editors still supported deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cunard: There are several things to deal with here. The most important thing is, you wanted the article kept, and it was, so the easiest option is to accept the result and move on. Secondly, non admins shouldn't close an AfD outside of the reasons documented here, but because that's not actually policy, many do anyway; you could challenge the close at a deletion review and it's possible the AfD would be overturned, but you may just find people endorse the result and asking you to drop the issue.

The issue about hatting is a little more complex. On the one hand, pinpointing exactly what is in a source to provide proof that an article should be kept is helpful and makes it easy to understand your rationale for doing so; however, excessive paraphrasing from sources may be criticised at saying too much without getting to the central point and at worst invite accusations of close paraphrasing of sources. And while you may think it's far fetched for being sanctioned over copyright violations for reproducing paragraphs of sources wholesale, it's not unknown to happen. So hatting is not an unreasonable action simply to keep the discussion focused and allow newcomers to the debate to arrive at the right decision quickly. A far better course of action at AfDs, in my view, is to take the sources you have found, expand the article with prose citing those sources, and simply add a note in the AfD along the lines of : "Keep - I have expanded the article with additional sources, please take a look". One extreme example of this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ika Hügel-Marshall, where the entire context behind the very brief creation and withdrawl of the AfD is entirely in the history of the article itself; I simply expanded the article greatly and invited the nominator to take a look at its state then.

I hope that addresses your concerns; if not, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

In a discussion here I wrote, "I wish I had the time to both find sources and rewrite every article at every AfD I participate in. But I do not." You said you felt the same. I understand your concerns about copyright violations and walls of text. My view is that my quotes fall under fair use and are the best way for me in my limited time to show why I think the sources establish notability. Other editors may disagree with the utility of my posts. I understand and respect that. But I ask that other editors follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments and not edit my comments when I object.

My main concern is that Serial Number 54129 collapsed my comments a third time and immediately closed the AfD a day early to ensure their view prevails. I find it alarming that an editor used the closer's position to "win" a dispute. I am disappointed you do not view this the same way. The collapsing is a very minor issue that is not worth spending more time on now that the AfD is closed. I accept your advice and will not pursue any further modifications to the AfD. Thank you for taking the time to review the situation.

Cunard (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did indeed agree that you can't be expected to run round improving every single article at AfD if you don't have time, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to do so if you do have the time. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saffron Henderson I did a little bit of work, in the hope that somebody else could pick it up and work on it.

To be honest, the situation looks like "six of one, half a dozen of the other" - you think the level of detail is important to get your point across, another editor doesn't. I can't really say either of you is "right", you're just both independently acting on your viewpoints. Anyway, as I said, you've got the result you wanted at the AfD and the article has been kept, so I think ultimately all is well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

kittens are so lovely

SmokeyJoe has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

I guess you have never experienced the scenario where you are happily typing away and composing something on the keyboard, when suddenly ... *whumph* .... you get a very bad case of what is technically described as "tail in face" and "cat on keybodfg34t09t89u6y98u5t98u5t094t90utr09tu09t" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

"Admins know your limits!" We'll have less talk about returning to the Gold Standard, if you don't mind.....Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

BURMA! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"PawSense is a software utility that helps protect your computer from cats." EEng 01:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, you buy a desk where the keyboard can be easily slid underneath the main part out of the way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Advice for a new GA reviewer

Hello. I was wondering if you had time to look over my first GA review. I saw you specialize in music articles as per the GA mentor section. The review is at Talk:The High Llamas/GA1 if you are interested. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I had a quick look, and it looks okay to me. You've covered the prose, balance of detail, and checked the sources to some depth. The only other thing, if you haven't done it, is to check the images are properly licensed (I didn't see any problems, though I question the relevance of the 1994 Stereolab gig picture) and check for copyvios (there's a little close paraphrasing from http://claythescribe.com/2016/03/04/interview-with-sean-ohagan-of-the-high-llamas/ - mostly quotations). Other than that, I think you've got the idea of what GA reviews are about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I did mention some issues with the quotes in history formation first para and 2000s-present 2nd para. I'll look at the images more closely. Thanks for the advice :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin III

The article Led Zeppelin III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin III for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Woo-hoo, calls for a little celebration!

"Threesie's face is cracked from smiling, all the fears that he's been hiding,

And it seems pretty soon everybody's gonna know.

And his voice is sore from shouting, cheering winners who are losing,

And he worries if their days are few and soon they'll have to go." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Save me from the gallow's pole! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review mentor

Hi, I just created the GA nomination review for USCO (here). It is my first GA review, perhaps you could take a look at it. My main concern is that I have not included a lot of positives: the article is good, but I thought writing "I like this part" a lot was redundant and didn't find a lot of places to specifically highlight where a certain criteria had been met well (i.e. to say "this sentence is written well, it hits criteria X well") - are there other ways of showing where you think an article is good? Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I had a quick look at the review and the article. In general, I think you've got the idea of what a review is supposed to be about; look carefully at the article and check it's well-written, factually correct and verifiable as such, on topic, sufficiently detailed and properly formatted. A couple of specific points:

• In terms of how to present the review, the whole purpose is to give constructive criticism, so by definition most of the points you bring up are going to be things that need improvement. Although I've written nearly 120 GAs, I still expect work to be done on each one I put up for review and wouldn't pretend otherwise! The only comment I'd make here is that I wouldn't directly say "This article does not currently meet all the criteria to be a good article" myself, as that's kind of stating the obvious. I'd say something like, "There are a number of issues to resolve here, but they're all fairly minor so I'm putting the review on hold pending resolution of them."
• The GA criteria does not mandate infoboxes or require any images (for the latter, see criteria 6). You can suggest both, but if the nominator disagrees and gives reasons for not having them, you can't fail the review on that alone.
• A couple of the sources don't look obviously reliable to me and I would ask questions like "What makes warholstars.org a reliable source?" (If the nominator gives a reasonable explanation eg: it's a convenience link for accurate interviews or transcriptions that are possible, but difficult, to locate in their original publication, then that's generally okay).
• I don't understand why the article needs 4-5 citations to verify something. That generally means something's wrong somewhere.
• Some of the book sources don't have page numbers. The GA criteria doesn't specifically mention this, but 2a says "enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source", so it's a de facto requirement.
• Have you checked for copyright violations? The earwig report comes back as "Violation Suspected 76.5% confidence". For established articles, reverse copyvios or mirrors make it difficult for this figure to mean anything on its own, but it does highlight some serious close paraphrases of quotations. You have suggested trimming this down, but you really need to address the paraphrasing - passing a GA with even suspected copyvios in it will cause you problems down the line.
• Finally as a minor point, "External links" needs to go below "References" (see criteria 1b).

If you have any other questions, feel free to drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll add to the review, and keep all of this in mind. Kingsif (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The only other thing to consider is that the nominator, James James Morrison Morrison hasn't edited since June, so you may not get a quick response to the issues. If you're still waiting after a week, pop a note on WT:GAN and explain the situation, to see if somebody else can pick it up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You've got 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.Wikiasian2408 (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikiasian2408: You don't need to email me unless it contains personal or private information that would be problematic to talk about on-wiki. Keeping discussion here also allows talk page stalkers to comment if they wish. In the case of K. Hari Prasad, it was originally deleted after a full debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Hari Prasad (2nd nomination) by Joe Decker, and then again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Hari Prasad (3rd nomination) by Xymmax. I made the most recent deletion because it was re-created without a review, which is applicable per the policy for deleting re-creating content previously deleted via discussion.

There are a couple of options here. Firstly, with the agreement of the original deleting administrators (which is not required, but still generally a good idea to do), I can restore the article to draft space and you can submit it via the articles for creation process. Secondly, you can open a deletion review if you think the deletion process was not followed correctly, although in my personal view it seemed process was correctly carried out even though it gave you a result you didn't want, so I'm not sure this would be successful. The third, and possibly rather cutting, option is to accept that Wikipedia does not believe it can maintain an article about this person at this time, and you should look at one of the many other topics on the encyclopedia instead, most of which need improvement. Sometimes, the participants at deletion discussions "get it wrong" and we need to correct the decision; however, if this article has been the subject of two full deletion discussions, it seems unlikely any restoration of it is going to be taken well by the community as a whole. Indeed, looking through the debates, I can't see a single person who wants to keep this article except you. Sometimes, when you're in a minority of one, you just have to accept things aren't going to go your way.

I hope that addresses your concerns; if not, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your details reply. May I humbly request you to adopt the first option? Will really appreciate it if you can do it. Also, I apologise for sending the email, and I will not do so going forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, can I please get an update on this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs)

As neither deleting administrator has responded, I assume it is okay to restore to draft, which I have now done. Follow instructions at Draft:K. Hari Prasad to see what to do next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've had to delete it again, as another editor pointed out that the prose has been copied and pasted from another website, so it cannot be restored at all. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for restoring the page. I understand that you have moved it to drafts due to copyright issues. I have addressed the issue, and have additionally added 55 references - I request you to go through it and restore it to a normal page. Thank you so much. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:K._Hari_Prasad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin (album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin (album) 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Friends Party

Grateful if you could give me a copy of this deleted page - the information in it may be usable in an article on e.g. minor political parties or within those articles in which it is mentioned (or even for re-creation if they contest 600 seats at the next election|) Emeraude (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Emeraude: Done - User:Emeraude/Friends Party Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Emeraude (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

While you're here, and since we're talking about fringe political parties can you (or indeed, anyone else) remember which constituency "Ginger Grab" from the "Jam Spreading Party" stood for in the 1997 election? I thought it was Enfield Southgate against Portillo, but it wasn't, nor was it Putney against David Mellor. Not Kensington and Chelsea either. A search for the party on Google returns no hits. Where was it? (And no, I am not making this up!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)