User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 25

Did you know about this?...

Hey! I was wondering if you knew about this: User:Richie322? Can't be a coincidence, right? Well, I just came across this, and it amused me, so I thought I'd let you know about it, in case you already didn't... --IJBall (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of him, though since the account dates from before I was doing hardcore WP editing then I doubt it's anything to do with me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, Ritchie, that's your sleeper! You're the most incompetent double agent ever! EEng (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"I haven't seen my analyst in 200 years. He was a strict Freudian. If I'd been going all this time, I'd probably almost be cured by now." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter

Hi Ritchie333. I see that you deleted Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter. Do you happen to know where the original XfD discussion is? I could only find this related discussion. I ask because this material has also been coat racked into the article Black Lives Matter in violation of WP:OR. Thank you.- MrX 19:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: I think that may have been a mistake, I was looking at that TfD and thought "Well previous consensus was delete with maybe userfying, so if anyone asks, I'll restore it". Forgot the discussions were on two totally different templates. Should I restore it (with apologies)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think procedurally it should be restored, but I am going to nominate it for deletion, because there is no article on the subject and there is overlap with Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter.- MrX 20:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the template is now restored, so I'll leave the TfD in your capable hands. Best do it quick as I restored "as is" with the {{db-repost}} tag active, so it will reappear in CAT:CSD - let's hope another admin doesn't jump on it and speedy it again! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333. Much appreciated!- MrX 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Page Deleted: Request for reconsideration

Hi Ritchie333. I see that you deleted Al Habtoor Motors LLC page.

With all the respect for Wiki and it moderators, i would like to mention that intention of adding this page was not to promote or advertise this company on Wiki. My intention was to add Al Habtoor Motors LLC company information, I may have added information like Awards won by the "AHM" company which made it sound like it is being marketed.

I have also came across several post where you have acted as rescuer and saved lot of pages from being deleted. Please advise how can we recreate the same with pure intention of adding company information about Al Habtoor Motors. So that Wiki is a trusted source and we want to put the correct information without breaking any Wiki protocol.

AHM is one of the leading distributors of several Automotive brands like Bentley, Bugatti, Mitsubishi, JAC Motors etc in United Arab Emirates and deserves to be there like other companies that are listed on wiki.

I would appreciate your help in this regarding or at least how i can try again to add information about same company on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubaiinfo (talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dubaiinfo: The article was deleted via WP:CSD#G11 - "Blatant advertising". That means that if somebody were to improve the article, they would have to more or less start from scratch. However, we may be able to salvage some of the sources used in the article. With that in mind, I have restored the article to Draft:Al Habtoor Motors LLC. The article needs to have a thorough and neutral overview of the company as documented by third-party sources. I can't think of a good car manufacturer article to use as an example, but Sunbeam Tiger is a featured article that may be worth reading just to get an idea of what a good Wikipedia article looks like.

You'll need to rewrite the article to use a similar neutral tone. I've made a start on some of the prose. When you are ready, click on the green "Submit your draft" button at the top of the page, and it will reviewed by an independent, experienced editor. Hope that helps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael Thomas Franklin

This is my kind of A7.....

With regards to be adding an A7 tag to it, I was simply readding it. Another user had added the A7 tag, and the article creator had removed it, therefore I just readded it. I agree it's not an A7, but the article creator shouldn't have removed the tag previously. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I didn't think it was an A7 (genuine A7s are completely impossible to salvage at AfD, even to a merge / redirect), so I removed the tag. If you can't abide the article's existence, I'd recommend AfD. In general I think editors need to write more and tag less. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I think it should exist. My point was the only reason I readded the tag was because the creator isn't allowed to remove the A7 from an article they created. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hang on - you tagged an article as A7 that you thought shouldn't be deleted? Simply because the rules said you should? I think this was a situation where ignoring all rules would have been appropriate - forget about what the article's creator did (newbies make mistakes, it happens, don't smack them down for it), does re-adding the tag ultimately improve the encyclopedia? If you think it does, re-add it, if you don't ... don't! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes- I intended to immediately remove it again, but forgot. It was meant to be a case of enforcing the rules (which say the article creator shouldn't remove speedy tags), followed by common sense prevailing (removing the tag, as it wasn't applicable)- I unfortunately forgot to do the common sense bit. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah don't worry about it - the other day I walked into the office, realised I'd left the front door key at home, and walked all the way back to get it. Beat that for common sense failure! ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD Notice

Hi. I AfD'd Brandon Presley as you suggested. This is a courtesy note in case you're interested in that page. It's not a canvass because I have no reason to think you'd agree with my nomination. Geogene (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Geogene: No, that's fine. I generally think AfDs are better, not only because you get a better consensus to delete, but if somebody wants to find out why the article was deleted, they'll get more of an idea than the boilerplate CSD text. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Unicommerce

Hello Ritchie, while reviewing new articles for creaton I came across Draft:Unicommerce. I've found out some reliable sources for the company like this and this. I'm including them in the draft also. The subject Unicommerce I believe has been salted by you. Please look into the matter. Thank you for your contribution. Mr RD (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well the best thing to do, and indeed what I did in my pre-admin days (eg: for Passafire), is wait until somebody reviews and accepts the draft. I don't think I'd pass it at the moment as there's not enough evidence of notability for it to survive an AfD. But if somebody wants to accept it, they can ping me (and I'll happily do it) or you can post on the Administrators' noticeboard explaining why you want the desalting, and any admin will do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well actually I was the one reviewing the article and found out about salt when I was accepting the page. I could not add more citations as somehow ProveIt was not working on this draft so I had to write the whole code by copy pasting through sandbox. I'll add more citations from here once it comes to the main space. Mr RD (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd really rather see a draft that I would personally accept first, I have to say. I've dropped a note at the AfC project page ... hopefully a consensus will fall out of that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Appreciated your effort. Mr RD (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For all the times I have checked in on your talk page, and found you keeping the wiki-peace, even when things get a little heated! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A7 tags and radio stations

Hello. I am wondering why radio stations do not count as companies for the purpose of speedy deletion tags. In my mind, they are just companies that broadcast on the radio. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysquirrel (talk • contribs)

@Happysquirrel: In my view, this is from my experience that an FM licence costs thousands of pounds a year and also limits to what you can say. You cannot swear and you cannot say any personal attacks amongst other things. So just getting there is not easy and it means any FM radio station probably can be at least redirected to a list article, which is just up from A7. That means I think you have to take it to AfD. For just an internet radio station without an FM licence, CSD A7 is fine if it doesn't show any idea of how it could be notable, as it's web content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Boone County Fire Protection District

Thanks for protecting Boone County Fire Protection District. Much appreciated. --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duke (album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Duke (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 Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Manohar hospital

Actually, I've just noticed that the Manohar hospital article is possibly a recreation of something deleted at AfD - see discussion. That would qualify it for speedy deletion now. I think I had better add it to my watchlist in case the thing reappears. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Well since a G4 only applies if the article is substantially identical to the one deleted at AfD, if you do a complete rewrite (eg: Ultra Rare Trax) or plug in a redirect instead with justification, you can usually get away with it in my experience. Hospital articles are a mixed bag, British ones with a full A&E department seem to be always kept (eg: William Harvey Hospital, Frimley Park Hospital), private ones less so. No idea about Indian ones at all, hence why I thought you'd know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I am a mere minion and so cannot compare/contrast. That said, the creator was the same person and there is so little that can be said about the thing that the articles almost certainly were substantially identical. India has both public- and private-run hospitals. The latter are the ones that tend to try to use WP for publicity/promotion, for obvious reasons, and they're also often rather dubious in their medical practices, which probably isn't helped by the number of degree mills and the ease with which it is possible to buy fake degree certificates that claim to have been issued by reputable universities. The thing has been protected for a short period, so I will await developments!

BTW, I went in the Jolly Farmer not long before it closed. One of my brothers was married somewhere not too far from there and I was short of something to do the night before. He'd paid for me to stay at that ridiculously expensive hotel where the England rugby team trained (> £300 a night then) but a B&B and someone with whom to gab would have suited me better. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Frank

Thanks for your support, - my question about the spirit of the restriction was not answered, well, I asked only the user who raised it. - I expressed my view that arbcom should apologize to Eric for the GGTF case caused by baiting him, - but who am I speaking about the spirit of restrictions ;) - Just don't say "honest", - everything should be honest without a label ;) - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'd intended to work on this a bit earlier, but had promised to help someone with something else just before you started this article. A shame that so many restaurants and clubs like this have closed their doors; it's good that we can create articles for them here so there can be some type of an idea what the restaurant was like and why it was important. Thanks again! We hope (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of West Pier

The article West Pier you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:West Pier for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. --Biblioworm 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry; just joking! I just Passed the nomination a few minutes ago, but I had some difficulties getting the topic on the talk page's GA tag correct. Apologies if I made the review complicated and frustrating. I should consider making my own GA review survial t-shirt. ;) Regards, --Biblioworm 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you lucky I've got a sense of humour ;-) .... seriously, the best way I found to close off GA reviews is to copy and paste the original "page", "topic" and "subtopic" fields off the opening template, which keeps it all in sync. You'd have thought that somebody would have done a Twinkle-type widget for all this. I seem to recall Technical 13 or someone like that was pondering about writing it. Anyway, thanks for a good review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? Please refresh my memory. I know I did some stuff to fix expensive parser function issues on the GAN page, but I don't remember all the details or what I planned to do moving forward. If there is interest in a script, I'm willing to research and put something together. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• I can't for the life of me remember; it's buried somewhere in the WT:GAN archives. A button that's like the AFCH tool for AfC submissions would be an absolute godsend, and the spec for what files you need to change and when is pretty straight forward; if you poke the talk page templates in the right order, the GA bot can pretty much handle everything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of West Pier

The article West Pier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:West Pier for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Biblioworm -- Biblioworm (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Response about alleged personal attacks

I just came across where you told me: "Now now, less of the personal attacks, young man."

I did not make any personal attacks. I said nothing personal at all. I said that a competent reviewer would have to do an actual review. That's always true of every nomination. I did not say that you were incompetent. Yes, there was an implication that your "review" was incompetently done, although I didn't explicitly say it. Well, let me say it explicitly now: your "review" was incompetently done. Please note: pointing out that an incompetently done review was done incompetently is not a personal attack.

Urgh. I really don't want to dredge this up again, but I'm afraid I'll have to rehash the whole thing, so I can refute the "personal attacks" claim.

There are many items which a DYK reviewer should check and mention in the review as having been checked, such as the article's age, size, neutrality, citations, and copyvio check. Your only notation: "Article is brand new". Other than erroneously dismissing the original hook, which I discuss below, that is the entirety of what you mention as being reviewed.

You did "review" the original hook (... that according to The Guardian, Ed Miliband's awkward eating of a bacon sandwich could have been because it was a bread roll and not sliced bread?), saying "the hook is misleading, all The Guardian actually says is Nigel Farage is better at eating sandwiches, with the roll / slice comment being ancillary. So let's go with ALT1 ... that The Guardian thinks Nigel Farage is better at eating a bacon sandwich than Ed Miliband?"

According to the article, "The Guardian said that the sliced bread which Farage ate was easier to eat than the bread roll which Miliband had." The source says: "Keen observers will notice the sliced bread of the Farage sandwich arguably makes it an easier handful than Miliband's roll." How is the original hook misleading? It restates what's in the article, which seems to fairly accurately restate what's in the source.

As for your proposed ALT1, there was absolutely nothing even slightly resembling that in the article, in violation of one of the most fundamental DYK rules. And perhaps the most important DYK rule of all is that a hook fact must be verifiable by the reliable source for which there's an inline citation. But this source (and I can only determine it's the source you intended from the context of your comments, since the "fact" doesn't appear in the article and thus has no inline citation), a four-sentence blog, only vaguely, sort of, obliquely, kind of, almost hinted at it. The only remotely relevant passage states that "Nigel Farage couldn't miss an opportunity to show him how it's done."

Then, to make matters much worse, you approved the nomination with your own faulty hook. This is precisely why reviewers should never approve their own hooks. It seemed as though you were so tickled at the prospect of getting your hook on the Main Page that you completely abandoned the idea of doing any sort of actual review.

After I posted to WT:DYK about the issue, you responded, "I'll go write 100 lines saying 'I must not be funny on the main page'." This is what really solidified my questioning of your competence in reviewing this. I had explained the specific problems with your hook, and you responded as though the problem was just that you were trying to get a funny hook on the Main Page.

There is a small but very vocal group of users who strongly disapprove of humorous hooks on the Main Page. I am not among them. Such hooks are fine with me, as long as all DYK rules are followed. Since there is opposition to such hooks, reviews for them should be done especially meticulously.

Rather than taking responsibility for your mistakes, you attempted to shift part of the blame to the set builder, and even to EEng for not offering a second opinion. Yes, ideally the set builder would have caught the problems, but the most important component in the DYK machine is the reviewer, and I can't fault the set builder too much for erroneously trusting that an adequate review had been done. And saying that you'd asked EEng for a second opinion seemed to be disingenuous; it certainly appears that you were not asking for a second opinion about your hook or your "review", but rather simply wanting him to come up with a funnier hook.

Can you honestly look at all of this objectively without realizing that your "review" and your response to the problems could, indeed, be seen as having been handled incompetently?

Sorry to have gone through this again, but I felt I had to defend myself regarding the alleged "personal attacks". I have absolutely nothing against you, and I'm sure you're an otherwise fine editor, but in this case, you really bungled. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Woah, calm down a notch. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things - there's no libel, defamation, blatant hoaxes, just a mistake. We all make them! You're not helping your cause by using words like "incompetent", "questioning of your competence" and I'm not "shifting blame" on anybody - rather this is a collaborative project and we all need to work together. That means when somebody screws up (and now I'm an admin I've pulled DYK hooks from the main page having seen reports on WP:ERRORS myself), you fix it, then you move on. Pointing fingers around doesn't really help anyone. I will say though that the atmosphere on DYK talk (that you're not to blame for) is rather unpleasant at the moment, and has put me off DYK for a bit. Big hugs and make up? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No need for me to "calm down". I've remained calm throughout. Those snippets are out of context; please note that I never said that I questioned your competence in general, but only with this issue, based on the way you responded: I posted about specific problems and you basically replied, "okay I won't do something entirely unrelated". Surely you can see how such a disconnected response could lead me to believe that you didn't understand what the problems were. Maybe you understood and were just trying to be funny, but I can only go by what you actually said. Honestly, it seemed as though the subject just made you so giddy that all that mattered was making a funny hook and giving funny replies. Above, you omitted an important step. You fix it, make sure the user understands what they did wrong so they don't do it again, then move on.

Thank you for acknowledging that I'm not to blame for the WT:DYK situation. If what I've said could be interpreted even remotely as being similar in any way to that garbage, I sincerely apologize. Of course, it's litterally a lovefest over there now compared to what it was last year. The unrelenting toxic environment then – what I refer to as the "Dark Days of DYK" – was so bad that, even though none of it was directed at me or anything I did, it drove me away, not only from DYK, but from Wikipedia entirely, for nine weeks (which is a very long time for me). I think some of the others who were driven away are still gone.

Also no need to "make up"; we weren't fighting. Besides, from looking around, I see that you seem to be friends with Drmies, and any friend of the doc's is a friend of mine. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Persistent admiration

Can live without that, and saw it on other users also, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Wickedly Welsh Chocolate

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds wery ritch! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Boom-boom! Very good, Gerda :) - Sitush (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Today, we think of spirit ;) - yesterday I discussed the "spirit of restrictions" and asked an arb (who supported my appeal) how precisely I "improved" (while I believe that I didn't change, and don't plan to change). I will go and tell Eric that he and I have now one more thing in common: a TFA on 31 May ;) - I still remember an uneasy feeling passing Precious to him three years ago, to some remote pinnacle with a Latin name at that time. Did you know that he came down to human on my talk in 2013? Look for "Malleus" and find "Have to warn you though that I'm not really a Wikipedian, have never been a Wikipedian, and I scare away women, children and new editors. Allegedly. But I'll try and be gentle." (and he always was to me), "The length of the infobox vs. the length of the lead is a factor that seems to have been largely ignored in all of the recent "discussions"." and "The reason I asked was because I'm thinking of adding my real name to my user page. ... I think a little more openness might go a long way." (Inviting Callanec and Liz, just to read, also DeltaQuad, as mentioned) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Cricket

Ritchie333 I need some help and advice.

This really is a worthy addition to wiki.

You know my husband has been blocked by a certain user, for editing Lichfield CC's wiki page. I have seen hard copies of the claim he made about Australian Test Cricketer Keith Miller AM MBE playing in the Chauntry Cup. Please would you take the time to look at http://www.cricketworld.com/media/files/chauntrycup.pdf Column 6 Paragraph 6. My dear old husbands' edits were deleted immediately whenever he cited this document or made any claim about this article. Would you please read the whole piece and if you think anything is worthy of addition on Wiki, would you be kind enough to add it?. I know that if I do it, that certain user will have me blocked straight away as a sock puppet. I just want an experienced but impartial viewer to read this piece. Also, if you search for the Chauntry Cup on the "tube of You ness", you will see that Sky Sports believe my husband, in his claim that the Chauntry Cup, actually is the oldest 20/20 in the world. I don't want you to be accused of being a sock puppet as I have, so I fully understand if you don't want to get involved. I really appreciate your interest in the Cup and find it amazing that YOUR edits are not challenged by this individual but my husbands are. Thanking you in advance. Jo JoanneB123 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned on my talkpage yesterday, I supported it being included with the source. The problem was that they didn't add the source the first time, and then when I said the source was fine, all they did was call me stupid, and question my ability to read, instead of actually readding it, like both of us wanted. See User talk:Joseph2302#the chauntry cup and this, which didn't add the source.

@JoanneB123: I don't want to argue about it again, I agree with Keith Miller being added, as long as the source is added too. But don't accuse me of things that aren't true- I rejected it because no reference was provided, and then your husband chose not to readd it, instead he decided to argue and attack me on my talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, the assertion that I got him blocked is wrong- he repeatedly claimed that his only purpose for being on Wikipedia was to promote the Chauntry Cup, and so an admin decided to block him. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The British Newspaper Archive has lots of scans of the Lichfield Mercury, so I dare say the unreferenced content can actually be cited to those if somebody with a subscription (that'll be muggins here I guess) has a look. Not now, I'm off to bed, maybe tomorrow. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The source for Keith Miller playing is here- all editors (me, Joanne, Dartman & socks) agree it should be added. The rest of the above is just a rerun of claims that a Dartman sock made yesterday against me, all of which I've refuted. I agree with it being added, just actually add it instead of making false accusations against me instead. Also, I'm not sure the exact text to be added, as I don't want it to be WP:UNDUE- after all, this is an article about Lichfield Cricket Club not just the Chauntry Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well this diff shows you removing that content with an edit summary of "no source that Keith played in Chauntry Cup" which contradicts exactly what you've just said. And aside from a copyedit, that's your last contribution to the article. So, I'm sorry Joseph, but you seem to be more interested in biting newbies and stirring up trouble than improving articles. I'm hardly surprised Dartman has been getting cross with you, you've just parroted policy rather than help him. Now, as The Colonel said, stop that, it's silly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: They only provided the source after I removed the text, and then I accepted it should be readded, see User talk:Joseph2302#the chauntry cup- but they didn't bother readding it. Have you seen the abuse they gave me on my talkpage- I'm not biting the newbies, I'm defending myself against an abusive sockpuppet. FWIW, I think Joanne will make has the potential to make a good Wikipedia editor, as long as she stops being a mouthpiece for her husband. Every action that her husband has taken towards me is to abuse me and call me stupid, and the post above is saying the same thing. Also, if you read Talk:Lichfield Cricket Club, I provided the source for someone else to add, I didn't do it myself since I believed that sockpuppets should not be dictating content.

And I strongly believe in improving articles, but Wikipedians should be able to work with other users, something that Dartman/LichfieldCC didn't do, and got blocked for not doing (that an explicitly stating multiple times they were here only to promote). Cricket articles in particular I like improving. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, 2 of the 3 users who supported @JoanneB123:'s unblock (me and @OhNoitsJamie:) supported it on the condition that they stayed away from the Chauntry Cup. I'm happy for the Chauntry Cup section to be expanded, but not by Dartman socks- I don't have access to the BMA, but these additions were good. I don't want a full article about it, listing every winner in a massive table though, like The Chauntry Cup article that was creates. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Even so, as an experienced editor, you need to keep a cool head. If somebody says "you're wrong", don't answer back. Text-based communication is hard to convey emotion, and it's so easy for misunderstandings to escalate into fully-fledge warfare. Provided a new user shows evidence of wanting to improve an article and shows evidence they want to do it the right way, I'll extend as much slack as possible. I have to say I'm not really a fan of our sockpuppetry policy and activities, it's too far removed from the end product of creating content and trying to block every Russavia or Best known for IP sock ever is like Cnut trying to tell the tide to stop coming in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to extend huge amounts of slack to the original Dartman/Lichfield at The Chauntry Cup, but the fact is Wikipedia policy says they shouldn't be creating new accounts. Also, is there something specific that you consider as "answering back"- I feel all my responses were justified, and aggressive behaviour towards is is never acceptable, newbie or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I personally found "your blatant, constant telling me I'm wrong seems to be the exact same mentality as the users who created the article and got blocked, you're not a sockpuppet are you?" to be an unlikely piece of writing to lead to a peaceful conclusion of a debate. Now, I've really got to get The Nice copyedited in shape for a GA, so I'll duck out there and wish you happy editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pete Townshend

I think I may have asked you this before, but would you like to collaborate to bring Pete Townshend to GA (possibly FA) sometime? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You did. I can do some of GA, but Townshend's articles covers far more than just The Who, and I'll need sources to do anything beyond about 1983, which covers tinnutus, White City, Psychoderelict, publishing for CSI and whatever else he's done outside of his main band. Probably a BLP minefield over his child pornography arrest too. First task - get rid of Mark Wilkerson's "Amazing Journey" - it's a self published source that's badly written and factually questionable. "Lacking the requisite test scores to attend university" - did he seriously contemplate going to university or did he just want to doss for a few years avoiding "real" work? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he did seriously consider going to university, though I would have to check the source first. He's very intelligent, probably one of the smartest rock stars, and it kind of surprises me that he didn't go to college. His post Who stuff needs some expansion, which is somewhat problematic since the article is already fairly long. I agree that the child porn charges are a minefield, though it should be mentioned (briefly). What is factually questionable about Amazing Journey? Also, is Who I Am a reliable source? I have a copy on my bookshelf, but I would hesitate using it for the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Amazing Journey was not released by a traditional publisher with any editorial control, some of the facts (I forget what exactly) are questionable, and there's an unpleasant POV about the whole thing. Who I Am is fine as a source, and I'd say its essential for this article. I'll have to grab a copy, I've heard its a fascinating read in its own right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty entertaining. There was one part that had me laughing out loud, where he gives his philosophy on groupies. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I came back and saw...

When the sun beats down and I lie on the bench and I think of the users I've mocked .... me, I'm just an admin, you can tell it by the way I block....

I would have opposed if I was present here during your RfA :-p Just kidding! Congrats, Ritchie. Thanks for volunteering, however, don't ignore the content work, it is one of the fields in which you're an expert. Best, Jim Carter 14:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a free country, you can lodge your oppose here instead. I have a vague aim to get 50 GAs before the summer is out, hopefully not all of them being old Genesis albums. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Old Genesis albums never die, they just find their way into the back of your wardrobe." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They say (well I do actually) that for every seven admins who are elected through RFA, one is actually worthy of the tools. Well, I just counted and you were number eight, making you a living proof that my theory is indeed correct. At last, one of the good guys enters the grizzly and murky world of adminship. Cassianto^Talk 11:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Thanks. I hope Drmies is one of the others. I have this sinking feeling I'm just going to bang heads with a lot of admins whose way of working I disagree with though :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

He is. Yes, plenty of head banging to come I'm sure. Call it "a perk of the job" ;) Cassianto^Talk 13:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If you were #8, I was #3. I guess we know where that leaves me! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

...a possible exception to the rule ;-) Cassianto^Talk 16:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

hi

I need someone to close my AN/I, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I had a look, and I don't really have sufficient experience in medical articles to be able to make a good decision. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks anyway--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for apostrophe abuse

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing from editing for disgracefully abusing punctuation marks, as you did here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Ritchie333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My brother did it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked. Go on, try and edit a page. HA HA fooled you!

Had you considered using the Grocer's Teahouse Process? We offer a more gentle way of leading you away from "bad apostrophe habits." (multiple bracket infringent's also considered) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

First, you should kneel in front of the blocking admin and confess that you sinned against the spirit of the community. Promises don't count. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ritchie333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My brother did it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Friends and relatives of greengrocers should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Bencherlite^Talk 10:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

These socks are a  Confirmed match

I am truly appalled and herewith resign in protest!! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, if you're not going to unblock me I'm just going to get my socks out instead. And believe me, they smell awful today. Anyway, now we've calmed down, could any of you help me beef up Draft:Dewtron so it's acceptable for mainspace. There seems to be very little in the way of reliable sources out there, but unreliable sources confirm that Mike Rutherford and Jon Anderson used their bass pedal synth, so there's got to be something out there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So first it's Genesis and now it's Dewtronomy?! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I can tell that you still didn't reach the proper state of repentance. Also didn't follow mom's advice to change socks daily. - You speak of article work? Really? No way before you confess. Lost content? Who cares? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I wear sandals, you know. I once wore shorts into the office too - that went down like a cup of bleach. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Way ta go, Threesie!! Shorts are all the rage in the bleachers. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Lo-Max Films

Since when has an article citing the NYT been eligable for A7? What a fatuous (and needlessly sarky)question: the cite is to an article about a film produced by this company. Doesn't make the company notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You should read the criteria for speedy deletion again carefully. Just because you think a company is not notable, it does not follow everyone else should share your views, in which case it's always best to file a full AfD debate and get a consensus. From my experience, a NYT source is usually sufficient to get at least a redirect from an AfD. Indeed, I made the same summary at Ruth Guler;[1] the tagger apologised and the article went to Did you Know? on the main page instead. Something to think about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments

A Request for Comments about the use of album covers is currently on at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. It would be greatly appreciated to have more opinions on the matter. Lewismaster (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thurso

Trying to get this over the line for GA with Sagacious. Can you see if you can find anything more on it? Lede could use expansion too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The best advice I can give is existing GA / FAs, most obviously the Towns in Trafford featured topic or Ashford, Kent and use those as requirements. I've added a Transport section, with a bit on the station and some buscruft. There's probably a bit more you can say about the station. There are too many images, or at least the placement of them isn't what I'd expect a GA to have. In all honesty, the lead is best left right until the very end - how do you know what to summarize if you haven't got all the data in front of you. The history section is glossed over, it does say the town was an important seaport, particularly under Norse rule, but I think that'll need to be fleshed out a bit - hopefully that's where Sagaciousphil can come in. I'm slogging away at Faversham at the moment which is taken forever to improve to GA standard, but if I get fed up with that I'll see if I can tackle this a bit more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'm an expert at writing city articles of course, but Thurso for some reason I couldn't find what I was hoping for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on discretionary sanction alert

It is my understanding that as long as I observe 1RR, I am in compliance with the conditions of the sanctions. I don't like editors who attempt to intimidate with templating and invalid 3RR reports when I am editing to current standards when they are editing to a decision that has not been made yet and IMO has only about a 50% chance of changing the existing standard, despite the numbers. Skyerise (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skyerise: The key problem I think is that every now and again we have moral panics on Wikipedia - this is one of them, Chelsea Manning was another, Scientology turns up every now and again and if I never hear the word "Gamergate" ever again I will be a happy man. Paul Graham has an excellent essay "What you can't say" which explores moral fashions in more depth. The only sane solution I've found is to state your view on the talk page as clearly as possible once then forget about it and work on another article until the heat dies down. I recall a similar incident here on Genesis P-Orridge where I did pretty much that - I see the style of pronouns has been changed back, but ... well worse things happen at sea. I agree with Drmies' comments here - you're a good editor with a solid track record in content, and I generally have all the time in the world for those sorts of people, so I would urge you not to become a martyr to the cause. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Katie Hopkins wiki regarding her contributions to Vive Charlie magazine

Hi Ritchie,

I'm a little confused as to why Katie Hopkins' articles in a magazine are not considered a good enough source to prove that she contributes to that magazine. It seems to be a circular trap. Surely the proof of this is the magazine(?).

Can you suggest sources, other than the primary source, that would prove the primary source to be true?

Nial Slain (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nial Slain: The best source would be an officially authorised biography of Katie Hopkins that received rave reviews in the national press, but such a source doesn't (as far as I know) exist. I've had a look through the article's history, and I'm trying to work out which edit removed a citation to this magazine. I don't recognise the title, so I'm not sure what its track record for fact checking and accuracy is. However, the Katie Hopkins article has serious ongoing BLP problems, in as much as it's far too easy to cite the next controversial remark that makes it to BBC News, The Guardian or the Daily Telegraph again and again, which turns the biography into too much of a hatchet job. With BLPs, just having a good quality source isn't enough, you also need to think "is the information I'm about to add vitally important to understanding this person"? It's obvious she has a reputation for provoking and upsetting people, anyone can see that! If in doubt - leave it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Important

Hi. I had nominated few article for Speedy Deletion per A7 criterion because they did not have any sources on article and on net as well so they failed WP:N. Thanks PawanAhuja (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@PawanAhuja: The best thing to do is then nominate them for deletion restating this in depth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel some articles are horribly poorly written and the problem is Google indexes them as soon as they are live. And almost all I tagged were clearly failing the basic WP:N criterion for a BLP or a CORP. Thanks for your suggestion. Will do that. :) PawanAhuja (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We have lots of articles needing cleanup on writing! (And yes, we should fix them all) However, the speedy deletion criteria is only reserved for a narrow set of criteria that has no obvious potential of being improved. You need a full debate to get consensus that something is non-notable. With historical figures, notability can sometimes only be seriously proven by non-free sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Per your explanation, I have now listed few articles that might need an AFD. There are few problematic editors who wrote articles on themselves and upon tagging with DB they repetitively removed them. I need any admin support out here. Please help me out. I still remember those days where my teacher said some pieces of info on Wiki are not true and I believe these are the people responsible for them. Thanks PawanAhuja (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Help ...

Can you help, please? Likely sock getting worse. I can't see any other Admins around. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil: Not a diff I want to read while eating breakfast - yuck. Anna has picked up the baton, and I've semi-protected Kangal dog for a week in case they sock some more. Sorry, I was still busy improving Faversham to GA status which is taking the best part of forever, I hope you can take that as an acceptable excuse! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - and apologies for subjecting you to that but I was in panic mode! You might want to obscure the edit on User talk:SineBot (without looking at the actual image). I hope I haven't messed the bot up by reverting as its now acquired a big pink warning sign? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Weathereditor1 evading your indefinite block of Weathereditor

As User:Weathereditor threatened, he's returned to evade your indefinite block and repeat the same disruptive edits, this time cleverly calling himself User:Weathereditor1. Thanks if you can take care of this. Maybe you can semi-protect each of the articles that he's trolling, too? —Patrug (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Patrug: *sigh* ... well I half-expected him to evade the block as an IP, but the WP:QUACKing is deafening. All I really want to do is for him to realise why he was being disruptive. While I could deal with all of this, I think it's probably fairer if another admin has a go, so I don't get accused of being judge, jury and executioner all in one. I'd follow the usual channels of WP:AN3, WP:RPP and WP:SPI - somebody will pick it up quickly enough. He's made good faith edits to Faversham and Ashford, Kent, so it's not an obvious troll and he's making sufficient edits to the point where semi-protection won't work. I would just caution you to revert only if you think an edit makes the article worse, not because it's by a block evading editor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reported the user here prokaryotes (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Note

I never wanted to see anyone blocked either, personal attacks aside, it was just a clash of egos. Big dog deal. Keep up the good work trying to force the DYK issues to be acknowledged and hopefully resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It was nice to have least done a prep -> queue assembly and see what you're actually getting at. EEng will be back armed with crazy puns before you know it (I see he's pinched my "matching socks" one already). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Brain hurts" - I actually lolled, innit. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Graham Chapman

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Graham Chapman 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 Onel5969 -- Onel5969 (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

GA criteria 3 and not having background knowledge about the subject

Hey. This is regarding your post at Talk:Babur where you mentioned about GA criteria 3. You said that one cannot review an article (i.e cannot verify criteria 3) if he doesn't know the article subject. I'm fairly new to reviewing myself and this has always bothered me. Is it really like that?

I've done articles where, not knowing the subject, I did a quick background search on the topic so that I could judge criteria 3. Honestly, I'm familiar with hardly any topic, if that was the case, there is very little I can review. Besides, aren't there so many noms out there about really niche and specific subjects? We can't really expect to always have a reviewer with background knowledge ready, right? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: The point I was making was more the reverse, which is if you think you don't have sufficient background knowledge to do a GA review justice, don't! For example, if LowSelfEstidle decided to nominate Fragile (Yes album) to GA tomorrow, I would have no problem doing a good review on it (was that subtle enough?) Ask me to GA review Pune, and I might punt on it to somebody with more experience on Indian cities. Ask me to GA review Israeli–Palestinian conflict and I'd probably run full-pelt in the opposite direction and cower under a table. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)