User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 31

Your GA nomination of Ron "Pigpen" McKernan

Could you please allow me to close my review? I think the talk page shows that I'm almost finished, so there is an end in sight. Also, two weeks is not a long time. I've been working on this at home, work, and even on vacation. I think it will be done by tomorrow night. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. My interpretation was you thought the article's quality was getting worse and I saw echoes of Talk:Widener Library/GA1. In any case, I need to recharge my batteries for a day or two before looking at this article again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is close to passing, but I want to give it a thorough final read. Look at how many corrections you and I have both made during this review. This is a good thing. The article has improved greatly with your help. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay I'll have a look in a minute, I guess I just over-reacted a bit, sorry. I think all said and done when this review is finished it's high time I took an extended holiday from this place (see below thread). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Angel, Islington

Hi there, Hello. I'm pleased to inform tell you that I've begun reviewing the article The Angel, Islington 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I've left a few comments on the review page. Nothing very major or worth putting the review on formal hold for. Please look in and let me have your responses. Tim riley talk 12:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Drum roll, please! On two drum-kits, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tim riley:, @Dr. Blofeld: I've addressed some easy issues but I'm going to be super-busy over the next few days (keep this quiet but I may be appearing on BBC4 at some point, but then again I might not, depends on how much work I put in now!) so if Blofeld can help tidy up the sourcing issues (there was very little in my book collection so most of it is online BHL stuff) we should get this closed down fairly quickly. (And Martin, next time pick a decent group with two drummers!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry. Perfectly happy to take this review at the most leisurely pace. Meanwhile good luck with your real life activities. Tim riley talk 16:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A few to choose from, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Angel, Islington

The article The Angel, Islington you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Angel, Islington 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Wright (musician)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard Wright (musician) 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 Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Keith Moon

Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Moon&curid=16991&diff=683442855&oldid=683425468 this, it's not clear from your edit summary what you think is "bad" about the source. Can you clarify? --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I improved the article to GA status and used critically acclaimed books. The problem with the source used is 1) it doesn't tell us anything not already in the article and 2) to meet the criteria of all other sources it needs a publisher and date in line with all other citations. If you disagree, revert and start a discussion on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your first point is an excellent one. The second really is nitpicking (and is an argument for improvement, not deletion)! But as the first is a good one, there's no need for reverting etc. Btw, neither of your rationales was really explained in that edit summary. Nice work on the article, generally. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Good to see your good work has not yet been eclipsed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to perigee-syzygy. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see what you've done there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

2nd Annual GA Cup - Round 4

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 4 GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup! Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck! Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia. The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Your reversion of my edits to "The Who"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to The Who article, with the comment "the GA flag goes at the top". This, however, contradicts the template's own instruction:

This template should be placed at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis.

It also ignores my other, minor corrections of capitalization, and of alphabetization of the categories. Would you please be so kind as to undo your reversion of my edit?

If you can achieve consensus to change the position of the template (and that of its sister "featured" templates), then I would be happy to comply with the new instructions.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK every GA I have ever seen (several hundred) puts the flag at the top and that's where Legobot will automatically place it; however this issue is trivial so feel free to revert. I didn't see any other changes that made any significant difference to the reader (eg: spelling fixes) - the only change seemed to be changing "In The" to "in the" in a source, which after Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles leaves me weary about the issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ian.thomson

Please unprotect this RfA. The RfA was being vandalized by a single IP, not a host of vandals or an IP hopping vandal. The IP editor wasn't even warned off, much less blocked. A blocking would have done just fine here, but now the RfA is blocked from any unregistered editor from commenting on the RfA. I note the first bullet point of Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Guidance_for_administrators. Please correct. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: This is far from the first time I have seen an IP vote "Oppose - candidate is an asshole" and semi-protection appears to be a consistent procedure across RfAs this year (eg: [1], [2]). As Acalamari and Bishonen are long standing and respected admins, I am happy to accept that what they did there is correct. To be honest, IPs hardly ever comment on RfAs in a capacity outside sockpuppetry, so I don't see this as being a major issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it isn't correct. The protection policy is clear on this matter; we had a single point source for the vandalism. That point source wasn't warned and wasn't blocked. Instead, you indefinitely protected against all unregistered editors from editing. In the last year, there have been three different discussions suggesting that RfAs should be semi protected to prevent unregistered editors from commenting. They are here, here and here. All three of these discussions concluded with IPs being allowed to comment, and two of them clearly marked as there being consensus to allow IPs to comment. With respect, you are clearly going against well established consensus. This protection needs to be removed posthaste. The page can be monitored for further vandalism, and if it errupts again we can have the point source blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation of those discussions (at least one of which I participated in) is that RfAs should not be protected pre-emptively. And indeed, no RfAs where an anonymous editor did not call a candidate an asshole were protected. I think you would be better off hearing the views of the other admins I pinged above, and then having a look at an article on this list to improve. Now I'm off to enjoy what remaining sunshine we have of this year and see if there are any more Magnums in the shop up the road. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've cited the policy you are acting in abeyance of. I've cited three consensus discussions regarding allowing IP editors to comment on RfAs. In an effort to stop one IP from editing the RfA you are stopping ALL IPs from editing the RfA indefinitely. This is directly against the consensus that was formed. Since you are failing to act, you leave me no choice but to take this elsewhere. That's not any threat, nor any criticism of you as a person. It is simply that your actions on this issue and unwillingness to correct the obvious error are not acceptable. I hope you enjoy your sunshine. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richie. Hammersoft has a point here, which he raised at WP:RFPP - on the back of that report I've reversed the protection and blocked the IP address. My fault entirely, sorry; I should just have blocked the IP editor after his first foray into RFA, and then all this could have been avoided. Mea culpa. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I just thought the IP would hop onto another one and repeat the process myself, but we'll see. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

With this I wasn't attempting to be a policy wonk. I simply strongly believe in the power of all good faith editors to contribute to Wikipedia (it is, after all, how we were able to build this project), as I've voiced before at the discussions regarding IP contributions to RfAs. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem - all I wanted (and I do apologise if it wasn't clear enough above - "it's policy!" is a good phrase to make my hair stand on end!) is to just get a few more viewpoints in the discussion first. The protection doesn't stop you from editing the RfA (if it did, I'd certainly be a lot more amenable to unprotecting) and I have seen a lot of helpful edits from IPs such as minor copyedits and typos I missed on articles, just I don't really think project pages are things casual editors particularly care about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• No worries. Thanks for handling this equitably. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft and Yunshui: Given the amount of abuse Ian takes from quite persistent LTAs, it's a good bet that more accounts will show up sooner or later. If protection is reinstated should this occur, is anyone going to point to WP:WHEEL? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I would hope common sense would prevail that if the troll comes back onto Ian's RfA, we can do a short block again, or if they hop IPs, then I don't see how re-protecting the page meets the criteria in WP:WHEEL as it's not the same administrative action. Obviously I won't be doing the re-protecting, there are enough other admins around to do that, but if there happens to be a policy wonk that doesn't like whoever does, then I fear the heavens will tremble on Arbcom :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• If we start seeing abuse from multiple/hopping IPs or SPAs, I don't see a wheel problem nor would I object to it being protected. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Should go without saying, but anyone, including Ritchie, is totally free to re-apply protection if things start going south again. Won't hear a peep from me. Yunshui ^雲_水 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged here I ought to respond: When I protected that other RfA, I did so because IP socks were vandalizing rather than just one IP; that being said, in the past the aforementioned vandal usually has used socks whenever one of their IPs is blocked, so I can understand why Ritchie333 protected the page. There's, of course, no harm in unprotecting again, as has been done here. :) Acalamari 18:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Wright (musician)

The article Richard Wright (musician) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Richard Wright (musician) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I getting tired of stating the same thing.

Check my comment at JohnCd's talk page, why the reference is fake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohnCD#Nishit_Ashokkumar_Mehta Thanks.--The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/music-events/Toshi-Sharib-and-Swaroop-Khan-perform-at-Rajasthan-Day-celebrations-in-Jaipur/articleshow/12558541.cms

This is the reference he gave. There is no mention of him. He has managed to fool so many administrators. --The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Amazing Spiderman: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishit Ashokkumar Mehta - patience. I don't charge headfirst into deleting things without doing a good look round for sources first, which takes a little while. Even then, somebody might still rescue the article, though looking at its history, I'm sceptical. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

These two edits will change your mind 1 and 2. Once again this reference has no mention of him, though it is used to add his name in Satyamev Jayate (TV series) The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well the AfD is up so we might as well let it run its course - if an article isn't libellous or a copyvio, it generally doesn't hurt to let it run 7 days. If it really is a non-notable person falsifying sources, the community will pick up on this soon enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!

Thank you so much for helping me with the "Diana Falzone" article! I will get more verified references (newspapers, magazines she is mentioned in) and all the info up asap and look over the wikipedia guidelines to make sure I am abiding by the rules. I really appreciate your help!

LalalaLinda (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Linda

@LalalaLinda: Thanks for the feedback, but I have to warn you now that all I have done is add one source to rescue the article from the immediate threat of being speedy deleted due to no indication of importance. The article has previously had one deletion debate that closed as "Delete", and most of the sources I have looked at just now report back little more than "Diana Falzone is a reporter for Fox News". That's not good enough to sustain a Wikipedia biography I'm afraid - journalists are a hard sell (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Poulton). There is some coverage of her in Examiner.com and the Daily Mail but those tabloidesque sources are completely unacceptable for biographies of a living person. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I completely understand. She did host a national radio show called Devore and Diana and her national radio show has a wikipedia page. Would that help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeVore_and_Diana

She was offered her own national radio show, “DeVore and Diana,” making her the first and only female ever on Maxim Radio SiriusXM. She was also voted one of Maxim’s favorite women. I'll do some more digging to see if there are more verified sources i can use in the references. She was also on I guess it's a bit tough when it comes to journalists. She was also on the reality show "Ice T and Coco". I'll check if there are some better sources on that. Thank you again for all your help! I am glad I finally joined wiki.

@Ritchie333: Also found these links (some are from yahoo, CBS & Huffington Post):

@LalalaLinda: If she's hosted a national radio show over a sustained period of time, and that can be verified by reliable sources, then that's definitely a good indication of notability. Let me introduce you to Rosiestep and SusunW who have a keen interest in biographies of women and have come greatly to my assistance in the past when wanting to help on a topic I'm unfamiliar with (eg: Zella Jackson Price). Stick around, and once you know the basic inclusion policies, the place can be rather habit forming. PS: Don't put sources on my talk page; add them to Talk:Diana Falzone. Anyone thinking about improving or deleting the article can then see the sources and make a more informed judgement call. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything that would merit her own article. None of the links provided are to reliable mainstream media—gossip posts, opinion posts, fan posts don't work for GNG. I don't even see any reliable sources for the show, or I would recommend putting a redirect for her to the article about the show. Unless you can find some sort of reliable source, neither belong in an encyclopedia. I tried books, news, and web and got nothing better than the links shown above, which do not meet the bar for reliability. Sorry. SusunW (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@LalalaLinda: sad to to say it, but I agree with @Susun. I found two mentions in books and added those references to the article's talkpage in case they could augment some other sources. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, for the time being I've redirected the article to Fox News Channel. The article's history and talk page has been preserved so it can be recovered later if need be. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that my posts are destructive

Could you explain which posts of mine you believe are destructive to wikipedia? I understand you support banning me from the project I'm just curious as to why. I think people jumping to ANI instead of article talk space is unhealthy for the project. I follow the guidelines, Be bold, make changes, if people disagree or your wrong find out consensus in talk page and go from there. it's a great process that works. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "I didn't see any problem with my edits" is a common complaint I hear from blocked editors; if they knew there was a problem, they'd stop doing it so they didn't get blocked! Stands to reason, really. The problem as I see it is not with any specific edit. Taken in isolation, and evaluated on its own merit, there's not much wrong with a quick "hey, this is British English, so we use 'were', cheers" on an article. The problem seems to be that's pretty much all you do, you have a track record of edit warring, and you appear to spend more time talking about articles than doing actual work. I can't see any evidence of you improving an article to good article status, for example. So while starting numerous talk page discussions about one minor word in the lede is not in itself against policy, it seems the community has got fed up of fielding these endless enquiries of yours and decided you're taking more time from the project than the work you're giving back to it. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The majority of my edits are improvements and never are complained about. Wikipedia is like building a house. different people will take on different tasks. Some people will design the house, and write articles and make that. Some will do framing and adjust catagory tags and things like that. Some people will sand the dry wall before its painted. And some people will make small edits to articles here and there as they go. Like removing a redundant adverb, or changing the Killers from Are a band to Is a band. I don't take anything away from the project. I don't force people to go to ANI and cry about me. Admins like you who say " don't bother editing wikipedia unless you are going to contribute a lot" is why busy women don't edit, why we have 18% of editors as women. I respect that you have a lot of time for Wikipedia. but I don't, When I do have time to improve articles in small ways I do. ANI mongers aren't improving any articles they are just ANI mongers. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that way at all, and I feel sad that you think I do. As you can see from the post immediately above this one, I have just helped a new user who wants to write a biography on a female journalist, having rescued it from speedy deletion. I don't like blocks at all, and on the rare occasion I support one, I feel like this. ANI is not a nice place, anyone can see that, but frankly while they are some "drama-mongers" on ANI who cause huge amounts of disruption for "kicks", I would not count Iridescent and Begoon among them, and when they are so concerned about your conduct to even think about proposing a block, that really does mean something is wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If this were a one-off incident, I wouldn't dream of anything more than a "don't do it again", but there is a long pattern with you of making extremely stupid comments, then becoming aggressive when they're challenged. The episode detailed here should have been a warning, but since then you've been involved in ridiculous fights like this, this, this, this… It's apparent that either you don't understand the basic principles of collaboration which underpin the Wikipedia model, or you feel that you're so superior to other editors that only your opinions are of importance. Given that you've clearly failed to learn the lessons of your narrow escape from a siteban last time, and are showing no indication of being willing to accept that anyone else's opinions can ever be of value, there comes a point when the time it consumes dealing with you counterbalances whatever positives you do bring. ‑ iridescent 18:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree those past fights are as pointless as this fight. If the editors would simply use the article talk page none of them would happen. Why don't people use Article talk page? becuase power hungry admins indulge the bullies in ANI so they don't have to bother with the whole "Consensus" part of Wikipedia. what % of the stone throwers were in the talk pages? Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Having admin rights can't pay your gas bill, sail you through a job interview or get you laid, so in the real world they're pretty meaningless irrelevancies all said and done. In any case, using language like "power hungry admins" is unlikely to swing consensus against blocking, so pick your battles carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't view this as a "battle" This is a group of wikipedians who prefer ANI over Discussion page. you said yourself you can't single out any problematic edit. If you can cite a policy that I'm not following I'm happy to follow it, but I'm bold and civil. Wikipedia is not a democracy 100 invalid votes to ban someone doesn't equal a ban. I follow the guidelines and the rules. If you have a specific policy or value I'm not living up to I'm happy to examine changing. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Do discussion threads involving blocked editors need to be hatted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As the level of conversation has not progressed beyond tiresome, I would say no. Your last comment has pretty much ended the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess the ritual nailing to the school walls is also out of the question, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

When an editor is indef blocked, the feeling I get is this, and I'm sure Gerda Arendt feels the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's just how I felt. But without the tasteful sweater, naturally. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even cry when my refuge in sickening situations left us. - Did you know that it's October, breast cancer awareness month, user box on my user page - and awareness is not only for women, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I did know, and several friends of mine have run the Race for Life over a number of years and I do drop in and buy things from the local Cancer Research shop when I can. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I designed my own user box ;) - need inspiration for one saying "this user has been called a monster", Halloween, as you may have seen. One advisor thought of a video ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Re: " Requesting not to delet my page

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at User:Nishit Ashokkumar Mehta.
Message added 09:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why is my page on Alpine Power Systems Deleted?

Hey it says that my page was deleted I wanted to know why? I am supposed to make a wikipedia page for a local organization / small business for my school project. What information within my page violated your terms and conditions, please let me know... so when i remake the page I do not make the same mistake. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirschb8 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hirschb8: The first question to ask is why is your school asking you to do this? Most small businesses are not suitable for Wikipedia, which is a worldwide encyclopedia dealing with information and knowledge from all ages. A much better project would be to identify an article on an important but neglected historical figure (such as Trevor Baylis, to pick a random example out of thin air) and improve that. I have put the article in a draft space at Draft:Alpine Power Systems Inc. where it can be submitted for review by an experienced editor before being accepted to mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And I'm sorry to be harsh, but I've deleted it again. The page is a verbatim cut-and-paste of this website, and Wikipedia can't accept copyright violations even as drafts. As Ritchie says, it's very unlikely a small business will be appropriate for Wikipedia. (Some are, but they tend to be long-established restaurants or shops with a nationwide or global reputation.) ‑ iridescent 19:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

D'oh, thanks Iridescent, I normally check for G12 when assessing speedies, but forgot about doing it when doing the restore. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Leonia Holistic Destination

Hello, sir this is one of most famous Resorts, should have a wikipedia Sourabh angarkar (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sourabh angarkar: While hotels are a perfectly valid topic for Wikipedia, such as The Dorchester, The Angel Islington, Ram Jam Inn and Stanley Hotel, Nairobi, those examples are well-documented in sources, going back to the early 20th century and beyond. In this case, the article you submitted was little more than an advertisement, and there's no obvious way one could write much about it at all in a general purpose encyclopedia. Unless the hotel in question has an extensive history stretching back to the days of the British Raj, I don't think it's a suitable topic. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Summer Esperanto Study

My apologies for the inappropriate message about Summer Esperanto Study and stepping on your AFD edit. reddogsix (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Reddogsix: Fortunately it tickled my sense of humour. An AfD will sort this one out one way or the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks... reddogsix (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thine's RFA

Hi, Ritchie! Just wanted to say that I was disappointed by your comment at RfA. Because you seemed to accept Eric's oppose, and his completely un-called-for implication that Thine is a kid, at face value. Eric had no business saying something like that; his comment was simply intended to poison the discussion with the idea that Thine is young - something that would never occur to people if they just look at his edits and attitudes, which are suitably mature. It may not even be true, but now the implication is out there and will affect people's thinking. I thought that was dirty pool on Eric's part, and I was hoping nobody would take it seriously. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that the candidate is no older than 15. What do you know? Eric Corbett 18:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Melanie on this. I've no problem with Eric, never crossed paths, but his !vote is sheer personal attack as OUTING is dealt in the way personal attacks are dealt but here the stakes are higher. Eric by his comment, has harmed the privacy of the candidate, it doesn't matter if the information is true or not. When you pointed to this, I was mystified. How could you tolerate that? It is real serious business, the !vote should be removed by an oversighter. Jim Carter 18:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

P. S. Now I think another oversighter is needed here. Jim Carter 18:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to hide the fact that Wikipedia has many underage administrators then go ahead, but it won't be forgotten. Eric Corbett 18:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jim Carter, it's documented that TAP was 12 three years ago, and saying that he's 15 now is simple addition, not "outing". Stop shit-stirring; there is only one editor currently being disruptive, and it isn't Eric. Not everyone has to agree with it (most don't), but "I consider the candidate too young" is a perfectly legitimate reason for opposition. ‑ iridescent 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to upset or belittle anybody - it's not a big secret I get on with Eric, I think the reverse is true, and if it seems like I leap to his defence a bit too hastily, it's because it's my genuine opinion that he's been unfairly treated. I am uncomfortable about my kids going onto YouTube, which I don't think is too unusual as a parent, so his comment personally struck far closer to home than any of you may realise. The problem, however, was more that the conversation thread was starting to degenerate into "why aren't admins disciplining Eric for this yet?" and that tends to just end in tears. I felt the best way to get it back onto discussing TAP's suitability as an admin was to close the thread gracefully, but firmly. It's easy to assume that a block for maturity 3 years ago suggest he must be quite young to have matured in this timeframe. However, I was gigging in pub bands aged 15, so horses for courses. As long as the discussion on the RfA has stopped, I think the matter is resolved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I don't see where the candidate has self declared. It was a comment by another user which has got no response from the candidate, the link you provided. Assuming he have added something along the lines on his user page someday, he has redacted them. His userpage, User:Tomtomn00 has been deleted on his request and the current user page don't have anything such. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it can be considered outing if anyone announce those redacted informations. Do have a read on the relevant policy. Cheers, Jim Carter 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Irridescent, one of the things TAP was disciplined for, at the ANI, was putting too much personal information on his user page. I believe that information was revdeled or the whole page was deleted. As for the link you posted to here, it seems to have a tone of not believing the claimed age (as in, "are you really...?"). In any case I think it is very inappropriate for you, or anyone else, to bring it up now. IMO he should be judged by how he edits and how he interacts with people; his age is nobody else's business unless he chooses to reveal it, which he hasn't.

I didn't see anyone calling for Eric to be disciplined. I do think his comment was out of line, and I wish he hadn't made it, but I don't think it's blockable. And it's way too late to be oversighted. The damage has been done ("schoolchildren"? really?), as Eric clearly intended. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Block me if you like. But unlike you I know how old this candidate is. Eric Corbett 19:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN, I disagree. I'm not disclosing TAP's name, address or anything remotely identifying. "I feel the candidate is too young" is a perfectly legitimate comment (as is "I feel the candidate is too old"); the closing crat isn't obliged to take it seriously. Regarding "I didn't see anyone calling for Eric to be disciplined", I don't see how you could interpret this in any way other than an insinuation that "discipline" is called for. ‑ iridescent 20:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I must be disciplined. It's a rule on here isn't it? Eric Corbett 20:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the barnstar. Though these days it looks as if NeilN is the one mainly clearing that up. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, group effort :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ivan Bertolla

Could you have another look at this please? There's no reason that an article that has previously been prodded (actually a BLPPROD) isn't eligible for speedy. At present (and in the history) I can see no claim of importance made. He's obviously not notable and I don't see the point in wasting the community's time by sending it to AFD. (See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ivan_Bertolla). Cheers SmartSE (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@SmartSE: I deleted it. I normally err on the side of inclusion and send stuff off to AfD when in any doubt (see below) but in this case I can't find any independent sources at all, and what's on the article was basically a whole bunch of walled garden self published stuff. So out it goes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. SmartSE (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Raïs Neza Boneza

Hi, I see you declined my speedy deletion request, based on published books, but if you look at them by ISBNs, you will see that all those books are self published thru services like Lulu.com. So, I am still positive he fails inclusion criteria. if you agree with me, please revert your decline. Thank you Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Arthistorian1977: The criteria for speedy deletion are very low and narrowly defined, as they allow an administrator to delete an article without needing to discuss it with anyone else. I'd recommend another deletion process such as PROD or AfD. Unlike the above example, biographies of African people are far less likely to be on the end of a Google search in the UK and the US, so my general heuristic of acceptable sourcing is much lower. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Finishing school

What was at Finishing school before you moved the disambiguation page to that title? There's around 200 pages that link to it, and most of them are meant to link to the top definition on the disambiguation page, which is no longer a link (it links to the page it is on). I can't see that the page that was at Finishing school was moved anywhere if there was an article there, and I can't see the deleted revisions to know what the redirect was if there wasn't an article there. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 21:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I had the same question, and was just about to post here on that. :) Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the article Finishing school (which described women's educational institutions of an earlier era) was inadvertently deleted. Its talk page (Talk:Finishing school) still exists and contains comments pertaining to that article (which was created in 2001 or 2002). It would seem that the deletion was actually meant for the redirect The Finishing School which would enable the move of Finishing school (disambiguation) to The Finishing School (most of the entries within the dab page are book or film titles which use the form "The Finishing School", with uppercase "F" and "S", rather than "Finishing school") —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Niceguyedc:, @Natg 19:, @Roman Spinner: - Fixed. This was a move request that came in yesterday (admins can do a replacement move which automatically deletes the original as WP:G6 - "Maintenance"), but I got confused with public school, which is a disambiguation page. Sorry! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for all you action on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

nms642

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nms642: I was literally a minute too slow to beat you to it, although I had already posted a message to User talk:nms642 trying to explain why. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv: No problem - in all honesty the real reason for doing it was it was good opportunity for me to learn how to close RfAs and how some of the templates work. The only time I have ever gone near them previously was my own and I told Kudpung / Drmies (can't remember which now) if any of us was going to look silly for getting the transclusion wrong, it ought to be someone who's already got the bit ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I had a question about this RfA because nms642 didn't transclude it himself and on his talk page, he says that his RfA would start on Sunday. Yes, the results would have been the same if the RfA had run two days later....or maybe he would have decided he was not ready. I'm not sure we should "help" editors by having their RfAs go live without them asking for help to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly transcluding it (I didn't do that) wasn't a good idea, but by the time 6 people have voted WP:NOTNOW it's probably best to log it a properly closed RfA. If nms642 runs a "real" RfA in 3 years time, he will want to disclose up front he had a false start early in his career (not too dissimilar to what's happening with Thine Antique Pen right now) and be honest about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've tried doing a search to find untranscluded RfAs but they are difficult to find. What you can see from Ian Thomson's RfA is that sometimes editors create RfA pages and they sit for months or years before the editor decides to go live or decides that they don't want to participate in an RfA after all. I just don't think RfAs should be transcluded on an editor's behalf unless requested.

But I realize that you didn't do this so I'm just sharing an opinion here. I understand that this isn't a big problem in the scheme of things. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Liz, having seen that RfA I felt that transcluding it without the editor's permission (done by User:Hasteur I believe) was highly inappropriate. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Arthur goes shopping I transcluded it because users should not be creating RfA nominations for themselves (especially in that state it was in) in project space unless they are serious about making a run for the position. I found the untranscluded nomination when I was looking through the user's contributions when deciding if they would be appropriate for being on the DRN volunteers list. I would appreciate an apology for your lack of AGF Arthur... Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur, do you mean that you transcluded it without even checking with the candidate first to see if they were serious and ready and wanted it transcluded? Or did you ask and they said, yeah, sure, go ahead, thanks? I ask because your comment here makes it sound like you just came across the RfA and said, oh, hey, this should be transcluded, I'll go ahead and do it - and I really hope that's not what actually happened. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Awaiting Hasteur's reply to Melanie's question, before I consider his demand above. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Genesis page

Hi.

I was just wondering why you'd removed "Gabriel claimed their audience was a "mixture of social classes" and that such a suggestion was a fabrication of the critics." Is there a problem with the source? Rodericksilly (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rodericksilly: I have read Fielder's book a long time ago but can't remember that quotation being in there. I checked Bowler / Dray's book, and there is definitely mention of critics using Charterhouse as a stick to bash the band with, but not that specific quotation. I decided then that it wasn't really important to have the quote in, and the body of the sentence that was verifiable was okay to stay in. For the GA review, I think this will suffice; if we ever get the article back to FAC, this might have to be revisited. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for all the excellent work you and LowSelfEstidle have put in. I couldn't have done it without you; I'd have gone batshit insane trying. Despite the odd badgering from Dr. Blofeld, I just can't wrap my head around leading the charge on another FA review, and I think having a strong and committed team around is about the only way it's going to happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm just glad to help out! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I go hot and cold over the FAs myself admittedly. Sometimes it seems essential and that anything else is substandard, but other times it seems too much of a hassle. When there's so many articles need basic work I often think getting to GA and moving on it the best solution. Still don't know how Sinatra will pan out. I'll get it to GA but not sure about FA as it is inevitably going to get a serious grilling given his status. I could spend November working on Cary Grant to GA for instance rather than pruning Sinatra for the centenary!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well quite. At my current work rate I could probably get between 5 and 10 GAs done in the same time it takes to do an FA, so I've only ever warmed towards FACs that will get a good "return on investment" in terms of readers, and I think Genesis gets about a quarter of a million views a year. Plus this might well be the only place on the internet you can expect a neutral and balanced view of the band - a lot of people have strong opinions on the various bits of their career. I'm sure you've got an opinion about Phil Collins, but if you can't stand the man (and it's documented in multiple reliable sources that many can't), go and listen to his drumming on something like "Firth of Fifth" or "Los Endos"; you'll instantly give him a lot more respect, because whatever else he does, that's brilliant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

My alleged namecalling

Please provide a diff to when I name called someone on the Honey bucket article so that I know which behavior I need to fix, and given I did provide diffs to back up my claim of another's name calling, I think it's the least I deserve. Thank you. LjL (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) LjL (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: The short answer is this diff where you accused another editor of making a personal attack can, in itself be a personal attack per WP:NPA "The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy" and if you report another user at ANI, we will look at both sides of the story before deciding what action to take (see WP:BOOMERANG). The more substantial issue though, is the conversation wasn't about improving the article on bucket toilets but was some ancillary discussion about editors. While it's perfectly true we have editors reported at the Conflict of interest noticeboard, I think the topic we have here is sufficiently broad and uncontroversial that it seems unlikely that anyone could edit it with a conflict of interest, and even then, directly accusing somebody of having a COI (rather than filing a neutrally-worded report on the COI noticeboard) is not the way to do things. I would suggest letting it go, there are about 5 million other articles to edit, and most tend not to have anyone else working on them on any regular basis, so they're worth having a look at (such as, say, providing a reliable source for why undocumented Zilog Z80 instructions are responsible for the Rhino's movement on Sabre Wulf). Some food for thought, anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I wasn't the one directly accusing people of COI though, I merely made a comment about what I thought when it came to government funding. Anyway I will let it go, they can call the article "flying iguana" if they reach that consensus - at least I'll stop seeing them put words in my mouth. LjL (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The root problem is that because Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, the level of what people accept as being civil and collegial varies wildly, and I've found the only sane thing to do is to have activities off-wiki that you enjoy and keep the editing on here at arm's distance. There are plenty of people who you can happily work alongside, but as they don't draw attention to themselves, they're a little more difficult to ferret out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cool To Be Kind

Hey there, I noticed you stopped the speedy deletion of Cool To Be Kind on the basis that a few citations had been added. FYI, I decided to follow up and check those references, and none of them (except one to the campaign's own homepage) even mention the article's ostensible subject, let alone establish its notability. (See Talk:Cool To Be Kind.) Thought you might be interested. AtticusX (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@AtticusX: Send it to AfD. Remember that the speedy criteria are low - the article gives sufficient context that I can do my own search for sources; I wouldn't pay attention to anything in the article (the BBC and Independent sources have nothing to do with the topic, and I checked those), I did have a quick look round yesterday but got sidetracked onto doing a bit more on Leicester Square. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)