User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rock music, real ale, and cats

I guess it's a bit far from Kent but on my rare trips to the UK (last one was Wikimania in London) I can usually be discovered lurking in Weatherspoons in Oxford if there's a meet up there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Soho

Soho might be an interesting one to research and get to GA. What do you reckon? Perhaps Iridescent or Cassianto has something to say about it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me go grab my London Encyclopedia (not right now, I'm upgrading a 2007 iMac to Yosimete and tinkering with the A4061 road) which has now become my go-to source for everything London based and see what it has to say. City of Westminster places tend not to be too troublesome as they weren't really developed until the 16th century, so you can get away with "What is now 'x' was full of farmlands / fields / mudflats / bugger all until the 'y'th century" as an opening. The sex industry stuff might attract Flyer22 (unless I've read her persona completely wrongly). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
As I noted before, I typically don't edit pornography articles. I wouldn't call the Soho article a pornography article, but it clearly concerns the sex industry. And I typically don't edit sex industry articles either. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I don't either; for what it's worth I have done bits on Asexuality and sent the odd non notable porn star off to AfD and that is more than enough involvement in the entire topic as far as I'm concerned. However, to get Soho to GA and beyond, somebody's got to source it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I can see why you think that Flyer, it does have a particularly seedy reputation, but has an interesting history beyond that and also many record shops of note. Also its jazz and rock history I think would be interesting to delve into. It remains a major district of central London which should be of better quality. I don't know if you like working in sandboxes Ritchie, I don't usually, but it might be better to start the article from scratch in a sandbox and use some of the existing material bit by bit with better sourcing. I'm not a fan of all of those different sections, prefer to keep it simple.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I haven't really used sandboxes much; I prefer to just chip away at things in mainspace, so the gnomes can fix spelling, grammar and formatting mistakes that invariably I'll make. Initially I'll try and source what's already there, or expand missing detail until most of the article looks reasonably sourced, although I might park "trivia" or "in popular culture" sections on the talk page. Eventually it reaches a tipping point where things are looking good and it just needs expansion from there. As I don't currently know everything about Soho ever, I'm going to need to research and find out stuff as I go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that worked with Denmark Street and some of the others didn't it. I just didn't want it to be too daunting to overhaul it and then begin improving it. Sometimes a complete nuke and restart is easier. Will begin on it within the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think in the case of Denmark Street and Ipswich Road, Colchester, what was there was so pitiful that just lumping the rewrite on top of what was there was acceptable. I know Giano was a fan of sandboxing stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've begun cleaning up Soho. Can you find around 6 images representative of Soho which look good and I'll request a montage?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: How about these :
  1. File:Gardeners hut Soho Square 030.jpg
  2. File:Soho (1877979497).jpg
  3. File:Comptons, Soho, W1.jpg
  4. File:Wardour Street, City of Westminster, London.jpg
  5. File:Greek Street - geograph.org.uk - 1104098.jpg
  6. File:Ronnie Scott's Jazz Club, Frith Street, Soho - geograph.org.uk - 1510854.jpg

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@We hope: Can you do a montage with those for Soho? If not right shape or whatever you can find suitable replacements, whatever.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I can do it, but how I do it would depend on where you plan to use it. The photomontage template can't be used in an infobox, so a montage for that would need to be done "off-WP" and uploaded. We hope (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@We hope: There is no infobox ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I'll start working on this now since it can be done "on WP". :) We hope (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, @Dr. Blofeld:, I put a photomontage on the Soho talk page. Had to substitute Kingly Court for Wardour Street because of the size of the photo. If you want to make any changes, it should be no problem even after it's in the article. We hope (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I only put infoboxes in articles to wind up Blofeld and Cassianto - hadn't you noticed :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
...and I only delete them to wind up Gerda ;) CassiantoTalk 01:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I support them in most settlement articles but it looked redundant and crap in the Soho article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The "sin"fobox should should have a shutter that closes down after your time is up and it should only be visible to men with Macs; sorry, Soho, I know that's an unfair stereotype. Belle (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Keith Moon

I have restored that information to the Keith Moon page. If a Rolling Stone readers poll is relevant, then so is his (much earlier) induction to the Modern Drummer Hall of Fame as the second rock drummer, which is actually more of a reflection of his impact on drummers (not just Rolling Stone readers). Also, Moon's lead is considerably shorter than many others I've seen on Wiki, so the idea such an early recognition of his impact is too much detail is something I can't agree with. Rodericksilly (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The article has achieved Good Article status and had an extensive peer review after that, and three paragraphs is an appropriate size for an 40K prose article per WP:LEADLENGTH. If another editor reverts, you will need to get consensus on talk for your changes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bond Street

The article Bond Street 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:Bond Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bond Street

The article Bond Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bond Street 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


Please can you look at this

edit. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Crikey, that article is a total train wreck really, isn't it? I'm wonder if it should be moved to draft space until it's released, it seems to be causing no end of problems. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Soul and spirit become confused, - ready for review, - it made (infobox) history, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New West End Company

The article New West End Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article claims New West End Company is largest retail business improvement district, But I couldn't verify any popularity or referenced links for verifying proposal, Could anyone suggest any opinion whether this should remain or not?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 15:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@PrinceSulaiman: - Don't template the regulars, and I created it as a redirect to Oxford Street, so I have put it back there. If you want to challenge the redirect itself, raise a request at Redirects for discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Watch What Happens

Fantastic song [1]. I reckon you and the missus could do a good version. Genius chord progression just quickly worked out C major 7, D flat major 7, C major 7, C minor 7, F 13, B flat major 9, B flat minor 7, E flat 13, A flat major 7, B flat 7, B flat minor 7, E flat 7, A flat major, then later on at 1:10 genius, A major 7, B flat maj 7, B major 7 and back to C major again! Deserves its own article. I just created one for Invitation (song) ‎.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Talking of genius chord progressions I learned a version of Body and Soul and it goes from D flat major into D major by changing the D flat to a C sharp (same note), becoming an A7 and than D major 7! I love those sorts of genius key changes in jazz!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Lawdy be, that's so many chord changes I can't keep up. I have recently got hold of a 2008 Mac Pro for chump change (of course with Macs, "chump change" is "under £500" so take that with a pinch of salt) and popped Logic Pro X on it, and f*** me the Hammond organ sounds are utterly bed wetting. It has taken up my spare time a bit more compared to this whole writing an online encyclopedia malarky. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of New West End Company

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If however, you are an admin with about 35,000 edits and have taken over 50 article to GA, this template message is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, so we might as well just say unpleasant things about your personal hygiene as you won't read this. Smelly poo.

A tag has been placed on New West End Company, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. McGeddon (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Realised after I'd prodded it that you'd just put it up as a redirect and somebody else had copyvio'd over the top. And it got processed too quickly for me to dial it back to a redirect. Apologies. --McGeddon (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
That's okay, would make for an "interesting" discussion had I been planning for RfA this week! However, this underlines the importance of some essays, including my own Don't template the retirees - check that the creator of a page is an appropriate target, and Twinkle does give you the option to uncheck. Anyway, do you want me to restore it back to a redirect and leave the copyvio from the IP out of the history? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I just saw it in the NewPagesFeed: new page plus blatant copyvio plus promotional language made it seem like it must have been recently created like that. Will keep it in mind to check edit histories sooner rather than later in future. Don't mind either way what happens to the article from here. --McGeddon (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I'll leave it deleted. I can't remember why I created a redirect, but I suspect it was because I was improving Oxford Street to GA and felt a parked redirect would encourage somebody to create an article as and when I can find sources. Obviously that plan backfired. Incidentally, @Sergecross73:, the CSD criteria only apply if there is no possible revision of the article to revert back to; I don't think #REDIRECT [[Oxford Street]] would qualify as G11 or G12. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vine Street, London

Hello! Your submission of Vine Street, London at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ipswich Road, Colchester

Thanks for helping with the main page of Wikipedia Victuallers (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

FOSSFA

FOSSFA: this article was deleted by you. i am planning to re-write it. kindly advise me on way to go in order to avoid deletingOlaniyan Olushola (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Olaniyan Olushola: The trouble is that open source groups tend to be not particularly significant enough for the common reader, who may only just be learning what the difference is between a Mac and a PC. You could try and add an entry to Open source software, making sure the new content is sourced (see: WP:REFBEGIN for how to add references for new content), and see if that sticks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Olaniyan Olushola: In addition to Ritchie333's suggestions, you probably should not create articles about organizations you have a close connections with. I'm aware of your WP:COI with "FOSSFA". Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Zella Jackson Price

Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Wright (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free form. 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) 08:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Can this article be saved?

I de-prodded the article Chris Howorth, figuring that as a founding member of a notable band - In This Moment - I could probably find plenty of references about him. But I've been able to find almost nothing ABOUT him, just interviews where he is promoting an album or tour. I haven't been able to find any biographical information at all. Do you want to take a stab at it, or should we just redirect it to In This Moment? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With or without sources, Howarth would fail WP:MUSICBIO. A redirect may be a saving grace. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

He can definitely have a redirect; as for a standalone article he's had a lot of coverage in Blabbermouth but not much else. Someone like Retrohead would hopefully know how suitable that is for notability, and if the interviews are spread out over at least 2-3 years and there's some coverage elsewhere, it might just scrape through the bar. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to redirect it for now. It can always be resurrected if someone find enough support for an article. Thanks, both of you. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Need some help

Hi, Ritchie. For the last two days, I have been participating in a relatively heated AfD about an obscure competition swimmer from Palau (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirngulbai Misech). I know it's hard to imagine that this subject would generate any amount of interest or emotion, but the back story is the AfD is an outgrowth of this discussion at the WP:NSPORTS talk page: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Notability of individuals for swimming/aquatics. The editor in question, User:Lugnuts, is a long-term productive editor who frequently contributes constructively to sports subjects. In the case of this AfD, however, he has accused other editors of being "deletionists" (contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), accused me of improper "canvassing" (contrary to "appropriate notification" per WP:CANVASS), and is now falsely accusing another editor of sock-puppetry (contrary to WP:Sock puppetry). This is making a mess of the AfD discussion, and generally turning it into an unpleasant atmosphere for new participants during the remaining four days of the AfD. I was tempted to file an ANI report, but that always leads to more drama and less constructive resolution. Can you take a look at Lugnuts' comments and issue any warnings you think appropriate? He's not responding to gentle warnings from me or anyone else, the AfD is going to be a complete mess, and most of the AfD thread already needs to be hatted as off-topic. FYI, I've also asked administrator Ceradon for his opinion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Their opinion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: - I read through that AfD and it's given me a sore head :-/ I think you made the right decision to not take this to ANI, as if you had you'd probably have found a boomerang come back as you've both been shouting at cross purposes with each other. You have both stated your view, so I think it's best if you leave the AfD alone now and make no more edits to it. The article itself is a very short stub, and it would be far better to expand and improve that than argue the toss over whether or not source 'x' is acceptable to show notability. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your frank appraisal, Ritchie. I have hatted the two off-topic digressions about canvassing and sock-puppetry accusations so that new discussion participants may follow the substantive thread, and I will leave it at that. The points regarding the significance and independence of the sources have already been made by me and the other discussion participants, so you're right that there is no purpose for me to comment further. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

more of the same

I don't know if you watched that the little gender question was taken to my talk, where it grew into something large, - in short, Alakzi, blocked already a few times for no good reason, by now by 5 different admins (of whom the first and third apologized), was assumed to be a reincarnation of Jack Merridew, inheriting a full load of hate. While the one who brought that up apologized (which you probably saw, 3 prominent locations), Alakzi is still blocked because of vehement protest to blocks and SPIs, - when talk page access was revoked, even more vehement protest under a new account Alakzi2, leading to a longer block. All this is possibly within teh rulez, but not the way to keep a valuable editor interested in this project. I am selfish because nobody has helped me recently as much as Alakzi. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look. If both Chillum and Salvio giuliano are happy to unblock Alakzi then I can do the deed, but I can't do it without their approval (or at least not without running the risk of a juicy ANI thread). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I proposed to restore talk page access, as a first step to dignity. (Freedom of speech, Editor retention.) Imagine: I - on ANI which I avoid if I can! - You may have seen that I dedicated my work on soul becomes confused to Alakzi, - open for GA review, hint hint ;) (would like to see that on DYK next Sunday) - Did you see the seemingly harmless chat on my talk that led to drama? "Boys will be boys", nobody pinged you while you were mentioned in the opening ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately if you disagree with an action taking by a blocking admin, the procedure is to get consensus on ANI for it. Otherwise we'd just wheel war over things. It's unfortunate (to put it mildly) that ANI has now got all the charm and grace that Flower and Dean Street did in about 1889, but that's life. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I went to ANI - making THE exception in my time here. I can not, however, tell a specific admin that I don't agree with their action. As usual all did what they perceive as best for the project. Just my cooking experience: if there is high pressure in a pot, don't close it (revoke talk page access), but open. - I know that I would feel terribly proud if I was taken for a reincarnation of sadly missed Jack Merridew (today's lesson there - they change: "Instead of seeing things as imagined, learn to see them as they are. When you can see everything as it is, you will also see yourself as you are."), but for a rather new editor who doesn't know the history it might be less of a compliment, on top of inherited hate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to defer to Ritchie333's wise judgement on this. I cannot speak for Salvio though. Chillum 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've turned talk back on, unfortunately a bit too late as the ANI thread is now there. Oh well.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both! - Just for my math: the thread was there from 6:something, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: FWIW, your ANI close gave me the false impression that Gerda started that thread after talk page access had already been restored. Thread started 06:15, 17 August 2015, talk restore at 14:50. Wouldn't want her foray into ANI to have totally gone for naught :-)—Bagumba (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe someone should close off that whole giant thread at this point? Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Drmies perhaps? Hatted a discussion, but wasn't otherwise involved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
closed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe someone could give me a GA review as mentioned above? Would like to nominate, as the week will be tough, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Review, DYK review and prep all worked! Now we have on the talk the question if the instrument playing in a composition belong in the infobox, - imagine: there are people who don't believe that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Kangaro page deletion

Hi

Its nothing bad but i just wanna know why my page kangaro got deleted because its on the name of office stationery manufacturer company "Kangaro" from india. you can visit website "KANGAROKANIN.COM" for more information. If you give me goahead for recreating the page it would be great help for me. 01:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Jainmohitpvtltd (talk)

@Jainmohitpvtltd: Okay, the article as is didn't really tell me much but I can accept that a stationary company founded in 1958 might be improvable, so I have restored it to User:Jainmohitpvtltd/Kangaro where it can be worked on further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Nice

The article The Nice 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:The Nice for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Nice

The article The Nice you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Nice 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And that's GA #50. Do I meet GregJackP's admin criteria now? ;-) It's a lovely sunny day to go and visit Sandwich and eat a Sandwich while trying to avoid being sandwiched. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason for the snark? I didn't participate in your RfA, nor does it really matter what I think at this point. Obviously though, you don't understand my reasoning, or you would know that I could care less about post-mop content as far as a person's admin abilities go. I use it to determine whether or not to support them for the mop, it has no bearing on what admins themselves do. BTW, congratulations on reaching 50 GAs, that's quite an accomplishment. GregJackP Boomer! 07:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Greg, I thought you'd take that humour in the fun spirit it was intended :-/ For what it's worth, I believe that admins should have experience in content creation. Firstly, creating GAs shows the ability to explain a subject well to a general audience and demonstrate good writing skills - explaining stuff is vitally important. Secondly, if you adjudicate a dispute without really having a deep understanding of the topic which comes from either doing GA writing or reviews, you run the risk of all the participants thinking "You don't know what you're talking about - bloody stupid admins again". Thirdly, if you spend all your time on noticeboard and arbcom cases you lose the ability to see the wood for the trees. To give a real world example, even José Mourinho (regarded as one the better "admins" in football) had a stint in "content" with the Portuguese Second Division. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No prob. Long day/night for me, I should have known better. I apologize, and have struck everything but the attaboy for hitting 50 GAs. GregJackP Boomer! 08:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Sandwich? I always thought you were a bit posh, Threesie. So is it Deal or No Deal? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've linked to your admin essay in my admin criteria essay. GregJackP Boomer! 15:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi

Looks like our colleague Winkelvi is at AN/I again...I think third time this month (two in a week). I only came across it reading of a friend's matter at AN/I today and noticed it with a look "yeah, him again". It is rather pathetically fun to watch...it seems the repeating pattern is he obsesses over things in the news, celebrities, dead people, and then edit wars with similarly curious people over those current events. How many times does one get to edit war with impunity...I think we should wager on how long it'll go on for? Two pints of cask ale says 15 October or another four AN/I draggings before someone has enough of him and he's blocked for it. Until then, I have upcoming GAs to write in my sandbox while I have a chuckle. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Ritchie, for understanding. Could you perhaps close this merge request? The only supporter helped himself by adding to the general article (what would be expected in this one), - I don't see enthusiasm for a merge, - The piece is mentioned on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

???

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Do you have any idea of the history behind the block? and seriously, accepting an unblock without consulting the blocking admin, in a case where one of the comments involved you directly? Seriously, you just accepted an unblock where one user who had a self-imposed iban under a shade posted a comment on your talk page describing the other user's behavior as pathetic without even consulting the blocking admin? Kevin Gorman (talk)

It looks like this is all closed now. Sorry, family stuff has taken priority over the last few days. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Ritchie333. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 10:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Band from Bulacan

Hey Ritchie, I should have looked closer. What's happened is that someone was trying to make something out of nothing, and completely unhindered by English-language concerns--the very first version is simply a copy of the opening paragraph of Pinoy rock, which the IP subsequently tried to turn into a real article, but by copying and pasting. In other words, it's a copyvio from the get-go and I'll delete it, also since it's terrible. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Looked like a train wreck, but I felt (optimistically hoped?) that somebody could fix it up to a suitable list article. Also if you have a one paragraph stub, it can be nicer and more compassionate to copy edit than to blat it as a copyvio - of course, this depends on the article having actual sources in it too. Ah well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe--but without sourcing, and with just a few words changed, and without attribution... Drmies (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Rafael Núñez (hacker) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rafael Núñez (hacker) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oscar (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

...on my recent unblock request. I promise I won't make you end up looking foolish. See you around the project. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. As I seem to have a reputation already, I think we block too often when quiet words and management can be more effective. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for A4061 road

Bleating marvellous! Ice cream, anyone?

Gatoclass (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Just one cornetto....

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership

You are invited! → World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership ← Come and join us remotely!
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership
Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015

The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here← --Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Vine Street, London

If this carries on, one can consider this talk page will surpass Uncyclopedia as the main place on the internet to name-drop Oscar Wilde at any possible opportunity....

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ron "Pigpen" McKernan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ron "Pigpen" McKernan 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 Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So now what?

I'd replied to you here at RFPP, but it got archived very quickly. The short version: AE might not work, because WP:ARBATC was confined to civil/NPA/AGF matters, not DE; and AE doesn't permit old evidence (unless that rule has changed), which is needed for cases of slow-editwaring.

While short-term editwarring has stopped (for now) at WP:MOS itself (probably because I filed the RFPP), the tendentious WP:IDHT has worsened, and the editwarring has spread to the talk page. I recently disproved with RS (again) Darkfrog24's "theory" that logical quotation is the same as British quotation, but the editor is now changing the name of a proposal I opened, to force "British" into it and to change it [2] from a proposal about section-intro material to his/her (unrelated and not mutually exclusive) idea to use example-prefacing material (already being discussed in another thread). The user has responded to everything with re-re-re-hash of the same "LQ = British" nonsense and simply will not stop, even denying that a source says what it does (the Guardian article does in fact criticize WP for having confused LQ and British style, but DF just IDHT's it) [3]. All of this after being warned that an admin had suggested AE apply discretionary sanctions to put a stop to this; this is basically an "I will never stop" signal. In earlier edits, DF denied that anyone had "ever" sourced the fact that they're different styles [4], a patent lie: DF has previously conceded they're different and even said WP should distinguish between them [5], and agreed again, stating they'd found a source themself confirming the styles are different [6]. It's maddening, irrational doublethink, with characteristics of trolling for attention. Every bit of this disruption is predicated on recycling an argument DF already conceded, with sources, in 2009, because they think the WP:PARENT has changed enough to get the desired answer this time. In one of the cited diffs, above DF makes it clear that he/she thinks it's their right to do this in perpetuity, because consensus might, somehow change, if they just keep at it. Even Oscar Wilde's patience would run out.

In other edits over the last day or so, DF denied any editwarring, denied that they were again pushing their anti-logical-quotation and pro-"American" agenda (in the very same thread in which they're pushing it, before just now launching into pushing it in every thread at once); claiming that they're being subjected to WP:AGF violations (confusing criticism of behavior and edits with assumption of nefarious motives); arguing tendentiously that everyone has to source everything to his/her satisfaction as if MOS were an article not internal consensus guideline material, using the IDHT tactic to turn discussions circular, denied they introduced errors after being pointed out they introduced errors; etc., etc. (I can diff that all if necessary). I'm at wit's end with this personage (not just lately; this happens about every 4–6 months, and not always on this LQ issue, just most often). The editor has expressed an explicit mission as a "stout advocate of American punctuation"[7] back in 2009, and has certainly stuck to that advocacy pattern, to try get rid of logical quotation on WP and see to it that typesetters' punctuation (which they insist is "American" in the face of all evidence to the contrary) is used in all American-English WP articles (a proposal rejected since 2002, usually several times per year). The user just refuses to acknowledge that MoS is a house style compromise we all agree to follow (despite it not perfectly matching any particular editor's preferences) to get the work done, not a place to demand his/her own exact style preferences every few months until the wish is granted.

This nonsense has been going on for years on every front DF can think of to make trouble. E.g., they advocated that some other term like "technical punctuation"[8] (not attested in sources) or "typographical quotation" (also unsourced) be used for "American quotation" (attested, but proven inaccurate, and objected to by several), then later when consensus reconfirmed in favor of "typesetters' quotation" (a sourced term, and used on WP since at least 2007), he/she slow-editwarred for years to get rid of it and replace it with "American", all in service to their mission to confuse logical and typesetters quotation with "British" vs. "American style", to turn it into a WP:ENGVAR matter.

It looks like the options are:

  • Everyone just has to keep putting up with DF's escalating disruption
  • ANI, which is fickle and does not care for old evidence, nor for complex cases
  • AE, which isn't too MoS-friendly, and only accepts very recent evidence
  • ArbCom, which is a huge process, and a lot of people's time spent on dealing with a one-editor issue, but which could address issues at MOS beyond the original ARBATC case
  • An administrative warning or short-term block, which might just work outright, or would at least provide better footing for an ANI or AE action later if the pattern resumed.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: There's a lot to digest there, but to cut a long story short - I really can't get excited about the MOS at all. I know some people think it's important but some of it's a basic GCSE English textbook and the rest is as gripping as reading the phone book. So edit warring on it is WP:LAME in the extreme and by far the best thing to do if you spot it is to think "You know what, this really hasn't got anything to do with writing an encyclopaedia, has it?" and find something else to do. I'm really not the best person to deal with this, I'm not the greatest writer in the world (if I was, I'd be paid to do it!) and I'm a big fan of just using plain old common sense.
I notice you and DarkFrog24 are the third and sixth most prolific contributors to WP:MOS, and therefore I think you filed an ANI complaint you might well find you get a boomerang (such as, say, a topic ban from MOS) whack you on the head - so I'd think twice before filing it. I really don't want to block either of you as I'd probably never hear the end of it if I did. I'm not sure what to do, to be honest, other than to have a bit more of a think about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, a block might be overkill since the actual editwarring per se has stopped. I understand if this is not an area you want to wade into. It will probably die down again this time, and can be dealt with the next time it inevitably comes back up (DF is very cyclical), since I've already dug up enough diffs to prove it's a habitual pattern. DF's not immune to ANI (PMAnderson was the #2, I think, MoS-active editor but got sanctioned for similar "never surrender" behavior, then indeffed after socking during a block or something). I agree that any given particular rule at MoS is trivial, but the problem with this sort of thing is that instability at MoS can affect literally millions of articles, and if DF got their way, it would very definitely affect millions, since it's one of our most basic style rules. It's a bad sign if someone can get away with this "fight for years until I win" tactic, since it sends a signal "oh, this is what I should do, too, to get what I want on WP". The problem is not really a content matter, it's a behavioral one. DF simply will not listen and will not stop. It's still going on. I've provided external sourcing that their idea that LQ and British are the same is false, but DF just will not see it. I've provided diffs proving DF has admitted to finding sources that LQ & BQ are different and has blatantly lied about it, and DF goes right back to pretending. I've made the obvious point that sources that terminologically confuse the two cannot trump the actual style guides that spell out the styles' rules proving they are different, and DF just responds with more IDHT. I've never seen an I-won't-ever-give-up pattern of reality denial like this before, except in the deepest hells of ethno-nationalist flamewars (as an observer – I stay well away). Anyway, thanks for talking me out of going to ANI. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Monopoly cheap squares.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Monopoly cheap squares.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, we've got a problem here. All I wanted to do was do a crop of an image on Commons for an article. The Wizard does not make it easy to say "this is a crop of this Commons image, please copy the licence data". What is "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic" if it's not a bloody license status of an image? Strangely enough, I know about MCQ having answered several questions there. If bots can't work out when you crop an image on Commons and template unnecessarily, we've got problems. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Not half threatening enough, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, if you've had a game of Monopoly where after four hours it's two of you left, you both have half the board each, money gets randomly swapped, and Jail becomes a good thing (because two free "miss a turn"s and a £50 fine are nothing compared to £1000+ hotel rent) then you end up with frazzled and choice words. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like an extended article content dispute at wikipedia. Wikiopoly anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Stop icon
Go to jail.
Move directly to jail.
Do not pass go.
Do not collect £200.
Yes, indeed.
"I can highly recommend this measure as a boon to the weary administator." - a leading US encylopediast
"I believe the new Monopoly template makes a major contribution to Wiki saftey." - a formerly well-respected member of the ArbCom Police. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, that is brilliant. And wonderfully clever. Great to see AN and ANI down where they belong, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
You cannot just leave that without alerting EEng's attention to it, it would be unfair! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
So, has anyone created an article about Orangemoody yet? I see significant coverage in multiple independent reliable (okay, maybe not that reliable) sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Is that like Ron Moddy, but fronted by an User:Orangemike sock account?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a copyright violation. The licence on the Flickr original is not reliable - please see license laundering. You might be able to claim fair use but the image hawks are tough on such. Andrew D. (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I tried a Commons deletion request once on a file that didn't seem to have the right licence on Flickr and it was kept anyway. I assume if it's on Commons and not deleted then it would be okay. And can the threshold of originality cover a square with a brown inset and the text "Old Kent Road £60"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The claim that the clip doesn't pass the threshold of originality is perhaps tenable but, in that case, you should not use CC as that's a claim of copyright. The appropriate licensing template would instead be {{PD-simple}}. Andrew D. (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Handy London cabbie translation: "'ere, Threesie mate, I know a few bent admins - just send a few quid by Paypal. Simples." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I think PD-simple may only apply to an SVG or vector reproduction of the data. Since this is a photograph of a de minimis set of text and graphics, copyright could also reside with the photographer, which in this case is CC-BY-SA-2.0. As it is, another editor has flagged the image as eligible to be transferred to Commons. Honestly, file copyrights make my head hurt! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy declined

Ritchie, you declined the speedy for Greece in the OGAE Song Contest, but the article should not have even been created in the first place. The OGAE Contests are not notable and failed WP:GNG as was discovered after a discussion at Project Eurovision. In that discussion it was also noted that the OGAE Contests are a fan-based only contest, which also failed WP:N and WP:EVENT, and project consensus was to avoid creating these kind of articles purely for the fact that they are not notable and cannot be verified with sources. AfD in my opinion, would be a redundant path to take, as it would only be a snowball delete, and most likely editors stating the obvious of speedy. My nomination under A7 was the only one that stood, out based on the above factors. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It never hurts to discuss things. Since this article is not a blatant copyvio (as far as I can tell) and is not libellous, it will not hurt for it to be around for another 7 days. A7 should only be reserved for things that are obviously totally and utterly impossible to ever reach encyclopedic importance. I prefer to always err on the side of inclusion wherever possible, as I have seen some impressive turnarounds at AfD in my time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
But it is blatantly obvious. There isn't even an article for OGAE Song Contest. There is no such event that takes place, so it makes the Greece article make-believe and original research. A merge or redirect wouldn't even fix the problem. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
And a discussion is only required if it were to be a controversial deletion. As this is not the case due to the fact the contest for which it states exists (when it doesn't) makes the deletion uncontroversial. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
"It's obvious". Obvious to you maybe. It's obvious to me that Rick Wright is playing a Hammond L-122 without a Leslie speaker on the April 1970 Pink Floyd KQED bootleg, and not the more common live set up of an M-102 + Leslie 147, but it probably isn't to anyone else here! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
OK maybe not as obvious to you - sorry. But I have just validated the fact that the article states Greece took part in the OGAE Song Contest. There is no such contest. There is however, OGAE Second Chance Contest and OGAE Video Contest, Greece have never won any of them. There use to be annual articles for those two contests, but because they failed WP:EVENT they got merged into their respective parent articles. Greece in the OGAE Song Contest, though, has no parent article to be merged into, because there is no such event. I suppose G11 (as the article is promoting a fake contest) or A11 (an article for an invented event) would have been the correct speedy tag to use? Wes Mouse ✒ 13:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I think a PROD (which was your original choice) is probably your best bet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Pigpen photo

Take your hands out of your pockets and turn on your love light....
The winner of the Pig-pen lookalike contest is believed to have celebrated with a drink or two....

What about going with this from the Dead's official website? You might feel you need to reduce it a bit (didn't check size of file); it looks like this was not taken with any monetary gain in mind. The Dead site doesn't identify who the photographer is--it may have been one of the band members as they were just all "hangin' out together". Using this won't harm anyone's business--it surely won't harm sales of Grateful Dead merchandise or music. The man has been dead for more than 40 years, and I'd believe that influences the amount of money which can be made on items related to him. This is not large enough to be turned into a poster by someone else.

Getty is never a good idea; we've had a lot of non-free photos shown the door here because they came from Getty. Getty has control of the Michael Ochs collection but these photos of musicians and celebrities were never taken by his, but by many others-Ochs was a collector of publicity photos. Billboard may or may not have an unmarked ad with a photo of him in it that could be used for this, but it will take a while to "beat" it out of Google Books. Searching the magazines used to be easy; some time ago, they did something with their search and now you fight to get what you're looking for. This is not just true for searching Billboard, but for magazines like Life and so on. Hope this helps! We hope (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@We hope: I think I've got an answer - http://www.dead.net/sites/default/files/images/19680718_0286.original.jpg ... if my understanding of our file copyrights is correct, that is a trade advertisement published by Warner Bros Records in July 1968 with no copyright notice on it, and therefore is PD in the US. Does that sound about right? In which case, we have a free infobox image of Pig, not a great one and not as good as the one that was there, but if it's PD and good enough it has to trump any non-free image. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Bingo! :) The contest says the entries had to be received by March 15 1969; the date can be pinned down by that. We hope (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Can also be used in List of gestures (wanker gesture). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I have cropped the "wanker" gesture out of the picture I uploaded. If you want a free pic of that, take a selfie - it'll be in better quality! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@We hope: Another question on a different article ... we have an extensive set of 18th century William Hogarth prints, but not The Stage-Coach, or the Country Inn Yard. Obviously 1747 is well out of copyright, so is there any particular reason we haven't uploaded this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really sure why not but am wondering if the note on File:Characters and Caricaturas by William Hogarth.jpg this Hogarth work might be the reason. We hope (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_29&oldid=1079777536"