User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 124

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 120

←

Archive 122

→

Everything’s Strange Here

Hey Ritchie, I was wondering if you could look into this albums page, an IP has repeatedly been claiming that this was a mixtape then they later claimed it as a compilation album. The sources listed on the page all call this an studio album. The IP sent me a message on my talk page and I have also sent them a warning. Thanks! Pillowdelight (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't see anything that leaps out at the history of G-Eazy discography. You reverted something that was unsourced, which is fine per policy, but where's the "repeatedly" bit? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I prolly should’ve stated it was on Everything's Strange Here page. Where the same IP has changed it from stating it’s a mixtape to a compilation album when no sources exist referring to them as that but sources are referring to it as just a regular album. Although the artist did describe it as a “side project” but I don’t think that would qualify as either a mixtape or a compilation album? Pillowdelight (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense. I have semi-protected Everything's Strange Here for a week as regardless of what discussion has been taking place, the back-and-forth with the IPs needs to stop. I don't think a single source, rap-up.com, is sufficient to switch consensus that this is a bona-fide studio album. In either case, I think the best thing to do would be to expand the article a bit to make it more clear, if you can find sufficient source material. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you know ... that people are strange, when you're a stranger" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Richie can you please take a look at the IP’s 173.69.153.170 and 192.157.111.166 they both have been repeatedly placing every one of his albums out of order. I don’t want to start an edit war with IP’s if there is a way you could place a block on them that’d be greatly appreciated. I seem to not only be the only one annoyed by them as user Binksternet has also complained about their edits on the albums page [1]. Pillowdelight (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Pillowdelight (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pillowdelight: Sorry, I've been offline for a few days (see below thread), is this still an issue? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

wp:copyright infringement with external links @ Van der Graaf Generator

Per WP:COPYVIOEL <<If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it>>. and per WP:COPYVIO <<Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to>>, I had to clean the sources at this article [2]. As you are the main author on that page, you shouldn't have let or included these links leading to a fan site which reproduces copyright material, in this case scans of the UK press without any authorization. Are you the one whom had included these links to this fan site with these articles? If it is the case and you have also done this elsewhere on wikipedia, you need to make a clean up at those other articles. I'll take a look at your contributions because as I told user:Johnbod who dared to cancel my contributions @ Van der Graaf Generator [3], this lack of knowledge concerning our rules is extremely weird coming from longtime contributors and shall I say worrying. Woovee (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The tone of that message is way over-the-top, regardless of the underlying concern. I looked into it, and the issue is not copyright violations in the writing of the article text, but rather the citation of sources that, themselves, may contain copyright violations. It's true that such websites should not be linked to, but citing those sites in good faith is hardly disruptive editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Woovee, but I have to agree with Tryptofish. This lack of restraint concerning our rules is extremely weird coming from a 2-year old contributor and shall I say worrying. Let's not all act like lemmings... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

A small reminder, per WP:LINKVIO, we shouldn't be linking to pages that we reasonably believe may be hosting copyright content without permission, as that might be considered contributory copyright infringement; I all usually remove links to hosted newspaper clippings and so on unless the website clearly specifies that they are used with permission.

Ritchie333 may have included these links a longtime ago but since then, they should have known this wiki rule - they are the main contributor by far of that biography, and the last time they edited @ that article was 2021. They should have fixed all those sources.

As the main contributor of several popular music related articles for many years, I have added plenty of facts, material, and I know everything that it is in those articles. And I do my best to respect our wiki rules, we have been trying to build an encyclopedia while paying attention to copyright issue. What is the difference between a site that is reproducing scans of the UK press and a site that put streaming films online without any authorization. If you don't value the professionnal work of an author as everyone should do, that's your problem. My views are different. That's all I have to say. And by the way, I have been editing on wikipedia for 2009 and even at that time, I knew the wp:copyright infringement rule, I had read it, sorry. Martinevans123. - Woovee (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Did I really say "citing those sites"? Woops! (Outta sight!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes the tone was direct, but you didn't have to endure a casual attitude like this one [4], I did. Woovee (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In all fairness, if you have an issue with a comment from Johnbod, I think you need to take it up with him? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, to all talk page stalkers, I'd like to apologise for my absence as I have discovered a new hobby of petrol station spotting.

@Woovee: The first thing I'm going to say is a) we don't have rules and b) if you look hard enough, you can quote part of a policy to back up anything you like.

In this instance, WP:COPYVIOEL says, "External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use.". In this instance we can see that the website owner, Phil Smart, is the co-author of "Van der Graaf Generator - The Book" and has interviewed the majority of band members, and it is reasonable to assume that Peter Hammill and the rest of the group do not object to the presence of the website, nor to the reproduction of Hammill's lyrics, or some old, now very hard to find, news pieces. As you can see, the site says, "I have not intentionally infringed any copyrights myself. If you think that there is an issue then please e-mail me." and unless you have sent an email to Phil Smart explaining what copyrights he has violated, and what his response is, then I have to say, like everyone else, that you have over-reacted quite a lot and need to calm down.

Ironically, copyright means I can't upload my own covers of "Killer" and "Man-Erg" (where I play all the instruments) on Wikipedia, though Martinevans123 has a copy of them.

Now, since Auntie Bishonen has told you to stop it otherwise you'll be blocked, I think we can draw a line under this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You might get away with those two, Threesie! I hardly recognised them. ("wheezy snicker") Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Unca Ritchie. Bishonen | tålk 14:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC).

2021 Facebook outage

https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/4/22709575/facebook-outage-instagram-whatsapp This could be useful for improving the article. wizzito | say hello! 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a look now. The problem with a moving target is it's hard to hit, so I'm doing small bits and bobs to avoid edit conflict. Oh, by the way, I cited the wrong policy about Steve Gibson's twitter feed, WP:TWITTER is what I meant. However, I think as the article develops, we can probably get rid of the tweet source with a better one in time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

About BRD on 2021 Facebook outage

I consider the introduction of the section to be the B, and my removal to be the R. I've also commented on the talk page already, which is the D. ──post by kenny2wiki ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be largely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have added some sources to the talk page for you to peruse. Put yourself in the shoes of a teenage girl. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

A gentle nudge

...to remind you of that email I sent a few weeks ago. Hope you're well, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I forgot. Let me go and have a look now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Alaskan husky and Sled dog

You were the closing administrator on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaskan husky. I am now reviewing Draft:Alaskan husky. The question for you is, primarily, was the reason for the merger, which is a form of deletion, quality of sources, or was it notability? I see that some of the editors think that the draft should be accepted. Second, do you have any recommendations or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, While AfD is not a vote, you were the only one advocating keeping the article, while everyone else made reasonable policy-backed arguments to merge or redirect. I don't really have much of a view of what happens next. ARoseWolf lives in an area where Alaskan huskies might be commonplace, so she might be able to make a better recommendation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The Alaskan husky is technically not a breed, I guess, just don't tell the folks up here I said that. I may never live it down. We have 36 huskies we use as sled dogs so that's not a bad description, per se, but Malamutes are sled dogs too and there are several other breeds including Samoyeds though they are mostly herders. Had I ran across the AFD I probably would have advocated for keeping it as is but it really depends on how the merge happens. Let me look into it further, maybe there is a compromise we can come to. --ARose Wolf 14:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I should have read the draft first. It looks like its reliably sourced. What's the issue with the draft? --ARose Wolf 14:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't vote on the draft. The Keep and Clean Up was by an IP. I only made a gnome change to a deletion list. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There has been discussion at Talk:Sled dog, where some editors favor accepting the draft at this point. So my question is whether the close was based only on limitations of the previous draft, or on issues concerning the topic, such as the lack of recognition of the breed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair question. It appears to me it was based primarily on the lack of reliable sources associated with the article but that's just how I looked at the sum total of views expressed at the AfD. I do believe and understand how the answer to that question would influence the decision on AfC. I would like to note that most of the dogs mentioned in the Sled dog article have their own articles because they are a more widely known breed. Personally, the Alaskan husky qualifies but I'm just one voice and I yield to consensus. I'll go to the talk page to look at discussions more in-depth on this. --ARose Wolf 16:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Majura Parkway.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Majura Parkway.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle Twinkle little star

How you like to TTR

On our talk space you write spam

Throw your toys out of the pram

Twinkle Twinkle little star

How you love to TTR. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"..... and the winner is...." Madhatter123 (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Old Street station 1920.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old Street station 1920.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Given I started the FfD in the first place, and have commented on it twice, you'd have thought I'd have noticed. Silly bot. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Does that side entrance say "METROPOLITAN R..." something, and not "METROPOLITAN LINE"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it reads "Metropolitan Railway", as it predates the formation of the London Passenger Transport Board. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yay! (**breaks open chipped thermos flask from faded duffel bag**) Presumably this was the only London Tube line to be named after a former rail company? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, there's the District Railway as well, although that's slightly confusing as services were originally run by the Metropolitan. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, that is confusing. But great that Boris is now levelling up... It's grim up north... [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Reversal of Merger of Hotel Okura Amsterdam Into Ciel Bleu

Ritchie333, this is to inform you that there's no point in letting the Hotel Okura Amsterdam redirecting to Ciel Bleu stand anymore, and this decision (from 2015) needs to be reversed. Reasonably, the hotel's article could have been edited using text translated from its Dutch-language equivalent (and such an action could have been done earlier, or instead of the merger). I must ask you (the editor who proposed this action in late 2015) why an action like this was even performed at all? Consensus can change at anytime, and I agree with what the three editors who posted on the hotel's talkpage five years ago stated. I don't think there are any other cases of a hotel's article not existing, but a property/facility within it does, and the article for said hotel is just a redirect to that property/facility's article. Jim856796 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Jim856796, Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Okura Amsterdam, it seems that I started the deletion debate as a procedural action, after it was tagged for speedy deletion, which I declined but couldn't work out what else to do with. So I don't have any strong views on what happens. Sadly, we can't ask the closing administrator for their rationale of closing the debate that way as he's died. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, is it okay if I asked/alerted Aircorn (the editor who performed the merging action) about the Hotel Okura Amsterdam article being restored (a task which I performed last Thursday (October 7)) as well? Jim856796 (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your unsourced recreation of the article back to the redirect. Had I not done this, a less charitable editor may have tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:G11. You must present your sources of information up front to show that this hotel is worthy of a global encyclopaedia. I'm disappointed to see that several other articles about hotels in Amsterdam are as equally unsourced and hence equally at risk of being deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333}, I don't think that action was necessary, because I was planning on building the translated Hotel Okura Amsterdam article section-by-section. Another question nds to be asked: Why do the two restaurants in the Okura Amsterdam (Ciel Bleu and Yamazato) have their own articles at all (on both the English and Dutch Wikipedias)? Plus, the Dutch version of the Okura Amsterdam article has to have one or two good sources at best (I inserted one of them while I expanded the English Okura Amsterdam article by adding a "History" section.Jim856796 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree as much as you like. However, on the English Wikipedia, the general rule of thumb is that unreferenced articles are far more likely to be deleted, so you do this at your own risk. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

PROD of 2021 Southend West by-election

Hi, I objected to your PROD of that article, but it doesn't look like a regular PROD - |you created an AfD for it. I'm not sure whether that's policy or not, as I'm fairly new, but I'd rather let you know about my objection. LenaAvrelia (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to improve it and find sources for it, and gave up, having failed to find anything. Although not policy, I also think it's just premature to talk about this - Southend West have lost a long-standing MP who, regardless of their policies, seemed to be doing as good a job as he could for his community, and thought it was insensitive to talk about by-elections when people are still grieving. It's kind of like people asking about the date and time for a funeral immediately after a loved one has died - yes, it has to be done but don't impose it on people who are dealing with a sudden and difficult death. I've given as thorough a view as why we should not have an article on the by-election right now at the AfD, and am anticipating people will object. I don't mind if they do as long as they are respectful of other people's opinions. PS: Policy is that a PROD can be contested by anyone, and cannot be re-instated; the only available options are to a) file an AfD or b) walk away. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

About the PROD

Hey sorry about that PROD for 2021 Southend West by-election, someone had changed your legitimate comment on the PROD to an obviously invalid rationale and I didn't notice. Curbon7 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: No worries. I've said my piece and it's best to duck out of the debate and let consensus play out. As suggested in the above thread, my aim is to get a decent article, not have a carbon copy of an existing one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yuck - Sometimes ANI is like that

Carlos, The Exterminating Angel came in and posted a complaint about DrKay. I haven't reviewed it in detail. Neutralhomer then started to have a tantrum about DrKay, which hijacked the original discussion, and you had to partially block him. It seems that he then went into more of a rage on his talk page, and another admin had to block him indefinitely without talk page access. Yuck. I am still not sure what the original issue, and whether there was any substance to it. Neutralhomer just sort of committed public wiki-suicide, which is unpleasant. The admins did what the admins had to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what on earth's going on. I have not made anywhere near sufficient content edits recently, so I'm going to grab some books off the shelf and do some writing, or otherwise have a bit of a break. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, TEA has gone missing again. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Censorship

Ritchie, I know you are only trying to diminish heat in a conversation, but this edit I object to, why are you acting like a censor? He has a right to free speech. I'm sick of that being violated on the web nowadays.† Encyclopædius 10:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Right to free speech is limited to preventing the government from limiting your speech. It in no way guarantees you the ability to say what you want on someone else's website. Demanding your rights is good, but learn their limits. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Encyclopædius: Donald Trump has a right to free speech but I cheered his Twitter ban just about as loudly as anyone else. In addition to what HighInBC said, context is important - crucially in this case. At the time that Nil Einne made that remark, I had just blocked Neutralhomer for turning an ANI thread into a complete train-wreck. The problem with what Nil Einne said wasn't really the language; rather, it gives credence to Neutralhomer's argument that he's being picked on and the standards are unfair. If I'm going to take action against Neutralhomer for bludgeoning the discussion, I'm absolutely going to take action against Nil Einne for a completely unhelpful personal attack, in the interests of fairness. As the redaction wasn't reverted, I consider the matter closed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, I don't agree with the redaction but I'm not going to bother to debate over. More importantly, even if the change was an egregious clear cut violation of our policies and guidelines which despite my disagreement I don't think it is, it's clearly not a free speech issue since nothing here on Wikipedia involving editors acting in their personal capacity, or even on behalf of the WMF, is. Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A longer clarification, I was unaware of the redaction until now since as I said at that ANI, my practice is generally to say my bit and then mostly avoid the discussion to avoid getting drawn into long back and forths which help no one.

As I said in that discussion, the ultimate focus surely has to be on the encyclopaedia and readers, hence why I feel any "free speech" concerns are missing the point, even if we interpret the term more liberally to mean that we should allow frank and mostly uncontrolled discussion as the best way to resolve problems and come to an understanding in the world. It's fine to say there should be places on the internet where such discussion should be allowed, but it shouldn't be Wikipedia since our goal is to build an encyclopaedia. (In other words, even if you say you're concerned about restrictions at Reddit or Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or whatever with far more open ended goals, that doesn't apply here.)

My view is that we tend to molly-coddle editors too much here at times especially when they do enough good work. While we should have bounds of civility and NPA, we also can and should make it clear in no uncertain terms to an editor when their behaviour is crossing the line. (Funnily enough, a number of those editors we molly-coddle are those who's problems is frequently crossing the NPA/civility line.) This is best coming from editors who are "friends" (for lack of better word) of the editor, as far to often when an editor clearly does something wrong, such editors tend to offer a lot of support which is fine when an editor may be feeling down, but never at any stage even later make it sufficiently clear their behaviour was wrong and shouldn't be repeated.

This tends to lead to these editors continually repeating their poor behaviour until eventually it leads to blocks and probably finally a long term maybe forever indefinite. Which is sad for Wikipedia, since we would be better if these editors sufficiently improved that this didn't need to happen. Still it's happened many times before and sadly is going to happen many times again. Now there's no guarantee people making it clearer to an editor is going to change how they behave, perhaps it will even make it worse. And in truth comments coming from editors who aren't friends (and in this case I'm in that category) already do happen and are less likely to help still we can only try.

However my judgment was I wasn't convinced this had sufficiently happened for Neutralhomer yet, so I left my comment and still feel it was for the best. Others disagree, whatever. Ultimately if Neutralhomer doesn't reform that's on them, not Ritchie333. Wikipedia would be a better place if Neutralhomer reformed and stayed, but if they eventually became one of those many editors who don't and get banned for it, then so be it. I feel I left enough other comments to make it clear anyway plus I suspect Neutralhomer has read it and the redaction is IMO only likely to have a limited impact on whether it contributes to convincing Neutralhomer to change.

So ultimately it's very unlikely it matters in the grand scheme of things hence why IMO it's pointless worrying about it. The benefit to our readers is only any part it plays in convincing Neutralhomer to change. I mean you could say there's a minor chance it may convince others, including future readers, to change which is where the redaction may harm but IMO for a single random comment in the middle of a long discussion, the chance of that is very low.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is Ritchie, when you have the power to decide what somebody can and can't say, where does it stop? I see editors say things all the time on here which are far worse than any sweary attack, real psychological bullying or wearing down an editor steadily by interfering over time but never get warned because it doesn't technically violate WP:CIVIL. It seems wrong to me that you can remove something like that but keep those niggling comments which really get under an editor's skin, often to the pointing of quitting Wikipedia. Trump deserved to be banned from Twitter in my opinion, but there's thousands of trolls who should be banned too but are still there.† Encyclopædius 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I have that power at all. Just because you have the admin tools, doesn't mean you can use them unless you proceed carefully and know what you're doing. Just look at the list of admins who pulled a civility block on Eric and see how much abuse got heaped on their heads. Who'd want to be a subject of excessive schadenfreude like that? And I don't think WP:CIVIL was the real driver for this, so much as looking at what would cause the least amount of disruption. As it is, Nil Einne was a bit nonplussed about the redaction but accepted it. Neutralhomer, on the other hand, used it as an excuse to go even more off the rails than he already did, and is now indefinitely blocked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish admins had the same flair for "stopping things from escalating" when it comes to stopping the real problems on the site, like the infobox wars....† Encyclopædius 16:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As usual, WP:ALLROADSLEADTOINFOBOXES. E Eng 04:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopædius, let me understand: where do you see infobox wars, - what defines "wars", I mean. We have the perennial Stanley Kubrick farce, but is that a war? Anything else that I missed? Now that we had a composer with an infobox (not by me) on the Main page for a full day, and not a single protest?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Months ago, I had a 'pronoun' redacted at a discussion of Elliot Page. Wikipedians don't have rights, only privileges. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried stopping the inbox wars, but it became impossible, and it ended up with Cassianto and SchroCat jumping ship, with RexxS following not long after. There have been an awful lot of editors who have jumped ship. I think I was at wits end at that point. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it would appear that I'm one of the last of the no-infobox in certain bios crowd. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

To jog your memory, GoodDay, the edits in question were not about pronouns, though they were about misgendering. And misgending a BLP subject is still a fairly serious WP:BLP violation, even on Talk, as I trust you are now aware. Newimpartial (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

On the bios article itself, I agree. On the article talkpage? not so. But, that's the stance the community has taken (page & talkpage restrictions), so be it. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The statement that BLP rules apply to talk pages is on WP:BLP itself - it is kind of hard to miss. Newimpartial (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Back then, I missed it. I still disagree with it, concerning talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can disagree with a lot of the rules, as long as you observe them. :) Newimpartial (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Even overly politically correct ones. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

A lot of editors might complain about WP:BLP, in varied and explicit terms, but I doubt that politically correct would feature prominently in those complaints. Newimpartial (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

On the transgender topic, each of us see it differently. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the transgender topic at least has been discussed regularly, by a very large number of editors. It isn't an area where the state of policy has depended on an unrepresentative cabal. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed many of the community have taken the "let's not offend anybody" stance. Today's Wikipedia, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

As a participant in a few of those discussions linked above and a reader of all of them, I saw few to no editors taking a let's not offend anybody stance. Your comment here smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than it does an opinion based on evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Darn right, I don't like it. But, it's not up to me. The community as a whole, decides these things. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesha811 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately my mailbox is a disaster area. Getting five emails a day from eBay is, strictly speaking, spam, and yet "Thunderbolt Display Computer Monitors we've picked for you!" is not necessarily something I wouldn't want to read. I'll dig it out and have a look now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at the email and it appears action has already been taken. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 2021 Facebook outage

On 27 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Facebook outage, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that their outage on October 4, 2021, also cut off Facebook's internal communications, preventing employees from sending or receiving external emails or logging in to Zoom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Facebook outage. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Facebook outage), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

"I'm mad as hell..."

You won't want to miss this one! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK review

Thanks for the recent DYK review of Sherita Hill Golden but I dont understand why you struck the main hook. You may not like it but thats not a good reason. I think it much more interesting and true to the source than the rather obvious connection between depression and diabetes which I am fairly sure she did not discover. Could you please unstrike please. Let the picker pick. If you have to strike one then please remove alt1. Victuallers (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Victuallers, Oh right, for some reason I thought you only wanted ALT1 to go through. I personally prefer that one, but we'll see what the prep builders think. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually Alt1 is wrong as depression mood is not the same as Depression (the diagnosis). Also saying she found "an association" is like saying Isaac Newton found an association between apples and the ground. Isaac and Sherita found "the" association and from a STEM viewpoint its important what that association is. This isnt my article so if my hook gets struck out then I lose all creative contact and I have to wonder why I'm making the nomination?? if someone else writes the hook and then makes sure that their hook is chosen. Victuallers (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to get Jesswade88 into the discussion. Of the three of us, she's going to be the far more knowledgeable editor about who Sherita Hill Golden is and what she does. Also, I didn't notice the {{fact}} tags in the article, which I should have done. In particular, a source is required for "As Vice Chair for the Department of Medicine at Johns Hopkins Golden established evidence-based practises for diabetes care and the Journeys in Medicine speaker series, which became a major civic engagement initiative.", and I'm not sure where I'd start looking for one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Still going strong.

How about this, guys and gals..... last Wednesday in Stockholm, postponed for a year and a half... and complete with Guy Evans on drums! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that a Viscount Legend? Haven't seen one of them on stage before. I want a dual manual keyboard with weighted keys on the bottom and semi-weighted on the top, so I don't have to drag two separate keyboards for every gig, but nobody makes one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that Hugh Banton is a complete legend. Not sure about the other bit, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Gerda's October corner

Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Too many people (Eric, SchroCat, Cassianto, RexxS, and now ClemRutter) have left Wikipedia. Who's writing articles now? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

And LouisAlain, who wrote thousands. He left before the block, and helps the Germans now. We don't deserve better. He created my #1700, DYK? - You and I write articles now, I guess. - Look on my talk for a good YT, search for Martinevans from below: We need more love (said a woman in April 2020, blocked from singing on the opera stage by the pandemic, giving house concerts, pregnant with twins. I'll write her article one of these days, promised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I had a look for sources for that, but couldn't find anything promising. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking but I'll take care of her. If you want to help me please check Cologne Cathedral quarter for prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the work of the banned. I managed the singer. Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - updated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I can only do what I can do. Thanks for getting another article for Women in Red up. I'm still not at the same level of proficiency as I used to be when it comes to writing, but I guess I've got a few tube station books I haven't mined through yet. Things like taking Caroline Flack to GA seem to just turn up when I'm not expecting them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Same for me. The prospect to have to do the many little things also that LouisAlain did, mostly without protest: it's simply impossible. He was a gift, but we have to ban such people. As if all the deaths around us were not enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: a scandal, and more fall colours, including a short sermon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: memories in friendship, - article written by Jerome Kohl, and now GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Good to see that. Did you know I played clarinet in concert / wind bands when I was in school and picked the instrument up for the first time in 30 years recently. One of my friends runs a woodwind repair shop and has given it a complete overhaul so I can actually play proper notes on it. I've had a blow rehearsing for a local concert orchestra who are looking for some more players, and if we can ever give English Folk Song Suite (the hardest piece I remember playing as a student way back when) a go, I think I'll be chuffed. Well, I think the odds of them playing some Frank Zappa are kinda minimal. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

How about some Led Zep? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Great to hear about playing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I had forgotten until I just translated Jerome Kohl into German that he also played clarinet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I made up my mind to also translate In Freundschaft, and make it the German 1 January beginning, and motto of the next year. - We'll sing two songs on Monday, and by some good luck I had started one of them last Sunday (not knowing yet), and the other just now. Sometimes I read my edit notice loud to myself. The last line received Precious on 31 October 2012, the first Precious in new style. I miss both its writer and the editor who made his last edit (afaik) that day, coining the style. Real friends, although I never met them in person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Clem was on the Zoom call yesterday so they are still around. But Ritchie asks who's writing articles now? The number of articles is still climbing and so they are still being written. As a fresh example of quiet diligence, please give a big hand to Alnitak3. I discovered them when doing a bit of NPP just now, reviewing their new article about the Argyll oil field. I thanked them for this and found that they worked on another article that I helped to save at AfD: Instrumentation in petrochemical industries. Of course, this is a world away from Gerda's opera but it takes all sorts.

In my experience, there are quite a few editors like this who seem quite shy and are repelled by any kind of fuss. They are very much the opposite of the ones who make so much noise on the drama boards but so it goes. Please seek them out and protect them.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"Clem was on the Zoom call yesterday so they are still around." Good show, Clem's one of the few Wikipedians that I have talked to in real life (and outside the context of meet-ups) to consider him a real friend ... particularly when he showed my eldest son how to use a real wood saw. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Objection

I am disturbed that you would close an AfD with this sort of comment: "Consensus is that WP:GNG trumps WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF."

NFF is part of Wikipedia:Notability (films), where the opening paragraph states "The notability guideline for film-related articles is a standard for deciding if a film-related topic can have its own article. For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline are sufficient to follow. This guideline, specific to the subject of film, explains the general notability guideline as it applies to film and also takes into consideration other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they apply to determining stand-alone articles or stand-alone lists for film."

Comments and !votes on a single AfD should never "trump" currently written policy and guidelines. Platonk (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Prollem is that WP:TOOSOON is an essay and there seems to be reasoned disagreement about whether WP:GNG and WP:NFF are met, with no side clearly having the better arguments. I think a no-consensus close would have been more appropriate but I don't see a consensus for deleting here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I just took the consensus as I saw it. I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus that "no consensus" might have been a more preferable outcome, but as I saw it, no editors started making the case for deletion after 21 October, after some more up-to-date sources had been identified; after that point, the decision from others was to keep. I particularly note Cullen328's persuasive argument "Principal filming has begin, the film has major stars, there is already sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and it is almost certain that the volume of coverage in reliable sources will be increasing significantly as time goes by.". I will discount obviously unhelpful or invalid arguments documented in this essay, but I didn't see those there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Valerie Broussard

Hello! Your submission of Valerie Broussard 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Edging to success.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI comments

Hi Ritchie333, I'm staying well out of the ongoing issue at ANI wrt Davidson, I don't want to pile-on really, and I've loved avoiding (mostly) drama lately. But it feels a little optimistic to suggest that getting him to "change his approach" or whatever, at the ANI listing is going to suddenly transform the discussion. AD's a clever guy, he knows all to well what he coulda/shoulda/woulda done, without your advice to change his "tact (sic)". I admire your encouragement, but I also think it's somewhat misplaced on this occasion, and perhaps even promotes a hope, where hope simply doesn't exist in this case. In any case, I thought you'd appreciate that I'm watching 24 Hour Party People and that's making my Monday a better evening than reading more of that depressing thread. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been busy edging Valerie Broussard closer and closer to a DYK (having rescued from deletion earlier), and I listened to a bit of her singing too. It's quite good, although I just get totally and utterly fed up with people using auto tune, which I can spot a mile off and drives me up the wall. At least in this instance it's only in a couple of places. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, autotune is either a case of going all in (in which case, why bother) or leave it well alone. Enjoy edging her. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Not being familiar with this singer, I just listened to "Drive" and see what you mean about the autotune. I heard someone talking about this on the radio recently and they said that it was expected by listeners nowadays as a standard part of the sound. Rather like distortion.

As for the other matter, I visited an event at Strawberry Hill House on Sunday and was struck by Walpole's motto, which they have on postcards there: Fan qua sentiat – say what you think. Both TRM and myself have gotten in trouble for doing this but so it goes. At least we are in good company. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Both TRM and myself have gotten in trouble for doing this ... too true. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Rick Beato has a good video on Autotune, which gives examples of where it's been used well as a creative effect, and where it's just been used as a bodge job. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Great video, and I've just adopted Beato as my latest special uncle. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I did some work on that Beato article. There was a fellow there who WP:OWNed it and so I ushered myself out. But I do like Beato. Ritchie, I stopped by to tell you a few days ago, I looked at your user page. And number 8 strikes me as very true, in AfD and elsewhere. Lightburst (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The real fun in "quoting Wikipedia policy for your own purpose" is when you quote two bits that contradict each other. Ancient, but relevant example. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)