Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 88

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90→Archive 95

I am listening but maybe that is a bit harsh

G'day Ritchie333

Thanks for this edit. Fresh and overall very constructive.

And love your user page, particularly the two infoboxes at the top. Mine is a mess by comparison, but you might like to look at User:Andrewa/How not to rant#How not to rant for some of my attempts at constructive humour, and User:Andrewa/creed for my more serious side... although there's some serious humour attempted there too in places.

But the reason for coming here is, I'm horrified at the way you have blackened my name there. Now maybe that's good, if it's deserved... see the intro to How not to rant. And either way I'd like to explore it.

And I will observe your suggested one-way IBAN while we discuss it here. Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said over the other page, I was pinged into the discussion and I simply gave an unbiased (or as close to as I could get) opinion on what I saw, and asked for constructive comments. I looked at the article and associated AfD, gave my views, and stated that I'm not really in the business of looking over sockpuppets so if you want views on that, you need another admin. I emphasised (or should have done, and if I didn't, I apologise) that I think you'd spent too much time berating a user and it was becoming counterproductive. Now perhaps everything you said was backed up with policy and you thought was the right thing - and often it is, but I just didn't think you being particularly helpful or constructive. I'm not proposing a "real" interaction ban (actually I think they're terrible ideas generally as they're too easy to trip up over and get an accidental boomerang), just an acknowledgement that you'll leave this user in the hands of other people, and that will be fine. Just because I think something you did was counterproductive and you should haven't done it; doesn't mean I think you're a bad person or you should be kicked off the project. Rather, I'd just like you to be a bit more reflective. I think the other user was a bit aggressive, but to be honest, I understand the reasons why and often I've found if somebody's ranting at you and you understand what they're getting that, when you give a bit of empathy for their situation, they calm down a bit.
Again, the problem is this is only what I think. And the trouble with what I think is not everyone agrees with it. But that's simply how I've found you can cope with editing in this place :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply.

Frankly I think the problem is that you haven't done your homework where my contribution is concerned, and that you've been rather unfair to me as a result.

The contribution to the page 3 article is not typical of my content contributions, and not as bad as all that IMO, see Talk:Page 3#The Sydney Sun and discuss there. The claim that He doesn't seem to have done much writing, and much of it seems to be towards glamour modelling and tabloid newspapers is laughable IMO. My content contributions have been varied, mainly on percussion and Bible characters from memory, but other music topics, motor mechanics, nuclear power... they all get a look in. The problem may be that I have done a lot more work as an admin recently, particularly on requested moves, and I'm a prolific essayist. So these content contributions tend to be lost in my contributions list, but they're there.

And I'm also skeptical of your claim that I have badgered Micha Jo. That was the exact opposite of my intent, and I don't think that's the way they see it either. Of course they cannot now reply on their user page, but they have previously thanked me repeatedly for my support. And as for the suggestion above that I've been heavy-handed with my application of policy, again that was the very opposite of my intention, and is the very opposite of my philosophy.

But another problem is, neither of us want to complicate an already tangled page at User talk:Micha Jo. I'm hopeful we can reach a consensus here, so please don't edit your comments there concerning me until we at least have a go at that.

It's a jungle out here. But hopefully we can both learn from this. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it does look I was completely wrong about your content contributions, and I do owe you apology for that, so I'm sorry - I think I just over-reacted over a number of related things. And actually it was because I had this in the back of my mind. And your earlier conversations with with Micha Jo did start off being productive, but things look they broke down over time, and they seem to have just got a really bad view of the place. I'm sure you didn't ident to badger Micha Jo any more than I intended not to badger Winkelvi, but it still went down the drain anyway. Just seems to be the way these things go sometimes.
I'll take a look at your essays when I get a chance. And the problem isn't really over a lack of content contributions; for example Iridescent hasn't done much mainspace work recently, but I'd like to see somebody argue with a straight face that he isn't here for all the right reasons. It's more the ability to give an empathy for somebody working "in the trenches" getting frustrated when some of the more admin-oriented activities clash with that. Or look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing, which I remember supporting. I've just seen too much aggression placed on new users, and there doesn't seem to be any good way of resolving it, and I don't have a good solution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't just look at en-wiki; I may not have written a FA since March, but I did upload 6600 images (all self-taken, not just a raid on a PD image archive) to Commons in the last 30 days. ‑ Iridescent 21:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you were completely wrong about my content contributions. In the fullness of time I suggest you strike those clauses from the post, with a brief explanation linking here, so as to minimise distractions there.

But I am still hopeful you will strike a few other clauses as well. Have you any evidence that Micha Jo feels badgered by me? They have told me the opposite, repeatedly. If we are to reinstate the article on M. J we do need to follow the relevant policies strictly, IMO. The clause at WP:N it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply (which I have quoted previously in the discussion) seems to have been ignored and I see no hope of it being of use here, sadly.

(And this clause is absent from WP:V, I haven't had time to find out why, but Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is itself a policy and reads in part Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. So it's implied, surely.)

It is complicated. I still think we need to keep in mind that this may be all a (successful) setup by M. J, and I wanted to discuss that possibility off-wiki as it's speculation and insulting to Micha Jo. But that was firmly rejected by the AfD nominator, who wants it all on-wiki. I have said and still believe that the original block was questionable and unwise, and the deletion valid but also unwise. Unfortunately, it has escalated, and the current block is now the only option. I like your offer of unblocking and the conditions you have suggested. Worth a try. But getting consensus to do it is unlikely, and it may not work.

And there is an underlying problem IMO that both NPA and AGF are under serious threat. Application of them is woefully inconsistent. See User:Andrewa/Rules, rules, rules and User:Andrewa/The senility of Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

What I really wanted to do in this situation - and this is often the best answer - is pick up a bunch of sources, rewrite the article, and put it in draft space. The problem is the notability chiefly rests in French sources and I'm not really sure what to do about tackling that. Not just picking up the language (I can sort of scrape by with that), but also having some idea of what sources are acceptable to use towards notability and what's not. I know Le Monde and Le Figaro are broadly in the same ballpark as The Guardian and The Times, but it's not quite the same, and from what sources I did get, I went away feeling very unsure about what I could use in order to cement at least a good draft. I don't think I'm a particularly good writer, to be honest, and just sort of do work here out of a moral sense of duty of "if I don't do this, who will?" so sometimes getting these things sorted out is a bit of a slog.
I think we're both in agreement about what should happen here - the user should be unblocked as they were contributing in good faith, and got trodden on by people who still thought they were doing the right thing. I also know it's not particularly unusual for people to ask about getting hold of a Wikipedia article on their Twitter feed, as just about everyone on the planet uses it now (except me, but I'm strange like that). I have certainly picked up a few requests from helpdesks about people who have had a direct motivation to get a BLP improved. As long as the work is done within Wikipedia guidelines and policies, to the extent that nobody will complain about it, there shouldn't be an issue.
The trouble I think we have at the moment is there's a bit of a moral panic about spam, paid editing and conflict of interest. Now, while these are all legitimate sources of disruption, and some people do deal with them responsibly, I think we've gone too far in the wrong direction and there's not enough good faith being assumed on all sides. I'm just as guilty of this as the next person, when somebody changes something on my watchlist, and I think "and your source for that is where exactly?" and reach for the revert button.
(As far as the earlier comments are concerned, I'd prefer to leave them and just put a comment saying that I was out of order, if that's okay). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I also wanted it moved back to draft. But that is water under the bridge. We could go through articles for creation again, perhaps with a userfied version rather than a draft. I'd want to review some policies and guidelines first, and refer some sources to the appropriate noticeboard for comment, which I'll do anyway when I find time.
The unblock is also very tricky. Yes, I'd like it to happen too. But the latest removal of talk page access was correct IMO. Very tricky.
No, I'm afraid that's not OK. You've made some very damaging and baseless statements and suggestions, and some very good ones too. Those you retract (only) should be struck through like this by yourself, with a very brief comment and link to here to avoid cluttering the page and its page history any more than is absolutely necessary, and to comply with talk page guidelines. I'd prefer that to be done all at once, and to include the suggested IBAN. Let us discuss the details here first. Andrewa (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, well I think getting a draft up and running would be a suitable first step. It's late here, so I'll look at it with fresh eyes in the morning. I wish I knew someone around here who was into French politics and journalism enough to give me some pointers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like an unreserved retraction of Andrewa has been unnecessarily aggressive and badgering towards Micha Jo, and needs to stay away. He doesn't seem to have done much writing, and much of it seems to be towards glamour modelling and tabloid newspapers; now it's not my thing but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with writing about that, but if you add unsourced content like this, expect it to get reverted until you do find sources. It certainly doesn't mean you should be annoying people to write about a possible notable author and journalist. Get your own house in order before badgering other people and Andrewa takes a one-way interaction ban from Micha Jo, as it's not constructive towards improving the encyclopedia. (This isn't a community ban, this is just informal advice, I trust you can take it in the spirit offered). And sooner rather than later, assuming you are willing to retract of course. It greatly inhibits what I feel comfortable doing.
I undertook to observe your suggested informal IBAN and have done so. At the very least, you should explicitly and publicly and immediately release me from that undertaking. Andrewa (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Ritchie333 doubling down on personal attacks". Thank you. Huon (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

MMORPG

Any reason, why Jim1138's rollback shall not be pulled in light of blatant edit-warring (past 3RR) over Mường Tè District and template-bombing a newbie's t/p who seems to be perfectly well-meaning? FWIW, I don't realize about how's a government decree not a RS for basic census-data and have no clue about what the heck was wrong in the edits of the newbie. Add to that, some weird responses to me over this thread, wherein he seems to believe that any unsourced information can be deleted on sight.∯WBGconverse 11:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, the newbie has got blocked and his edits have been now-reverted by a sysop! The most easiest explanation is that I've gone insane and missing something obvious; will wait for you:-)∯WBGconverse 11:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec x many) He certainly needs to give a better response than the one he's given to you. At a brief look at the dispute, it seems to be political POV pushing from both sides. He is on point with this edit though, as WP:BLPSOURCES says, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." and the remainder of BLP also includes "recently deceased", so an unsourced claim of murder should definitely be removed. As for rollback, yes it shouldn't be used in a content dispute and can be removed; however I've previously blocked Jim1138 for disruption, so it might be better for another admin to do it. PS: I wouldn't mind a block of both users as they were both edit-warring and being disruptive, but to be fair it has to be both, or neither. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
BLP issues? Yeah, might be a factor. POV pushing? No minimal ideas. The changes per the source, provided by the newbie in the edit summary seems to be quite a fact. Let's ping all of them and see. ∯WBGconverse 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Well Jauerback is within the bounds of administrator discretion to block Cn5900 as they did go over 3RR; but so did Jim1138 so they need a block too, to be fair and to be seen to be fair. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. I failed to see Jim's involvement. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
How's a week-active-newbie supposed to know of 3RR? I mean, not 4RR, not 2RR, but 3RR........I don't see any message that awares him of the same. I get the rationale but I don't agree that he did anything blockworthy. ∯WBGconverse 11:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
If it's believed that my block was too harsh for a newbie, then I have absolutely no issue with it being lifted. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A719 road

Awesome DYK. Top work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't take all the credit, it was EEng who got the perfect hook. Hey, and it's just in time for Thanksgiving! :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, per the DYK template, you are taking all the credit. Muhahaha. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Hooking for Trump's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. EEng 12:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Butting in

I actually meant to say this yesterday after I got the mass-ping on Micha Jo's talk, but got distracted IRL, and now that there's an AN thread it may be somewhat beside the point anyway, but(t).... your claim there about Praxidicae and the Donna Strickland draft really isn't OK. I gather that the underlying point is that she tends to review/decline/nominate for deletion and that those acts are the same things that led to the absence of an article on Strickland, but that's a real stretch. And that's from someone who generally agrees with you that we tend to be too aggressive in deleting or declining 'rough' contributions from newer editors, and is on the record saying the revert-decline-template style of dealing with newbish efforts is as "uncivil" as anybody's occasional Anglo-Saxonisms. It leaves an especially sour note to imply that woman is somehow personally responsible for something widely cited as an example of systemic bias against women, when that's obviously not the case.

Anyway, I'm not interested in AN, that place gives me a headache, but from someone who had zero context to the situation and wandered in because of random pingspam, I think you need to rethink this one, preferably in a way that doesn't just displace some kind of implied responsibility back onto her. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I've replied via email if that's okay? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for A719 road

On 22 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A719 road, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Trump resort is directly linked to Moscow? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A719 road. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, A719 road), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Haha nice one. I knew it was you when I saw it was a UK road, shows you how few editors we have!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I was doing a bit of work on Turnberry (golf course), not knowing the area well, and had a look on the map. I then spotted Moscow village, and noticed, "hang on, that's the same number as the Turnberry road .... is it .... OMG that is like the best DYK evaaaaaaah". It was waiting to happen ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Love it. Seems nothing compares, and here I was so proud of ... that Sara Hershkowitz, who usually appears on the opera stage as the Queen of the Night and Zerbinetta, parodied Donald Trump in Ligeti's Mysteries of the Macabre at the Lowlands Festival? - Video is a must see. - In the mood for music and giving thanks, defiant of death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
If only Putin played golf?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
In Putin's Russia, golf plays with YOU! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Did you know..... that Svetlana Gounkina won a national poetry prize while playing golf in the U.S.? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

password auditing

Didn't see your post till the whole thing was concluded. The reason there is no password auditing is that it is up to the WMF to do it, and although they said they could do that and add a password strength bar after the 2015 security review in reality they don't just do things unless you keep bugging them about it. So if we still want this we basically need to actively campaign for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) T121186 - you can see how "important" it is - TNT 💖 19:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the recent disruption really needs some response. In my view, making 2FA mandatory would solve a lot of issues - admin accounts would be less likely to get compromised, and unlike any activity policy there's not much debate as to what it means. Although I think I've got a secure password, and it's not used on any other website anywhere, there would be a strong motivation to brute-force crack it, and that's getting easier and easier. This video is worth watching. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
This all assumes that security is tight on the WMF side. If not, the 2FA shared secret could be leaked along with your password hash. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, there’s yet to be a leak of 2FA information or a successful attempt to bypass it (except for bot passwords). Vermont (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, admins are required by WP:STRONGPASS to have a strong password but until we have that auditing it can only be enforced when something like this happens, which obviously is not optimal. This particular account was so marginally active it's possible they weren't even aware that there are password requirements for admins. 2FA is at least something, at least trying to make it harder. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request...

(____) RE: "I don't think it's appropriate to unblock you unless you take an indefinite topic ban from writing about [K]arlton Hester. What other topics would you write about if I unblocked? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)" I am a professor of music at UCSC (composition and jazz) so I can contribute in those areas. Thanks... Karlton Hester (I hope this is the correct place to respond to your question) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CD02:BE30:9524:BE11:5B83:CDB1 (talk)

You didn't delete Wizkid (band) and FTD Records packaged with the AfD

. Flooded with them hundreds 15:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, done - principally because the debate was an unanimous "delete" and nobody expressed any opinion towards keeping any of these articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Monopoly PINK VS PURPLE - PALL MALL

Is it Purple.....
.... or is it Pink?

Hi Ritchie333. I don't want to make another edit without talking to you first. You undid my change of Purple to Pink. You said that was the US version. That is not true. I checked with HASBRO UK and specifically named Pall Mall to ask them what colour it is officially and they told me that it was PINK. Where is your proof that the colour is PURPLE? Can you please cite something? You are the only one I can find online that is claiming that Pall Mall is Purple. In addition to the people who publish the game. This wiki site agrees with PINK: https://monopoly.fandom.com/wiki/Pall_Mall Moreover, just look at the color tag. The tag itself says deepPink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.31.89 (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Basically, we had a huge argument about this at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of London Monopoly locations/archive1 and Talk:List of London Monopoly locations. The sources I have for purple are this, this and this and this. The problem with pink is proving it. Fandom.com is a self-published site and unsuitable for a source on a featured list. What I suspect has actually happened is it was purple historically but has changed to pink at some point more recently without any fanfare or discussion. Have you got anything written and published by Hasbro? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it's only really pink in Gay Monopoly?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC) ...if fact, it seems it was mostly pink...

Thanks for responding Ritchie333. I agree that the self published wiki can't be seen as a valid source. You listed a newspaper article as a source so I gather that you find newspapers to be an acceptable source. Here's one I found that lists Pall Mall as Pink: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-monopoly-board-would-look-6765827 scroll down to where it says in an image: Pall Mall "originally pink". You might be right about it being purple a long time ago but now the colour is clearly not purple. So shouldn't it say Pink with information about it being originally purple? Are you going to stick to Purple no matter what Hasbro changes it to in the future?? What if they decide to go with a yellow and green checkered pattern for pall mall (they won't just saying it hypothetically)? Shouldn't the info be about the current board with further information about what the colour used to be in the past? For example for Brown properties it clearly states in a footnote that it used to be dark purple. Why can't we have that for Pink with a footnote that says it used to be purple? Why did a color change from Dark Purple result in an update to Brown but a colour change from purple to pink not result in a change on the wiki page? I had a look at a board from 1930 and yes it does look purple but the current board looks no where near purple. So if there is already precedence for updating dark purple to brown then why can't purple be updated to Pink? Certainly pink is a more accurate description of the current colour. Even the colour used on the wiki page is "deeppink". Here's a board from 1984: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Travel-Monopoly-London-Edition-1984-VGC-Complete/222912921780?hash=item33e6a540b4:g:plwAAOSweCNavOaE:rk:13:pf:0 it is clearly pink. The board from 1930: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1930s-UK-Version-Monopoly-Game-metal-tokens-wood-and-board-London-Leed/332862360102?hash=item4d80248a26:g:gUMAAOSwfdBamA55:rk:1:pf:0 here it is clearly purple. The board from 1961 is pink: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Monopoly-Board-Game-Waddington-Leeds-1961-London-Street-Metal-Pieces/372477295321?hash=item56b9607ad9:g:lLEAAOSwvktaVKn7:rk:4:pf:0

I contacted HASBRO UK support and the person assured me that it is pink. I asked them repeatedly as to wether it is "officially" PINK and they responded with an emphatic YES. I didn't get an email of this exchange which I thought I would automatically so I'll have to repeat it. I think we need to settle this with an official response from HASBRO and not newspaper articles or some book about monopoly written by some random person who could also be mistaken. What do you need to see to change it to PINK with a footnote about it being purple in the past? Please let me know so I can work on providing it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.31.89 (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the most definitive source would be something under the hasbro.com domain that lists the group colours. Unfortunately, I looked everywhere I could think of and couldn't find one. The original instructions don't mention what the colours are at all - probably because it's only important that they're different from each other. This Independent source describes the set as "pink", but again, that's not a definitive source. If Hasbro have not published anything saying what the colours are, we can't cite them. And the problem with citing individual boards is whether something is pink or purple can be challenged as a matter of opinion.
To be honest, this is one of those occasions where Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of the core policies in the encyclopedia, is confusing and counter-intuitive. But simply put, it means we can't add information just because somebody asserts it's true, and asserts they have checked without anybody being able to back it up. The policy is geared more towards countering things like flat-earth theory, fringe science and extreme right / left wing political views, not the colours on a Monopoly board, and "I'm not changing it because it's policy" is the weakest appeal to authority I can think of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm so sad you conceded the point here, but I understand. I have a Monopoly set from my grandparents which dates back to the 1950s, complete with metal tokens, and a splendid battleship (rather than the subsequently lame-ass boat), and the purple set are .... well, PURPLE. But sometimes, as you've clearly reached, there's a limit, and you just have to give up. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Monopoly set I have was inherited from my dad (and what I learned to play on) and is from the 1950s. It's post-1948 because the stations are "British Railways", not "LNER", and the Pall Mall set is purple. However, doing an image search, it seems modern boards are indeed pink, and a discussion amongst Wikipedians seems to conclude there is a consensus for it to be pink. And now we have a nice Reservoir Dogs parody on WP:LAME, which at least tickles my sense of humour. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Monday's Daily Telegraph has a colour photograph of Hasbro's new "Monopoly for millennials" board. I can see some of the squares are pink. They comment:

Instead of purchasing Park Lane, they can fill their vegan leather boots with "experiences" like staying in a parents' basement, on a friend's couch ...

WP:DENY and WP:SIG apply, not necessarily in that order. ——SerialNumber54129 10:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Page move help

Hey there! I need some help moving this page: Bukit Bintang monorail station into this name: Bukit Bintang Monorail station. I want to standardise the article naming but seems like im blocked from moving into that page hmm... Thanks =D VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 07:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Cheers! VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333 Can help with this one too? Turn (The Wombats Song) to Turn (The Wombats song)? Thx hehe VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 04:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Vincent60030: Done; I've also given you page mover rights so next time you can do this directly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow thanks very much! I appreciate that a lot =D VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 11:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Oxford Street 1882.jpg

Gilding the lily
... no, not that one!

Based on the information provided, I tried to find this image using the BHO search engine. I've updated the sourcing field, after a long time following up some leads. It wasn't straightforward to use. I was eventually able to trace this image to a vlomue of the "The Survey of London" was nominally which this appears seems to have been published around 1980 - https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol40/pt2), it mentions the London County Council however, which I think might be a mistake as by then it would have been the GLC, wouldn't it?, I don't have a university library to run a more comprehensive check, against a print original. I'm very pre-disposed to the licensing on the file being updated as well. (The list of plates https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol40/pt2/xi-xvi) gives an Acknowledgement for the image to a publication called "The Architect". from the 1880's.. I've got no idea where might hold a copy of that, and the publication by that name on Archive.org on a quick search was a different US publication (although with a simmilar name and theme),

Was this the level of detail you were desiring of before being bothered by CSD/FFD/BSR walls? If so, then I am feeling I'm not necessarily up to the task of checking images on Wikipedia, and should perhaps do something in less contentious area. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Side note: It's a shame the licensing at BHO (https://www.british-history.ac.uk/terms) ,preclude a mass import of something like "The Survey of London" to Commons/Wikisource. I'm going to have to suppress my angry disappointment at this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The London County Council is spot on there, having existed from 1889-1965. The Greater London Council was it's successor organisation. Many schools, public buildings and early social housing still has the LCC logo on them in London. I see them every day. I always quickly check here (WP not Ritchie's talk page), for little things like that. Simon Adler (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, expanding the image to include more information about the original source is exactly the sort of thing that I appreciate, and should be encouraged. In this instance, common sense ought to tell you that a picture of a major London thoroughfare showing Victorian buildings and traffic restricted to horses and carts is probably going to date before 1923, and is barring some extraordinary evidence, going to be out of copyright. The "Joseph S. Moye, architect, 1880–2 (p. 179). Demolished" means that the photograph was taken by the architect Joseph S. Moye around 1880-2 and was reprinted on page 179 of volume 40 of the Survey of London. It's not referring to a publication called "The Architect".
I'm a pragmatic sort of chap; as long as the Survey of London archives are available online somewhere, I'm not bothered about who hosts them. After all, Wikipedia isn't the only website in the world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The actual citation in the BHO source was "..(c) Nos. 399–405 (odd). From The Architect, 25 December 1880" (in the list of plates I linked), which to me suggested a journal. It's not like a fully formated {{cite}} though. However, I think overwhelming consensus is that it's PD in the US (and is probably in the UK as well if someone with library access ever wants to conclusively close that issue.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This get's even more puzzling, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol47/pp439-455 (in relation to File:The Angel Islington 1890s.jpg says LCC again but a 2008, date by which time the London Assembly would have been the successor as such... Maybe this needs someone whose an expert on London, and the history of "The Survey of London" itself.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm the article on the Survey seems to say it's now run privately again, having been variously continued by respectively the LCC, GLC, Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, and English Heratige., and of course it's used images from third party sources. If you think unwinding the intracices of Wikipedia copyright policy is arcane... (sigh) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
As our article states, the Survey of London is a huge undertaking and has been in the past staffed by volunteers (sounds familiar). So yes, it's perfectly possible for the archived copy of volume 40 to be originally published in 1980 and for volume 47 to be published in 2008. This is not particularly strange - Don Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming is still not complete after 50 years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A little more about Joseph S Moye here. But I'm not sure he was a photographer, Threesie? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Seems he's the architect of a number of buildings in London and environs. Didn't necessarily find enough sources to write a stub, so whilst obviously active around 1880, not necessarily notable enough by Wikipedia standards,.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure there's enough for an article, but if you find the right sources you can come up with some gems. John Samuel Phene appears in enough books and journals to get listed here, although in his case it helps that he was a bit of an eccentric which got him written about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I might do that if I ever find myself at a loose end in Chislehurst.... But I was really more interested in any evidence you might have that Moye was a photographer! lol Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you need to be professionally qualified to take a photograph of a building, as numerous uploads on Commons have proven. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
(... more hysterical laughter...) we should have asked Joseph to add a better copyright determination!! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: On your sounds familiar comment, I burst into hysterical laughter... As I said, if you thought 'copyright' stuff on Wikipedia is hard, it must have been even harder without online sources, databases or even a telephone!.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
ShakespeareFan, there's no need to ping an editor on his own talk page - that's gilding the lily. The Survey of London volume 1 was published by the London County Council in 1900. Volume 33 was reached in 1966, after it had been replaced by the Greater London Council. Many public buildings are still registered in the name of the London County Council. Compulsory registration was staged, but it still applies only when a building is sold - many public buildings are not sold but passed on to a new public body so in many cases it's now impossible to work out who owns them.
A woman thinking of taking a let online asked her aunt (an estate agent) for advice. The aunt said "ask the landlady for evidence of ownership." The landlady said "I am an honest woman" and provided a "Certificate of Ownership". The woman took it to her aunt, who said "Have you checked with the Land Registry?" The niece replied: "The what?" These days they no longer issue Land Certificates - all you get is an "official copy" (formerly an "office copy") of whatever the computer has stored as regards the title. Homeowners are peeved because building societies/banks/solicitors sometimes destroy their old deeds as they have no further use for them. 92.8.221.206 (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:DENY ——SerialNumber54129 11:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Raisins to be cheerful, part 3
As long as 92.8 is just stating a point of view, not personally attacking SFan (or anyone else), or clearly violating WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA (which they're not), a more appropriate application of WP:DENY would be to leave their post to stand and not reply to it. I'm not inclined to revert, block or come down like a ton of bricks because that very much is not "denying recognition" at all. In fact it's likely to make things worse. And yes, land registry is legally complicated and can be a pain in the backside, particularly if you are closely related to a wealthy homeowner who suddenly dies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
DENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENYDENY oh GWAN deny!!! :p ——SerialNumber54129 12:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
"Would you have a bit of cake, Father? Go on - it's got cocaine in it! No, wait, not that, what's the other thing ... oh yes, raisins, it's got raisins in it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
"There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Admins". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Rant/request for advice about source access (or strictly accurate: The excessive number of sources)

So normally I talk on Iridescent's talk page but I need some variety and my own is essentially inactive. After having completed a set of geology articles (and with two climatology articles on the way) I was planning to write an article on African humid period, a major event between 14,500 and 5,500 years ago and a topic well discussed enough that you could squeeze a FA out of it.
...except that on a hunch I checked and noticed that "african humid period" has been the term since about 2000 but that there is research going back to World War II on the topic, under different terms. And the total number of sources is almost 10000.
So what do expert editors do when they meet a huge laundry list of sources and have a limited time? My normal topics don't usually have this many sources. Of course, Green Sahara may be easier to write as there are fewer sources, but AHP catches my attention more. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Find the most standard textbooks you can find on the topic, and see what books they cite; those are likely to be the important ones. This kind of problem comes up all the time on railway articles; Otley's Bibliography of British Railway History is the size of a large phone book and that's just a list of the significant sources on the railways of a single country. Islam and Sea have both passed FAC - it is possible to push these kind of enormous topics all the way to the top. ‑ Iridescent 22:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, mine the sources. But how long did Jesus spend at FAC?! ——SerialNumber54129 22:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I've never really tackled an article where you have a huge amount of sources - the biggest I've done have just got over a million views a year and generally you can rely on about 2-3 good book sources to get you about 90% of the way in terms of content. Some people advocate doing all the prose in a sandbox, writing from one source at a time, and then moving everything over into the main article, integrating with what's there - I can't remember if you do that or not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Mostly so although usually the text of the article as is isn't usable. Sometimes I expand from the existing text, conversely. Incidentally, as far as I can tell most sources on this topic are in academic journals and not in books but that's probably not a critical difference.
Thanks for the aid, anyhow. I figure I'll be working through these journals and then through the articles they reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The Beatles "Cover Versions" addition

First time trying to edit a page. What did I do wrong for it to be deleted? David Schmidbauer (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@David Schmidbauer: The problem is that The Beatles (album), being one of the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful albums of all time, gets a lot of traffic and has been assessed as a good article, and a number of editors have factually checked the entire article carefully and made sure the prose is of a sufficient standard to stand up to works like the Encyclopedia Britannica. The problem with your change is it puts too much balance away from the main focus on the article, which is on the original album. I don't mind a small section for notable covers of the entire album that are discussed in major works such as Rolling Stone (didn't Phish play the entire album end to end once?) but I don't think it can really be sustained over more than a couple of sentences.
The best advice I can give you is to put your writing in your sandbox (ie: User:David Schmidbauer/sandbox), where you'll be able to work on it at your own pace. Then when you think it's ready to integrate into the main article, add a note on the talk page (Talk:The Beatles (album)) saying something like, "Hi, I've written some new prose to go into the article, and I've checked the sources - can an experienced editor take a quick look", then somebody should be able to transfer it over with the minimum of fuss. I think that's probably the easiest way to get things resolved.
Oh, for what it's worth, I'm a bit of a Postmodern Jukebox fan. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Though it is in English I have no idea what it meant (think "this is not how any of this works" lady).

While may of the individual songs have been covered the only "complete" cover is David Schmidbauer (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Phish' (though they didn't include "Good Night").

While I could edit each songs Wiki page to include James' cover I don't feel it would do the entire undertaking the justice it deserves (covering the entire album (with live art video)).

So I have no idea on how to proceed. 

David Schmidbauer (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@David Schmidbauer: Start off by writing something in your sandbox. You should see a link "sandbox" at the top of the page, which will be in red - click on it and you'll be taken into an edit window that allows you to start writing it. You don't need to worry about sources, you can put anything you like (as long as it looks like you're writing part of an encyclopedia, which you are). Then it's probably easiest if I have a look at it and integrate it into the existing prose. That should hopefully be the best solution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing Template

Hello, Ritchie333
Thank you for mediating over the Adam Cooley debate. I was wondering if and how could the Template on the page be removed. It seems inappropriate and irrelevant now since the issue has been concluded. Is it ok for me to delete it or is that against guidelines? KevinJardine (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
KevinJardine, it's appropriate to keep it, since the AfD revealed that you've been in active contact with the article subject, as the AfD revealed. KevinJardine's edits are also 99% about Adam Cooley, so s/he fits the SPA definition. As the template says " or someone connected to the article subject". You're probably best off leaving that article alone and editing something else, given your obvious COI. There are literally millions of articles to edit on Wikipedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, please refrain from interjecting. Since you have been continually disregarding the principles of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:Civility and have a history of it, forgive me if I don't trust you. Considering that the question wasn't addressed to you it might be best that you let Ritchie333 speak for himself. KevinJardine (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Please. We AGF here but you have been editing the Adam Cooley page only for three years! We call that SPA. It only takes a simple google search to see your close connection to the article subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. No, I don't think the tag's appropriate as many other editors have reviewed and looked at the article during the deletion debate, so I've removed it. It seems there are strong opinions on both sides, so arguing about it further anywhere is counter-productive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crash (magazine)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crash (magazine) 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

ROLLBACK PERMISSIONS

Hi, Sorry I was busy with my job for some days.That is the reason I couldnt reply properly.I am sorry about it.If I get my Rollback permissions back I will be careful in future.Thank you Darsana.vinod (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vauxhall station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vauxhall station 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 Vincent60030 -- Vincent60030 (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Genesis

It sounded to me like King arranged for the singles knowing they would be unsuccessful. I understood the correct meaning, but I thought it could be clearer. Red Jay (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
Hi Ritchie333! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Get down, Shep!

Any contributions gratefully received, especially regarding her use of whistle register. But yes, my request is obviously really only an excuse to place this copyright-compliant link to a highlight of 1974 which I can't easily shoe-horn into that article You won't hear much tighter brass on any other pop single of that era. Song written by Allen Toussaint. Just utterly wonderful. The clip is from AVRO's TopPop "Golden Years". If you can get over the kooky funky chicken in the middle 8, just check out those platforms. What a voice. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC) "Secretary", also 1974 on Alston, also well worth a listen.

If it's a biography of a woman you want improving, you need the Megalibrarygirl whistle. *Phweeeep* Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes. I'm pretty sure Betty is a mere woman. In my opinion the article certainly needs a bit of a clean up. Oh dear, that all looks a bit sexist? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving somewhat off-topic discussion here

I wanted to respond to what you stated, but also don't want to send that ARCA completely off-the-rails. I'm glad things have cooled off between GW and yourself. You are both people I respect, and it's never fun when the parents are fighting. I do still think the original conversation (and not just your participation in it!) represents a pattern of those who try to see TRM's remedy enforced being the targets of extreme pressure, so I've got to leave that in, but I'm heavily encouraged to see that particular friction is no longer an issue. Thanks for your comment. ~ Rob13Talk 16:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

In my specific instance, I remember TRM was doing a whole bunch of GA reviews for me, and suddenly getting blocked knocked all that work in a big pile on the floor. He's always been a good GA reviewer and helps make articles genuinely "good", not just ticking a box to get a green blob which doesn't fool anyone. That's really what I was brassed off about. In any case, I was cross over the specific action, not her as an editor, and I am not one to bear grudges.
The problem with TRM is, as I said on the ARCA thread, is I sometimes read what he says and think "aww jeez, did you have to?" - and often I agree with the substance of what he says. There's nothing wrong with wanting to do better as an editor and a project and responding to main page issues quickly and efficiently; it's just I think bashing everyone with a stick and leaving edit summaries like "HELLO ANY ADMINS HERE WANT TO UPDATE SOME QUEUES?" isn't the way to get it done. However, because he does great work for stuff I'm involved with personally, I think hectoring him about WP:CIVIL isn't just patronising, it would break off a very useful workflow for my activities on the project. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
And I can appreciate that. I also think it makes you involved, which is not to say I think you've done anything wrong. There are plenty of editors I would consider myself involved with respect to just because I have a particularly friendly relationship with them that extends beyond typical collegiality. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. I have to say I don't think we could hammer out our dispute over beers, but only because I don't know there's even a dispute to hammer out. I certainly don't see anything that there would be a dispute over from my side, anyway. ~ Rob13Talk 00:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_88&oldid=875373103"