Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92→Archive 95

DYK for Hermes 3000

On 7 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hermes 3000, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that actor Tom Hanks has claimed that the Hermes 3000 is the one luxury item he would want to have on a desert island? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hermes 3000. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hermes 3000), 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.

– Ianblair23 (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Credit really needs to go to Hamster Sandwich for this one, I just planted the idea for it in his head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
WOW! 16 000 page views! I had no idea my mom had so many friends... Looking forward to the next one. Thanks R333! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec18a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

Martinevans123 (Santa's Hard Brexit Grotto) ... sends you ...


... warmest seasonal wishes for ...... Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Merry Christmas (Hammond) Baby... and hoping that you have a good New Year  !!
..... see, can't beat a bit of Welsh, can you, boyo??

Merry Christmas !!!

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Ritchie333


Hi Ritchie333, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
May next year be prosperous and joyful.
   –Scopecreep Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11.02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Ritchie333, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

This is a belated reply, but thank you for all the Christmas wishes, and I'm sorry I was hiding away in the land of offline-ness, armed with only a mobile phone to occasionally revert musical genres in infoboxes :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

advice on random edits

hi I reviewed this for dyk Vanitha Mathil. Now I find I have reverted a few random edits that have been made without comment or reference. Who does one call...should it have a lock? Whispyhistory (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I had a similar incident the other day. For now, your revert has stood so I wouldn't worry about it. If it gets reverted back, leave a note on the talk page explaining why unsourced allegations are unhelpful in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
ok..thanks, will do Whispyhistory (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, including with the TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 was a difficult year for me, and we've still got very Brexit problems coming up, so happy days are not quite here again, but in the meantime I might as well find some articles to edit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:33, 13 January 2019 (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.

Kurtis (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The article City Thameslink railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:City Thameslink railway station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pkbwcgs -- Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Ritchie. Just wanted to say you're doing a great job on the London termini articles. I've enjoyed reading them, and it's always nice when I look something up and find it well covered. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've set up a good topic nomination at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/London station group/archive1 to see what people think of the group as a whole. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Great job! It's not that I don't want to run a contest but the issue is time. I feel at the moment that it's speeded up and I'm just not finding the time to get what I want to do done. I think Wikipedia is the world's biggest time sink, you need to be devoted to it to really do anything worthwhile. I could probably manage a 2 week London contest but not sure I want to do a month southeast one at the moment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Holborn Viaduct railway station

The article Holborn Viaduct railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Holborn Viaduct railway station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vincent60030:, @Redrose64:, @DavidCane: Can I get a second opinion on this one? While I do a lot of improving articles towards GA, I have never seen any nominations pass straight through without requiring any work. That this user is also participating in the WikiCup gives me serious cause for concern. I doubt there will be much necessary criticism or actions required to meet the GA criteria, but I would at least expect something. Compare with the above review of City Thameslink to see the difference. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
If I were you, Threesie, I'd be tempted just to roll with it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess it shows my youth that the first thing I associate with "roll with it" is the Oasis song? Btw Ritchie, I only had a quick look but that looks like it comfortably meets the GA criteria. Have you considered taking any if the station articles through FAC? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
No, the few times I've taken articles through FAC (most recently The Carpenters) I've been shot down and opposed over things I just don't think will make the article better, and I think I can spend my time improving 1 article to FA or 10 articles to GA in the same timeframe. PS: I thought of Good Times (and letting them roll).... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Shot down?? Surely not! ... just take it easy, dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It looks generally OK with me as well. Sometimes you get a reviewer who does not want to pick unnecessary holes. Some comments below:
  • From the lead: "The station was opened in 1874 by the London, Chatham and Dover Railway as a new terminus to alleviate increased usage of the nearby Ludgate Hill station. It was originally a through station..." There appears to be a contradiction here: it opened "as a new terminus" but "was originally a through station".
  • Joe Brown's London Rail Atlas and OS maps of the period, show the main station as a terminus with the start of the tunnel to Snow Hill branching away before the main station, so the main station was the terminus and Snow Hill was the through station.
  • "briefly renamed Holborn Viaduct Low Level on 1 May 1912". I understand what you mean, but I suggest removing "briefly" which could be misconstrued as being just for that one day and you are introducing information before you have written about its closure four years later. According to Joe Brown's London Railway Atlas, the low level bit was in parenthesis and the main station was renamed at the same time as "Holborn Viaduct (High Level)" before reverting to its original name on 1 June 1916 when the low level station closed.
  • Joe Brown has the closure date for the low level station as 1 June 1916 rather than 3 April 1916.
  • The Snow Hill tunnel connected to the Metropolitan Railway's "Widened Lines" rather than their original tracks. It may be worth linking to Widened Lines (see this diagram for a detailed layout).
  • Reorganisation section: the bridge over Southwark Street is south of the river, so not really related to the signal box that was destroyed on 16-17 April.
  • "allowing passengers to skip the change of trains at Holborn Viaduct". I think this could be rephrased slightly. The cited article says passengers travelling from one side of London to the other would save time by "avoiding the need for changes at the railheads." In this context there was nowhere to change trains to at Holborn Viaduct except by walking to Farringdon. Given the "at least half an hour" saved, the writer was probably thinking of the time required to change at London Bridge, Charing Cross or Victoria to the tube and then again at one of the northern terminals.
--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I need to get the book sources I used back out of the library to address these points; hopefully I'll sort that out over the weekend. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I saw Talk:Holborn Viaduct railway station/GA1 at the time, and what I particularly noticed was not so much the swiftness but Wilhelmina Will's use of <li>...</li> tags without an enclosing <ol>...</ol> or <ul>...</ul> structure; also the use of text between a closing </li> tag and the next opening <li> tag. These issues give me concerns, not just for accessibility but for bad document structure - some browsers which follow the HTML spec to the letter may reject part of the page as invalid. For an example of the proper use of <li>...</li> tags, see WP:WIAGA in edit mode. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

YGMail from Amorymeltzer

At your leisure. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can do babysitting Amory, but if they come back saying Brexit is a stupid idea and Trump should be kicked out of office, don't say I didn't warn you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Boom, email. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Presence (album)/GA1

Ritchie333, the GA reviewer attempted to ping you from there today, but as they forgot to include their sig, the ping wouldn't have gone through. Please stop by on the review page when you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Karen Carpenter

The article Karen Carpenter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Karen Carpenter for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Perfect timing, as today is the 36th anniversary of her death, and we get one more GA for today's OTD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Paternoster Gang (audio drama)

I see that you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paternoster Gang (audio drama) as no consensus. I'm interested to hear your explanation, given that there is a clear majority in favour of delete (7 vs 3). If you are arguing that it is not a vote but rather it's based on the argument presented, note that one of the 3 !votes for keep is essentially challenging Wikipedia's guidelines, and the other two did not cite any notability guidelines, it is hard to tell what you are basing your decision on. Hzh (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

AfDs are always about the quality of the arguments, not the numbers. Given arguments from all sides descended into name-calling, I am not minded to close it on one side or the other, because the other side would complain. There was a suggestion to merge in one of the relists, then two "Delete, not really notable" !votes that don't address the above arguments in any substantial detail - and that was it. Indeed, you said in your opening comment "Perhaps a redirect to Big Finish Productions is appropriate until more sources become available." - so why didn't you just do that (which doesn't require an AfD and can be done simply by being bold)? I would recommend waiting a while, then re-nominating. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Quality of argument would rely on how closely it adheres to Wikipedia guidelines, and when those who argued to keep are ignoring or disputing Wikipedia guidelines, how can there be actually any quality in the argument for keep? I'm not normally minded to challenge the result of discussion - sometimes the closer ignores the majority !vote, sometimes the closer ignores the quality of the argument (going for the majority !vote instead), but this is the first time I have seen a closer ignoring both the majority !votes and the quality of argument. Can a deletion review be used for a no consensus closure? (I'm not sure I will do that, but just wondering). Hzh (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) FTR I also disagreed, respectfully, with the close.[1] I'm not going to challenge it. But yeah, I would have called it a delete even w/o my vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
But you implied in the opening argument that you would compromise with a redirect, which is an alternative to deletion. That means there was not a sufficiently strong argument for "keep" or "delete", and accompanied by an insufficient consensus for "merge", this means I don't think there is any reasonable option that will satisfy all parties. As I said on Ad Orientem's talk, I would recommend waiting a while and filing a new AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The point about the redirect is that the article was redirected by three separate reviewers, but they were all reverted reviewed by three separate reviewers who redirected/prodded/afd the article, both the redirect and prod was removed. I don't mind a redirect, but the no-consensus result in fact made it difficult to redirect again because those who want to keep it can argue that there is no consensus to redirect. The result is not meant to satisfy everybody, otherwise nearly all AfDs will end in a no consensus. I am beginning to think it might be better to go for a deletion review, since this result sets up a precedent for someone (and it was essentially just one IP editor) to just keep arguing without any basis in Wikipedia guidelines. There are 2-300 articles on audio productions by the same company, most of them in even worst state source-wise, and I can see the same person doing the same thing over and over again in any future AfDs. Hzh (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I made this edit to one of your talk page archives to remove a category that the page (probably) wasn't meant to be in. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Chafford Hundred railway station

On the talk page of this subject, you were named as someone who altered the currently known name back to its old name. Can you give your reasons for doing that?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary, I could not (at least a year ago) find any official sources in a search that had the station name as "Chafford Hundred Lakeside". The situation may have changed since then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thanks for nominating me

Tyrtrfd (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what this is about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Izzy the Frenchie

"I'm not reading that celebrity rubbish. Besides, I'm comfortable."
"If a cat sneezes on the eve of the wedding, it’s a sign of good luck"

This dog is now 'wed' to Whoopi Goldberg's (it was "the wedding of our times" apparently) and there's been a mention in Vogue but apart from that it seems as unremarkable as when you sent it to AFD before. Time for round 2 or are we no longer in 1E territory? SmartSE (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Smartse: I don't think I can delete this per WP:G4 as more sources have appeared since the first AfD, which in turn makes a "round 2" more difficult to be accepted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Looking forward to Category:Celebrity dog weddings. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I wonder what the RSPCA makes of all this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapa Road railway station

That's a valid argument. I pretty much remember closing a RFC myself which mandated that any AfD seeking to restore a reverted redirect is perfectly fine from a policy-basis. IMO, when you understand that there's a good chance of the redirect being reverted (as it would have surely happened); it's foolish to waste edits over that.∯WBGconverse 08:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean my assumption that Rhadow was constructively ignoring all rules and treating the AfD as a logjam-breaking discussion? Yeah, I've done that from time to time, such as when I want to merge something but can't think where. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello WBG and Ritchie333, the discussion of notability standards for Indian railway stations died without a vote count or closure. I'm okay with dismissal without prejudice. I have another better-crafted argument brewing at User:Rhadow/sandbox. Fundamentally, this discussion is a turf war. Should a one-paragraph description of an unremarkable railway station get a standalone article (the real estate) or be rolled into the line article, where it has context, but not the honor of a stand-alone article? Rhadow (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Rhadow, my comments are already over Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Comments_from_a_passer-by. I will be launching an RFC to determine the scenario for Indian Railways over WT:INB but will need a week or so to draft. ∯WBGconverse 11:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I was just commenting about the usage of the phrase Firstly, an AfD that starts This article should be REDIRECTed to its parent Western Railway is probably an invalid argument. There's no need to invoke IAR to treat it as a valid nom and that's all I said. ∯WBGconverse 11:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so I admit that starting an AfD with This article should be REDIRECTed to its parent Western Railway, was procedurally substandard. Cesdeva offered help. I think the best-qualified should craft the proposal. My scribblings can be found at User:Rhadow/sandbox. Rhadow (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2019 (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. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

... and even more mail! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I got your email, Cwmhiraeth, I'm just mulling over what to say in a reply at the moment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I assume that mine arrived safely as well Ritchie? --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges in Pennsylvania

About your recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges in Pennsylvania, I happen to disagree that that was a valid decision. Would you please provide a full copy, with edit history, of the deleted article, to my userspace? I will think about next step(s), but want to have the article to consider. --Doncram (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Only one other editor gave a "keep" vote, using WP:ITSUSEFUL as an argument, so in my view the more substantial "delete" arguments carried more weight, both in number and substance. To give a similar list example on the same topic that is notable, consider List of Oxford Street Christmas lights celebrities; it's not notable because it's a list related to a road, it's notable because multiple independent sources document the event on a recurring basis. WP:NOTESAL has further information. Anyway, restored to User:Doncram/Interchanges in Pennsylvania. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Live at Leeds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tommy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Who's Who

Can we re-list this for another week? Some misleading referencing was added last night and some arguments made that are not in WP policy. I want to be able to add a response to these so that at least we have a record of what was done on its AfD page. Britishfinance (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with your assessment. I looked at all of the arguments over the course of the AfD, and there is essentially a logjam over whether or not the sources presented prove that the book is notable (remember that WP:GNG says nothing about how many sources are required to meet it, and that in itself is a frequent source of disagreement over contentious AfDs). Furthermore, the most recent comment from StarryGrandma can be summarised as "the article can be sourced, but most sources are offline and hard to find", which is perfectly within policy (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). AfDs tend to get closed or relisted pretty quickly once the 7 days are up, while this one sat unattended for two days - I looked at it twice yesterday thinking about how to close it and punted on it, and I dare say I'm not the only admin to do that. Since it's already been relisted twice, and many people have had a say, and an obvious result is not presenting itself, I think the debate has run its course and nobody has the upper hand. I would recommend dropping the issue for now and working on something else, and if you still feel aggrieved in a few months' time, to file a new AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank Ritchie333 and in fairness, I appreciate you standing up to bring this to a conclusion (no consensus was a fair conclusion). Anyway, thanks for your time and appreciate the consideration you gave the case. Britishfinance (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Andrea Levy

On 15 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Andrea Levy, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Presence (album)

The article Presence (album) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Presence (album) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Review of admins

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfA post mortems: I suggest a more muted form of data collection might serve as less of a lightning rod for divisive comments. Perhaps you can ask people to post their thoughts on a subpage in their user space and ping you from that page? I think asking opposers to re-air their thoughts in a centralized forum may result in unnecessary confrontation. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Ritchie! I saw your post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfA post mortems, while I appreciate wanting to see me take another leap at RFA I think it is going to be quite a bit of time before I do so. My edit count has been understandably low these last few months. Working on a capstone project will do that to you I guess. On the bright side I've finished that research project earned my BA in History so I'll have a bit more free time to spend here on Wikipedia. As always happy editing! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Shubulade Smith

On 19 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shubulade Smith, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Shubulade Smith has spoken up against perceived racism at Maudsley Hospital? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shubulade Smith. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Shubulade Smith), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please if you would userify Cordell Drive

Hello!

I am the editor who created the now-deleted "9250 Cordell Drive" article and when you closed that deletion discussion some months ago you said that you would be willing to "userify" that if asked Would you please?

My thanks The brave celery (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The brave celery that is now  Done, located at User:The brave celery/9250 Cordell Drive.-- 5 albert square (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

From WP:AIV

Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. I'm confused - what makes this edit vandalism? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It's the exact same activity which the user has been repeatedly warned and blocked for previously - deliberately inserting hoax content into articles willy-nilly. The additions are not true and couldn't possibly be. Bonusballs (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @Ritchie333: It's just one, of, many misuses of their rollback right. After all, if something looks correct but is actually a hoax, then an edit-summary for others' benefit is all the more imperative. ——SerialNumber54129 13:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not my area of expertise, so I have no idea if the edits are blatantly wrong or just misguided. Given a complete lack of non-template messages on the IP's talk page, no wonder I didn't "get it" when I looked at the report. I would recommend going to WP:ANI and making your case there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: who should? ——SerialNumber54129 13:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The filer. Or anyone else who finds creating threads at ANI mildly more pleasurable than playing chess with half the pieces missing.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No more pardon

Ritchie333 Enough is enough! This is a quote to be understood by the same guy that was reported by me on Wikipedia Noticeboards. Yes I'm talking about the edits done by RegentsPark on the page of Eddie Vedder. Reverting a constructive edit without any reason at all does counts in Vandalism or disruptive editing. But you gave Regents another chance. And I understand why you did so and I support you. But he has crossed the limits this time. He is making Wikipedia a war zone where he wants to eradicate every single being who opposes him just like a cruel and CORRUPT dictator. First of all, please go and see the page of Iker Casillas, Gianluigi Buffon, Mohamed Salah etc. You can see that their style of play section consists of one photo at the very starting. But Petr Cech's page didn't have any so I added a photo there which was very well according to the section's meaning. But again RegentsPark reverted it here Special:diff/883774484. Did you see his reason? Again and again, I will say that no edit is a sock puppet and if the edit enhances the page then one should not remove it but Man, I'm losing my control. He did it so because he was the man because of who(a year ago) I lost my control and in provocation got blocked. Since my edit on Eddie vedder's page was restored and he felt like he lost the war, he came back to take his revenge. I draw the line of my tolerance here. I won't tolerate this Wikicheatian any more from now. Please make yourself strict in this case now. Forget those 20,000 fake edits, look at what is wrong or right. Not everytime can a sock puppet be wrong and admin be right. There's always an exception. Take this seriously brother for the sake of Deadheads(i too am). Regards 2405:204:A384:9DCF:35EA:AEA1:8EAD:6AB8 (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Obviously looking at this diff my thoughts are : "we are here to write an encyclopedia" trumps everything else and if an alleged (emphasis mine) sockpuppet makes a good faith edit to the article, you judge the edits on their own basis. However, if you look at User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 85#G5 is not silly, you can see I'm in a minority view on this, and when I try and argue my case on the noticeboards I tend to get shot down because there's one of me and about ten of "them". The best advice I can give is - don't draw attention to yourself. If you make good faith edits as an IP and resist all urges to retaliate against people who revert you, you'll never attract anyone's attention and can safely edit below the radar. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC
Thanks for that help Ritchie. I'm really Grateful Dead for this 🤣 and hope that I too can someday help you out. Have a nice day. Regards2409:4063:220D:DDE0:1447:5451:AD35:F79D (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Your dialect home?

"You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. (off-mic) That's a rum thing for the rozzers to do."

In case you have not seen it yet... fun to try. Curiously, from The New York Times. Unsurprisingly, I came out as firmly planted on the Bristol Channel. We converse on here for years, never usually knowing how each other sounds! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Equally unsurprisingly, I come out as Surrey and I speak with a typical middle class accent. Talking of accents, have you ever heard Jah Wurzel's cover of "Wuthering Heights"? (sorry, directly linking to YouTube is a desysoppable offence these days) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The thought of Zummerzet dreadlocks is quite alarming. No relation, I assume. Will check it out. You'd only get desysopped after your month-long ban had expired, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Having thought about this, I realise that I "read" everyone's comments on here in my own accent, unless I know the person is female, in which case I substitute an equivalent accent in my head. Even though I've talked to Megalibrarygirl on the "dog and bone" and know she speaks with a typical middle-class midwest US accent (?), in my head her writing sounds like Fiona Bruce. I think the only user whose posts actually match my internal talking voice is WereSpielChequers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
That's quite intriguing. I now realize that I have a few invented accents for certain editors, based on the limited geographical info they've provided. Hillbillyholiday (bless him) was a mixture of Sarf Lundun and generic urban grime. For some reason I've given Tryptofish the laid-back West Coast drawl of Prof. Denzil Dexter (I'm sure he doesn't deserve it). Those Admins I'm particularly unenamoured with usually get the high-pitched "on the spectrum" tone of a convenient serial killer. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC) ... you'll be pleased to know I had you down as sounding just like this "icon"
Yes, almost as disturbing as I had imagined. Aka Morgan Fisher, it seems. Interested to see he collaborated with Lol Coxhill on this 1980 album which I have not yet heard. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC) ... pretty ambient actually, some of it quite appealing.
I know the admins you speak of, and they do have an air of Jacob Rees-Mogg around them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, apparently the mortality rate at Wikipedia is no worse than Glasgow in the 1890s. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, I am disappointed at Jimbo's performance on Question Time. He said very little and could have been in a perfect opportunity to smack down Mogg, but didn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Smack down?? "QT Gladiators, are you READDDAY!!!". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Close, but oddly I come out more as Sussex and various parts of the western Home counties, but not particularly Surrey. There also seems some similarity between my accent and parts of central East Anglia, so maybe I have some legacy from my paternal great grandfather who came from those parts. I'd have expected to come out as Surrey though. ϢereSpielChequers 11:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently I could be from anywhere between north Norfolk, Ramsgate, west Dorset and Worcestershire … Does that mean I just blend in anywhere south of Birmingham and east of the Welsh border?! OTOH I was born and went to school (I hesitate to say "grew up") in Sal'f Lund'n. But last night I noticed a mention of Narrow Street in the first episode of Dickensian – back in the '80s, working as a motorbike courier in London, I was so befuddled by a controller's pronunciation of that street's name in a London accent that I tried in vain to find a "Naral Street". Two people born in the same city but struggling to communicate. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd put you somewhere in the region of Cherwell Valley services. And in Norfolk, "Norwich" only has one syllable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
A site "previously occupied by a toilet facility" sounds about right. Nortonius (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Chateau D'Herouville

The Chateau D'Herouville, which housed Strawberry Studios, was historically a 17th century chateau just outside Paris, so being an estate, it can be considered a home studio. 61.68.65.248 (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it can, by our own definition of home recording. The "honky Chateau" contained professional-grade recording equipment and had properly acoustically-treated rooms (including the well-documented piano isolation box that Gus Dudgeon installed to record Elton John's piano). So it's not really a "home studio". A more appropriate example would be Roger Waters recording the demo of "Money" on a reel-to-reel in his shed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. 61.68.65.248 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Paternoster Gang (audio drama)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Paternoster Gang (audio drama). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hzh (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Closed as "no consensus". I don't believe I've had an AfD close successfully overturned yet, although having said that I'll probably have one successfully challenged tomorrow now.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Eddie Vedder sock

I know you're acting in good faith but encouraging socks is usually a bad idea. Now we have two of Chandra Shekar Mishra's edits that have survived, the Roger Daltrey quote on Eddie Vedder and the image added in that soccer player's page. This sort of thing only encourages them to keep coming back. --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Why exactly is it a problem for the encyclopedia that we have the Daltery quote on Eddie Vedder's article? After all, we have a quote from Vedder about The Who, which is a GA and my most contributed to article. I don't have an issue if you disagree with the quote because it's off-topic, off-balance or unnecessary, but if you do, say that. If you need to revert someone, use a content-related reason eg: "already got consensus, see talk", "consensus has established this is disruptive, see WP:ARBTHISTHATANDTHEOTHER". I think what encourages them to "come back" is they want to make good faith edits to the encyclopedia! This is one of the biggest unsolved issues on the project; the other being what we do about editors who can churn out FAs like clockwork but have "anger management issues". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The quote is not the point. The main purpose of a sock is to insert their particular viewpoint into the articles they care about and the smarter ones work on the fringes (a Daltrey quote instead of "the greatest American rock band of all time") hoping that well meaning editors will grant them the license to get their views into the encyclopedia. Those well meaning editors end up as unwitting enablers. I understand where you're coming from, the hope that these editors will somehow reform and contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia, but we have well defined ways for that and socking is not one of those ways. The correct thing to do is to point them to our unblocking policy, let them know the conditions under which they can be unblocked (six months of no socking, a promise not to do that sort of thing, yada yada yada) and not give credence to their edits. --regentspark (comment) 16:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes "unwitting" is the crux there. Even "sockpuppets" can occasionally make good edits. There is, in such cases, a direct conflict between keeping what most would consider a useful addition and the need to punish a serial sock. I found this myself recently at Fish and chips (except that I edited there based on my own view, and not in line with established consensus). I don't see any way around this conflict unless a third party editor is allowed to restore a useful edit that has been reverted by a sock-hunter. Indeed crafty sockpuppets can even choose to maliciously add good content to an article knowing it will be forever banished as part of their "punishment". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that you have two conflicting policies giving you cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, our blocking / banning policies say "no evasion for six months, then ask nicely". On the other hand, Pillar number one and the "try to fix the problem" policy says "We're an encyclopedia" and sockpuppetry / block evasion isn't even mentioned anywhere, and the archives of Wikipedia talk:Reverting suggests there is no consensus on whether you should revert. So you can't easily follow one set of "rules" when another set directly contradicts it. I suspect that mutual contradiction between policies and guidelines is probably more common than you think, which is the inevitable result of policy being written "on the fly" in response to historical events. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes. I have been feeling a bit conflicted lately. I had put it down to all that macrobiotic wholemeal muesli. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

What does this mean?

What does !nosign! mean? I've seen you use it with some frequency in edit summaries, but nothing discernible in the posts in question indicates what it means. I have also very occasionally seen other people use it. But I have never found out what it means, and nothing via Google or on Wikipedia seems to explain it. Softlavender (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It keeps signbot from automatically adding a signature to edits on talk pages that don't include one already. GMGtalk 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(ec) It signals to SineBot that it should not put a signature next to this edit, even if it thinks it should. Normally, SineBot only works on new editors with less than 800 edits, but experienced editors can opt-in to have SineBot sign their posts anyway, which is what I do. I normally use it when reformatting a discussion, expanding an earlier comment with extra information, or when adding a rib-tickling Private Eye style humorous picture in a discussion to lighten the mood a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Howard Edelstein

Hi Richie333. I see that this article was restored. I think I was the only voter on this (being Delete, with the proposer). Should (and can) I just renominate this for AfD again? Has anything happened (e.g. new information), that would change things? What is the norm here? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I received an email asking me to restore it. I don't know if that user is connected with Edelstein or has some other conflict of interest, but as I closed as soft delete, it means it should be treated as equivalent to a PROD and can be restored to mainspace for any reason. I think renominating it immediately will cause rancour; try and improve the article first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie333. Seems odd someone would act off-wiki and not defend at AfD or Deletion review? Given that I voted to delete the article, which I still believe, my only options are to start removing the unreferenced text/primary refs and then re-AfD? But I do think that you are advising I do that? Sorry, I'm sure I am not seeing something here. Britishfinance (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't a clue what to do with the article - as an admin, I take no sides in the debate and simply do what I'm asked per policy. I would start by removing anything that is not cited to high quality sources (as the biographies of living persons policy obliges us to do), then work from here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that. cheers. Britishfinance (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Removing the badly-sourced information would leave nothing, which was the point of the AFD. You chose to close it this way rather than WP:RELIST, so its on you. Delete it, Relist it, or let me know you aren't and we'll go to deletion review. --Netoholic @ 22:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I have to ask: was the user that contacted you the same one that created the article? Because if so, then you got played by a potential COI editor. -- Netoholic @ 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The user who contact me via email wishes to remain anonymous. If you wish, I can contact the Arbitration Committee so they can verify this. If you really can't bear the existence of its article and it's keeping you awake at night, file another AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
"Keeping me awake at night"? Sheesh. --Netoholic @ 22:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Well don't you think you're over-reacting a bit? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Howard Edelstein

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Howard Edelstein. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Netoholic @ 22:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to stop getting angry and upset at people who disagree with you, or have different priorities. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Edris Allan

On 26 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edris Allan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Edris Allan, the first telephone operator for the Jamaica All Island Telephone Service, married Sir Harold Allan, the first Afro-Jamaican to be knighted? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Edris Allan), 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 12:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Harold Egbert Allan

On 26 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harold Egbert Allan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Edris Allan, the first telephone operator for the Jamaica All Island Telephone Service, married Sir Harold Allan, the first Afro-Jamaican to be knighted? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Harold Egbert Allan), 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 12:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_90&oldid=999020939"