User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Phil Lynott reference

Just wondering why you changed the year of the first Byrne book from 2004 to 2006? Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's probably because the Google Books cache that I saw had that year, as a reprint. I saw the other book you mentioned, and converted the references. It's a useful way to make sure all the references are accurate and what's in the article is good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd very much like to get this to GA (I had an idea to get all Lizzy-related articles to GA but only got as far as the main article), and I'm sure we can manage it. A member of the band actually asked me recently if it could be improved so now's a good time. Philomena's book (bless her) is all about her and her relationship with Phil, and not so much about him per se, but I can manage page numbers as soon as I go home and fetch the book (soon). I can source anything about Phil or Thin Lizzy, providing it's true of course. I think it's currently a decent summary of his life, although he was the kind of guy you could be adding details about for evermore. He did quite a bit of production work for other bands, although many of them were not particularly notable, and he provided songs for a few other bands as well, like Wild Horses. It really depends how much detail you want. I'll also add a short note about Thin Lizzy spinning off into Black Star Riders out of respect for Lynott. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well do what you can, and I'll add any additional notes I can from Putterford's biography. There is some detail in there being amazed at what a hectic year he had in '78, as well as recording Parisienne Walkways and touring with Lizzy, he was doing production for Wild Horses and guest appearances with Bob Geldof for a punk band. One way or another, we'll get there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Will do. 1978, yes, just before he got stuck into the hard stuff. He was never as reliably prolific again after that. I should be able to expand the discography a little as well. We certainly will get there :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: I've gone as far as I can with the basics, but I think I'm going to have to shell out for a copy of his mum's biography to get the early details spot on. Putterford's book just guesses. Come to think of it, really she needs her own article as a lot of this stuff is more about her than him, and having seen the the eponymous film about a namesake, her life story is slightly happier in that she was in regular touch with her son and he continues to be a much respected and admired rock figure. PS: Did I ever mention I met Robbo once at a jam night in Brentwood, Essex? Crikey, I've heard some guitarists that are loud, but he kicked a Marshall 4x12' with a yell of "this wee bastard inn'ae loud enough" and cranked it up to ear bleeding levels. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Barking mad, but undoubtedly charismatic and oddly engaging, even in her 80s ... though is clearly more of a Deep Purple fan....

The later edition of his mum's biography is the one to get, as she only decided to spill the beans about her other children and their various fathers in that latest edition. She was economical with the truth on a number of points in the earlier editions... She might well be eligible for her own article, indeed! Met her once – barking mad, but undoubtedly charismatic and oddly engaging, even in her 80s. Putterford's book is very good, but being older, it still carries a few of the old myths. Haha! I might well have been at that same jam night. I managed to catch two nights at Brentwood with Robbo present and he was a total gentleman on both occasions. Very chatty and approachable (and loud). I shall never forget standing just a few feet away while he blasted out "Rosalie" on that Les Paul. Fingers crossed he decides to do it again one day! Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you saw a chap playing a Rickenbacker bass while (reluctantly) singing lead, that was me. That was a few years back. Anyway, back to the task in hand, I have created Philomena Lynott. I am perceptive to cries of WP:BLP1E (if you can call Phil "one event" that is) and WP:INHERITED but I think there is enough in sources that is more her story than his, especially the family, attitudes to racism and single parenting in the 1950s, other kids and the autobiography. Looking at photos, she does seem to be making a concious effort to look like a fellow octogenarian if you ask me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My memories are fuzzy, but if Robbo resurfaces down Brentwood way, you should bring that Rickenbacker back :) Good work with Philomena, I think WP:GNG is easily satisfied and we should be able to add all kinds of bits and pieces as we find them. I'll add links to the Lizzy article and template while I'm here. Hahaha!! Now you mention it, there is something regal about Phyllis. If we ever see Mrs Windsor in a Lizzy T-shirt, I think we might be on to a major story. Have they ever been seen in the same room?? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The article has passed a DYK review, so I would expect it to be listed on the main page some time soon. There is definitely room for expansion in the family and Clifton Grange Hotel areas. I can't find the source, but I recall reading she was the only hotelier who would put up the Sex Pistols following their seminal Manchester Free Trade Hall gig, though that may be second-hand apocryphal information via Phil (who was friends with them) and hence via everyone else. Back to Phil, we've got a bit of time but it would be very appropriate to get his article through GA and DYK onto the main page (with statue pic) on 4 January 2016 for reasons I shouldn't need to explain to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff. I recall reading that Sex Pistols tale too, so it may well be in one of my many Lizzy books. I shall get my hands on those next weekend. We need to add a note about the song from Nightlife that was named after her too. We'll certainly have enough time to build both up well before the 30th anniversary. Thirty years already, lord. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"He [ Tony Visconti ] has said, “It’s 75 percent overdubs.” What the fuck drugs is he on? I’d like some of them..... I don’t understand this bollocks that’s going on. .... I don’t know what drugs the man is on but he’s talking absolute shit."

Brian Robertson on Tony Visconti

I found the Pistols source. Also found some brilliant Robbo quotations about Live and Dangerous! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Robbo's great for a bit of bad language! I managed to squeeze him saying 'bollocks' into the main Lizzy article, and my personal favourite, "Listen to it and tell me it's not bollocks" in Jailbreak. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Denmark Street/Tin Pan Alley

Hello Richie,

My only intention was to correct some factual errors on the pages. The phrase ″is also used to describe any area within a major city with a high concentration of music publishers or musical instrument stores″ is simply not based in fact as the term 'Tin Pan Alley’ is not used as such. It is only used, as far as i am aware, in reference to two specific places, namely West 28th Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, New York, and Denmark Street in London. Other places referred to as "Tin Pan Alley" in other cities generally refer to specific venues, rather than "areas". So my change from

This

" By extension, the term "Tin Pan Alley" is also used to describe any area within a major city with a high concentration of music publishers or musical instrument stores – an example being Denmark Street[2][3] in London's West End. In the 1920s the street became known as "Britain's Tin Pan Alley" because of the large number of music shops, a title it still holds.".

To This

"By extension, the term "Tin Pan Alley" has also been adopted for Denmark Street[2][3] in London's West End. In the 1920s the area became known as "Britain's Tin Pan Alley" because of the large number of music shops, a title it still holds".

Only reflects an interest in the factual as opposed to anything subjective.

Kind Regards, Robbie Prudence 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbie Prudence (talk • contribs)

@Robbie Prudence: Hi, thanks for getting in touch. Well the good news about Tin Pan Alley is that I tend to only revert things once, so provided you make a good case for your changes (which you've done here), then just undo my edit. I can't promise another editor will leave it, but that's the consensus model we use.

The edits to Denmark Street are a little more problematic, as you've asserted you're affiliated with Consolidated Developments, who are rebuilding the area between the street and TCR tube. That creates a problem with you editing, as you have a potential conflict of interest. As I think I said on your talk, the squatters who took over the 12 Bar Club's former premises also edit Wikipedia, and their opinion of what should happen to the street probably doesn't align with yours! As long as you say up-front your prejudices on your user page though, you should be okay. Only thing to watch is that Denmark Street is a good article, so the bar for what edits will be accepted is higher, as every fact in the article is (or should be!) verifiable by a good quality source. I do like popping into Denmark Street and looking at gear, and the one time I played at the 12 Bar when it was at number 26 was magical, but we've got to remember to keep a neutral point of view on articles here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And, as predicted... because neither the edit summary nor the article talk page alerted me to this discussion, I've reverted Robbie Prudence at Tin Pan Alley, for what appeared to be an unsourced and ungrammatical edit. But, I take the point... I'll revert myself and tweak the wording, for clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Denmark Street? I've often said "I'm going down to Liverpool Street to do nothing..." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

RIP Chris

I've seen all good basses....

Sad news. Hearing this in 1971, for me, was a bit like this. And I've always totally loved [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• All my favourite musicians are dying :-( I was only playing that the other day to Mrs 333, who remarked "what on earth are they singing about?" "Oh, something about a chess board, dear". "Yes, but what does it mean?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  But tell Mrs Three-threes there is hope for metalheads. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

This calls for a cake

Hope you have a good day today, Ritchie! I happened to notice this edit last year but was too late to leave a message for the day. If I'm reading this right, you are now 41. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Snuggs. You're a perceptive chap. I was going to do a bunch of article edits so I could point to them and say "everybody - do THIS", but as we're here .... yes I am 41 today. I would like everyone to play nice, work on articles and not post on ANY noticeboards ESPECIALLY AN, ANI and Arbcom. I've seen enough silliness over the weekend and really have had enough of it. I am looking forward to cake this evening :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, bro. Enjoy your cake :3. As it turns out, my 2nd Wiki-birthday is tomorrow :D. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, dude, have some cake, why dontcha!? (... you can't have it AND eat it, you know!) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC) (neat trumpet from Vince DiFiore)

Special:Diff/669204690

"Sorry, only registered users can vote on RfAs" – According to...? Dustin (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is, if an IP is just being disruptive/unconstructive, I would expect that any bureaucrats would be able to tell and disregard the vote. Plus, this isn't even a real vote, it's a neutral. Back to the question, though... Dustin (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

According to procedure at WP:RFA : "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account." I don't mind you re-adding the vote and reformatting it. And, yes, it was well phrased and constructive comment, for the record. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Would it be better to just remove the "#" and replace it with an asterisk? And maybe remove the "Neutral, leaning support."? What section would it go in, though? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember what procedure is for civil and good faith IP votes. You could move it to the talk page, that might be a solution. To be honest, genuine new or casual editors who aren't interested in accounts aren't interested in RfA either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It turns out that 64.56.102.242 is actually an administrator, so any further changes are unnecessary. All that aside, thank you for the responses! Dustin (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. It's been years since I did that - felt like a new editor all over again. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle suggestion

Hi,

I have two questions. First, if I were to suggest a new twinkle option, would I post in the Village Pump or Twinkle's talk page?

Secondly, I want your opinion if I wanted to suggest a new feature to Twinkle, if possible. Edit warring is a big issue around here from any user, which can be seen at ANI or 3RR/EW noticeboards. We think it's for good reasons, but it doesn't apply to 3RR exemptions a good part of it. You know about my edit warring on Portugal about the unsourced content. I was thinking that if this was possible we include a notice after, say, two reverts and reverting for the third time with the same user or the same edit saying the following (or similar): "This is your third revert in a course of 24 hours and are entering WP:3RR territory. Does the edit apply in the exemption list? Are you sure you want to continue?" It would be be enabled and disabled as I can understand it could get annoying. I wasn't exactly sure if it would be a good suggestion since some would quickly respond that it's the user's control and knowledge to not edit war and so on. I wanted your opinion first before suggesting it then getting shut down, you know? What do you think? Helpful or useless? PS: Just saw that apparently yesterday was your birthday. Well, happy belated birthday! Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: - The best place for suggestions like these are the Village pump (technical section). In terms of the actual proposal, as you may be aware I am not a fan of twinkle templates, and believe a personalised message is always better. In terms of edit warring, attempting to quell the dispute, gain consensus and stop disruption in the article should always be the main focus, not what form an automated message should take. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Park Lane, London page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the truth is finally out, I am a troll who does not meaningfully contribute to the Wikipedia community. I just gnome away at articles and made bad jokes, after all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not as bad as mine. The joys of adminship, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

RE: troll who does not meaningfully contribute to the Wikipedia community: I knew that. That's why I made you run for adminship. I figured you could do more damage this way. Keep up the good work. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your speedy action on the Hong kong trade office page. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@LibStar: You're welcome, though I'll warn you now that the original AfD had a very weak consensus with only two "merge" !votes and you came close to breaching WP:3RR yourself on the article [2], [3], [4], [5]. The main reason I'm not going to block you is because a) I'm nice and hate blocks and b) Semi-protecting the article will remove your reason to revert, thus making a block superfluous. I'll have a word with the IP advising them to redo the article in draft space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I sus this IP is the same as 58.153.97.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . An editor pointed out to me that 58.153.97.134 is probably block evading. However the new IP is very similar in style . Despite the AfD outcome, if someone wants to change the merge they should use WP:RFD. LibStar (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I prefer going to draft. It takes longer (sometimes months longer) but at the end you'll have a much better article to show for it. At RfD, you'll just get the version that went to AfD, and unless the result is "speedy keep, bad faith nom" the article quality as it stands is probably not going to be that good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Emailed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: ETO Sydney

Please make sure User:LibStar will perform a full, genuine merger. Or else please restore the status quo before what he/she did. Thanks. 203.145.93.211 16:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.93.211 (talk)

RIP Michael Valentine

A tribute from Barnsley's Finest. Martinevans123 (talk) ... a few tips for your stage show maybe?? (feat. "the legendary" Graham Oliver) ...

Did my first review--you may wish to look over it

I just did my fist review for a Wiki article, so I am new to the reviewing process. It was for the article about The Electric Prunes, which had been nominated for G.A. Ghmyrtle recommended that I contact you to check it over. If I have prematurely posted it for G.A., then I apologize--I was doing what I believed the directions stipulated. Perhaps you could take a look at the review and give me some feedback. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Taking a superficial look at the article, there no obvious reasons to quickfail a review. It looks like a reasonably thorough account of the band, the only dead link in the source is heartbeat-productions.co.uk and the only redirect that needs fixing is Motifs (which should lose the "s"). However, as Ghmyrtle points out, the devil is in the detail. A GA has got to be well-written, factually correct and reasonably complete from top to bottom, a single questionable source, overlong quotation or maintenance tag means it doesn't meet the criteria.

Looking at the lead, my initial comment is that there are a lot of inline citations, which per WP:LEADCITE are not necessary. Then the first inline citation in the first paragraph, being a CD sleeve notes, doesn't give me enough information, it needs at least a publisher's serial number and ideally a page number in a booklet, to make verification easier (we don't like searching for needles in haystacks). "the band's sound was marked by innovative recording techniques" is POV and should be rewritten, as is "provided the band with a richer sonic palette and exploratory lyrical structure than many of their contemporaries". The quotation in the first paragraph of the body is over-long and may invite accusations of a copyvio. Does that give you some idea of what to look for? Basically, it's possible to get this article to GA, but I don't think it's there yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I am the reviewer, I will see if the other editors can go in and make the changes you recommended (I don't want there to be a conflict of interest). Or if it is OK for me to make the changes... I'm new to reviewing, so I apologize. For future reviews I will look for these kinds of things (and others). Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• You wouldn't mind if I copy this particular thread and put it on my talk page, so I can eventually put it in my own archives. That way, I can have quick access to this discussion to serve as a future guidepost, for future reviews.
• TheGracefulSlick informed me that he has made the changes you recommended. I will go and do an addendum to the review. Is it OK to assume that the article is GA after that? Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to take these suggestions, see if there's anything else along the same lines, and mention them on the review. Don't worry about giving me credit (and you may not 100% agree with them anyway). I think the rules are you shouldn't GA review anything you've done any serious contributions towards (little copyedits and gnoming is okay), but once the review is underway you are free to improve the article. Some reviewers like to get stuck in and just improve the article to GA himself, stopping only to ask the odd question - I personally only switch to doing improvements at the end once I've swept through all the issues and there are only a few things left to sort out. Horses for courses. PS: And yes, you can archive this thread if you find it useful. You run the risk of accidentally copypasting one of Martinevans123's rib-tickling asides, but that's the world we live in.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick just went in and made the changes you recommended. Before I finish the revision of my review, you may wish to look over the article once again to see if it now passes muster for G.A. Let me now if there are any remaining issues. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible, at your convenience of course, if you could look over the templates to the article to make sure everything is correct. A bot should have gave a GA status to the article and notified me, if I'm not mistaken. I don't want to keep bugging GP66 about this so I thought you would know what to do. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: You've got duplicate templates on the talk page - I've fixed that so the GA bot should be notifying you soon. I haven't read through the article in depth yet (I've been busy doing my own article work - sorry!) so I'm going to have to AGF the review is okay, as it still looks shorter than my typical reviews. Still, I can't see anything obviously wrong with it from my cursory view and any mistakes ought to be easily fixable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Philomena Lynott

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Your GA nomination of Pawn Hearts

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pawn Hearts 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

World Head of Family Sokeship Council

Need a bit of advice on how to deal with this. The article was declined numerous times but was moved by the author into article space. On June 19th you moved it back to Draft space and restored the AfC tags but it did not stay there long. The same was also done (moving declined AfC into article space) by the same author for San jitsu which in itself was deleted several times. My feeling is that these should just be brought to AfD (the reasons they were declined still hold) but I was wondering if there was a better way. Seems that AfC has a bit of a work around.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't obviously tell whether the council is notable or not, to be honest. AfD does sound like the way to go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks - I will proceed with that. What I was really wondering about is the work around of declined AfCs - seems rather pointless and I was curious what is there to stop people from side stepping the proceedure or is that hole deliberate.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no rule against moving drafts into mainspace and bypassing the AfC reviewing process. If people do this and their articles are deleted, my usual thought is "That's why we have drafts" and move it back. If they move it back again, then more fool them. I still use drafts / AfC myself for things like Dewtron that might deserve an article, or might be better merged elsewhere, and I want a second opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pawn Hearts

The article Pawn Hearts you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pawn Hearts for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pawn Hearts

The article Pawn Hearts you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pawn Hearts 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexandre Mars bio page

7/6/15 Hi Ritchie333, Hope you're well! I just wanted to direct you to my sandbox where I've saved a draft of Alexandre Mars revised profile page. It has a lot of great new citations and I've ensured that we meet all living person bio guidelines. Thanks so much and let me know if I need to make any changes. Jennepicfoundation (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jennepicfoundation: The original request was to expand Draft:Alexandre Mars - as you've created a duplicate of that, the two need to be merged together, which is a difficult task. Is there any way you can merge your userspace page with the existing draft page? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, what happened to the 65 revisions that were restored here? They're not showing up in the history of Draft:Alexandre Mars. The Dissident Aggressor 16:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, cause I blew things up and started over, which is the easiest way of doing things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I get it. because of the history in the article-space that says it was moved, I was expecting the history to be preserved. Thanks. The Dissident Aggressor 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

How can I do this? Jennchowdhury (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The easiest way, as you have written the userspace draft and are the sole contributor, you can copy and paste individual segments from there to the existing draft. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Jenn, you need to pick one account and stick with it. You can't use multiple accounts. The Dissident Aggressor 16:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dewtron has been accepted

Dewtron, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well I never - can you expand this, Martin? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

OMG. I might need to research my Throbbing Gristle a little deeper. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Have to confess that since it's been sunny and in the news I have been listening to quite a bit of the Grateful Dead recently. The trouble with them is I think they're the most documented band on the internet ever and just trying to find somewhere to start is difficult, but Europe 72 seems to be as good a place as any. Still, it's started raining, so maybe I should put the weird / miserable stuff back on the stereo. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your GA nomination of Whitechapel Road

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whitechapel Road 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitechapel Road

The article Whitechapel Road you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Whitechapel Road for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitechapel Road

The article Whitechapel Road you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Whitechapel Road for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

"Recuse?"

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The moral of this story is, if there's drama involving Eric and you're an admin, keep your trap shut. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no moral in a story where a request which was dismissed by all who commented (I slept then) grew into this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Might as well stay at home and listen to a nice Bach cantata. Or, if you're feeling adventurous, The Nice's take on Sibelius' Karelia Suite, Intermezzo including the frankly bizarre juxtaposition of a nice opening string movement against some truly terrifying Hammond organ feedback noises that will probably involve all listeners of a sane mind to run out of the room screaming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

When there is no moral I can't stay home, so commented on top of the noise - needed for my conscience. I did the same last time, my first arb case ever, my salad days when I thought motion set something in motion, in that case an infobox for Verdi (Beethoven made it from case workshop to article as you may have seen, much to my amusement entered by the arb himself.) - Next Bach cantata BWV 88, in progress. When that hook appeared with the nice image, they removed the image in the middle of the day because it was not specified what was pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing nice about the soundtrack to ArbCom. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand there's always the flamethrower option. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally my thoughts gravitate more towards this Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL thanks, that made me laugh. Still laughing. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought more - also of flames - of something like enforcers' Götterdämmerung (the woman who can't believe what she sees), alternative pic here, - seems that we had more fun in that Case, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Too lazy to start a new topic: just resist sin - anybody inclined? Only three movements, - want it to appear on DYK 19 July if possible ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Martyn at Trade Signal Machine

You unblocked User:Martyn at Trade Signal Machine on condition that he didn't edit Trade Signal Machine. He's recreated the article. Bazj (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bazj: Thanks. I am generally amenable (probably more than most admins) to unblocking people and giving them a second chance, hoping that's enough for them to understand the problems. The flip side of that is, if I tell you flat out "don't do 'x' or you'll be blocked" and you do 'x', what choice do I then have? Indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

None. I admire your WP:AGF even as trawling through WP:NPP makes me more and more cynical. Bazj (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Todd

Just so you know, I finally learned what was up with that AfD challenge of Douglas Todd, via email from him after the fact. It was an organized campaign to hit the piece by Sikh nationalists that objected to his writing on a controversial airline disaster, which brought out the other team, too. It was a good close based on sources available (which I explained to him), but there was something rotten in Denmark with that debate, as you observed at ANI. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tim. I had a feeling it was along those lines - personally I'd have been happy with a redirect than a straight delete, but that's consensus for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, silly me

Crikey, my talk page is like Piccadilly Circus this lunchtime!

At User talk:Acorn Publications I managed to misread your comment about "excellent work at AfC elsewhere" as being addressed to the editor "Acorn Publications", not to TimTrent, so the comment I put there was nonsense. I have removed it, and I have also taken the unusual step of removing your response to it. Since the comments are based on a misunderstanding, and will not help "Acorn Publications" at all, I felt that this was a situation in which IAR takes precedence over the principal that one does not remove another editor's talk page post. If you disagree, please let me know. My apologies for my careless mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, due to an edit conflict, at the time I posted the above message, the comments had not been removed, but they have now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. We are all human and we all make mistakes. No harm done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Mischaracterization

In what sense is reverting the edits of a blocked editor "edit warring"? Think it's at least worth using fair characterisations in your evidence?—Kww(talk) 15:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You could have just ignored it! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) It doesn't work that way with some admins, they let some stuff slide and are robust and forthright with other stuff. That's one of the reasons that most of the community distrust a large percentage of admins, they are entirely inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I could have failed in my role as an administrator and allowed a blocked editor to update policies about an issue that directly affected him. That doesn't make my decision to revert it "edit-warring"—Kww(talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Graham Chapman

The article Graham Chapman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Graham Chapman 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 Onel5969 -- Onel5969 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! You might be interested in expanding The Duke of Hamilton I just started.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld, I don't suppose you could check that GA review? It looks very, well, brief. Now obviously I think it's close to GA (or I wouldn't have put it up) but I'd much rather I had a proper constructive critique of my work. Given the problems Sitush has thrown up on Talk:Babur I think it's worth doing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It certainly looks to meet the GA criteria. I think you expect too much from GA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs)

Eric has taught me well ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the stick

This horse is alive and well and no sticks should be introduced near it under any circumstances.

I am not into equine necrophilia. All that needed to be done has been done. The AFD will do whatever it does, and the editor will do whatever he or she does. The SPI is already closed, sufficient rope was allowed, relevant IP blocks are in place, and I hope the editor will become a good citizen. I doubt it, but I can hope. Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If I say anything nasty about horses, Montanabw will descend upon this page and give me a nasty look, so I won't. I think you were just getting a bit over-excited in the dealing with user, because given the conversation I suspected this to be a user who had had an article deleted via A7/G11 (possibly several times) and was getting cross, but it turns out it's just that AfD and a few other okay gnomish edits. New editors do tend to overreact sometimes when their first edits aren't preserved, it's just the way it goes. Anyway, as you say, it's all over so I'm going back to expanding / sourcing Oxford Street now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Stick? Shtick more like. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Whew! Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help at negative resistance GAN

• Nominator would like a new reviewer... do you know anyone who could help? Thanks! • Lingzhi♦(talk) 13:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: I'm not sure I could do the review justice; I tend to restrict GA reviews to areas I have a good subject understanding or am confident I could learn it quickly. The Rambling Man is going through GA reviews like a knife through butter right now, but even he might pause on this one. Failing that, you could ask on the GA nominations talk page? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I could give it a look over, like Ritchie I tend to stick to my comfort zone, but lately that zone seems have widened... Let me know if I can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Please see new thread at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Thanks. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 03:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Rolt

Hello, Ritchie333. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "David Rolt".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Rolt}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Well since I am an administrator, I can undelete it. It turns out this was a draft I declined for being non-notable about three years ago. Wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground I'm afraid - I think you've sent this to the wrong person. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

was wondering if you would give your opinions of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acorn_Mobility at its deletion discussion thanks Acorn Publications (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bretthuk72: I have no reason to doubt that you posted that request in good faith. However, since it was addressed to an administrator who has just unblocked you, there is a danger that it might be seen by some editors as an attempt to get a comment from someone who you think might be well-disposed towards you. Soliciting participation in a discussion from someone you have reason to think might support you is not well regarded: see Wikipedia:Canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks !James. The short answer is "I don't know". As I hinted above, I've got a limited amount of time over the weekend, I really should be helping with sawing wood right now instead of typing on here, and I'd really like to spend it getting Oxford Street to GA status (please, please, somebody, anybody pull out the cites for the 2013 and 2014 Christmas Lights shows so I don't have to!) If I have any time, I will look further. If I can improve it to the point of !voting "Keep", I will, but I make no promises at all that will be the case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To be scrupulously fair, the request was made in neutral terms, with the editor having no idea what opinion you might offer. I would not hold the request against them. There is no validity in the assumption that an admin unblocking an editor might also be in favour of that editor's edits or an article to which they have contributed. The only assumption one may make, especially about one trusted with the keys to the janitor's cupboard, is that they will apply policy rigorously. We know this not to be a universal truth, but it is the best assumption. I would not treat their request as canvassing, more as asking, slightly obliquely, for advice. So, if you have the time or the inclination, please offer your opinion either way. If not, please enjoy shopping. That discussion will end in due course, and an outcome will happen. Either way Wikipedia will be improved. Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I totally agree. I started my message to Bretthuk72 by saying "I have no reason to doubt that you posted that request in good faith", and I meant that: I was not suggesting that I thought it was canvassing, just giving what was meant to be a friendly warning to Bretthuk72 that posting such messages might be seen that way. I was also not for a moment suggesting that Ritchie333 would be likely to act in a biased way, or would not "apply policy rigorously". However, I have sometimes seen perfectly innocent requests for help in circumstances like this being misinterpreted by some editors as wicked collusion, so it is as well, I think to be very careful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I agree with every word you have said above. Fiddle Faddle 12:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)