Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Sara Jay

What more can you need? IMBD, her official biography and AVN... the industry standard? I think you just don't want her page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickyvette (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Banton on bass and bass pedals

Hi Ritchie! Regarding that last edit you reverted on Van der Graaf Generator, I think the anonymous editor did have a point. I believe the essence of that edit might have been that the line-ups section of the article now seems to imply that Banton played bass guitar and bass pedals from his joining of VdGG in 1968 on, which clearly is not the case. It may be a good idea to tweak the line-ups section so that it more accurately describes who played what instruments when. Or maybe the instruments should be left out of that section altogether, and make it simply a collection of member names. Groet! Mark in wiki (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I see your point. I'll revisit it when I take the article to FAC sometime in about ... ooh 2018 at this rate :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 18 June 2013 (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on List of Wikipedia controversies

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC at Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies#RfC: Should the vandalism to Anita Sarkeesian be included in this list?; since you have commented on this discussion, your input would be appreciated. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

Paco de Lucia

Hi, feel free to pass the review onto somebody else, don't worry about it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to complete the review, had I known that you were so pressed for time I wouldn't have asked! I believe I've addressed all points except I couldn't locate the Oxford source, what citation number is it? I've also disputed the "widely considered" thing, explained on review page.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well better late than never - it was just bad timing, and I generally don't start something I can't finish, so I always aspired to finish the review at some point. I suddenly got told, "we've got to get this soundtrack done by end of May otherwise it won't happen" so I downed tools and spent most evenings arranging charts and rehearsing. I'm hopefully going to hear how it integrates with the film over the weekend - exciting stuff. Straight after that, I was off touring Galway for a long week, which is a great place to chill out and relax. Elsewhere, my other half has reorganised my entire bookshelf so I spent an hour this evening digging out two book sources for stuff - aaargh! Anyway, the Oxford source is Woodall 2007 - part of the online version of Grove's Dictionary of Music, which IIRC is subscription only and hence no wonder the toolserver bot threw a wobbly about it. I'll have a look at the other comments tomorrow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is passable now?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou! Got there eventually but you're comments definitely helped improve it I think. Take care. Are you going to watch the Stones in the Park next month?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Afraid not, I've got my own gig to do! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Musical Theatre Academy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craig Adams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A1 in London

What do you feel needs to be done to A1 in London to meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? Could we hold a discussion on the talkpage - Talk:A1 in London - to see what needs to be done? I've closed the Peer Review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I need to actually go through the article in more depth and make a firm decision on whether or not we should take this to FAC, but fundamentally I think the FA criteria are designed to make sure we have article that is comparable to a commercially published book on the subject that had good reviews, and if your article does that, it should pass.
I would like to improve the infobox so it lists notable places along it such as The Angel, Islington, Archway, Henleys Corner etc. and we need to make sure our sources are of the best quality. I am worried that at the FA review, some of the editors who have picked squabbles in the past about infobox formatting will cause some sort of deadlock - you might want to discuss with Amadscientist (talk · contribs) about a dispute resolution earlier this year that recommended formal arbitration in this area.
You might not be aware that I don't actually live very far from Rochester, and frequent the Lower Bell on the A229 Bluebell Hill on a semi-regular basis, and spending an hour discussing it in real life might be more productive. Food for thought, anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Phil Lynott

With regard to your edit to the lead of Phil Lynott, a couple of things: I don't want to be a pain about it, but you've pretty much done what the blocked IP was being so disruptive about – removing the 'best-known' clause – so I'm not sure how much of a compromise it is. Also, Thin Lizzy was Lynott's only commercially successful group (rather than "most") since his other groups (Grand Slam, Three Musketeers) never even scored a record deal. I'm certainly not going to go in and revert or change it round myself, but maybe we could discuss it a bit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You can start a discussion on Talk:Phil Lynott if you like, but as far as I'm aware, The Greedies were commercially successful, as was Parisienne Walkways and Out of the Fields - none of which could be described as Thin Lizzy or Phil solo. The point is it conveys pretty much the same information (Lizzy = most significant) while tying it down to a specific quantifiable fact. The South American NPOV IP has done the rounds on numerous articles, taking out "best known for" all over the place, so he'll probably be back. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I haven't got a massive problem with it, and the article needs rewriting in many areas anyway, so I shan't be making any great noises. I'm just wary of any sense of giving in to this guy's disruptive behaviour. I'm sure he will be back, and I'm sure his first edit will be reverting Thin Lizzy or something similar. He only went there because I wrote it. Anyway, The Greedies had one record, which, admittedly was commercially successful, but it wasn't really Phil's band. The work with Gary Moore can't really be construed as a group. Maybe change the wording to "his most commercially successful work was with Thin Lizzy..."? The 'best known' aspect is less important here than with Jeremy Spencer, for example, because it's slightly more debatable what Lynott was best known for. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Generally, the best thing to do on Wikipedia is ignore who did something and concentrate on what it is. The IP can't be blocked for vandalism, as some editors thinks some of the changes improve wording of articles. But now they've descended into edit warring and personal attacks, future blocks will be much harsher. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
No doubt we'll find out on Saturday... Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

you may want to comment

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clements Worldwide DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

PhoneJS AfD

What the heck was this? I specifically said that it was a non-admin closure and archived the discussion, but you made edits to it. Why? --SamX‧☎‧✎ 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just replied on your talk page explaining the matter. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also replied on my talk page. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 15:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

1988–94 British broadcasting voice restrictions

G'day, I'd just like to remind everyone of the faculty rules. Rule one - NO TALKBACKS. Rule two - nobody is to disagree with anyone else on Wikipedia - if there's anybody watching. Rule three - NO TALKBACKS. Rule four - now this term, I don't want to catch anybody not edit warring. Rule five - NO TALKBACKS. Rule six - there is nooooooooo rule six. Rule seven - NO TALKBACKS.

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Paul MacDermott's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 50 in Nevada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Essay

I just noticed that you expanded the essay Wikipedia:Nominating multiple articles for deletion in a day that I started. It looks better. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I was probably having a bad time at AfD that week. I tend to add to essays just after I've been brassed off about something! That's how WP:PRAM and friends started. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

A74 road (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Carlisle, Abington, Crawford, River Esk, Black Fell and Hamilton
A82 road (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Arden
Henlys Corner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Edmonton Green

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

On to

What are you on to? Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK - A82 Road

A quick courtesy note - I added a DYK for an article that I wrote when I saw your DYK. Your DYK appears to have been screwed up somehow. You might like to have a look. Martinvl (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Did a quick check myself - your article has been promoted - well done. Martinvl (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rotolactor

Copyedited the lede per your suggestion. Good idea! Could you put a tick mark , if you approve the DYK nomination. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem - should hopefully get promoted now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for A82 road

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Progressive rock

Take your time. When you return, please note that I've rewritten the Neo-prog section, so you might want to give that another look. It opened with a list of bands, and that attracts fancruft, so I've deleted the names and replaced them with more content. Good luck with your own articles! Let me know if you want a good WP:GOCE polish. Dementia13 (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look when I'm feeling a bit more alive. Got a busy weekend coming up, large marquee fair tonight, then appearing at a festival on the bill with Tom Hingley tomorrow. Eek!
For copy editing, if I ever finish mining the book sources for Van der Graaf Generator so it can go to FAC, I'll let you know if I need copyediting, though there are a couple of gnomes who watchlist the article who tend to be quite on the ball with spelling and fixes (I've got a particular blind spot to WP:REFPUNC). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm just now seeing your note about A82 road, and I'll be glad to take a look at it. I think you have to do GAN before you can do peer review, and peer review is recommended before FAC. I can ensure that, whatever you do, you won't get delayed by prose issues.
Regarding your mention of the samples, I'm thinking about changing two of them, so I'd like to check with you on that. I want to replace the Gentle Giant with a segment of "On Reflection," both because it's a fugue and because "Mobile" has a similarity to the Kansas example. "On Reflection" is also a fairly prominent song and was mentioned by some of the sources. The other change is that the Marillion example was chosen with the idea of putting it up next to a section of "Get 'Em Out by Friday," to point out specific stylistic similarities between Marillion and Genesis. Is that OK, or does it seem too POV? (Accusations of similarity is now an article point- I had to expand the neo-prog section and remove the example names, because every fan wants to add their favorite). And if both of those changes are OK, do you need to review them first? Dementia13 (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I've had a read through the article and I think everything's in shape to pass GA. If the audio files comply with NFCC then I think all is well. I'll sort out the paperwork when I'm on a desktop box (editing Wikipedia on a phone is a PITA). As far as A82, well you don't have to do anything specific to take an article to FAC, just GAN and peer reviews avoid it being tossed out. I can always GA nominate it now I guess - there's no rush. Thanks for your copyedit - looks much better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I've done barely anything, but I'll give it a thorough look. My long unemployment ended the same day you picked up the prog article for review, so I now have less time and energy and have to do everything in small pieces. Dementia13 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 11:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

About Article being Declined

Hello there, I just tried to submit an article about the School I work @ Richland Academy and it was declined. You wrote this:

Educational establishments below the approximate equivalent of US High School and UK Grammar School are generally not kept as separate articles on Wikipedia but merged into a parent. You may have more success expanding Richmond Hill, Ontario#Education instead. When I went to that page, it lists other schools in our area and they have separate articles talking about them, we just want the same thing and even to show up on that page. What can I take out to make this work?

Thank you.

-FMC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcimbron (talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The schools linked in that article are all secondary schools, teaching Grade 9 and above. The general consensus (after years of discussion!) is that we assume places of secondary education are important enough for their own article, while those of primary education aren't. Since your academy only teaches to Grade 6, it falls into the latter category. The guidelines for notability on high schools has more information. The other way to get an article listed is if the academy is important in some other way, such as being the elementary school for several notable people or achieving national news coverage. Heatherdown Preparatory School is such an example - although it did not teach pupils above 13 (and falling into the "primary" bracket), it is notable for having taught David Cameron, Prince Andrew and David Niven. I hope that clarifies things. The bottom line is the academy can have a mention on Wikipedia, but probably not in a separate article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Blackwall Tunnel GAN

Well done! Your article on Blackwall Tunnel has been awarded GA status. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Please take a look at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive#Time to close this drive?, I think this matter might need some admin attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Bonkers The Clown's talk page.
Message added 15:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me your opinion on my editing, it is much appreciated. I will try and take up some of your suggestions... Thanks again, Matty.007 08:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Bioscale

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

70.79.73.253 (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

    • I thought the company was marginally acceptable. You haven't convinced me otherwise with your odd, unsupported contention that a reputable newspaper and real journalists would publish press releases under their names. Two other editors didn't find the article to be blatant advertising to the point of triggering G11, so your action is out of line IMO. All it does is conveniently let you off the hook as to responding to my objections. I don't mind if Bioscale is rejected for just cause, but your reasons doesn't strike me as very convincing. 70.79.73.253 (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes life is unfair and you don't get your own way. I can't bring your article back. You can try and contact the administrator, RHaworth (talk · contribs), who deleted it, and explain to him why it should be restored. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
as an admin who has deleted thousands of promotional articles, I do not consider it a G11: it is basically factual.The company may or may not be notable, but we've often considered being the subject of an HBR case as a contribution to notability. (Admins differ, but I'm not going to challenge the deletion because it isn't worth it, for it would indeed help to have a stronger article.)
More important, I would personally never say either of the comments above even to a paid editor. Paid editing is not against our rules if done right, and it is current practice that it be done through AfC. I will advise the new editor accordingly, and apologize to him. (If he's left WP as a result of this sort of mockery, I'll make the article myself.) Paid editing if done right should not end in tears, and we try to be reasonably fair here. Even were it an editor doing it wrongly, I think it better just to say so than to talk that way to them. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the G11. I felt, fundamentally, there was only really one sentence that wasn't something to do with the companies finance transcribed from a press release.
As for the conversation above, I'm wondering if you missed the conversation on the Help Desk that led up to this? It ran over a week, possibly more, with quite a bit of back and forth. I started out explaining why the sources in the article were problematic, clarifying why press releases are generally unacceptable, and running through some alternative suggestions of sources he might want to consider. I found my points repeatedly challenged, and concluded he was more interested in explaining why the sources he had were reliable enough instead of improving the article. I also find that on the (seemingly rare) occasions I give advice on the help desk that's misleading or incorrect, somebody else (generally Huon) will call me out on it, which didn't happen in this case. So, as seen above, I apologised that things hadn't worked out, and ducked out of the conversation as nothing I say now is going to make the article come back or be improved.
In general though, I take a more compassionate line about AfC submissions that others might deal as "spam" or "promotional". I take the line that usually they're written by a company employee who's simply doing it as part of their duties, and assuming any malice or bad faith is counterproductive. It's true that paid editing is allowed, and indeed I can think of a scenario where somebody capable of passing an article through our Featured Article process and landing on the front page could make an income out of it. But, in the general sense, I find even good faith paid editors struggle to end up with the result they want - there is a culture where paid editing is looked down on - period, and it's best to accept this demographic exists and cater for it.
I hope this addresses your concerns - if not, please let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

hello

thankyou so muchhhh! is there anyway to make it appear first in any search of nitzan chen? cuz right now it's on page 2! when searching on google that is... {EliaBerger (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)}

  • Hi. Normally, a Wikipedia article floats to the top of the Google search results quickly. Chen is a bit of an unusual case as a search for his name returns multiple news hits which afford greater presence. The best way to make the article more important is to document his activities as reported in those news sources, so the article expands. Overall, though, we have no control over where a subject appears in a search ranking. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

your opinion please...

I saw your exchange with User:Arctic Kangaroo over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive.

AK recently requested the deletion of an image he or she uploaded to the Commons

In that discussion, after several days, AK has claimed to be under 16 years old, and to be insufficiently familiar with WMF standards to understand a creative commons license.

I am frankly skeptical that he or she is a minor. But if he or she is a minor, who doesn't understand copyright, or the meaning of a creative commons license, I find it very disturbing that they were trusted to decline transferring hundreds of candidate articles to article space.

I know that Commons and the Wikipedia are separate projects. Still, as someone who seems to have been following AK's contributions for some time, I'd be interested in your opinion as to whether it is possible AK was really under 16 years old; I'd be interested in your opinion as to whether AK's ignorance of the meaning of copyright and the implication of creative commons licenses is genuine.

Can you let me know how the reviewers were selected?

No, I don't think being 15 or younger should bar an individual from being a trusted contributor to WMF projects -- provided they can consistently act responsibly, comply with our civility rules and conventions, and consistently display competence. Unfortunately we have contributors who are demonstrably adults, and demonstrably can't do this -- and they shouldn't be trusted either.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I can vouch for AK's age definitely being under 16. While not obliged to say, I am aware of his actual age. No comment about his eligibility to contribute though. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I have studied AK's contributions for the past week. I have no idea of their age, but based on my interactions with them, if you told me they were about 13/14, I would believe you. Some of my friends have children of this age and their manner of conversation, as I witness on Facebook, is broadly similar. He's not malicious, he's an enthusiastic young kid with the potential to be a good wikipedian as he matures - he's just not there yet because of his age. I did contemplate starting an ANI thread about his behaviour but concluded that would just upset him. As thing stands, I fear that he's going to be landed with an AfC topic ban, and probably not by my doing, either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Well there you have it... Good estimate. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no need to ban me from reviewing AfC submissions, is there? Please do not bite, and remember that everybody was once a noob, whether to editing Wikipedia, or contributing to specific parts of the project. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
To address Geo Swan's original points, there are currently no prerequisites for reviewing articles at AfC - we recommend people are familiar with core Wikipedia policies, but that isn't enforced. There is currently an RFC proposing reform at AfC - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 for more details. AK, the only reason we block or ban people is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, sometimes well meaning users' actions cause overall problems with Wikipedia, despite being made in good faith, and sometimes it does escalate to blocks or bans. I think in all such cases like that, bans are made with regret, are generally seen as something unpleasant, and can generally be successfully challenged over time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Say peanut gallery, what time is it?
It's howdy-indeffdy time!
  • Morning Ritchie. As you've probably seen, your well-meaning ANI thread regarding AK, has now turned into a "pour encourager les autres" lynching ("There won't need to be another long ANI like this one for the others"). I feel it's destructive to insist on a six month ban. (I also feel AK has had a raw deal, regardless of his misbehaviour on other projects, with ill-disguised assumptions that he's been lying about his age, which he hasn't.) Anyway I hope you will review what's been said at the ANI thread, and perhaps indicate whether you feel a 3-month or a 6-month ban would be more appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I have put together a proposal that I hope everyone can live with. If AK's standing and potential an editor wasn't an issue, we could simply indef him now and be done with it, but that's not at all fair and we don't work like that. My opening line in the ANI thread was deliberately "AK is an enthusiastic young editor" and I made strong emphasis on the fact that everything he does is in good faith. Unfortunately, if you've spent any serious time on WP, you'll know that when an ANI thread gains traction, the entire peanut gallery turns up and looks at what's going on, but I am cautious there is enough support for AK as being a good editor who just needs to be guided a bit in the right direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
Well you may like The Who and be a life-long fan alike me.

But i am a life-long John Entwistle fan i have all his studio albums which are 7 and all of his live albums which are 4 on CD which are rare. so change your comment on Keith Moon. jb423 23:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

John Entwistle is in a bit of a state at the moment. It could do with some good soul sitting down with a couple of good book sources to help improve it. There's no doubt a GA lurking in there too, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cardiff West services, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Something/Anything?

Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bramshill House

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rejected Applause article

Hello, Your reason for rejecting the article was that it would be suitable to wait until after the song has been released to publish the article. However, most other articles for artists' lead singles in the past have been released weeks before the songs have. For example, two other Lady Gaga lead singles, Born This Way and Bad Romance, each had their wikipedia articles published weeks before they were actually released. This is the case with many other lead singles. E.g. California Gurls by Katy Perry. I think considering how topical this single and Gaga's Artpop work is at the moment, and that enough information has been provided, gives adequate justification for this article's publication. Alexander1112 (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem you've got is that there's a technical restriction on me passing the article, as it already exists as a redirect. Therefore, I would need to tag the existing Applause (song) article with {{db-g6}} so an admin can delete it. This would allow the article to pass. However, the admin might also agree that it's better to wait. As it stands, there's just about enough news coverage to make it notable now, and while it's probably going to be unquestionably notable come September, it just isn't quite at that level the moment. I'll ask at the reviewers' page for a second opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you could give it a go, I would really appreciate it. Alexander1112 (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur has had a look and made some comments, which look to be endorsing mine. I'll just point out that, unlike many declined submissions, you can probably get this article passed simply by waiting six weeks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A82 Road

I left a note on the FAC talk page for the article. I should have copy-edited more aggressively, and for that I apologize. Your best bet would be to find a copy editor who has great familiarity with the Britishisms you use in the article. I'm not sure how to help you with that, other than to suggest that you poke around WP:GOCE, look at some profiles, and message a few people. The quality of work varies, but it's easily verifiable. Dementia13 (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. FAC can seem like a ruthless place - but for good reasons. Every FA article has got to stand on its own merits as showing why Wikipedia can take on professionally written encyclopedias and win, so nitpicking is fair game. Don't worry about it too much, all it means is the article is pretty good, but not perfect. Thanks for all your efforts in getting it into its current state. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hammond organ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethel Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: GA status

Thank you for your comprehensive review, I appreciate your effort working with me to ensure a quality article -- Nbound (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Joy Doreen Biira

  • There is nothing to establish notability of the article. Even if the article claims the subject is notable there are no reliable sources to verify the information. Collins719 (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm .... Did you even look for sources? I found nine here in about 5 seconds! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jackie Davis

Alex ShihTalk 15:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Diversi

An editor said on the talk page that the hook is nothing but an advertisement, without even bothering to discuss it with you first. I asked him if he considered discussing it with you, but he didn't respond. Another editor pulled it from queue 2. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I had second thoughts about DYKing this, it was motivated by Binksternet suggesting Diversi should have some coverage on WP, and I agreed and found some sources. Have a few DYKs in the queue anyway, so I'm not too fussed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dougal Butler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trancas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sun in the Sands

The DYK project (nominate) 02:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Max bullock

Hey Ritchie333, I saw you changed the CSD template to A7 and A3. I assumed you meant G3, so I changed it to reflect your previous edit. Hope you don't mind. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I did indeed, cheers for that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Diversi

Alex ShihTalk 12:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We got there in the end! :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Ritchie333! You're receiving The Teamwork Barnstar and a Brownie because you reviewed 36 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hammond organ

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Hammond organ 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 GA bot, on behalf of EddieHugh -- EddieHugh (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ram Jam Inn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Made changes to earlier submitted page

I have made the changes on my page on Fourteen the play. I have incorporated some media references which prove the worth of the play. Please let me know if there are further issues. Thanks.

Theatremania (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I think you've taken my advice and come to the wrong conclusions - fundamentally I think the play could have an article on Wikipedia, but the article as it currently stands needs a complete rewrite from the ground up using the best sources you can find as a starting point. Have a look at The Mousetrap and how the article is structured, which may give you some ideas. On an unrelated note, I'd be interested to know why both you and Playdramabuff (talk · contribs) have both been posting to my talk page. Are you using two accounts? If so, you should stop as you can be blocked for sockpuppetry if an admin determines you are using them to deceive people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


I have stopped using two accounts. I will try to improve the article as you have mentioned. Theatremania (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ram Jam Inn

Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I just crossed paths with you

on a user page where the work of Piero Scaruffi was being discussed. I have spent a little time looking at his work and want to share a few thoughts (original research, if you will) with you. One, his musical analysis seems to be all self-published and/or blog type internet postings. With very little in-depth or insightful material. then there are his writings on wikipedia. He claims that someone he knows was banned from wikipedia just for posting a link to his writings. I'd like to see that discussion, but the purported reason for the ban is that (these are my words, not his, but I think I have the sense of it right) wikipedia has been co-opted by the evil empire (multi-national corporations and various "suspect" governments) who pay folks to whitewash the entries about them and that the best thing to do is to inject intentional errors into wikipedia to discredit it. Believe what you will but I do feel that this is part of the backdrop of the discussion that we've stumbled into. On a semi-related topic, the picture of the cover of The Who album, My Generation (album) was an early posting of mine, pre digital camera, done by scanning it is several sections and then photoshoping it together. Well you do come to wikipedia for the inside story, don't you? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hammond organ

The article Hammond organ you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hammond organ for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of EddieHugh -- EddieHugh (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Good Article Barnstar
Fantastic work by Ritchie333 to sort through a woefully tattered article, full of original research—a patchwork of many inexpert hands—and pull Hammond organ together for a GA. Congratulations! Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_9&oldid=1143403521"