Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Gosh, where does the time go? Well, my aims for this year are to have 100 confirmed GAs, and get Category:London Monopoly places to Good Topic status - only a few articles left now.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good goals! I would have liked to have a TFA on 2 February, but it's still open, in case you want to comment peace and joy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was just promoted, - and please never feel guilty ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Is that you Greda? —usernamekiran[talk] 15:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

who are you, whats your problem with my page, its none of your business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberlyleewhyte (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kimberlyleewhyte: The problem with your autobiography is it is something that would not look out of place in The Sun, and years of discussion (and lawsuits towards the Wikimedia Foundation) have resulted in a well-respected policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) and one facet of that is that material relating largely to tabloid journalism is unacceptable. In fact, your brief relationship with Kenny Richey has been listed on Wikipedia for some years, but it is not properly sourced so I have had to remove that too. [1]

You need to read An article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing right now and understand that an article about you can be edited by anyone in the world. While BLP will protect you to some extent, if something bad happens to you, and it is picked up in mainstream media, anyone can add it to Wikipedia and it will stay. Rolf Harris is listed on Wikipedia as a sex offender and I'm pretty sure the current US President is not happy about us having an article called Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, but they have no power or authority to get rid of that, and rightly so.

On a personal note, speaking as a parent, I am cross that you want to put personal information (including dates of birth) about your children in a very public place. This is probably not a good idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well my friend it is not something out of The Sun, a tabloid who I am not on great terms with so I do not appreciate the comparison. Do you work for wikipedia, if not why are you meddling in other peoples lives? No one ever has or ever will put up that I am a sex offender as I have never committed any sex crimes, so I have no worries about that. I am proud of my son and tried for a baby for 18 years therefore I am entitled to be as proud of my child as I want. I haven't posted his picture or address have I now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.51.49 (talk)

I think you've misunderstood the points I was trying to make. I have restored the article to Kimberly Lee Whyte, added a citation to The Independent, cleaned up the content I do not feel passes the BLP policy, and started a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Lee Whyte. This allows everyone on Wikipedia to have a say. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit seems to go too far in the other direction, no? We've had 1-2 year candidates do just fine, and when there's text like this floating around, it encourages people to peg their stated expectations to it. How about something vaguer like "candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors for a significant period of time" or "candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors who have invested significant time in the project"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: I see what you mean, but I like "years" because it's concrete and easily identifiable as a frame of reference, whereas your definition of "a significant period of time" may not be the same as mine. Nobody has passed RfA with just a few months' tenure for a long time, so it does need to be changed to something, and over the past year I don't think we've had many people pass who haven't had multiple years of service. There's a nice page somewhere that tabulates various statistics for successful RfA candidates over the last couple of years - where is it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, being "concrete" is exactly what I don't like :) It implicitly gives people justification for perpetuating the trend you're documenting - "See, you can't be an admin if you've only been here for two years, because two isn't 'several'! The admin page says so!" There's a table here, and I have some general stats here, including time-of-service averages. But those are a little hard to interpret, since was no such thing as a ten-year veteran at the RfA peak in 2007. Still, there have definitely been successful 1-2 year nominations within the last few years - including someone I nominated, who I think is the modern recordholder for time from registration to successful RfA. (I confess that the reason I object to letting the written documentation further perpetuate the trend toward longer service time is that I think the data shown in this graph reveal a serious problem for the project. In any event, the data elsewhere on my stats page suggests that no amount of changing the written text of any RfA-related page has made a dent in the rate of unprepared nominations, which have fairly closely tracked overall candidacy numbers since at least 2008.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I have seen it before but couldn't remember where from. I don't think anyone except BU Rob13 has passed RfA in the last year with less than 12 months' service, so maybe changing it to "at least a year" is realistic. What's also interesting about Rob and Primefac is they were both contentious RfAs which threw up quite a bit of opposition (and in the case of the latter made me to step out of character and criticise a few oppose votes), though you can get that on any level of service. While it's true that not-ready people will file RfA despite all the "don't do this" warnings that get thrown up, it seems to be happening less often these days as people drift towards the candidate poll instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Successful RfAs in the last year" is unfortunately a statistics-of-small-numbers problem. In the last 5 years, it's around 7% who registered their account less than 2 years prior, which is small but nontrivial. (And for some reason people elected some weirdo to arbcom with under a year's recent experience, under two years total, and under 10k edits at the time... ;) I don't think I posted a chart, but I've never found a correlation between percent RfA support and anything else of interest. "At least a year" is better, but how about just linking to that RfA study page? Now that I've actually read the admin page (much like "not now" candidates, I don't read that stuff :) I'd prefer no implied de facto criteria at all. Either the written documentation should be purely descriptive (and thus link to or include some actual data), or if there must be numerical criteria, they should be defined by consensus with explicit agreement that meeting the criteria is sufficient and any opposition based on personal preferences beyond those minimums should be discounted or removed. (But, oh god no, not another RfA RfC... :)

As for the poll, I haven't looked recently, but the last time someone asked whether it was deterring unqualified candidacies, the answer was... they're exactly at the historical average. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can live with chopping it out, as Blaise Pascal once said when he was originally drafting the first set of Wikipedia space pages, "I have made this policy page quite long, because I lack time to make it shorter". All said, we don't get very many obvious NOTNOW RfAs; certainly quite recently we've had a bit of a purple patch which has unfortunately come to a crashing halt. It's a shame; I think CaroleHenson has already convinced me she understands the CSD policy standing upside down in shark-infested custard from just a week's worth of heavy annotation of what's turned up at NPP, but general "convention" says there's no point re-running for another six months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work?

Ugh, apparently that withdrawal was so fast I missed the RfA completely. I'm stealing "shark-infested custard", though ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted this page, and now a new user created it with a speedy tag already in the body. Was it a different user who initially created it? If so, this new one - ElJuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be a sock. Home Lander (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: I've no idea, but I have popped into the kitchen and got a jar of Saxa out, which should stop it happening again (unless they fancy creating Sam dewar, heaven help us). I couldn't be certain this is a sock; another possible explanation is a group of kids screwing around (which is close enough). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough, thanks. Watchlisted the lowercase title. Home Lander (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we are not a garage band, December screams embers` music is going to be on iTunes and Pandora and satellite radio and everything soon after the end of this month, I had every right to post about the status of my band, what business is it of yours to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdsembers (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Willdsembers: The essay No-one cares about your garage band is rather cutting, but the serious point behind it is that there are millions of bands all over the world, most of which cannot be independently updated by anyone else in the world as there is not the appropriate chart success or source coverage to allow them to do this. I have played on at least three albums commercially available on iTunes (and some singles - I forget, somebody else puts them out) yet I do not have a Wikipedia article. If you would like to retrieve the text you wrote, I can restore it to a draft underneath your user page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 I am just wondering why you decided to delete my Wikipedia page. It had information about an Australian YouTuber called "Riley's Tech Tip's". If you could please restore it because it gave valuable information about a small YouTuber and it is not fake advertising and it is based on a real person. I am the person it is based on and I am the one who wrote the Wikipedia page. So it is all true and not made up. If you could please restore it that would be wonderful.

Thanks in advance. Riley Webb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21WEBBri (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@21WEBBri: Don't write articles about yourself - it's impossible to write them in a neutral manner. Simply being factually correct is not enough, an article has to be verifiable, neutral and suitable for a global encyclopedia. User:Uncle G/On notability is the best essay to read, in my view. There are millions of YouTubers in the world; even Korean Billy doesn't have an article and he had a dedicated piece in BBC News yesterday. (though I dare say he'll have one this time next week now I've written this) As above, if you want your work restored, I can put it in a user page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That editor who was upset about content being deleted & cited the Hillary Clinton "70% score"?... they've apparently been trying to get something to do with that content into WP since 2009... Shearonink (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the old saying goes ... AGF is not a suicide pact. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie, may I ask you to keep my entry "Liselle" in the a.m. list ? It"s a song about the 600th birthday of a small city in Germany, written by one of Germany's most successful songwriters Tex Shultzieg. From my point of view it should be in this list as it shows the variety of songs not only about capital cities and from my understanding it underlines the wide spectrum of songs about cities. I very much appreciate if you give this entry a chance on Wikipedia. Thks a lot, Ritchie, Leslie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslie Chester (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leslie Chester: Schade, aber kann Ich nicht gut Deutsch sprechen. :-/ Translating the text as best I could, I still wasn't certain of the significance between Liselle and Marienheide; if there has been national attention to the song and its contribution to the town. Has there been any mention in Der Spiegel or Die Welt for example? The best advice I can give you is to speak to Gerda Arendt, who is a native German speaker and a keen enthusiast of traditional and classical German music, with a particular interest in Bach chorales and cantatas, and who may be able to advise further. In the meantime, I have restored the article to Draft:LISELLE where it can be worked on further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the flowers, Ritchie. Bach chorales? There are very few, he set the chorales of others. Look at Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, and please comment, - that almost derailed FAC needs fresh eyes. - Now to the singer: "small city" is a contradiction in terms: project Germany regards only places with more than 100k inhabitants a city, and I tend to follow, - smaller places are towns. (We had an interesting discussion on Schloss Weimar a while ago.) So the song doesn't qualify for the list by definition sorry. We might start a second list, on lovely little places. - I wonder if this song would be sufficiently notable, though, - it seems a local hit, - again sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	HEY MAN APPRECIATE YOUR ACTIVITY but guide me as in what was wrong with the article Rohan Barad and how do i modify it? Citymun (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Citymun: As the notice you should have got on this page said, you ask nicely (which you have) and I restore it to Draft:Rohan Barad (which I have). I can't find any reliable and independent news or magazine coverage about him, but perhaps somebody else can? TBH, we need more Indian admins around here (paging Yash! and any established admin who fancies starting RfA round 2). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was very nice of you to include me as one of the creators of Vaginal steaming for the purposes of the DYK. LadyofShalott 21:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well we wouldn't have cleared the article through WP:MEDRS without your research (and Drmies' coffee machine). By rights I should probably credit MjolnirPants but I only credited people who'd actually edited the article, as opposed to just the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did add just now Hap400. LadyofShalott 22:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this rate, we're going to need a new joke : "How many wikipedians does it take to write about vaginal steaming?" All I wanted was a way to top Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators for April 1's main page this year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's gonna be some stiff competition. EEng 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy. Funtime's over. EEng 03:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bah, I'm here for the editing. I can live without the credit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tempted to join the fun: I'd drop two letters from "that is used to health reproductive organ ailments", or I learn English. - EEng: can you - after you portrayed me and my flashmob - find a funny image to picture me as a groupie? (named so because of this edit)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the images, one better than the other! I'm dressed in red right now, may buy green wristband to match. Perhaps change the fiction title to "non-notable songs about lovely little places in Germany", because no village in Germany seems without an article in the English Wikipedia, including the one mentioned above, with the poetic name translating to Mary's heather. - The below I'd call "The steamy-juicy credit". More seriously: to my understanding, there's no verb "to health", but "to heal", - if health is wanted we need a different construction. Also more serious: the discussion on my talk which mentions BLPDELETE and argues that the existence of articles my rest on the permission of the subject, - which I didn't hear until yesterday and find unbelievable. The relevant discussion is here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since Van Der Graaf Generator's Peter Hammill turned up to complain something I wrote (that cited a source generally considered reliable and perfectly within policy) was in fact factually wrong and a bit upsetting, I have been sympathetic to BLP subjects' concerns about their own article. There are zero policies and guidelines for the reader of the encyclopedia - all you need do is open your browser at the right place; so arguing the toss over notability etc is missing the point, particularly if the subject has influence over the press as we've recently seen. That said, I hope common sense would prevail and nobody would kick you off this place if it was reasonably obvious you thought you were doing the right thing; indeed this eventually happened to Blofeld and he was unblocked.

I occasionally get off-wiki communication about my work on here - the (then) management of The Minories, Colchester gave me a free lunch and coffee for fixing that article, and I got a thank you note in the post from Kat Wright (all the way from Burlington, Vermont, although I had paid for a CD which explains that) which brightened my day. (Her band is flippin' great as well, though I think Rhonda has the edge). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining, however, I did nothing, - how could I, about an article that was deleted so I don't know about who did what, based on what sources. That's why I voted to have a draft version, for a bit of transparency. - My day was brightened (2016) when a strange idea I suggested on my talk was realized in real life! (Gedenkkonzert means memorial concert, + my German article was printed word for word in the concert program) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby award all involved one steamed fish in a dressing of chopped garlic, chillies, lime juice, fish sauce and chicken stock. The spearmint (bai saranae, Thai: ใบสะระแหน่, Mentha spicata) is used to cover up the somewhat strong smell of this particular fish but it is more common to see this dish served with coriander/cilantro leaves (phak chi, Thai: ผักชี) instead of mint. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, who put a bunch of yappy teenagers on my page? Tell them all to pipe down and go on a nice course of .... well, I can't even say the name, it's so nauseating. BAN THIS SICK FILTH and VOTE LEAVE Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That little boy looks so much like my son my mind started playing tricks on me--like, our faucet doesn't look that new, where did I take this picture? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that little boy for so long that it's probably not yours ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at User talk:83.148.95.197 is it time for revoke talkpage access? Also what do you say about the editor removing "their" content at 2016–17 Liverpool F.C. season? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qed237 (talk • contribs)

@Qed237:I'd leave it for the minute, there's no real need to turn it off. As for the Liverpool FC article, it's always hard to hit a moving target (in this case the progress of a team mid-season). The content is well-sourced, particularly to BBC Sport, but it's also true that an overview of the season doesn't need to go in as much detail. You're best off asking on WP:FOOTY or chatting to our more football-savvy admins such as GiantSnowman Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now they restored the attack message again (diff) clearly only here to provoke and not use talkpage for purpose of discussing the block. Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin; people can call me a (Redacted) if it makes them feel better - it just makes me laugh. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that does not make it acceptable, and usually when the behave like this their talkpage access are revoked. I guess you have more patience than other administrators. Qed237 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just turned talk page access off. You're right that people shouldn't say this stuff, but the recommendation under WP:NPA is to ignore it and brush it off, which does make sense. I know it doesn't make it a nice editing environment some of the time, which is a shame. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to ignore it is often the best solution and that is what we did the first time. But then he started again after 2 hours just to try and push our buttons, and then it is a block in my mind. But, I am not an admin so you have to decide. Anyway, have a nice day! Qed237 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for repairing some largely inoffensive refitting, rephrasing, and refactoring. But be careful, just because you run a recording studio, your expertise may be in-Wiki-adequate... 69.118.209.149 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Apologies for an addition. I followed mlpearc (the electric guitar reverter) to his talk page and left a note. His response, at that talk page, which I just found explains that intimidation is not acceptable. ???? It's in his talk archive nr 32 (IIRC). I see that I shall likely be reverting to Wiki-vacation status again. Kudos to you for hanging in there and fighting the good fight which drove me to the sidelines. 69.118.209.149 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I complained about Mlpearc on WP:ANI, though I might as well have found a brick wall to bang my head against. I can't find my copy of Ralph Deyner's "The Guitar Handbook" which IMHO is an excellent source for the anatomy of electric guitars and amps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss the relevance of the deleted page. I'm the author.

You have not yet given my page a chance to blossom and grow in its own time. I can only assume that you did not read the statement on my page...

The requests for urgent deletion were made before I had the chance to post any content. However I since have.

I am requesting that you please leave the page be for me to later add further content. Thank you. Willmckissock (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Willmckissock: The text in full was : WIK Code is a new 2D Symbology created by William Mckissock. The creator of this page is requesting for viewers not to bestow it with a speedy deletion notice or to be flagged. The relevant information with regards to WIK Code will be provided to all users over the next 3 weeks, when the final development of the symbology has been completed.

You cannot request that anything happens to a page - it is against the terms of the Creative Commons licence that Wikipedia uses, and also the ownership of articles policy. This is why you always get the message "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone" whenever you edit or create any page.

Secondly, anything that is new or recently invented is not appropriate for an encyclopedia that documents historical facts for all time. You need to wait until the symbology is in widespread use and has been comprehensively documented in third party books and papers; and even then you may find it only warrants a cursory mention in our Data Matrix article instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your response... I understand the usage policies and terms in full now. However I was merely asking for the page not to be taken down, I was entirely happy for people to contribute -the purpose of Wikipedia. I understand that it is still young, and need to be more well known. How can people write about something that they know nothing about... I will endeavour to make the symbology known in full as there are over 40 different types of simple, undeveloped barcode already written about on Wikipedia. Mine should not be an acception. I do understand where you are coming from.

People should not ask for a page that was created seconds ago for to be taken down, you should have consulted me about improvements upon the page before removing it. Perhaps you would consider doing this next time?

So once again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmckissock (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the terms of service, I have been led to believe that you can appeal or ask for a page not to be taken down, that is what I was doing. Accept I posted on the page itself getting viewers to show some support while I was uploading relèvent content... @Ritchie333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmckissock (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I'm not quite sure what your actual end goal was for using Wikipedia for this purpose. Google tends not to front-load Wikipedia articles on web searches so much these days, so there tends not to be an advantage for using it over your own website. Indeed, with your own website, you pretty much have free reign to do exactly what you want when you want, which sounds like a much better fit for some things, and people are not really any more likely to find your information on here given we have 5 million articles and rising.

The reason things get speedy deleted is because sometimes somebody comes along and creates a short stub about something they're making, or know personally, or have a vague idea about. Unfortunately, nobody else can do any work on the article without the necessary knowledge, and if its not documented somewhere that can be believed to be factually accurate, (this is what is called "significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources" in Wikipedia jargon) that means work on the article stalls. You probably won't want to be continually nagged to do updates on the article in 1, 2, 5, 25 years' time - the whole idea of a collaborative project is that you do a little bit, somebody else does a little bit more, and so on, until you have a cohesive whole. If it's not possible for any typical editor to do any work, the article will get deleted. Speedy deletions happen because we have had so many articles of a specific type (such as garage bands or YouTubers), that administrators get a broad prerogative to delete these classes of articles without discussion. My essay User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has further information (in this case, the article was deleted per WP:CSD#A11 : "obviously invented by creator", but the basic principle holds).

All that said, administrators are not ogres, and if you ask for deleted content, most will give it back to you as they fully appreciate people don't like losing work. In your instance, the entirety of the article has been quoted earlier up the thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was about to restore the cats, but since you've invoked the Flying Welshman I think I'll wait and see if any cool YouTube links are forthcoming. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some day, somebody may do Colin "Bomber" Harris vs Colin "Bomber" Harris in Lego and everyone will be happy.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you pointed out on SK talk page the Colonel would say that's silly :-) Enjoy your St Patty's day and your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hah I didn't see that the thread above was about the same delightful person. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: I take it you were unaware of {{colonel}}? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost - I stumbled on it for the first time on Tuesday but I thought it was a bit to big to place on your talk page :-) Many thanks to you for creating it!! MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ritchie, it has been long since we last talked. Hope everything is going well! I thought you might be interested in this project and this project. Thanks! Jim Carter 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Vaginal steaming at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen your essay. An excellent start. Keep it up! Now my essay has another to compete against!

Nah, just kidding about that last bit: my essay was never intended to "compete against" anyone else's or anything like that. But let's pretend for a moment that this is a contest: things are not looking good for my essay right now. You and SoWhy are alright, but I've been declared disqualified pending outcome of an investigation into illicit activities (yes, I "handed myself in". I felt I had no choice given the feedback I was receiving .). Thought you might be interested as you gave me a barnstar for it, although I have made some changes to it since then. Adam9007 (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: The essay was CaroleHenson's idea. (Kind of). I put in a keep vote at the MfD without realising you were the nominator. Oops. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! The last bit was a giveaway (or so I thought ). But anyway, I know it may seem weird to MfD my own user page (has anyone else every seriously done so?), but I'd have thought that common sense dictates that if there's a problem with my A7 application, there's a problem with the essay, as it's a reflexion of my application. Following essays is supposed to be optional after all. But if it's going to cause disruption, then we have a problem. Besides, if I had a choice between the essay going and another episode of this, I'd choose the former. I genuinely did think there's a chance that some may consider it so far outside the norm that they will ignore all rules and !vote delete. Given recent discussions, I had to see if that was the case. Adam9007 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A-1, a-2. FYI. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I would take British Army to WP:MILHIST, who can properly review it; Romania should not have passed GA as it has far too many {{fact}} tags and unsourced content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Yeah, I didn't mean you should actually re-do them , which could take years off your life... so British army to MILHIST, Romania for reassesment? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reversed the GA review and quickfailed it. I would have probably done this anyway had I reviewed it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK; saves a job! I'll pass the other one along too. Thanks for helping out. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope to resort to WP's appeal process owing to the fact that you gave no summary/rationale at your closing of the deletion discussion for the blp Benjamin E. Park, a subject who is obviously notable per wp:BIO. Could you reconsider/rectify this oversight?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, nobody except you wanted to keep the article. That's it. I have no opinion on the article myself; that's just how I read consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the other !vote for keep, so I question your efforts to adjudicate the question properly. Indeed you are supposed to research the !votes vis a vis the guidelines. wp:NOTYET refers top actors who haven't been written about, for example, and other !votes gave as justification for their conclusion statements that are patently untrue, as the discussion makes clear.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's consensus for you. See also Brexit and Donald Trump. Certainly the article as I looked at it did not look in particularly good shape. Find another topic to write about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Benjamin E. Park. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up Q - I appreciate your vigilance on behalf of the Wiki Community with concern to the above conscientious AfD close. In any case, you seem appear a fairly active participant in AfD's. Any thoughts for the community's enlightenment here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix-?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i am curious to why you deleted my article. i am a published artist, and have work in line fgor distribution. what about my article displeased you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bymistaclean (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bymistaclean: You shouldn't write articles about yourself. I have music for sale on iTunes here but I do not have a Wikipedia article and if I tried creating one it would be deleted for the same reason. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-oh by the way, which one's Pink...?!  :)

We have to lose that sax solo! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was so cool :) just play the ******g chord! not that ******g chord! The other ******g chord!!! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it------>

"We call it, riding the gravy train..."!

to keep it fully honest i hadnt created the article about myself it was done with a 3rd party using my account. as well as you are an admin not an artist obviously so that example is pointless. i have interviews in line for publishing as well as new musci and videos. so again i am not understaning your reasoning except to flex admin power. if an article is made of me by a third party account not just someone else using mine then will my article be eligble? its hard for a blog to reference me when they cant find my page. theyve expressed they do not want to create the full page for me because for most artist worth mentioning theirs is already done so please guide me. and not with a witty assinine comeback.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bymistaclean (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bymistaclean: The reply to you was serious; if Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has been watching too much Father Ted then that's his own lookout (in this instance, the line "you address me by my proper title, you little bollocks" is a quotation from a character in the sitcom, and funny because you would never expect a Roman Catholic bishop to call a priest a "little bollocks")

.... anyway, User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has more information; as does the reply on this page entitled "WIK Code". The simple question to initially ask in this case is : has Mistaclean had a Billboard chart hit? Administrators are required by policy to answer any grievance or complaint, and I never delete things for fun. If I hadn't deleted this, another, more prickly admin might have done so :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Father Ted? That was you... I waz on the Floyd boots earlier :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)

It seems SineBot is not signing your posts on this page, which does result in an outside appearance of me waffling to myself. If you want to help (and I mean FIM, not Bymistaclean!), add a hook to Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a hook is the last thing they need, steamed or not. But thanks for the verrrry tempting opportunity to suggest a hook based on hot rocks and smokin' ... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)

ok so i had to cut threw the exrta stuff to get the basic answer i needed. well i guess im happy you deleted rather than a douchier admin. so i suppose when my fader interviews etc publish then ill have a better shot. its just ironic you have to have a bilboard chart when ive read artilces that dont but ok.. guess by the time i have the right notoriety to your standards i could just wipe my tears about this situation with the money im making... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bymistaclean (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of general guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (music), which explain a fuller set of inclusion standards. Having a chart hit is a general rule of thumb, but not an absolute (eg: Van der Graaf Generator have not troubled the British or UK charts much, but their article is assessed as a good article). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie, it looks like you reverted my speedy deletion request for Cell_Phone_Signal_Booster, declining the A7 reason because it has sources. Those sources look like they are all fake; the A7 reason is that the subject is not of importance, so the validity of the references doesn't matter - none of the references indicate importance of the company (who appear to be a small eCommerce site). I'm trying to help clean up some of the content around signal boosters on Wikipedia, but am new to using the site, so I acknowledge that I may be doing some things wrong. But I do think this particular page probably shouldn't be on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whenthebellsgo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I spent some time procrastinating today by looking into this. Article now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Phone Signal Booster. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whenthebellsgo: See my essay User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7. In this case, I found one source in a news search. More significantly, the article could be reappropriated as a redirect to the prosaic cell phone signal booster. Together, these mean a full discussion is probably required (which Floq has now set up) so we can't just short-circuit it via A7. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaand... deleted by @NeilN:. My new IAR hero. FWIW, Ritchie, I don't think the article you found is even about this company; it's about a signal booster (no caps) by some other manufacturer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's always worth having the discussion and having it logged, which you can't do with A7s. Turns out the article is about another signal booster, yup - but still we ought to log these things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I had no real problem with you declining an A7. Although such a quick AFD close makes it harder to get a wide audience to appreciate my extraordinary detective skills. Wheel war to reopen!!!--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for this. And sorry for being a beginner - hoping to learn and contribute more, particularly on subjects around RF. Whenthebellsgo (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I wanted to ask a quick question. You've declined a couple of my CSD nominations recently with a rationale roughly paraphrased as "has sources." Am I missing a guideline somewhere that says an article with sources isn't eligible for CSD? Thanks! —Non-Dropframe _talk 23:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-dropframe: The best guides in my view are Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion and User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at the poll page. In my opinion, the West Country Challenge and similar contests where you are trying to achieve as much as possible in a limited time probably don't produce the best articles. With regard to the Severn Railway Bridge GA, I did not deal with your comments as well as I should have. I have now replaced the information and found and added a reference for the completion date. Mind you, as the bridge was opened in October 1879, the chances of it having been completed in 1878 were pretty slim I thought. The Huxley book was really too detailed and yet unspecific in some aspects to be an ideal source.

With regard to the other main point you raised at the poll, it is not so much my attitude towards the other individual involved as their attitude towards me. I don't go out of my way to quarrel with anyone, but do try to defend myself when attacked. I can and do react to that person perfectly civilly but don't really see how I am going to be able to resolve any underlying differences between us. However the atmosphere at DYK is much more pleasant this year than it was last. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: I think the atmosphere at DYK has got better this year, but to be honest last year I typed up a whole thread entitled "Fram and Cwmhiraeth" and was close to posting it on WP:ANI, when I thought I'd have a cup of tea first. I then thought the drama levels would explode, and closed the browser so it was never posted. I didn't want to take sides; I think you are committed to the project.

I did pass the Severn Railway Bridge as GA because the issues were ultimately fixed, I just needed to do a bit of badgering first. The thing about the sources and deadline was more a nagging doubt, and it probably didn't help that I'd witnessed the drama regarding that feud on the Editor Review from 2014 and all the fisticuffs with Fram. I think that'll stick in people's mind. Still, I'm pleased to see The Rambling Man has come out in support of you, which I didn't think he would. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should also take note of Mob psychology which I feel greatly influences our votes/consensus debates. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which essay is this? I've written quite a few now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my vagueness. I was lurking the incidents board and saw your essay on how we apply sockpuppet policies inappropriately. You mentioned consensus and at this point, I feel so-called consensus is run by mob mentality. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful. Yeah, that's just how I feel and what my opinions are, and I suspect more than a few admins don't agree with it. I think it helps on this project to have close family and friends who don't edit Wikipedia much if at all, and treat it with a little bit of suspicion - you get another angle on things. Still, maybe another admin can write "SPI considered essential" and I'll link to it so readers can make up their own mind. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great if someone wrote an opposing view, but nobody has stepped up to do so. In all honesty, I think Wikipedia's administrative processes need to be refined one way or another. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically if you run into trouble, get blocked, take a year off, then come back with a new account and don't cause any trouble (emphasis mine), I don't see an issue. The problem with actually problematic socks is they revert to type and cause exactly the same disruption as they did in the first place, as sure as the sun coming up in the morning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#The Piper at the Gates of Dawn and Arnold Layne, I'm not sure what fully protecting the Piper article for 3 days was supposed to accomplish when the disruptions are only being caused by IPs and new accounts made by a single user. S/he claims that the reverts are being made for no reason, but this is blatantly false, and s/he's just extremely uncooperative (see Talk:Pink Floyd, User talk:Ilovetopaint#The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn).

Your refusal to protect Arnold Layne suggests that edit wars are a requirement for page protection, but that's not the official policy.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

S/he has been doing this for 6 months. You can interpret further disruptions by them as one extended edit war over Pink Floyd genres, so it's a bit strange that you pass over an article for "not enough activity" when there is indisputably a lot of activity from this user. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetopaint:, @NeilN:, @Oshwah: (and feel free to ping anyone else I've forgotten)

Firstly, read some of the things I've written in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Long term planning; it may explain where I'm coming from.

I have been a fan of Pink Floyd, particularly the late 60s / early 70s era (which is now finally getting attention outside of the Bootleg market via the Early Years boxed sets) for about 25 years, give or take a few. I've just had a go at re-creating Echoes in my home studio for no reason other than I wanted to, and I prefer listening to that over the original right now, just because it's fresh. I've read most of the major biographies on the band, including Nicholas Schaffner's "A Saucerful of Secrets", Glenn Povey's "Echoes", Nick Mason's autobiography "Inside Out", Nick Manning's "Rough Guide" and the various works of Andy Mabbett, and one other I can't remember off the top of my head. From this, you may be able to draw the following conclusions:

1. I'm going to be interested in improving Floyd articles, including taking them to good article status
2. I have a reasonable handle on what's important in the article, and how to structure it

Important things for a Floyd album article might include background to composition (since the post-Barrett band frequently found themselves lethargic and had difficulty kick starting themselves), who recorded what and when (since they infamously liked to record all their parts separately to save arguing), when it was released, what promotional tours were like, how they think about it now, and what the retrospective critical reception is like. These are the typical things a layman reader will be looking for.

None of the above includes the "genre" field on the infobox.

Genre-warring has been going on a lot longer than six months - I seem to recall A Knight Who Says Ni complaining about it at least ten years ago. It's a silly and pointless feud that has only one correct way to win, and as the computer in WarGames concludes, it is not to play. Quite frankly, if an IP came off the street and changed the genre in Made in Japan (Deep Purple album) from "hard rock" to "progressive rock", I would probably let the baby have their bottle as it is not worth fighting over. It's possibly not the best term, it may be inaccurate, but I can say (as a reasonable subject expert on Floyd history and a frequent reader of Wikipedia articles on topics I don't know much about) that most people would not giving a flying monkeys which it was. Instead, I would improve the article, maybe add another review, or find something else to edit. When you've done the hard work of ferreting out good sources for an article, and writing the prose for it, giving you 150 edits in the article that you can say "that's my hard work" (but don't talk about it too loudly), then you can afford some give and take and "lose" a few to other editors. It's no big deal.

Therefore, getting involved in any sort of reverting or spilling disputes over to articles (other than perhaps a discussion on the talk page that attempts to converge towards a consensus to settle the matter) is a complete and utter waste of time and should be avoided at all costs. Quite frankly, the lot of you have been made to look like absolute chumps and should hang your heads in shame. This guy (whoever he is) has wanted attention, and you have handed it to him in spades.

Like you said, The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars!

It never ceases to amaze me how people always think edit warring only applies to other people. I need to take a break from this and will follow it up later, as I've got to go and let a band into the studio. Watch this space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reading : Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates and Parkinson's Law of Triviality Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst playing Paint Box of course  ;)

Well, gee. Never had someone write such a long-winded reply that boils down to "abuse doesn't matter and nobody cares what Wikipedia says anyway". You should try to get every Wiki policy and guideline abolished and replaced with "don't do anything". I know you would like to save us all the time and effort required for improving Wiki articles, so that would be the best way to do it.

Nobody is actually arguing over "genres". It's about the misrepresentation of sources. I couldn't care less whether someone on here thinks PF is psychedelic rock or experimental rock. I do care, however, what's been published about PF, and it's annoying whenever I discover BS claims that some editor synthesized. I thought one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia was that editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong?

And "who played what" or "promotional tours" being a more significant or interesting point than "what genre is the music"? Haha. "The retrospective critical reception." What, you mean like when a critic calls Piper the "greatest psych-rock album of all-time"? How about if an editor said Robert Christgau dubbed it a "punk rock classic"? (He's never said any such thing, of course.) Your priorities are very curious. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. If Christgau has a reliably sourced opinion of an album, I don't see why it can't go in the article. Perhaps User:Dr. Blofeld/Encyclopedia problems will explain what I can't. You are right about one thing - if you get into fisticuffs with editors, most people in the world won't care. That, unfortunately, is life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I'll reiterate, the issue is with regards to WP:STICKTOSOURCE, not WP:TRUTH. Their edits are reverted because the claims aren't supported by the sources, not because I (or anybody else who has engaged with this editor) dispute them. Perhaps Animals is a space rock album. It would be interesting if somebody at AllMusic or Rolling Stone believed that, but so far, nobody appears to hold that view.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, if you edit-war over it and generally act aggressive towards the other party, then sanctions have a tendency to boomerang back on you as well. As I'm sure you're aware, "my edits were right, so I'm not edit warring" isn't a valid defence. You have to be like Caesar's wife - above suspicion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I just deleted the part of the article in the Velvet Underground that said "the Velvet Underground is now recognized as one of the most influential bands of all time for its integration of rock music with the avant-garde." Since the 2 mentioned sources did not say anything about that, that is to say nothing exact. But as usual, Ilovetopaint (talk) will be against me for the injustice that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.7.97.166 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} I'm a big pink floyd like you, every day I think there are genres that should be added to the albums, songs and artists of the band, I get all the necessary sources to add them but unfortunately always come a motherfucker like Ilovetopaint (talk) and ruin everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.191.60.233 (talk • contribs)

Like I said above, some hills are not worth dying on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovetopaint (talk) He is always undoing and undoing the issues I make giving the same silly excuse as always. Tell me if the genre I just added to "Arnold Layne" is not reliable or is not specified.[[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.191.60.233 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, I would like you to:

• Add a citation to the quote from Roger Waters re the origin of the lyrics (since our verification policy demands all quotations are sourced)
• Explain what "at the lead of Waters" means re: Candy and a Current Bun
• Find sources for the other Joe Boyd quotations re: early live performances
• Do we need to be specific about the dates where it was performed on Gilmour's solo tours in 2006?

... and then expand out the article as much as you can, with sources, and nominate it for GA. Everybody wins. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of them are in the article now.

The source you gave for avant-pop on "Arnold Layne" is inappropriate for the article. This is because not only is "avant-pop" never attributed to the song, the phrase never appears in the book. You need to find sources that use the exact phrasing of a genre and unambigously attribute it to a work or artist. Anything less is original research--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone: I'm on a roll in upsetting people too. In fact, at times like this it seems like it's all I ever do. John Tyndall? Never heard of him until now . Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Well I don't like upsetting people, it's not conductive to a productive environment around here. Now, while you're here, I have a couple of bits of advice for you, Adam. First, I know your heart is kind of in the right place for A7, or at least in a similar place to mine, but I think for the good of the project you might want to consider giving it a rest and doing something else. Sometimes you just have to earn respect, and that means holding your tongue a bit. Secondly, I've had a word with Iridescent - he does a lot of really good work around here but has a low tolerance threshold for time wasters. In particular, you really need to get rid of that "This user is a British Nationalist" userbox. You are asserting that only white people should live in Britain, and if you think that's not a problem I'd like you to look at this picture of me, my other half, and Dominic King, and then figure out why I might have a problem with it. Hopefully, that will be enough to make the penny drop and you to remove it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was never my intention to state that only whites should like in Britain. I am not a racist. Nor did I have any idea it could cause offence. Probably another shortcoming of having Asperger's. I'll see if I can replace it with something else. In fact, my entire user page could do with a good revamp. Adam9007 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was certain it wasn't the case, but "British Nationalist" does mean "racist" (think British National Party). Best get rid of the nationalistic userboxes - I get in enough hot water for the Sun and Daily Mail boxes on my userpage. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, I was going by the definition given in British nationalism. I can't see any mention of racism there, although it could be that certain groups have hijacked the term. Adam9007 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article mentions the BNP in its lead! I have some friends who've done door to door canvassing for the Lib Dems in various parts of Britain, and the responses you get from some people are truly jaw-dropping; things like "I'm English not British like all those ****ing immigrants". Seriously, did you think Leave won Brexit because of the £350m for the NHS, or the distrust over red tape, or over concerns the EU was getting too large (or any number of reasonable reasons to vote "leave") - no, it was because of latent racism. Anyway, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to rant about Brexit, so let's draw a line under this conversation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand this decision. There is no such a word as "himn", it is "hymn" and the subject has a new page as I indicated, Hymn of Valledupar Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: In this specific case, it was because you tagged it as {{db-g6}}, which is for technical and uncontroversial changes. Since the redirect has been present for over 11 years, I really didn't think it could fall under the G6 criteria; hence why I suggested filing a report at Redirects for discussion instead. The case you've just stated above should be sufficient. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks for taking the time to explain. I really struggle with these nominations and however seldom I make them, invariably end up picking the wrong option. Keep up the good work — and your constructive work ethic. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rescuing the above page. After I thought it had been deleted I started again in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Histman/sandbox What's the best way to move this over to the present John Hair and Son page? Thanks again. Histman (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Histman: The easiest way to do it is to click on the "submit your draft for review" box. This will put it in the Articles for Creation queue, where an independent editor will review it. If it's accepted, it can be moved over an history merged with the current version. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your closure might be problematic: I see WP:NOHARM and WP:ITSUSEFUL on the keep side, and WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research WP:Neutral point of view on the other side. The keep comments are NOT telling why the neutrality problems indicated by these who wanted deletion; especially the positively skewed selection that has been identified as violation of WP:NOT#Advert and WP:NPOV. The deletion guideline to admins includes the following at WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS: "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable." which you might have failed to apply. Please act accordingly.Burning Pillar (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Burning Pillar: Just waving a policy isn't really a convincing argument, you need to state exactly how a particular policy or guideline applies in this instance. IMHO Beyond My Ken made the best argument : "[you] may well be correct that there's listcruft in there, but that can be taken care of by the normal editing process". The pertinent part of the close is that you can selectively merge and redirect these articles through normal editing, and indeed people have already cleared out cruft and worked towards this. A "no consensus" close in no way implies the current version of the article cannot be improved further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I used the wrong criteria there. Now looking back at it, I think it was a bit rash of me to nominate it on the first place. Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: No problem, it's a common mistake to make. It does sometimes mean you have to take an article like "Fair Oak primary skool is in Lesser Snoring Suffolk the head teacher is Miss Grumbles" and have to PROD or AfD it instead, but the CSD criteria are deliberately strict as they give administrators latitude to delete things without discussion, which can be contentious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I had nominated another article under the same. I removed it now! The other one is really short like the one you said, should I prod or afd it? Thanks Yashovardhan (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do with school articles in my view is to redirect them to an article on the town they belong in. If you can't find a suitable town article, and there aren't many sources, PROD. If the PROD gets contested, AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Ritchie! You've been really helpful to me!Yashovardhan (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Timeline of Amazon.com. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Burning Pillar (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: Since the review got boomeranged so quickly - to answer your legitimate question as to why I didn't relist; I simply thought the discussion was getting heated, and a relist was just going to make it worse without converging towards any result. Enough "heavyweight" editors had thrown in their 2c, in my view. The articles have been worked on and cleaned up since the AfDs closed, so it's not all bad. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: That's fair enough, hopefully you realise I didn't mean to be critical, although it probably sounds like that. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just a heads-up, I restored the article and fixed the worst problems (or so I hope). I understand why you did the deletion but I still think you shouldn't have done it for the reasons I gave at WP:AN. Such actions - while meaning well - might lead to some users thinking that admins are above the rules we explicitly have put in place to handle such pages. Next time you feel like doing so about a German subject, just leave me a note, I'm happy to add German-language refs. Regards SoWhy 19:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: As you've restored the article, everyone can see the talk page comment from the IP that was a major factor in deciding to nuke it. I think everyone has commented that this was "out of process" and basically an application of WP:IAR, so I don't think anyone's going to lose confidence in the admins and worry if they're going to suddenly run amok. I was never going to begrudge anybody rewriting the article, provided it was done in full accordance with BLP; however, a number of people have questioned whether Schäfer is actually notable. I'm not going to AfD it, but somebody else might.

The more ethereal issue (if that's the right word) is - is this article really necessary? Would Wikipedia be strongly criticised as being obsolete or biased if the article wasn't there? I would say, probably not. Meanwhile, I look at Jemma Green, which I cleaned up to a reasonable state yet it's had a ridiculous amount of disruption and I don't think it's clear of AfD just yet either, although hats off to CaroleHenson (again) for making a valiant attempt to salvage it. I then look over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and wonder if Micaela Schäfer really is the sort of article the founders of that project were thinking of when they set it up? Then again, Wikipedia survived without Dunalastair Hotel, which I managed to rescue and salvage this afternoon despite at least three administrators deleting it in the last few months. Perhaps we just have to get what we given.

I may take you up on the German sources offer; in the past I have whistled to Gerda Arendt but I always feel guilty afterwards that I never get around to commenting on whichever Bach Cantata FAC she's working on.

Talk page stalkers (especially the rampant feminist variety) - what are your views? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is she notable? Probably, at least per GNG. A lot of people spend way too much time covering her. She is one of those people famous for being famous. And whether you or I like it, this is all it takes and in accordance with NPOV it is all it should take. Whether Wikipedia would be criticized for not having this article, I don't know but it should because if this is to be a repository of human knowledge, we have to have articles on all notable subjects, even if their notability is solely based on the fact that they like to pose naked on different occasions. After all, who are we to judge? As for feminism, I am an ardent feminist myself and as such I believe any women - like any men - has the right to be whatever she wants. Even if it is being a nude model who makes money exploiting the tabloid media. Regards SoWhy 21:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The old version of the article had an unsourced claim she took part in the Ice Bucket Challenge naked. If you can find a source for that, the combination of "ice bucket" and "naked" sounds like just the sort of thing EEng could squeeze a DYK out of. Well, it worked for vaginal steaming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this video of her doing it (NSFW!)? Here is some news coverage as well [3] [4]. One might want to lament the priorities of many news organizations these days but as they say, "sex sells". Too bad EEng would have to bring the article to GA-status first before he could nominate it for DYK. Regards SoWhy 19:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a get out clause for unsourced BLPs (and the last time I did a GA review with EEng it ended in tears..... best not) Now, I hate to be a stick in a mud, but sticking two bits of gaffer tape over your boobs is not actually what I would describe as "naked", so I can't put that in the article.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'ere SteamyThreessie, me ol' china, I 'ad that "Quim Hoffner" in the back of me cab the uvver nite. And he was all mouth and no trousers, I can tell you. Miss Bricktops 123 (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're 'avin a giraffe (data) aren't you? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and lot of people spend way too much time covering her. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

So much censorship: yet another example of news uncoverage being chilled. (Innocent that I am, having now learned of Vaginal Davis, I think she and Viola Davis should sue one another.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the pair could form a trio with Steve "Interesting" Davis and do, er "interesting" things (though of course what I consider "interesting" is probably not the same as Mr De Caunes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	This is the first barnstar I'm giving! Thank you so much for your help! You've really helped me a lot of lately! Be it directing me to the correct method of deletion or providing a good reason for not deleting something I foolishly nominated, you've always been there! Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I thought your edit here was well crafted and diplomatic. Whether it works is a different story ,.. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:2:803:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here. I received a notification saying "decline A7, has sources, try PROD / AfD" from a man named Richie.. What does this mean? Archiveworld (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Archiveworld: In this case, it's because I declined to delete the article as I felt it should go to a full deletion discussion first. You can do this by reading the deletion process instructions and then filing a debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Cory if you so wish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing some little scavanging on various talk pages for both admins and non admins though experienced editors and decided yours is where i will start taking the bigger strides from. I am still trying to get a hung on what serious wiki editing entails but its coming to a point i am getting confused by various noticeboards,alot of wiki jargon and editors wars case in point the blofeld and sangara writting conflicts. Though this is normal since we are human first. Just wanted to understand is there a wiki manual that will involve basics start ups guides for an inexperienced editor and a clear cut journey to build oneself as one moves on embracing wiki editing as just a plain editor to such length as you have attained yourself. Mark you i have seen a lot of templates redirects that keeps on confusing me some more. I have tried uploading pictures that are deleted almost immediately,i see articles get promoted and i only left to wonder if an article is in wikipedia.. Is that not enough ? Ritchie.. Just hold my hand as where i come from i have lots that has not seen the light of wikipedia. I usually see your proposals on how to establish a sort of customer care desk and made me reallise you might have been involved in alot of wiki projects house clean ups. Wangina (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Richie

you deleted the article I created for the International Society for Research on Emotions (ISRE) on the basis that it was "unambiguous advertising or promotion." Not deleted was the article I also set up for the Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management. Both articles refer to not-for-profit scholarly associations that sponsor scholarly journals and run major conferences. ISRE has been around since 1983 and sponsors Emotion Review, which is a high-profile scholarly journal published by Sage. Can you please reinstate the article. If not, please explain in moire detail why you should not do so.

Cheers Neal Ashkanasy Nealash (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the link is needed for the new Emotion Review wiki site. ISRE is the sponsor of this journal. After your deletion, the link is red.Nealash (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Seems your deletion was spot on. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Compare to Wiki article re. International Society for Intelligence Research. ISRE is probably more deserving of a site that ISIR.Nealash (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nealash: The problem with the article is that it was quite short and just talked about ISIR membership without really explaining what the society was for, and how it is beneficial. I have restored it to Draft:International Society for Research on Emotion where it can be worked on further - have a look at the instructions on the draft to see what is required. I also think the existing article on Emotion Review might also want to be merged with this, or at least that's worth discussing. Mlpearc - deletion may be have been appropriate (not sure deletion of any good faith edits is "good"), but so is managing those who have had hard work wiped out, and trying to accommodate them wherever possible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is only appropriate if an article "does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject". That is clearly not the case with this article....."This deletion rationale should only be used rarely". I would be obliged if you could restore the article, and if someone wants it deleted there should be a discussion on the merits. In my view it is completely inappropriate to force this large topic into an article about an Act of Parliament.Rathfelder (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: I haven't deleted NHS mandate, only redirected it to Health and Social Care Act 2012 as I think the two articles may need to be merged. If you think this is inappropriate, undo the edit and remove the {{db-a10}} at the top of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... here (diff). In any case, you seem appear a fairly active participant in AfD's. Any thoughts for the community's enlightenment here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix-?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hodgdon's secret garden: Jimbo Wales' talk page isn't generally an effective mechanism for getting any changes (actually, I wonder where is sometimes). The usual reason for deleting articles is that if people can't independently find source material to improve them, they stagnate and get put on the ever-increasing pile of unloved articles. I will generally try and preserve whatever I can as I think, regardless of what the community in general feel, there is no value in deleting somebody else's work if they can get it back. In this regard, I can restore ‎Benjamin E. Park to a draft page if you want - I thought I mentioned this earlier, but perhaps not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But it gets some folks attention that way. Anyway, yeah, dig it! I certainly appreciate your sentiments, as just expressed. Thanks.

As a follow-up tho:

Notability within bio (more specificallly

application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!

I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! the proffered "draft page" might be helpful someday (ie - for if--and when--Dr. Park ever becomes, per institutional standards, "published": hah!..)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hodgdon's secret garden: Okay, that's restored to Draft:Benjamin E. Park Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mayfair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanover Square (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) 09:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SineBot as a rib-tickling April Fools gag ("always helpful to newbies, very civil, appears on many difficult disputes, blocks are ancient history" but maybe I'll do DPL bot's as a "job lot". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ritchie333, earlier today I created the redirect Kenwilber.com to Ken Wilber to use it for a citation. The page was shortly tagged for speedy deletion, which I however contested, since it was a valid R from domain name (in the likes Steam (software) has SteamCommunity, Steamcommunity, Steamcommunity.com, Steamgames.com, SteamPowered, Steampowered.com, Store.steampowered). Without any prior discussion and disregard of my message on the talk page, you deleted the redirect. Could you reassure me why that move was justified despite my correct argument? Lordtobi (✉) 17:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Bernard Woolley would interject at this point, 'Minister, one reassures that but explains why, err...' ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Steam is a software vendor, community site, games developer, and website. Ken Wilber is not a website. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the problem is, since the target subject has a website, which's domain is as titled. Since the website is also title "kenwilber.com", the redirect would be, if not an R from domain name, an R to related topic. Lordtobi (✉) 18:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The website is not a "related topic". It's not a topic at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says "to related topic", and Ken Wilber is definetly a topic and definetly related to his own website. Lordtobi (✉) 18:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just type "Ken Wilber"? We don't usually have websites as redirects, hence why it seemed to meet the criteria for WP:CSD#R3. I can restore it, but I think I would then have to take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if that's okay? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue with the deletion is that my attempted conversation was skipped over, so if it you think that it is a reasonable move to do, and an RfD discussion would lead to my wished discussion, please go ahead. Lordtobi (✉)

@Lordtobi: Are you sure? Because if the discussion results in a "keep" then I will launch a community-RFC asking if we really want to allow the creation of millions of redirects consisting solely of a domain name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the usage of domain names would really be as bad as you make it seem, why would the discussion result in keep? If it, however, would come out that way, why is there a necessity to mass-create redirects, rather than keeping it a single case and leaving it as a reference for similar, future discussions? Since, well, there shouldn't be a reason to turn out keep if it was nonsensial. But after all, it depends on you people. Lordtobi (✉) 20:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirect is deemed to not fall afoul of WP:R#DELETE #4 then I would work to change the wording to make it more explicit that these types of redirects should be deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie, some initial thoughts for your consideration:

• I would combine it into one single table, with colour as one of the columns.
• The Monopoly value of each location should be included.
• The "Known for" will fall foul of OR. Perhaps simply renaming it to "nearby locations" or something.
• The title "places" is a little odd for me, it might be better as "List of locations on the London Monopoly board" or similar?
• Is there nothing we could add on Waterworks and Electric Company?

Whaddya reckon?

I also think we might need to crowbar the board diagram in:

UK Edition Monopoly board layout

Free Parking	Strand £220	Chance ?	Fleet Street £220	Trafalgar Square £240	Fenchurch Street station £200	Leicester Square £260	Coventry Street £260	Water Works £150	Piccadilly £280	Go To Jail
Vine Street £200	MONOPOLY									Regent Street £300
Marlborough Street £180										Oxford Street £300
Community Chest										Community Chest
Bow Street £180										Bond Street £320
Marylebone station £200										Liverpool Street station £200
Northumberland Avenue £160										Chance ?
Whitehall £140										Park Lane £350
Electric Company £150										Super Tax (pay £100)
Pall Mall £140										Mayfair £400
In Jail/Just Visiting	Pentonville Road £120	Euston Road £100	Chance ?	The Angel Islington £100	King's Cross station £200	Income Tax (pay £200)	Whitechapel Road £60	Community Chest	Old Kent Road £60	Collect £200 salary as you pass GO

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: No problem with any of these generally, feel free to be Ariel Excel (like Bold, but better)

• With a single table, where would you put the intros. It is very non-obvious how the orange set came to exist in particular, and only make sense when viewed in historical context at 19th and early 20th century London.
• Collapsed board - where would you put it?
• Property value - what might be even better is the value on the board and a contemporary value in a source such as this (although this won't be possible for all the properties; is there anything on Whitehall or Trafalgar Square that's not Government-owned?). The lead hints the relative property values are roughly the same, let's expand on that
• The term "Known for" comes straight off {{Infobox street}}
• The utilities are tricky, but I think I'm on reasonably solid ground in referring to WP:NOTESAL and WP:CSC and suggesting there are no reliable sources that talk about any London property called "Electric Company" in the context of Monopoly. All the other sources here both refer to either the list of properties in real life, or a subset of them, and also to Monopoly, and it's the mix of the two that allows this list to exist. You could represent them as London Electricity Board and Metropolitan Water Board (London), but that's veering off into OR territory. (The original draft of the mini-project had them as Battersea Power Station and the London Met Water Board simply because those looked like the most interesting articles to work on). And then, if you've done the utilities, why not do Free Parking, which of course in London is an oxymoron ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the 'known for' bit. Would it be possible to have what the place was known for at the time the board was created as well as / in place of today? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just semi willy nilly pulled the contents from the infobox on each article, or cherry picked linked items from the lead if it didn't have one. The list doesn't really pay much respect to whether the buildings / landmarks are current or historic, Vine Street Police Station is long gone, as is Sheffield Midland and Manchester York Road stations, which were a principal raison d'etre for Marylebone's existence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following you here from tps at TRM... some of the 'known for' content on the locations is a bit POV. Particularly the inclusion of things like the odd hotel here and there to the exclusion of others, exclusion of churches etc. I'm guessing you culled these contents from their Wikipedia articles, but it leaves me unconvinced. I think you might exclude this content altogether or perhaps include the very objective - where a blue plaque appears? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about my blue plaques idea. Few appear to match. And it's possibly a bit random. Just drop the known-for? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe replace with text about the origins of the name of each place, where known (which is most cases)? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the locations were chosen for the game

I think you could add some text about this. I presume no RS exists explaining them. So say that we don't know why, that in many cases the locations were already well known landmarks (eg ...) but others a bit more baffling. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in the best explanation I can - which is the official Waddingtons archives have got nothing. So if there was a reason, it has been taken by Vic and Marge to their graves. :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that seems good to me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This list article is almost more informative about the origins of the Ingversion that the main article is  :) e.g., nothing about Waddington's archives there. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that just goes to prove that Dweller's old fashioned values really work ... if a bunch of us get together, disagree on stuff, make alternative suggestions, and then (and this is the important bit) constructively work out a compromise, we can do brilliant work. It certainly beats sulking round ANI wondering who you can block next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classic :) Actually, Ritchie333, thinking on, I've emailed you. No need to reply; but i wonder if I'm right...? ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the plug, above. My old-fashioned values campaign welcomes talk page stalkers. Click my sig! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I miss Hafspajen :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm talking of images, how bout a map of all the places IRL, as it were? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second external link covers that I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the colours

Okay, I've started sandboxing it, see here, brown and light blue merged. I think the detail above each section can go into a single section after the lead. Comments, both from you and/or your TPSs? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 likes this. The detail isn't available for all the sections anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is now done. The only outstanding question is whether to add waterworks, electric company and the stations interleaved in the board position in the table.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stations I think are a good idea (the preamble can go with "locations" and the "where the hell is Fenchurch Street" can be answered there too"). As for the utilities, see reply above - I would need evidence that a real life Electric Company that is specific to London is discussed sufficiently in sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we put the stations in, I think we'd need spaces for the utilities, even if we made the note that the board is non-specific... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, the bloody utilities can only ever net you £120 maximum, which is what you get from Piccadilly next door with one house all the time, and a couple of houses on Mayfair net you ten times that, hell even Old Kent Road's better if you stick a hotel on it .... (I'm a fan of the brown set, dirt cheap to develop, only two of them, people tip-toe round Mayfair and then land on them, losing their salary to me, and there's always "Go Back to Old Kent Road") .... um, anyway, if you really really want the utilities, put them on and we'll see what people think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I relented, integrated the stations, and left a note at the top of the table regarding those squares which aren't included. I think that's about everything, what say thee? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only major thing I might consider as well is contemporary property prices, which there are sources for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and you would compare them to the price of a single house on each row? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, one way around the problem with utilities (free parking! too, etc) would be to title the article 'List of geographic locations in...' (my emph.)- that would automatically exclude utilities, whilst including stations. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The Esquire source has used an average price for one house taken from Zoopla and average rent for any property based on the Greater London Authority's records. I've got to nip out in a mo, but I'll get onto this afternoon unless anyone else does. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added from a source in The Independent for late-2016. I have also added house price for game because comparing the price of a single property with the price of the whole street seemed a bit odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what's left for FLC? It pales in comparison to List of Norwich City F.C. managers, for example, but I can't think of much else to add in that's relevant. Isn't there a Monopoly template? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go, added template and added link to this article into template. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stand by, Gold leader- there's nothing in the lede describing the focus of the red squares (which also, ironically, end up in Trafalgar Sq!) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'll leave it for a while so that the fan club on this page can have a look, and so an email can come flying out of the blue from a Wikipedian who wishes to remain anonymous, listing a (very helpful and welcome) bunch of spelling and grammar errors. Also, it gives me another chance to check through Tim Moore's book and confirm there's nothing else I want to mine from it. Re: the red set, there really isn't much you can say other than all three streets are very well known London places in their own right, and all three connect to each other (Trafalgar Square -> Strand -> Fleet Street). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scintilliating, my dear Watson (unbelievable they never put Baker St on it, come to mention it!)- that is presumably the link! ...unless it's galleries, universities, and newspapers  :) doesn't Moore say anything? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look when I'm back home at my bookshelf (Google Books has a cache of Moore but not all the pages); I added in Fleet Street's article that the "You Have Won A Crossword Competition : Collect £100" card came out of the Daily Mail and Daily Express's attempts to out-do each other in crossword prizes (whereas nowadays they prefer to see how jingoistic they can be on the front page - although The Sun today is just flat-out racist. Bleugh. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At one point I speculated the reason for all the squares being chosen was because Oscar Wilde had some involvement with all of them (he's had something to do with all the orange ones, that's for sure), but there's a couple I can't pin down, most obviously Marylebone Station which opened after he had permanently exiled himself to Paris. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if I can be of any more assistance. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only other tidbit I want to investigate is I think there's an anecdote in Moore's book (or possibly another source) that talks about a Japanese tourist wanting to go to Pentonville Road because he thought it was famous. That suggests the popularity of the London set really has travelled worldwide. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he thought the prison was there. Mind you, maybe they did too :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an office note: FLCs are taking a couple of months to go through at the moment, some are going a month without a comment, so nominating sooner rather than later wouldn't be a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done : Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of London Monopoly places/archive1 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatcha fink? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped my 2c over there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to flood RfA with walls of text, but wanted to respond further re Caleb Walker. I'm very aware of the possibility of driving away new editors, but AGF is not a suicide pact; when three different accounts try to recreate the same article in two weeks, resulting in speedy deletion every time, I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that nothing constructive is going to come of it. I'm happy to be educated on this one; am I missing something? I'm at a slight disadvantage because I (obviously) can't see the article content; my recollection is that it was pretty naf. GoldenRing (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @GoldenRing: Just FYI, that was the comment that I was agreeing to part of, not SoWhy's- I've moved it to where it's meant to be, but Ritchie might want to reword his subsequent reply. Sorry for the confusion. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Basically, if you read a lot of encyclopedia articles and are familiar with how things are structured, you can pick up signals that can help you spot things. In this case, Caleb Walker is a real person and was put as a stand-in for his brother Paul Walker in Furious 7 following the latter's death. At this point, I think it's worth mentioning my specialist subjects are streets and architecture in London, and 1960s / 70s experimental rock, of which this article is neither, but I've read enough articles around here to pick up on that being sufficient to stop A7, because at the very least you can redirect somewhere. Remember that AfDs don't always end in "keep" or "delete" - any possibility of a non-delete consensus there (which "redirect" is) stops the deletion. For now, I have restored Caleb Walker as a redirect to Paul Walker#Career, and the full history is available so you can see all the revisions that were deleted.

As I said on the RfA, deleting something can be upsetting, but what's more upsetting is if the creator tries to ask you as deleting admin to help, and you don't come up with the goods. Hence, in this case, a message "sorry about that, I can clearly see film magazine reports that show he was a CGI stand-in for his more famous brother; I have restored as a redirect" might go some way towards building bridges. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has more information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the history. I see the only content in the article when I tagged it was "jo puta." I'll readily admit that film actors are not my area of expertise - but isn't that the whole point of A1? The article didn't have enough content/context to identify the subject. If you happened to know that a person called Caleb Walker once stood in for his brother in the seventh instalment of a fairly forgettable (IMO) film franchise then perhaps you might have put two and two together and thought maybe that's who they were talking about. But maybe it's not - all you've got to go on is a name that's not exactly uncommon. What "signals" should I have picked up on in this article's content? GoldenRing (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"jo puta" is plain and simple WP:CSD#G3. However, that doesn't mean you couldn't re-appropriate the page as the redirect. As for "signals", to coin an old saying - STFW! You simply a) type "Caleb Walker" into Google and / or b) type "Caleb Walker" into the search box here. Incidentally, I brought up Aldford House specifically because it's right on the edge of what a Google Search could do to tip the balance; in this case, the first hit is an archived copy of the Survey of London which is a dedicated piece about the property. That's way outside A7 (but you knew that as you said so in your answer), as to whether it could survive AfD, it's tricky but again I think a redirect to Mayfair#Properties would probably be my alternative if "keep" wasn't an option. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Two things you have to remember: 1) WP:ATD applies to speedy deletion as well. If you google the subject and it turns out this might be a plausible search term (as "Caleb Walker") clearly is, redirect it appropriately. 2) A1 explicitly says "Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created." That was the reason I raised the objection. AGF is not a suicide pact but simply saying "no suicide pact" is not sufficient to ignore the clear wording of the policy. Regards SoWhy 13:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the basic concept, I would like to see somebody explain how an article whose first (undeleted) revision reads as "fuck off" and nothing else could possibly be expanded to something that isn't blatant vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this here, because a) this is where I noticed the discussion that sent me to the RfA and b) I rather suspect more people will notice this here, and that suits me... User:GoldenRing, please read my comment carefully because I mean every word. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that your RfA is not tanking with pile-on opposes, indeed quite the opposite, and the tally is creeping upwards. I might describe this as a "Brexit RfA" ie: "well this isn't going to pass but I'm going to moral support anyway" and lo and behold it succeeds. So hang in there for a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! For once, I thikn people are actually looking beyond the statistics, and judging the answers against what they want in an admin- and finding that, where the statistics and the answers given are in contradiction, the answers trump the stats. Told you- Leicester City! :D — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this RfA somehow passes, perhaps it will herald a new age of less restrictive RfA standards. I think it would be healthy for Wikipedia to return to the concept of adminship not being a big deal. Lepricavark (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far. GoldenRing is turning his RfA around (seriously, give it 12 hours and he could be in the pass range, and I'm not kidding) primarily because his answers to the questions exhibit precisely the sort of attitude and clue I expect admins to have. Most of what I wrote at WP:WRITE is basically a rough set of criteria that allow me to easily tell if somebody has clue or not. I don't think it's any great secret that I think CaroleHenson should have passed RfA as she has clue coming out of her ears (I'm not a metaphor kind of guy, but bear with me...) and I wouldn't be at all surprised that SoWhy is going to be good on his word and put forward RfA #2 when he thinks she's ready and the time is appropriate. However, clue is impossible to fake; it's very easy to use the right buzz-words to pull the wool over people's eyes, but there have been so many upsets caused by admins pulling above their station that people have a right to be suspicious. So I'm not quite sure yet that we're going to have more "purple patches" of RfA. We did have a good run over Christmas with people like Cyberpower678 getting the bit, who are very much not the usual sort of candidate I'd put forward, but still someone I think absolutely deserves the mop and bucket. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I probably overstated the optimism. Still, I was disappointed when the momentum surge in early January petered out and then very little happened over the past coupe of months. I don't really expect GoldenRing's RfA to pass, but it's fun to think optimistically about seeing new life breathed into the process. Lepricavark (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I'm definitely a different breed of users than the average candidate that passes, I'm certainly surprised I passed, and even more so that I passed with 97% support. I'm not complaining or anything, but the views are typically, lack of AfD, lack of main space, or oh god an admin bot operator is too dangerous is what floats around RfA.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: Mate, I've got to say, I think he's actually going to do it. Whilst I don't think it will (probably unfortunately) open any flood-gates, it's still a rare and curious thing that we are witnessing.^{[citation needed]} Humbling actually. As well as making me feel somewhat guilty now! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. I certainly hope you are correct. Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might still be- I took my eye off the ball there- the serious (well, large scale?) opposes usually start after a day or two, don't they, and I suppose we haven't got to that stage yet. But even so- — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect from this point it'll pass - it's tantalisingly close, but stubbornly short of the mark - but I'm glad I'm providing entertainment for someone. Thank you all for your kind words about me. I hope I live up to them. GoldenRing (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: This is the closest RfA I've seen since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678. It is technically possible that the RfA will close with a 'crat chat, and from my perspective while some of the opposes are fair comment, a number are weak ("needs more experience" - yes, what in and why? Be specific!) and also suggest they won't particularly mind you having the tools. The 'crats may agree and decide the community has a neutral to positive view of you getting the bit, and granting it. I can badger the 'crats a bit to force a chat whatever happens, even if the RfA closes on 62-63%. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 closed successful on 68% support, and that was under the old standards, so I think even a 63% support is worth a discussion. For gawd's sake, don't withdraw - nobody's saying anything new and insightful anymore, so I'd sit it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely agree in urging you to stick with it GoldenRing. I see this as in some ways a groundbreaking RfA, (in a positve sense), which may help to reshape !voter perceptions on candidates, although with your amazingly long tenure this is somewhat unique. Also I continue to nag about getting the amazing Q5 into expanded essay form. It should be required reading. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Irondome: I've had a go in User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators. It's my fourth or fifth attempt at starting the same thing; I've struggled badly to find the right voice for it. An answer to an RfA question is not really the right form for an essay. I'm not sure about the economic impact of making it required reading, either. Comments welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I've been thinking seriously about it - mostly because of opposition from a couple of editors who I have a good deal of respect for (not going to name names here). My line of thinking is, "Maybe if they're opposed, I'm really not ready." OTOH there is support from a number who I also respect, and a couple who I expected to oppose it. I think I'm happy to let it run its course - as I said there, I don't have a lot of my self-esteem invested in this. If it ends with "no" then so be it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I joked earlier about this being a "Brexit RfA" but the analogy is uncanny. Opinion is split right down the middle, the result could go either way, a bit of name-calling between sides is going on (admittedly I've jumped in and done a bit, though I have called opinions wide of the mark rather than directed at specific people) and however it does, a sizeable number of people are going to go away disappointed. I've been thinking about the split for the past couple of days, and I can phrase it simply as "do you like WP:IAR?" Everyone that does has looked at the questions, weighed up the insight and clue they have delivered, and voted support. Everyone that doesn't has gone to count beans, look at arbitrary standards and figures that they like, and can't hand on heart ignore them quite enough, and voted oppose. Those that are torn between the two have gone neutral. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mayfair 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 CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Think I'll slap a {{coi}} template here then :p :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a genuine conflict of interest with anything in Mayfair, I would not need to edit Wikipedia, I would simply ask my butler to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, indeed- for socks, it would be, what, Jermyn Street, and for meat, Smithfield Market, I guess!  ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, If you are referring to me performing the review: Per GA instructions, it can be "reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator." I follow the GA criteria equally and in all cases. If there are comments, it's generally that I may be a little too nitpicky. It's still a work in progress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carole is fine to do the review, and that I've got to go back to my book sources to fact check is indicative of a good GA review, in my experience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeess... clearly. A sense of humour and an appreciation of irony, whilst not a prerequisite, does no harm in the administratura of today. Carry on. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Alrighty then... I don't know you well enough to know when you are kidding - one of the pitfalls of the written word. Well, I finished my comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CaroleHenson- and I apologise for writing in a deadpan tone of voice! ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carole, advance to Mayfair. FIM, pay a ten pound fine or take a chance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Bank error in your favour' :) ... who draws that card nowadays, except PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the rest of the privateers... — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I advanced to Mayfair and will take a chance. : )

Congratulations for a job well done. It was a very easy GA review to do - really just minor items - and a fun read. There wasn't anything in the GA instructions about me adding the GA icon to the article. Do you do that? I don't remember.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bot should sort out the green blob for you, it runs every 20 minutes so the next batch should be any minute now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mayfair you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mayfair 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 CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vaginal steaming, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "sorcery for your vagina" can result in second-degree burns? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vaginal steaming), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that my Rfa is floating within the discretionary range while GoldenRing is floating down.... Anyway, guess one can't and shouldn't compare fool's Rfas with real ones. Wìkìpe-tan (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's done pretty well, when it opened I anticipated a SNOW close within a few hours, the fact it's still rolling along after a few days is pretty impressive going. Still, I guess we'll let you delete the main page and block Jimbo Wales first, then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being the admin that makes one too many.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  → Call me CP678 19:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Ritchie333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My brother did it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=[[WP:BROTHER|My brother did it]]. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 19:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC) | 3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed | 1=[[WP:BROTHER|My brother did it]]. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 19:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC) | decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed | 1=[[WP:BROTHER|My brother did it]]. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 19:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC) | accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Bullshit. Ritchie333's brother (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's convincing enough to tell me that you're spouting nonsense.Cyberpower | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why would I register an account as Richie333's brother if I wasn't actually his brother?
2. He always keeps his computer under password. I mean, I get why. Back when we had dailup, he was always the kind of person that cleared his history when he logged off. He said it helped the computer run faster. But...well...you know. Ritchie333's brother (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it wasn't me, if that's what you two bozos are implying. --Ritchie's brother from another mother (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, shall we tell them about the time that you came round to my place when I was 21 and you were 16, we got you pissed on cheap vodka and cider, we told you my flatmate's epilepsy tablets were Es and you believed us. We laughed about that for ... quite some time. (note to talk page stalkers, this really happened) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone call the wiki-police. This is beginning to sound like one of those pathetically amateurish Daily Mail smears. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Do you mind taking a look at this page. The new article is a dupe article that says that the college is closing - and so this could be misleading for people looking for info about this college. I added the hoax tag. Could you delete this article if you agree?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, I see you're having an unusual day!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected to the article about the real college - that should sort things out with the minimum of drama, I hope. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see your point because that's a likely search string.

I don't know if it's appropriate to hide the rows with the hoax content. Would that be something that would usually be done? Or, just leave it there?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the history? Probably not, unless it's seriously defamatory and grossly inoffensive, which it isn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. Well I love simple solutions - so there you are. Couldn't get much simpler. Another item for my "lessons learned" list. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The usual mantra is "why not try a redirect - they're cheap". Unlike deletion, they preserve the history for non admins, which is good as admins can put their feet up without being nagged to undelete stuff :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Aleem Iqbal (Lord Aleem) is a notable person. There are individuals of far less notoriety with approved articles. Please release my page. I am a new user its my first article, and still learning how Wikipedia works. I intend to edit a high quality article.

Featured in Daily Mail one of the largest news sites in world.^[1] And by Vice ^[2] and in The Sun ^[3]

Oh i see they are bad sources to use for the article. No problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnsarAction (talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnsarAction: We normally delete pages because the subject isn't notable, but that's not the only reason. In this case, the subject has been in the news, and you have third-party sources documenting your facts, so you understand basically what notability in the context of Wikipedia is, I think. However, we have a very strict policy on biographies of living people, and to cut a long story short, you cannot write an article that just uses these types of references, especially when you are accusing somebody of breaking the law and being pulled over by the police for it. In particular, Wikipedia recently voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source, so you will be in trouble going anywhere near it. You might think you're going to write a high quality article, but what you may inadvertently doing is writing libel against somebody who's probably rich enough to afford a lawyer to fight it. Is that honestly a situation you really want to find you, and Wikipedia, in?

If you feel particularly hard done by this decision, I can take the discussion to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, where more eyes can look at it and reach a broader consensus; however, you need to come with sources to broadsheet newspapers such as The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Times or BBC News. If all you have is tabloids, I don't think you'll be successful, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the risks. Yes please take the article to wider consensus, maybe better editors can contribute. I have found some sources, including from The Independent and BBC. I was not accusing him of criminal behavior, simply describing the news reports. Thanks for the help.

^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

@AnsarAction: Okay, there's now a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lord Aleem, so have a look and have your say. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ritchie333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnsarAction (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnsarAction: There hasn't been much activity on the noticeboard. I think unless there's substantial development by this evening, I'll create a draft version of this article myself and set it up for review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Sounds good --AnsarAction (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnsarAction: Right, I've created a draft at Draft:Lord Aleem. I've used the BBC Asian Services source and a reasonably neutral Birmingham Mail link that talks about his family heritage. I had to avoid many of the sources in a news search because they are either the tabloids I mentioned earlier, or talk about him being arrested for .... well, being Birmingham's answer to Jeremy Clarkson by the look of it. If you can use sources similar in nature and tone to the two I've used, it should be possible to get a reasonable article up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Thank you, he has a nice collection of cars, think he applied for the job on Top Gear and has a nice collection of supercars. Your right, mainly tabloid reports about unsavoury antics.

When you declined the speedy deletion of Princes Mead Shopping Centre, you declared "A7 does not apply to shopping malls". By what logic do you arrive at that conclusion? WP:CSD#A7 applies to any articles about "people, animals, organizations, web content, [or] events" that do not assert a claim of importance or notability. The only type of organization explicitly exempted is a school. A shopping mall is clearly a company or organization, and so fits in the criterion. There is nothing in the writing about CSD#A7 that exempts shopping malls. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: I could find a reliable source (a local council report) that had a couple of paragraphs about redevelopment, and that's enough to clear A7. I have noticed that we seem to have articles on many British shopping malls that I'm surprised about, per those in Template:Shopping centres in Southeast England, including The Malls, Basingstoke, County Square, Fremlin Walk and Whitefriars Shopping Centre. A shopping mall is a physical building, usually council-owned, and not part of any organisation, and you only find one, occasionally two, in large towns (at least in the UK). So in summary a speedy is inappropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) In my experience, shopping centres are frequently A7d as organisations, as are certain other subjects which are physically places, such as tourist attractions. Adam9007 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist attractions can be organisations (and hence eligible for A7), but if it's a grey area then search for sources and base whether to accept or decline the CSD tag on that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention sources: I was just in some hoo-ha over A7 and sources. What sort of sources are sufficient to pass A7? I removed an A7 from articles about a person, and his company, because there was an interview with the person in a notable newspaper. Both articles were A7d anyway, because apparently, the interview was neither credible (WTH? It was cited, and we've seen it, so we know it's true) or significant. Of course, the AfD was little more than a show trial against me, as they so often are if I decline A7. Adam9007 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually let through one hit on Google News or Google Books that has two paragraphs directly about the subject - basically enough to allow me to write a sentence or two myself. This goes back to my essay, of thinking of A7s being articles you can't improve at all, ever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:25, 3 April 2017 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Theelord (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) Why did you do this? I was working on an assignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theelord (talk • contribs)

@Theelord: For some reason, I thought somebody had tagged the page as {{db-u5}}, meaning the page was an essay unlikely to be suitable to turned into an encyclopedia article. I don't know why I thought that, but nobody did, so I've restored it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is clear abuse. Please hand in your badge, gun, and mop. ;-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay C678, I'm going to start a new career as a Wiki Binman. Do you have anything for the recycling? In fact, it's obvious that the user page is draft content for Marrybrown so somebody serve me a WP:WHALE please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Ritchie333 but it is a copyvio:P CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't 100% copyvio (I was just about to blank the bits that were when another admin deleted the lot, and I'm not in the mood to wheel war today) and given the URL I do wonder if it's a copy of something the editor wrote himself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 I thought it might have been a circle copyvio back to a promotional version of the Marrybrown page but couldn't find anything. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing it the first revision (just a header) is the only one clear of Copyvio, the page on the external site appears to exist at least as far back as April 2015. If restored the only thing that could be saved from my understanding is 4 lines advising what Marybrown should do. It does look very much like someone using Wikipedia to host something they should be doing in a word processing programme instead if I'm honest. If you want to restore the first paragraph I'm fine with that. Amortias (T)(C) 15:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait and see if he gets in touch first - he's found the main Marrybrown article so he may have just decided to update that instead. As I've said before, copyvios are often created by newbies in good faith, since our copyright policy does not align with common sense (by that I mean our policy makes sense to me, but because I understand the full extent and rationale behind it) and always need explaining. I usually give some silly example like a company selling a leather-bound book entitled "The very best of Ritchie333's talk page" for £399 plus P&P, which is not against our licence, not matter how insane it sounds. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Helpful AnsarAction (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent hours writing a wiki article for one of the popular real estate dealers based in Bangalore. I have added it because I believe it should be on wikipedia. I hope you'll consider my request to include that wiki page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafizka (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafizka: There are millions of real estate dealers all over the world; however this is a global encyclopedia and our articles have to be possible to be improved by everybody. So we have to draw the line at certain types of articles which would dwarf the coverage of other topics if we allowed them. User:Uncle G/On notability is a good essay to read. If you want, I can restore the article to a draft so it can be worked on and reviewed independently. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 50.206.29.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Blatant vandalism since 2014. 22 warnings were issued (23rd was mine). Still vandalising wiki.

I tried to report him on the AIV, but HBC AIV helperbot5 kept on removing the report saying he was blocked 2 years ago. This led to an edit war between me n the bot. But in the end, it is never wise to fight with an idiot so i gave up. —usernamekiran[talk] 15:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: The bot said the IP had been blocked for two years by Widr, and when you block somebody reported at AIV, the bot automatically clears it. So your report was acted on it's all sorted. If somebody is very obviously vandalising (and this IP absolutely was) I don't bother delivering a message, I just kick them off and tell them not to let the door hit them on the way out. (See WP:RBI) The only difference is that a) I wouldn't block "account creation blocked" as if it is a school block, it's a bit unfair to tar all students with the same brush because of one idiot and b) I might have gone for 3 years instead of 2. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ooooo, worra bitch. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• I apologise. I thought the bot said it was two years ago. Thanks Widr. And yes, i agree with everything you said.
  @Martinevans123: erm? —usernamekiran[talk] 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's a mark of status and respect when you become well-known enough for Martinevans123 to stalk your talk page and have the highest number of edits on it after yourself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• hmm. But i didnt understand his comment. —usernamekiran[talk] 15:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome to my world, I don't understand most of them, but if you think that's bad, wait until you get EEng, Atsme and that Pants bloke whose username I can never spell properly debating the merits of steaming .... something I'm not going to talk about right now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks for scaring me lol. See you around. :) —usernamekiran[talk] 15:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies. I'm not sure that I understood it either. But you'd probably need to be a seasoned Corrie aficionado. I'm sure there's no truth in the shabby rumour that Threesie can block a troll with a single harsh look. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

👻💀☠️👻{{{{WOOOooo....WoooOOOO!!}}}}....too late Ritchie333, you've summoned the ghosts of your steamy past. THERE. IS. NO. ESCAPE. 👣 We are all on the 👀list now. We 👁👁 E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G 🕵🏽‍♀️. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and other shocking news just in. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an update by AP...she was 'relieved' to be cleared, and I was somewhat relieved she didn't choose a cemetery...but the 2 beers I drank contributed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a bit concerned about the various awards that the society has. It seems that quite a lot of them may not pass WP:GNG, and some are created by WP:SPA's. What is the best course of action? Thanks in advance! Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 16:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicnote: The best course of action is to find sources and improve them. If you can't do that and you are absolutely certain Wikipedia should not have these articles, send them to AfD and see if consensus agrees with you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am a volunteer at OTRS, The agents for the above mentioned artist have been in touch with us insisting the page be deleted as it is a invasion of her privacy.We have explained as best as possible to them the policies and criteria for deletion of an article.Please advice on the way forward as they have been very persistent on this matter. Thanking you FITINDIA (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitindia: I've got an OTRS account. Can you give me the incident ID and I'll look at it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Hi the ticket number is 2017040310019972 thank you FITINDIA (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitindia: Ack, I meant I've got a UTRS account (which I haven't used for ages). I don't appear to be able to log on to OTRS at all. How might I get access; as an admin regularly involved in content disputes and fielding queries from new users, I'd probably have a good case for it. (I guess info-en is the appropriate queue?) In the meantime, you could forward the correspondence via email (using the "Email this user" link). Bottom line is I might be able to throw in some examples from my real off-wiki world (that I don't really want to publicly talk about on-wiki) that may explain things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Hi have emailed you. Please have a look thank you.FITINDIA (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it. I've also applied for OTRS access, since it might be useful for this and other occasions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitindia: Okay, I think I can make a good guess at what the issue is, and have resolved it in a way that they should be comfortable with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)@Ritchie333: Thank you.FITINDIA (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please explain the block warning as I did not add the original name to Abra article, just wanted it to be tagged for a while for rs to be added, I looked on the internet and there were unreliable sources that seemed to confirm it, I didn't readd it when it was removed again. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: If you don't re-add the information, you won't get blocked. Since I've never interacted with you before, I needed to say that in order to stress there was a serious issue - we don't block to punish people! I'm sure you were acting in good faith; unfortunately your actions inadvertently caused a third party to file an off-wiki complaint about Wikipedia. The best advice I can give you is what I'll call Jimbo's First Law : "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." and that's pretty much what WP:BLP is. If the information was cited to BBC News / The Guardian / The Independent, it would be very easy to counter-act any complaint with something along the lines of "well, Wikipedia isn't repeating anything that's not widely and credibly reported elsewhere". But until it is, this can't go in.

You are correct that you did not add the information, but you did revert it back in; I simply sent round a message to everyone who had reverted the IP (possibly the article's subject or someone acting on their behalf?) in a general capacity that did not take any sides. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be more careful in future, I do revert ips who don't give an edit summary a bit too quickly. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It is a bit scary when your edits suddenly collide with the outside world (and it's happened to me a few times) but once you notice it, you'll be a better editor for the rest of your days :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I properly create an article about a build system (software) like Bazel and/or smallest article like [[5]]?

Thank you -Indra Indrgun (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am really puzzled seeing the page deleted for no reason.And I seriously don't know who are you ? And who authorises you for deletion. If you own Wiki then I am supposed to answer you , and if you are not then I don't understand why am taking so much of effort to answer you.

Please provide me with the reason for deletion. There is no copy right infringement in doing so. My self is working for Government of India and in the same department. Data put to wiki page has been gathered by me in consultation with coleeuges,seniors and media reports. Please re activate the page,as it's dishonour to him and his profile must be put in public domain , as more than lacs of engineers in my country aim to become like him.

Manish Kanodia 09:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Manish Kanodia: In effect, you authorised the deletion by pressing "Save changes" after reading the text you see every time you edit which says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia and therefore any material that does not match the CC-BY-SA licence (more of that in a minute) must be removed.

Copyright in the context of Wikipedia is a little unorthodox, but I'll try and explain. What we mean by [CC-BY-SA] (the copyright Wikipedia uses) is that you are allowed to share work, you are allowed to modify it, and you are allowed to sell it to others. So, to give a rather far-fetched but perfectly allowable example, somebody could take the complete contents of my talk page archives, print them in a leather bound volume, and sell them on Amazon for $599 a copy. The copyright license is not violated by doing this. Since this runs counter to most copyright on texts elsewhere in the world, we cannot re-use the information unless we are certain we have permission for people to modify and sell it to others.

A copyright-based deletion makes no judgement on the quality of the text or the suitability of an article's subject for Wikipedia. Indeed, I would suggest a senior government adviser has a potentially legitimate claim to our notability guidelines for political figures. The simplest thing to do is to re-write the article, using the source, in your own words. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ritchie 333! I have to say I am rather bemused and bewildered by all this. Firstly I apologise if I have not replied in the right place but I cannot see how to reply to an existing thread only how to send a new message.

How my clear message yesterday to tripthecottage can be viewed as a personal attack is simply beyond me. I made no such attack just tried to ensure that inaccurate and misleading information is not included in a profile about me and quite right to as it simply should not be.

This has raised a raft of concerns to me about how Wikipedia actually works as it seems that literally anyone, even someone who intentionally wanted to misrepresent me and my campaign (and I am not saying tripthecottage has as I think that is merely down to relying too heavily on newspaper articles rather than checking all the facts) even the pesticides industry or other could come on and write false and misrepresentative information on someone's profile and then the person who is being profiled isn't allowed to correct it when something is wrong!! And even gets threatened with being barred from doing so. Seriously?!!

I am stunned by all this as I quite rightly saw a massive rewrite of a Wikipedia page about me and my work and that contained inaccuracies and misrepresentative information that was misleading. I therefore took to correct that and actually if you see the changes they were not exhaustive as aside from ensuring a number of things were corrected it is only the last few bits I added in that were of any lengthy text and even then it was only a few short paras. The reason for the additional bit at the end is because you cannot include a profile about someone and then have the last information of what they have done as being many years ago. I have worked constantly for 16 years and the petition that is currently live is ongoing and has been covered in at least a couple of media publications both here and in the US, as well as in published factual evidence on a House of Lords committee website which I will gladly send the link to if that can be included as a citation as to be published on such a website it has to have been approved by the Lords committee concerned. (As I said in my message to tripthecottage I had tried to include a link to the petition site itself but it would not let me do so and so perhaps either one of the articles that refers to the petition or the House of Lords committee written evidence page is ok for the citation?)

In relation to some of the other points made in the various notifications I have seen in the alerts (although I cannot be certain I have seen them all as I am struggling to follow how to do all this talk and respond stuff as said).

1. As stated above it is quite wrong to have issued a warning to someone for a personal attack when it was not it was a firmly worded message about how it is simply wrong to have inaccuracies in a Wikipedia page about a living person!

2. To say it is now an autobiography is again absurd it isn't as I corrected a few things and then added a few short paras at the end about the current/live petition. Although it is still not ideal by any means (considering the original Wikipedia page prior to any rewriting of tripthecottage was the more preferred version, although for avoidance of doubt that previous version was not written by me just amended in parts), I think the version that is currently there (unless it has been changed again whilst I type this so I mean the version I amended last night) would be acceptable for now (although see point 3 below for one thing) and until anything else significant were to happen either to me or the campaign that would then require updating. As said hopefully we can agree on the remaining citations to add in and can liase on that.

3. The one other thing I noticed tripthecottage has changed in relation to the reference to the petition is he or she took out the word "poisonous" in the name of the petition. Yet that is in the NAME of the petition and I was citing correctly the name of the petition which is right and proper to do. Therefore that word should rightly be reinserted and perhaps be in quote marks then so it is clear that is the title of the petition?

4. I do not agree that this page should be the UK Pesticides Campaign as although it is of course the name of the campaign and is rightly referred to as such in the text of the page, in relation to all the profile of the campaign and the awards and other nominations it has received that has been to me myself as the named person who runs the campaign. Therefore it would be quite wrong to have it just as a campaign page and as said in point 2 above I would suggest the version as it is is kept with just adding back in the word "poisonous" and have the title of that petition in quote marks as it is the title of the petition as said in 3 above, as well as adding in agreed citations for the petition and other information below it which brings me on to point 5.

5. I cannot understand why all the awards and nominations (that have happened and are fact) were all removed and hence my comments to tripthecottage that it appeared to be a way to downplay the achievements of my work and campaigning efforts. To give an comparable example for this. On the vast majority of Wikipedia pages about living persons there is a list of the awards and achievements. Some of these people would be massively more high profile than others (ie. Leonardo Dicaprio and very high profile people of that nature lists all the Oscars, Golden Globes and other awards and accolades he has won), but surely there is no discrimination of the level of a person's profile in that if they have won awards and nominations even if those awards aren't quite of the level of the aforementioned then they would surely be listed also, especially if those awards have been mentioned repeatedly in the national media (which they have and I am more than happy to send on specific links and citations for that from various media articles). I am not actually even all that fussed about whether all the awards are included or not as there are quite a lot, but just think from a factual accuracy and representative standpoint they should be if they are for others as there should be no discrimination on that score. However, I would be content with the 2 that are mentioned in the existing version if nothing else but think my points in this point 5 are valid and justified.

I hope you appreciate all that is stated above and also hope that we can liase on this further to bring this to some sort of amicable resolution.

Thanks and kind regards, Thefactcorrecter (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]