The article Bond Street you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bond Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bond Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bond Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie333. This is about WordGirl (season 7). I've had a look at the deleted revisions, and I 100% agree that it's a G12 candidate. But in this case, as the page is going to be under a lot of scrutiny due to Cyphoidbomb's RfA, would you be willing to IAR and undelete the page until it is over? The non-admins following the RfA will undoubtedly want to see the page to help them in their assessment of the candidate, and they won't be able to do that if it's deleted. And legally, Stfg's revision with the content blanked out and the large "Investigation of potential copyright issue" notice visible should cover us until the RfA is over. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Stradivarius: I'm afraid I'll have to decline. Copyright violations are one of the few things that I believe are non-negotiable. As it says at the top of this edit window : "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". I appreciate it would be beneficial to restore it for non-admins to make an effective evaluation, and that the timing of this is particularly unpleasant, but as an admin if I see a page that unquestionably qualifies as WP:CSD#G12 it must be deleted. To try and give an analogous example, many people would have preferred the evidence of harrassment against Lightbreather in her arbitration case to be played out in public, but there are good reasons why it couldn't, and I feel the same (albeit to a lesser degree of severity) about copyright violations. The only reason I could contemplate restoring is if somebody can supply obvious proof the original source has a CC-BY-SA compatible licence. I hope that clarifies my position. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure that this is analogous with the Lightbreather case, but don't worry, I do understand where you're coming from. As I said, my suggestion was an IAR one, so as policy goes, your position is definitely the stronger one, and I'll respect your decision. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, I genuinely do not understand how you perceive my comment as an insult to another editor, rather than as standing up to someone who, from my perspective, had insulted me. "I find it strange that the candidate would need somebody to change his diapers, grown-up admins are supposed to speak for themselves." I'm not asking you to justify, I'm just pointing out that I have no idea where you're coming from. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Text communication is difficult - so much emotion is lost and tempers flare more easily. If I got the wrong end of the stick, I'm sorry. In this instance, I think Kraxler was bluntly telling AussieLegend that his bludgeoning replies to everything were unhelpful and actively harming your RfA. As an admin, people will insult you - if you work in anti-vandalism, you can expect abuse from just about anyone. You must have a thick skin to deal with this. So even if Kraxler really was insulting, don't fire back. Okay, in normal chat between editors, it's not too bad, but for an admin to a blocked (or soon to be blocked) editor, you really need to ramp the AGF up to silly levels. Otherwise you'll burn out. This, incidentally, is where the "Old fashioned values" userbox on my page comes from - you can see people having a pop at me on this talk page, but I do try and calm the situation down and approach everything rationally, though I'm not always successful.

Anyway, from now on, apart from numbered questions directed at you, avoid commenting at the RfA and tell AussieLegend he should not make any more edits on it. Hopefully then the result will come back around 75 - 80% and you'll get a pass. Despite my concerns that adminship might not be best suited, I really do wish you all the best as you generally are polite, well-mannered and I sincerely believe you are here to help the project. That much is clear, and you wouldn't have had the large level of support you've already acquired without it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, Ritchie, thank you. I do have a thick skin and I rarely get into it with other editors, even [when dealing with people who are clearly unhinged]. I only pointed out that I found his comments condescending and rude. That's not an insult to him, that's an explanation of how I perceived his comments. I was over the matter immediately after that, so to hear it come up again as a point of concern is distressing. One huge flaw in the RfA process is that people get to voice opinions based on cherrypicked information, and the candidates are discouraged from addressing the incorrect perception. For instance, I can list for you 14 examples from my past 1000 edits where I demonstrate I have a clear understanding of Wikipedia's copyright rules. Am I allowed to present that to at the RfA? Of course not, and that's what makes this a flawed system. Anyhow, thanks again for your note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Cyphoidbomb:, I thought the allusion was blatantly obvious. I made a comment elsewhere, without mentioning the name, that he should back off due to actually damaging the RfA and causing drama. I was understood immediately. I think admins should have sufficient perception to recognise such nuances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

That "other user" you mentioned here, namely User:Madhyapak, is another sock of the same sock master who created the article. The article should thus still he deleted. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I think G5's should only apply if the article should be AfDed or otherwise should not be added. I know people shouldn't evade blocks and create content while doing so, but that's life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northumberland Avenue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pall Mall (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) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say "yeah right" but bugger me, it appears the cigarette gets more views than the street. Well I never. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mr.Ritchie as I saw that the article with name Akhtar Raza Khan has been deleted because of copyright problem.I think someone who dont have any knowledge of the rules on wikipedia would have created that.

Now, I decided to creat the article again abiding by the rules and laws.But it says only an administrator can creat it.Therefore I am requesting you to please restore the article I will improve that article.I will take out the contents which violates copyright rules. Or you may simply creat a new article with that name with a few lines I will thereafter improve that adding more words and sources...

It will be your kind favour on me If you accept my request.

Thanking you for reading my request.

Ejaz92 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejaz92: The easiest thing to do is to use the Article Wizard to create a new version of the article in Draft space. You can then submit the draft for an independent review. When the review is accepted, the protection can be removed at that time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.I benefited from your advice and wrote a draft.I will be very thankful of you if you reveiw the draft soon Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan Ejaz92 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie. I noticed you've had The Nice nominated for GA for nearly 2 months. I've had a music article, DJ AM, nominated for almost as long as yours. Just throwing it out there, if you'd like to swap reviews i'd be happy to do so. You review mine and i'll review yours. I expect your review to be thorough though, as mine will be also, I don't want to give you the impression that i'm interested in just passing both our articles through with a perfunctory check. No worries if you're not interested or too busy though. I made this same offer to someone else a couple weeks ago but they didn't reply. I do review GANs myself from time to time with no expectation of getting a review in return, i'm just rather keen to get my current nominations all resolved as i'm going to be taking an extended absence from Wikipedia in September. Anyway let me know if you're interested or not. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: I am struggling to find the time to do GA reviews - typically I find they require about 2 hours' dedicated focus on the article. However, I've started the review here and made a few initial comments. I think the main issue we'll have is keeping the plane crash and death in proportion to his career. As for The Nice, it's been more like two years since I thought "this article really should be improved" and it's had at least one trip to the BLP noticeboard since then as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the time for this. I've initiated a review of The Nice. Got the easy stuff out of the way today; i'll have an in depth look at the article tomorrow. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an update on the pending unblock request at User_talk:Stokesnet#July_2015? Not sure if you got the info from Bbb23 that you were waiting for, as you wrote on July 20. I was reminded this was still pending when one of the related sock's unblock req was just declined at User_talk:Mwrcwms#Unblock_Request. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba:@Bbb23: I haven't heard anything since I posted the unblock request and if I didn't know any better I would say that Stokesnet has got fed up of Wikipedia rules and regulations and given up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its a notification bug, or its disabled. I've pinged Bbb23 on their talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very late, and I'm very tired, so I may not express myself as clearly as I normally would. I saw Ritchie's message soon after he put the unblock request on hold. Whether the ping was succcessful doesn't much matter as the page was on my watchlist. I didn't respond for two reasons.

First, normally (at least in my experience) when an administrator puts an unblock request on hold to seek comments from the blocking administrator, he approaches the blocking administrator on their Talk page. He doesn't put his comments in the hold expecting the blocking administrator to respond on the blocked user's Talk page. So, I assumed that if Ritchie really wanted to hear my views, he would done that, but he didn't.

Second, I wasn't eager to respond to what Ritchie said. I was quite taken aback when I first read it. I had had no problem discussing the issues with Bagumba, but I found Ritchie's comments at least mildly offensive. For him to say publicly that he was "shocked" and that we should "apologise" was over-the-top given the circumstances, and I didn't know how to civilly respond to an administrator that would characterize the events in that way. (As an aside, I don't know what he means by the loss of the orange bar. It's still alive as far as I know. I just got it when Bagumba posted to my Talk page.)

Third, I am also well aware of how many times Ritchie has blocked users and how much he hates doing so. If I recall correctly, at one time he said (on Drmies's Talk page?) that it made him physically ill to block users. That's a rather unusual thing for an administrator to feel. Some administrators, of course, block more than others, but I know of no other administrator who is almost effectively opposed to blocking. In my view, that makes Ritchie biased when evaluating an unblock request in any circumstances.

Fourth, as to the merits of unblocking the user, I'm still not convinced that unblocking her is for the benefit of the project. On the one hand, she discusses the Meeks article as if her only interest was in helping someone who'd asked for it, but, on the other hand, she has worked on articles that obviously benefit her non-profit. Whether her overall intent is malicious, benevolent, or a mixture I can't say, but there are a lot of unexplained inconsistencies in her statements. Just because a lot of what she says is plausible - and I'm willing to accept some of what she says as true - doesn't mean that everything she says is true. Just as with some vandals - and I'm not labeling her a vandal - there are some that are purely malicious, but there are also some that vandalize a good deal and also make constructive edits. At some point, you have to decide what should be done with a particular user on balance. The black-and-white cases are easy. The gray ones, not so much. I wish Ritchie's comments could be undone. It now looks like if I agree to unblock her, even if I don't apologize, I am implicitly apologizing because it comes after Ritchie's comments.

Finally, although you may already be aware of it, I don't want there to be any misunderstanding later. Per policy, checkuser "blocks must not be reversed by non-checkusers. Administrators should not undo or loosen any block that is specifically called a "CheckUser block" without first consulting a CheckUser." (see WP:CHK section entitled "CheckUser blocks") WP:CUBL is even stronger: "If an administrator believes that a checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee. A reversal or alteration of such a block without prior consultation may result in removal of permissions." And this is not really a case of an erroneous checkuser block. I think that Ritchie believes the user should not be blocked because they acted innocently. Please don't expect any more comments from me tonight. I may continue to edit Wikipedia (I have recurrent insomnia), but I won't be doing anything as draining as writing this little treatise.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: If there are no further comments, perhaps you can formally decline the unblock. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather close it as "no consensus" if that's possible. I don't think there's much point going to WP:AN to get a wider consensus over the block, as the editor has disappeared so any other action is moot. Let me see if I can close it appropriately. Regarding the "loss of the big orange bar", see Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ#What happened to the orange bar for talk page messages on Wikipedia? specifically the point "we do realize that there's a risk that messaging-related notifications are not sufficiently prominent in the web interface". I find the final paragraph on Stokesnet's talk to be insightful and worth everyone taking on board. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Nice 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Nice you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Nice for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Nice may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Notelist}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's right, don't fix it yourself, just moan. Are you here to write an encyclopedia? Hah - may Keith's L-100 drop on you on a great height :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count yourself Lucky. To stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried but it bounced. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Nice you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Nice 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And that's GA #50. Do I meet GregJackP's admin criteria now? ;-) It's a lovely sunny day to go and visit Sandwich and eat a Sandwich while trying to avoid being sandwiched. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for the snark? I didn't participate in your RfA, nor does it really matter what I think at this point. Obviously though, you don't understand my reasoning, or you would know that I could care less about post-mop content as far as a person's admin abilities go. I use it to determine whether or not to support them for the mop, it has no bearing on what admins themselves do. BTW, congratulations on reaching 50 GAs, that's quite an accomplishment. GregJackP Boomer! 07:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Greg, I thought you'd take that humour in the fun spirit it was intended :-/ For what it's worth, I believe that admins should have experience in content creation. Firstly, creating GAs shows the ability to explain a subject well to a general audience and demonstrate good writing skills - explaining stuff is vitally important. Secondly, if you adjudicate a dispute without really having a deep understanding of the topic which comes from either doing GA writing or reviews, you run the risk of all the participants thinking "You don't know what you're talking about - bloody stupid admins again". Thirdly, if you spend all your time on noticeboard and arbcom cases you lose the ability to see the wood for the trees. To give a real world example, even José Mourinho (regarded as one the better "admins" in football) had a stint in "content" with the Portuguese Second Division. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Long day/night for me, I should have known better. I apologize, and have struck everything but the attaboy for hitting 50 GAs. GregJackP Boomer! 08:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwich? I always thought you were a bit posh, Threesie. So is it Deal or No Deal? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I've linked to your admin essay in my admin criteria essay. GregJackP Boomer! 15:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats on GA #50! SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, the nominator has replied to your review; I was wondering whether you could return to continue it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to presume that this was intended as a joke. Surely an administrator would not be so insulting? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of International Forgiveness
		Yes, Threesie, I've decided to graciously forgive you, for being such a twerp bolshy git. Enjoy!! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

(p.s. please don't block me again Mister Admin, Sir. A "suitable adjustment" is already on it's way to the usual PayPal address.)

Hi, I'm looking for an admin to revert an undiscussed move of KTM to KTM-Sportmotorcycle AG, on the basis "Malaysian railway is much known". The KTM railway is not the primary topic and before this page is moved (again; this was tried in 2009) there needs to be consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my topic of expertise, I'm afraid. The best thing to do is go to requested moves and set up a proposed move request. That will give you a consensus under which anyone moving again can face sanctions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	No Gun Ri Barnstar
	Thanks for protecting No Gun Ri Massacre. Very much appreciated. GABHello! 20:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, now run along to WP:DRN and get a consensus on what to do, otherwise it'll get protected again, and next time a less charitable admin might hand out blocks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already been, and it was closed as a conduct dispute best suited for ANI, although they did suggest formal mediation. GAB^Hello! 22:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old Kent Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elephant and Castle station (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) 09:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think i didn't go about this the right way to create a page/info on John Smith (Band) i was the bass player for this band.can i request it to be created. not sure how it all works?? be great to hear from you. thanks and regards Adrian Morgan Adrianmorgan1970 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adrianmorgan1970: Hi. The problem with the article is when it goes live, it needs to be in a state where other people can improve it, and without the sources of information, general consensus can sometimes be to start from scratch. I've restored the article to Draft:John Smith (band) so it can be worked on further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soho might be an interesting one to research and get to GA. What do you reckon? Perhaps Iridescent or Cassianto has something to say about it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go grab my London Encyclopedia (not right now, I'm upgrading a 2007 iMac to Yosimete and tinkering with the A4061 road) which has now become my go-to source for everything London based and see what it has to say. City of Westminster places tend not to be too troublesome as they weren't really developed until the 16th century, so you can get away with "What is now 'x' was full of farmlands / fields / mudflats / bugger all until the 'y'th century" as an opening. The sex industry stuff might attract Flyer22 (unless I've read her persona completely wrongly). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted before, I typically don't edit pornography articles. I wouldn't call the Soho article a pornography article, but it clearly concerns the sex industry. And I typically don't edit sex industry articles either. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I don't either; for what it's worth I have done bits on Asexuality and sent the odd non notable porn star off to AfD and that is more than enough involvement in the entire topic as far as I'm concerned. However, to get Soho to GA and beyond, somebody's got to source it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you think that Flyer, it does have a particularly seedy reputation, but has an interesting history beyond that and also many record shops of note. Also its jazz and rock history I think would be interesting to delve into. It remains a major district of central London which should be of better quality. I don't know if you like working in sandboxes Ritchie, I don't usually, but it might be better to start the article from scratch in a sandbox and use some of the existing material bit by bit with better sourcing. I'm not a fan of all of those different sections, prefer to keep it simple.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really used sandboxes much; I prefer to just chip away at things in mainspace, so the gnomes can fix spelling, grammar and formatting mistakes that invariably I'll make. Initially I'll try and source what's already there, or expand missing detail until most of the article looks reasonably sourced, although I might park "trivia" or "in popular culture" sections on the talk page. Eventually it reaches a tipping point where things are looking good and it just needs expansion from there. As I don't currently know everything about Soho ever, I'm going to need to research and find out stuff as I go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that worked with Denmark Street and some of the others didn't it. I just didn't want it to be too daunting to overhaul it and then begin improving it. Sometimes a complete nuke and restart is easier. Will begin on it within the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the case of Denmark Street and Ipswich Road, Colchester, what was there was so pitiful that just lumping the rewrite on top of what was there was acceptable. I know Giano was a fan of sandboxing stuff. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun cleaning up Soho. Can you find around 6 images representative of Soho which look good and I'll request a montage?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: How about these :

1. File:Gardeners hut Soho Square 030.jpg
2. File:Soho (1877979497).jpg
3. File:Comptons, Soho, W1.jpg
4. File:Wardour Street, City of Westminster, London.jpg
5. File:Greek Street - geograph.org.uk - 1104098.jpg
6. File:Ronnie Scott's Jazz Club, Frith Street, Soho - geograph.org.uk - 1510854.jpg

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: Can you do a montage with those for Soho? If not right shape or whatever you can find suitable replacements, whatever.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it, but how I do it would depend on where you plan to use it. The photomontage template can't be used in an infobox, so a montage for that would need to be done "off-WP" and uploaded. We hope (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: There is no infobox ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll start working on this now since it can be done "on WP". :) We hope (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, @Dr. Blofeld:, I put a photomontage on the Soho talk page. Had to substitute Kingly Court for Wardour Street because of the size of the photo. If you want to make any changes, it should be no problem even after it's in the article. We hope (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only put infoboxes in articles to wind up Blofeld and Cassianto - hadn't you noticed :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and I only delete them to wind up Gerda ;) Cassianto^Talk 01:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support them in most settlement articles but it looked redundant and crap in the Soho article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "sin"fobox should should have a shutter that closes down after your time is up and it should only be visible to men with Macs; sorry, Soho, I know that's an unfair stereotype. Belle (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your pass for Commemorative Cantata for the Centenary of the Birth of Pushkin. Background here, substantial help and insight ;) - Would love to find out under what circumstances the premiere happened, and who wrote the orchestral version when? - I am quite proud that just before the composer's 150th birthday (others get a TFA that day) I dug into it and removed in his works list Cantata after Pushkin for womens' choir ;) - If you want to see if someone has been proclaimed Precious just look at Wikipedia:QAI/Awesome Wikipedian, - and Susun is not only precious but even a project member! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never. Susun is certainly an awesome Wikipedian, of that there can be no doubt. Who needs a mop and bucket? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You never what? - I just created an overview for articles open for review on the project. Feel free to add, as a friend, - and review, of course ;) - hint: would like to see BWV on DYK on 16 August, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alakzi, Alex, Andy and Aussie are in need of a an appropriate warning from a disinterested administrator: [1]. Please keep an eye on this, so these hard cases don't get themselves blocked (if possible). Appropriate maternal admonitions to the lot of them from you might be helpful. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs to calm down - it is only the name of a template. A casual reader of the encyclopedia will never notice its name, much less care what it is. That's a really important point to make. I have stated my position a bit more clearly on talk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: You're absolutely correct, but I don't think move protecting the template was necessary. There has only been one move since the discussion started, due to Alakzi's bad non-admin close, and now that he has inserted himself into the discussion I don't think it will happen again. That said, I am not asking you to unprotect it. I'm here because, as you should be aware, the discussion has now turned into a ridiculous argument (funny that it was all pretty much OK before Alakzi arrived). Nothing aside from your posts in "Move protected" is helpful. "Warning and a plea for self-interested common sense" is only getting worse. I think it was a mistake by Dirtlawyer1 to start that as it's just going to detract from the move discussion. As an uninvolved admin, would you consider closing these discussions so we can concentrate on the move discussion? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realise we don't normally full-protect (much less indefinitely!) but in this instance, a move request is still underway and I don't believe the project is greatly harmed by the lock in place. It also forces the people who object to it being locked on the wrong version to state their case better. For that matter, I don't think everyone tearing each other's heads off on talk is particularly problematic either; the casual reader won't read that conversation, so it's safely buried out of the way. I can close it as "No consensus" but I think people are now sufficiently annoyed at the protection that it might be better for another admin to okay that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ritchie. For what it's worth, I think move protection was a smart move, and may just save Alakzi and/or Alex from getting blocked from edit-warring over the move.

Aussie, I will be glad to hat the "warning and appeal to common sense" thread (started by me) in an hour or so, so we don't scare off third-party participants in the RM discussion and otherwise frighten the horses. So, tell me this: what is the real objection to the template re-naming? Is it just because it's Alakzi and Andy again, seemingly being pointy? Obviously, whether the template uses a shorter name with the longer redirect, or the longer name with the shorter redirect, is six of one, half dozen of another . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have NEVER move warred. I'd closed the discussion at a time when I was uninvolved, and enacted the outcome. The closure was reverted out of process by AlexTheWhovian, but to spare everybody the drama, I let it be. I'm frankly exhausted to have to refute unfounded accusation after unfounded accusation. Alakzi (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try being an admin, unfounded accusations of admin abuse are all part of a day's work here ;-) I don't remember saying you or Andy move warred and I don't believe you did, but really this whole sorry mess is so close to edit warring over the colour of templates that I really do despair. I tell my kids off for fighting like this, "*sniffle* He hit me!", "No I didn't!" "Yes *sniff* you did!" "He's lying, I never touched him" .... not here as well please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alakzi is correct, he hasn't move-warred at this template. I'll give him that, but he has breached 3RR on the talk page. His close was just a bad one. The opposition to the template rename is essentially that it's pointless. It achieves absolutely nothing. We already use {{Episode list}}, not {{Television episode list}} for related episode lists, so {{Series overview}}, which is used for series overview tables, is a consistent name. AlexTheWhovian has also recently created {{Episode table}}, which the TV project is adopting so that we can ensure WP:COLOR compliance in episode tables (whether or not they use {{Episode list}}) so we have a string of consistently named episode list related templates. Making one inconsistent just doesn't seem a good idea. It has nothing to do with Alakzi and Andy's pointy editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh deary me, have I breached 3RR when reverting obvious trolling? To the gallows. Alakzi (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Aussie, I'm tempted to respond with that "meh!" thing the kids all use these days, but it always sounds vaguely insulting so I won't. As I read it, the name argument basically boils down to shorter vs. more specific. I have my own opinion on the shorter vs. more specific in this case, but I'll leave it to the RM discussion participants since I really don't think it really matters much as long as the template documentation makes the template's intended purpose crystal clear. I would hope that you, Alakzi, Alex and Andy could cooperate regarding the resolution of the color-contrast-compliance issues instead of haggling over this. This strikes me as small beer, regardless of the RM outcome, and certainly of no consequence to our readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I urge you to come here and spread your peaceful vibes. I am reading through BWV46 now and looking at the DYK review. Peace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That works, too. Music for the savage breast. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ritchie, what am I supposed to do? (Battleground, canvassing, - that's what I hear about myself.) Alakzi and SusunW help me a lot these days, so I am biased on top. - Here something general: read the Precious list, not for who got it and who not but for lines such as "grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is interject squabbling with distractions of GA and DYK review offers ... everyone stops arguing and improves content. Everybody wins! Lovely precious list. I have gone back to Old Kent Road to try and source some of the content as part of the Monopoly miniproject. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 This is about their egos and not about building a better encyclopedia. From my perspective, there is never a reason to revert anything unless it is obvious vandalism. If everyone is focusing on building a better encyclopedia, discussion should bring consensus. Reverting it a sign of wanting it your way. Breathe, be calm, ask yourself is someone going to die if this change waits until we can have a calm discussion? What true harm will happen if it waits for us to discuss it? What true harm and who will I hurt if I continue to push my POV? Clearly in this situation, the involved parties are harming their own relationships and nothing else. Is it really worth that?

I have had one of those awful days, where someone wanted to push their ego driven agenda above improving the encyclopedia, but I just walked away and I buried myself in creating what I hope will be my first GA approval. Gerda Arendt mutual admiration society ;) SusunW (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do revert, but only once. Last Sunday I was hit by someone reverting me twice, three red ill links, - instead of reverting again I created the three articles, - one will go to DYK, - sometimes there's unexpected pleasure ;) - I heard a gorgeous concert that place yesterday, btw, BWV 170 and 105, - the latter also where I was reverted twice, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do quite a few reverts like this, but like Gerda I make a point of only reverting once. Sometimes an article, particularly one that's stable and reached GA / FA, really is in a better shape with the earlier version. However, in general I think it's a good idea to tend towards reverting less. If in doubt, don't! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time to dig into the solid mass of comments on too many pages, but said something on Opabinia regalis about a comment that would have hurt me. Traveling the weekend, - while I'm away you can look for the word peace on may user page, used more often (9) than criminal (2), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody needs to go to the cinema this weekend and watch Inside Out - seriously, don't let the Disney / Pixar production fool you (though that in itself means kids will enjoy it anyway), it is one of the most brilliant and profound films I have seen in a very long time, because there are so many characters and plot devices in it that apply to Wikipedia. Take the scene where Anger takes the desk and flames come out of his head and Riley has a row with her dad, that's just a variation on "No angry mastodons" or "Don't throw your toys out of the pram" isn't it? And I can just picture Sadness at the helm of Gerda's mind every time she posts a Precious reminder of a retired Wikipedian. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL on the Gerda reference. Priceless (or should that be "Precious"?). Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am DustyAmbers on wikipedia and I was ruthlessly and unfairly blocked by Nakon because I reported someone for a username violation (bongwarrior,i was patrolling recent changes and saw a user named bongwarrior editing something and i thought that was a violation) i had no idea that person was an admin and i was blocked right after just for that reason

I am asking you as a favor to unblock me , I plan to edit positively to wikipedia. I should not be banished for no reason .And Nakon should be brought before AIN for this — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustyAmbers222 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take a wild guess that Nakon has had enough experience to know that a user whose first two edits are gibberish to their user page and talk page will then make a third edit that is either vandalism or a bad faith accusation, and locked the account pre-emptively. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article In the Land of Grey and Pink 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 Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, since you often work in music articles and are familiar with WP:NALBUMS requirements, could you please salt Revival (Selena Gomez album)? It has been incubated at draft space and keeps getting recreated prematurely. Thanks in advance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, deleted per R2 (again) and salted (three strikes, you're out) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I don't really care either way, but should it be redirected to Gomez's page and fully protected? Calidum T|C 15:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a user is going to type "Revival (Selena Gomez album)" into the search box. The album could be a note on Revival (disambiguation) to see Selena Gomez and that would be fine. IIRC the draft reviewing script can spot salted entries and flag the review in a category so an admin can deal with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The article should at the very least redirect to Selena Gomez. It's a more likely search topic than you think. I'm sure many of Gomez's fans expect it to have a Wikipedia article; they should at the very least be pointed to her article. The page can be fully-protected if frequent restoration is an issue. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have added it, with a link to Selena Gomez, to the list of albums at the disambiguation page Revival. --MelanieN (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article In the Land of Grey and Pink you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:In the Land of Grey and Pink 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 Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a bit far from Kent but on my rare trips to the UK (last one was Wikimania in London) I can usually be discovered lurking in Weatherspoons in Oxford if there's a meet up there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored that information to the Keith Moon page. If a Rolling Stone readers poll is relevant, then so is his (much earlier) induction to the Modern Drummer Hall of Fame as the second rock drummer, which is actually more of a reflection of his impact on drummers (not just Rolling Stone readers). Also, Moon's lead is considerably shorter than many others I've seen on Wiki, so the idea such an early recognition of his impact is too much detail is something I can't agree with. Rodericksilly (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has achieved Good Article status and had an extensive peer review after that, and three paragraphs is an appropriate size for an 40K prose article per WP:LEADLENGTH. If another editor reverts, you will need to get consensus on talk for your changes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic song [2]. I reckon you and the missus could do a good version. Genius chord progression just quickly worked out C major 7, D flat major 7, C major 7, C minor 7, F 13, B flat major 9, B flat minor 7, E flat 13, A flat major 7, B flat 7, B flat minor 7, E flat 7, A flat major, then later on at 1:10 genius, A major 7, B flat maj 7, B major 7 and back to C major again! Deserves its own article. I just created one for Invitation (song) ‎.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of genius chord progressions I learned a version of Body and Soul and it goes from D flat major into D major by changing the D flat to a C sharp (same note), becoming an A7 and than D major 7! I love those sorts of genius key changes in jazz!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawdy be, that's so many chord changes I can't keep up. I have recently got hold of a 2008 Mac Pro for chump change (of course with Macs, "chump change" is "under £500" so take that with a pinch of salt) and popped Logic Pro X on it, and f*** me the Hammond organ sounds are utterly bed wetting. It has taken up my spare time a bit more compared to this whole writing an online encyclopedia malarky. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, that article is a total train wreck really, isn't it? I'm wonder if it should be moved to draft space until it's released, it seems to be causing no end of problems. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soul and spirit become confused, - ready for review, - it made (infobox) history, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article New West End Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article claims New West End Company is largest retail business improvement district, But I couldn't verify any popularity or referenced links for verifying proposal, Could anyone suggest any opinion whether this should remain or not?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 15:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PrinceSulaiman: - Don't template the regulars, and I created it as a redirect to Oxford Street, so I have put it back there. If you want to challenge the redirect itself, raise a request at Redirects for discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on New West End Company, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of http://www.londonandpartners.com/partners/our-partners/details/632-new-west-end-company. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

  If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. McGeddon (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Realised after I'd prodded it that you'd just put it up as a redirect and somebody else had copyvio'd over the top. And it got processed too quickly for me to dial it back to a redirect. Apologies. --McGeddon (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, would make for an "interesting" discussion had I been planning for RfA this week! However, this underlines the importance of some essays, including my own Don't template the retirees - check that the creator of a page is an appropriate target, and Twinkle does give you the option to uncheck. Anyway, do you want me to restore it back to a redirect and leave the copyvio from the IP out of the history? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just saw it in the NewPagesFeed: new page plus blatant copyvio plus promotional language made it seem like it must have been recently created like that. Will keep it in mind to check edit histories sooner rather than later in future. Don't mind either way what happens to the article from here. --McGeddon (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave it deleted. I can't remember why I created a redirect, but I suspect it was because I was improving Oxford Street to GA and felt a parked redirect would encourage somebody to create an article as and when I can find sources. Obviously that plan backfired. Incidentally, @Sergecross73:, the CSD criteria only apply if there is no possible revision of the article to revert back to; I don't think #REDIRECT [[Oxford Street]] would qualify as G11 or G12. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ritchie. For the last two days, I have been participating in a relatively heated AfD about an obscure competition swimmer from Palau (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirngulbai Misech). I know it's hard to imagine that this subject would generate any amount of interest or emotion, but the back story is the AfD is an outgrowth of this discussion at the WP:NSPORTS talk page: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Notability of individuals for swimming/aquatics. The editor in question, User:Lugnuts, is a long-term productive editor who frequently contributes constructively to sports subjects. In the case of this AfD, however, he has accused other editors of being "deletionists" (contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), accused me of improper "canvassing" (contrary to "appropriate notification" per WP:CANVASS), and is now falsely accusing another editor of sock-puppetry (contrary to WP:Sock puppetry). This is making a mess of the AfD discussion, and generally turning it into an unpleasant atmosphere for new participants during the remaining four days of the AfD. I was tempted to file an ANI report, but that always leads to more drama and less constructive resolution. Can you take a look at Lugnuts' comments and issue any warnings you think appropriate? He's not responding to gentle warnings from me or anyone else, the AfD is going to be a complete mess, and most of the AfD thread already needs to be hatted as off-topic. FYI, I've also asked administrator Ceradon for his opinion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their opinion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: - I read through that AfD and it's given me a sore head :-/ I think you made the right decision to not take this to ANI, as if you had you'd probably have found a boomerang come back as you've both been shouting at cross purposes with each other. You have both stated your view, so I think it's best if you leave the AfD alone now and make no more edits to it. The article itself is a very short stub, and it would be far better to expand and improve that than argue the toss over whether or not source 'x' is acceptable to show notability. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your frank appraisal, Ritchie. I have hatted the two off-topic digressions about canvassing and sock-puppetry accusations so that new discussion participants may follow the substantive thread, and I will leave it at that. The points regarding the significance and independence of the sources have already been made by me and the other discussion participants, so you're right that there is no purpose for me to comment further. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you watched that the little gender question was taken to my talk, where it grew into something large, - in short, Alakzi, blocked already a few times for no good reason, by now by 5 different admins (of whom the first and third apologized), was assumed to be a reincarnation of Jack Merridew, inheriting a full load of hate. While the one who brought that up apologized (which you probably saw, 3 prominent locations), Alakzi is still blocked because of vehement protest to blocks and SPIs, - when talk page access was revoked, even more vehement protest under a new account Alakzi2, leading to a longer block. All this is possibly within teh rulez, but not the way to keep a valuable editor interested in this project. I am selfish because nobody has helped me recently as much as Alakzi. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look. If both Chillum and Salvio giuliano are happy to unblock Alakzi then I can do the deed, but I can't do it without their approval (or at least not without running the risk of a juicy ANI thread). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Vine Street, London 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FOSSFA: this article was deleted by you. i am planning to re-write it. kindly advise me on way to go in order to avoid deletingOlaniyan Olushola (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]