Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:20, 7 December 2015

This is Ritchie333's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138Auto-archiving period: 28 days

This user is busy writing, arranging and recording songs a lot and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If you leave a message on this talk page, I'll respond here. You may want to watch this page to catch the response. Click here for a tutorial in watching pages. Please avoid using talkback messages if you can - if I've messaged you recently I'll either be watching your page or otherwise keeping an eye on it.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

ANI

• Great! Now that you've "found it..." Do you have any suggestions/Are you going to attempt to be part of the solution.... or will you simply fade away into the background with nothing more to offer?Cebr1979 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Cause we're now at almost 7 hours later and you haven't done anything with what you "found" (y'know: what you were (supposedly) looking for the entire time)! This is a serious problem and I (shouldn't have to/)won't be letting it go. 11 hours had passed before you went running for help, whereas I have been asking for help for weeks. With you being an admin, I do expect that you will now help to solve this issue. We should be allies at this point, I shouldn't need to come to you 7 hours later for a follow-up on something you (even being an admin) felt the need to go for assistance on. You should have already started... something.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page, it says "This user is gigging a lot and may not respond quickly to enquiries" (although in the case last night it was a recording session). Slakr has given a good situation of the scale of the problem on ANI, and I don't think there is any solution short of disabling anonymous editing or semi-protecting a lot more pages, both of which will get strong resistance from the community. I think you're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 08:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that a rock and a hard place? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Wright (musician)

The article Richard Wright (musician) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Richard Wright (musician) 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 Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Want to help rescue an article?

Hi, Ritchie! Here's something that might be right up your alley: the article Don Tate. I deleted it earlier this month per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Don Tate (2nd nomination). An IP identifying himself as the subject just posted a note about it at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive230#Don Tate. The discussants at the AfD had held out the possibility that the article could be improved. So I have restored it and will give a shot at improving it. Want to help?

Background: The subject had earlier written an article about himself; it was just what you might expect, full of puffery. He tried several times in 2006-2007 and all of those were deleted. He says that since then he respected the rules and did not write about himself. The current version appears to have been written by someone else, in 2013, and is encyclopedic. I told the IP/subject that he could make suggestions at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel Bogado

On 9 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Bogado, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Daniel Bogado has seen Antonov military aircraft in the Nuba Mountains, and a deaf child in Uganda learning sign language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Bogado. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Eddy/Eddie Offord + The Yes Album

First, I wanted to write that my edit was in good faith, and I hope the understanding is mutual. I wanted to request clarification for your reversion. I see you wrote in your edit summary that the sleeve says Eddie Offord and not Eddy Offord. That being said, it seems that most Yes–related websites and prog rock publications use Eddy and not Eddie. I'd like to dialogue with you to hear your perspective. Best, The Obento Musubi (t · c) 09:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Obento Musubi: Of course your edit was in good faith, that's without question. What I have learned from working on these types of articles over an extended period is that we tend to have arguments about names that really aren't that important to the layman reader who just wants to find out key information. So I've noticed a general consensus to defer what is written on the sleeve notes (eg: "John" vs "Jon" Anderson, which model of Hammond did Tony Kaye play, both in the same article). Hope that clarifies things. Ritchie333 10:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Could I request that we link to Eddy Offord while maintaining Eddie Offord? That way we can prevent linking to a redirect. Thanks! The Obento Musubi (t · c) 10:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with that - we do that already for John / Jon Anderson as it is. Ritchie333 10:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Yes Album may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Genesis (band) 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:

• concert with Gabriel at the ] under the name ]]. The concert was organised to raise money for Gabriel's ] project

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sophie Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit machine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't refer to a disambig page any more :-P Ritchie333 11:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it can be quite a trial "down the slots", even when you're a famous female British computer scientist. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd better stop editing the article now before somebody drags me to ANI accusing me of creating a shrine to Sophie Wilson, and guts half of BBC Micro (although gutting a BBC is the hallmark of a dedicated hardware hacker, so maybe it's okay). Ritchie333 10:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you might as well stick to tiny male articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC) p.s. 'ere, mate, I 'ad one of them pitted fig-trees once. But it got redirected to "teeny pussies". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just checking that Sonia Poulton (best known for being called a "zebra in a wig" by Katie Hopkins) was still a blue link (it is) and thought of the "Tara Test". Basically, like WP:DUMPY, it means that a BLP on a female subject has to have achieved as much as Tara Thingumybob to get an article. Maybe when the dramah has died down a bit. Ritchie333 17:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, yah! I mean like totes, dude. And major lolz fwaaar, fwaaar!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Auntie Ruth would have sorted the pair of them out, probably by throwing them out into the snow at 5am claiming they were having too much fun. Ritchie333 17:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Barmouth Bridge

On 12 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barmouth Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that by 1980, the structure of the Barmouth Viaduct had come under attack from marine woodworm, which threatened its closure? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barmouth Bridge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix

Love your point. I suggest adding to it "especially for a high edit count editor" or similar. Legacypac (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I prefer what I've written, which states a general principle - any admin with about 4 years standing should be aware of WP:INVOLVED. While you're here (and since I've kind of mocked it two sections above), I for one am getting tired of hearing about Neelix and Tara Teng and would quite happily wish never to hear about the pair ever again.

I was watching Black Book recently (great film, highly recommended) and near the end there is a scene where the local community, free from repression against the Nazis following VE Day, round a bunch of collaborators up and heap physical abuse on them, until the British and Canadian army come in and say "you lot are as bad as the the Nazis!" and that's the situation I feel we're getting towards on ANI and elsewhere now. I know many eyes and bodies have been hard at work clearing things up, and it's only natural to feel extreme annoyance at who caused it just as much as I get annoyed as people who leave stale coffee cups around the office or think fire extinguishers are things you prop doors open with, but you should take care not to turn that annoyance into personal animosity. For instance, you wrote here "where are the sources" - the manual of style for plot summaries states "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations" and I noticed an arb reformatted your evidence to be less accusatory, and that's a good thing in my view.

Someone (I think it was NE Ent but I can't remember) said the minute the peanut gallery on ANI decides you are a "villain", people will pounce on you left, right and centre - it's happened to Neelix; don't let it happen to you as well! Now, I've really got to get back to finishing work on Oxford Street and throw a few more London street GA reviews on the pile, as it's been too long since I've done some serious writing here. Ritchie333 12:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You didn't wade through 100,000 byes of the article, most of the sources and many related articles to clean up a real world mess. If I was the target of that article I'd call the police. Legacypac (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Neelix is in the same league as Robert John Bardo, Margaret Mary Ray or Mark David Chapman? Ritchie333 14:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oxford Street

The article Oxford 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:Oxford Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is the claim of significance?

I strongly disagree that there is any claim of significance in "Dylan Attwell (born Ballarat, Victoria, Australia 4 July 1998) is an Australian Rules Football player in the Ballarat Football League (BFL). He plays for the Sebastopol Kookaburras". If it was "Dylan Attwell works at McDonalds" or "attends XYZ University" are they claims of significance? Of course not. If it said "won an award" or "is the best player in the BFL", then yes, I'd agree with you, that's a claim of significance - which I know is less that a claim of notability. But WP:CCS says that the claim should "lead to notability" - and just saying you play in that league is no such claim. You said it "has a claim to meet WP:NSPORTS", which generally says "professional leagues" (the BFL is nowhere near being a fully professional league) and specifically WP:NAFL states for Australian rules football that only playing in the Australian Football League or having received significant awards in state leagues (which are still a level above the regional leagues like the BFL) are notable. Decisions like this are just wasting all of our time, and letting Misplaced Pages be used for a vanity page for another week. Please reconsider, or just stick to topics that you understand what significance actually is. This is an unreferenced BLP of a 17 year old. I think there should be a special CSD category for articles on minors. But it always gets shouted down that A7, G10 & BLPPROD are enough. We shouldn't let stuff like this hang around for no reason. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Send it to AfD then. If I remember to !vote in it I'll go with redirecting to the football league's article per WP:BLP1E. And unless the article is a copyright violation or defames a living person, it doesn't hurt for it to hang around for week. Having an insatiable appetite to delete other people's work bites newbies and scare people away from contributing to Misplaced Pages, so don't! Ritchie333 13:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the reason for articles on minors is normally either vanity or to embarrass the guy, I hope you keep a very close eye on it for the next week, in case any of his mates decide to "enhance" his article. "Doesn't hurt" is an appalling attitude to keep non-notable U-BLPs of minors and does nothing to enhance the reputation of this site. Sending it to AFD still means it's here for a week, and it gets google indexed, mirrored, etc. That's the point of CSD, get rid of the obvious articles that don't belong. And as the article creator hasn't even responded to the BLP Prod that was placed 7 minutes after the article was created, I think newbie biting isn't really an issue here - not by me at least. As for redirecting it to the league article, you're joking aren't you? Thousands of players, all of whom have other real jobs, play in that league. None of them other than some medal winners are mentioned on the article page, and none are notable based on their play in that league. Anyway, based on the original version of the article, he may have only played at a junior level! The-Pope (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to spend more time writing articles and less time moaning at editors who disagree with you. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 14:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

67.87.189.39

I saw your comment at EAR. As an admin , it would be perfectly appropriate for you to block this IP now for at least 14 days. All their November edits have been blatant trolling. See WP:EAR, user's contribs list and talk page. I can't do it because as a subject of one of his attacks I suppose I'm involved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I had a quick look and concluded that a) the issue had gone stale and b) the best thing to do with trolls is not feed them, which blocking can do in spades. I see they've been blocked anyhow. Ritchie333 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I finally blocked them, they just couldn't let go. Not feeding them, but purely as a preventative measure - they were harassing and really upsetting another editor. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Oxford Street to Good Article status. It's always a pleasure to read your stuff. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Khazar2: Thanks for the comprehensive review. If you've never done so, it's worth at least seeing Oxford Street in the Christmas shopping experience just to identify with it. In other GAs I have on the pile at the moment, Leicester Square is also essential London tourist viewing. By contrast, the North Circular Road is strictly for the natives. Ritchie333 15:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

article deleted Martech (musician)

With all the respect why my article deleted ? i don't understand well with the specific example the reason for!! can you send me more simple specifically correction parts for my articles or references or whatever is to correct it ?? By the way my page article is Martech (musician) that was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marios Nicou Charalambus (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Marios Nicou Charalambus: I think the fundamental problem is that Misplaced Pages gets so many articles about bands, and if we didn't keep some reasonable threshold of inclusion, the encyclopedia would be dwarfed by unfinished stubs. The best page to look at is the notability guidelines for musicians, which explain some of the criteria that can be used - a hit record is an obvious one, a "supergroup" of independently notable artists is another. I would recommend clicking here and using the Article Wizard to create a draft page, that can be reviewed by an experienced editor when you are ready to do so. If you want, I can restore the text of your earlier article into a draft as a starting point - please let me know if you wish to do this. Ritchie333 19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Martech (musician)

Ritchie333 thanks so much for your help. so yes it would be good if you restore me my article back for Martech (musician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marios Nicou Charalambus (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Marios Nicou Charalambus: - all done at Draft:Martech (musician). Follow instructions at the top of the page. Ritchie333 20:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gloucester Road, Bristol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnpike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your contribution to the stabilization of an important article. ReliableBen (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Triple glazing redirects

Hi, I should be obliged if you would restore three of the Neelix redirects; Triple glazed, Triple-glazing, and Triple-glazed. Though these were originally included in WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 10#Sextupleglazed glasses, they were excluded from the closing consideration as you had previously deleted them as WP:R3. They are over six years old so WP:RFD#HAMFUL considerations apply and they are commonly used terms and entirely plausible redirects. See here for example. Best, Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: I just checked the RfD and as far as I can tell those redirects were included, so consensus has been to delete and if you recreate them, any editor could legitimately speedy delete them (via WP:CSD#G4). Sorry. Ritchie333 22:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

... how can you be just chilling with triple glazing?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@BDD:. Hi BDD, would you give an opinion as to whether you included these redirects in your closing decision, please? My understanding is that if you did not then they can be recreated and if you did then I need to take them to WP:DRV. Best, Just Chilling (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

They were not included in my closing decision. I mentioned that I wasn't doing anything with redirects that had already been deleted by others. Perhaps I should have, but that discussion took up quite enough time already. At a glance, I don't see anything wrong with this trio of redirects. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've restored them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I didn't see a need for any of the redirects, as once you type "triple gl" you will find the relevant term, and I don't think casual readers explicitly type dashes. It took me a while to find two-up two-down, referring to housing standards (and what I think the primary topic should be), whereas Two Up Two Down refers to the 1970s sitcom. Ritchie333 12:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto

@Liz and Ritchie333: Hi. I saw your note on the user talk page. I'm not planning to comment there as it appears I am not particularly welcome there, and the response would probably be yet more expletives. So a few comments here:

• I am sorry the block has disrupted the peer review but I don't suppose a couple of days delay will make much difference in the long run.
• I am deeply respectful of Cassianto's content contributions to the project, but this does not give them a free pass.
• The correct course of action is absolutely not to "revert three times and then to report the issue". Three reverts is not an allowance or entitlement as you know. The appropriate action would, after the first revert, to discuss the matter and seek assistance from other editors. (Although in this case the matter was so trivial that it would probably have been better to leave it.)
• In my opinion the block of 48 hours is needed to show that we enforce our expected standards of decorum and editor behaviour. To unblock now would send out the message that it is okay to repeat what happened yesterday.
• Since the block, Cassianto has shown zero regret for their actions and has not given any assurances that they would act differently in the future. In fact the hostility and belligerence suggest quite the opposite.

I appreciate we have quite a different take on these issues, but I hope this clarifies my position. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: as Cassianto has said he does not wish to be unblocked, I think it's best to take him at his word and leave the issue for now. I'm not denying disruption from all parties, that would be absurd, but paradoxically I have found that any block of a long-standing editor causes more disruption than it solves - just look at what happened when I blocked RationalObserver a few months ago. I find a blunt message saying "okay, that's enough, if you do 'x' again I think we'd be within policy to block you per " tends to do the trick. Ritchie333 12:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you attempted that form of warning with this user in the past? Their talk page history is littered with such warnings, and the response is generally less than productive. HighInBC 14:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never had the opportunity - by the time I find about these things, the block has been and gone. Ritchie333 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"An admin's lot is not a happy one", is it. I'm reminded of that line in La Rossa: "... just as long as he knows that it's dance, smile - or quit." (What a superb track and entire album that is). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ritchie, he'd actually received explicit warnings against editwarring and NPA at a time when no action within a day of his block. I generally agree with you that warnings are valuable and I've often chosen not to block for 3rr violations in the past, but he'd received warnings about it within 24 hours and had wound up at AN/EW again anyway. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping Misplaced Pages Spam-Free!

		Cookies!
		MarkYabloko 14:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better!

Davefelmer block

In view of comments posted at User talk:Drmies#Cowboy unblocks, revisited about pings being missed, I am letting you know that I have posted at User talk:Davefelmer again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As stated there, I'm going to wait for Davefelmer to comment on events. There's no point me doing a "cowboy unblock" on an editor that doesn't actually show a desire to edit articles, after all. Ritchie333 15:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mayabazar

I've nominated this article for FAC which also happens to be my first attempt. It is also the first Indian Telugu film article to be nominated for such status. If interested, please leave your comments here. All constructive comments are welcomed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bottom line

Well done. Don't know the show, but it gave me a laugh. "Slap a wig on a "Speak Your Weight" machine..." Ah well, enjoy it while we can, someone will come along soon and undo or collapse the lot. Best, BMK (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You'd probably like it, cynical, dry, humour with lots of mindless slapstick violence. I went through a phase of being called "ah-ha, Ritchie baby!" after a regular catchphrase in the show. Ritchie333 22:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to see if it's available on Netflix or elsewhere. BMK (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, does that mean you think I'm "cynical"? And let's not even talk about "mindless slapstick violence". BMK (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"They say television encourages violence. Yet here I am slamming his face into the refrigerator, and we haven't even got one!" And personally, I would rather have one BMK than 150 "yes, admins are so brilliant, I couldn't agree with them more!" types (do they exist?) Ritchie333 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was gonna say that the clip reminded me of The Young Ones, but now I see that that was Rik Mayall as well. BMK (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Creation Unprotection of Akhtar Raza Khan

Hi, Brother you had protected the article Akhtar Raza Khan because there were copyright violations.

I made draft on the subject which is free from any copyright infrigmentation.It is sourced with a good no of 3rd party sources.I have been working on it since 4 months.

Therefore I request you to please unprotect its creation.So that the draft may be moved to the namespace article.

Thanks.Ejaz92 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ejaz92: I see the draft has already been declined multiple times. When you have submitted a draft that is accepted, that would be a suitable time to consider unprotecting the main page. Also @Sarahj2107: who has asked the same question elsewhere. Ritchie333 10:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried my best.I am waiting with this procedure since more than 4 months.You may yourself check the sources they are verifiable 3rd party sources.The subhect is well notable.Apart from these I have many Hindi and Urdu language sources on the talk page of the draft.

Please do somthing.......Either unprotect or review the draft......I will be very thankful to you.....Ejaz92 (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid this isn't my area of expertise at all, so I'm not sure I could really do anything to help. Sorry. Ritchie333 11:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Its your area.U protected it.protection and unprotection is your area.Simply make this title unprotected from creation.Then a new article with no guidlines violation will be created.U protected it arbitrarily, why can't you do so again.Simply unprotect itEjaz92 (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not "my area" - I don't own anything. Unless I can be convinced that there is a draft that meets the correct criteria for biographies of living people, it would be against policy to unprotect. Ritchie333 11:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terraced houses in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waterloo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Ritchie333

I'm not sure if there is an automatic notice sent to your email, so FYI I activated your account. You should be good to go.--Jezebel's Ponyo 21:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I did get an automatic notification and I can log into the UTRS system. I'm a little confused though, I got the impression from @Beeblebrox: that there was a large backlog, but when I just looked now, it said "No unblock requests in queue". What's a typical throughput? Ritchie333 10:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe it was Ponyo who came through yesterday and cleared up pretty uch all outstnding business. There doesn't seem to have been a heavy backlog recently, I was more expressing a concern that with BASC going away it is a distinct possibility. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I tend to spend quite a bit of time there, especially given that a lot of socking issues arise so having a Checkuser on hand is helpful. I've been very busy offline the past couple of weeks, so thank goodness Beeblebrox has been a total star and helped pick up my slack. There are only a small handful of regulars there, so any help is appreciated. I generally request that the blocked user make their appeal on wiki (via the "redirect request to user talk" template) to allow for more transparency unless talk page access has been revoked, there are privacy issues, or it would be a waste of the community's time (ie. clear vandalism, abusive requests, clear socking etc). There's no UTRS admin guide, so if you have any questions I'd be happy to help. --Jezebel's Ponyo 17:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving

Shout for joy

Have a happy one, I add a sweet dish and music, made, not by a maid, - just checked that I improved 27 of 48 GA articles on classical compositions, - I didn't "create" this one, so I am extra proud, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yum. I am steadily going round the monopoly board having contributed to 7 GAs on it so far, with more to come. I did think about making a serious comment about The Lady Catherine de Burgh, but you know what - I think a wit-free, dead-serious, speculation of being a sock is on a par with telling my kids that Father Christmas may not actually be a real person, and should be treated with equal contempt. (Perhaps I could create User:Ritchie333/A Fool's Guide to Sockpuppetry and throw everybody off the scent...) Ritchie333 12:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice that the article proudly pictured is hinted at in my question #2? On a less festive day, read about it in the decision talk, and the following warning on my talk about AE not a fun place which made my friends RfA worse. Enjoy the trumpet! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah buddy!! Enjoy all-a-that-there turkey, winter squash, sweet potato and marshmallows. And please.... light a candle for me, why dontcha?! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a question? Sorry, I didn't turn over that side of the paper ... ummm, anyway I can't even link to our mixcloud site with "Light A Candle" as the blacklist won't even let admins add such a link. Harrumph. Ritchie333 12:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't play with fire anyway. Enough on Sibelius, or is it the opposite? (Martin took an umbrella.) If I run the arguments against the slogan "Readers come first", I know where I would end: at arbitration enforcement ;) - Let's not even imagine a comment that the last revert was performed by a user who is now blocked, edit summary "not needed", - how true and full of insight, and possibly applicable to every sentence and image on the project ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if this works - http "colon" "slash" "slash" mixcloud "dot" com "slash" rhondassongs "slash" light-a-candle ... came from a radio session, I think you'll enjoy the words in particular, as they talk about those we have enjoyed company with that are no longer with us. Never got the hang of Sibelius myself; all my brass and woodwind arranging has been done in NoteWorthy Composer. Ritchie333 12:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"Hey little thing, let me light your candle, 'Cause Gerda I'm sure hard to handle, now, yessir'am": . Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Martin, if you want to do stuff with Gerda and candles (is that dinner, a seance, fixing a broken RCD that keeps blowing the lights, or something else?) then your respective talk pages might be better. Anyway, take it to the pig :-P Ritchie333 12:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Pah! Who needs candles on Black Friday? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:BannedMeansBanned

Hello
I notice you deleted this template on 19th November: Could you advise me please on how to protest this TFD, as it looks decidedly dodgy to me. This was debated first in February this year (here), and closed (No Consensus) in March with 4 keeps and 2 deletes (3 with the nom). It was debated again in September (here) and closed 23 Oct (again as No Consensus; 5 keeps and 3 (or 4) deletes). Then it was proposed again about a week later, got 2 votes to merge, was relisted on the 10th (Nov), got 3 votes from previous participants to delete and got a non-admin closure on 18th Nov as a Delete.
I feel this was inappropriate because:

• There were 9 keeps to 6 deletes (3 were repeated) overall, and 2 for mergers; that isn't a consensus for “delete”.
• There were 2 votes (a delete and a merge) that look like sockpuppets (this and this).
• The other Merge vote clearly said “Not okay with 'delete without providing a replacement that clearly indicates to everyone else that this editor's edits may be reverted'”, though this is precisely what has happened.
• The delete opinions varied between “too harsh” and “not harsh enough” (which generally suggests things are about right)
• A number of editors thought it should be incorporated in a more comprehensive banned template, towards which nothing appears to have been done.
• We operate on the notion that once something is decided it stays decided for a decent amount of time (per this), so re-listing after 10 days and closing on 3 repeat votes looks to me like gaming the system.
  

Thanks, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xyl 54: The recommended venue for challenging a deletion discussion is a Deletion review, though recent consensus has decided that due to a lack of inactivity, TfDs can be "closed" as delete by non-admins and put in a holding pen, so the deletion is also an endorsement of Primefac's non-admin close. I also thought Opabinia regalis, who voted "delete", gave the strongest argument, and others argued the template was unnecessary and inflammatory. Ritchie333 14:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the recommended venue is that one only after talking to you about it here: "Deletion Review should not be used: when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination". LjL (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I missed the discussion but would also support the delete rationale of Opabinia regalis, in case you need more voices, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ditto; I can't see any circumstances in which this particular combination of sneering and stigmatisation would ever be appropriate. ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Xyl 54, a few brief points, as to not clutter the talk page. If you bring this to DRV I'll provide a more in-depth response.

• The first discussion was in 2012, not 2015.
• The "no consensus" result is one of the acceptable reasons for a speedy renomination.
• I took into account all of the discussions, including the TfD for {{banrevert}}. I didn't count the !votes, but rather took the merit and strength of each argument as part of the whole.
• I did overlook the merge option, but in looking back there was no consensus as to where that information should be added. Fortunately, the original text is preserved in a note by Scott, so that discussion can still continue somewhere (maybe on the talk page of {{banned user}}).

At the end of it all, my decision came down to the fact that the delete camp had a more compelling argument than the keep camp. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

First, thank you, one and all, for replying.

Ritchie: I had wondered about deletion review but thought I should take it up with you (as the deleting admin) first.

I take your point about endorsement, but (even if an impartial acceptance of a better argument then translates into wholehearted support of that position) that would still have been 8 editors in favour of deletion (7 if we discount the sock-puppets) to 9 for keeping, which isn't even a majority, let alone a consensus.

On the subject of Opabinia's argument, it was her comments in September which I interpreted as thinking the template was not being harsh enough.

Primefac:I feel I am missing something here; Scott's note refers to this as an “unpleasant template”, placed by people “claiming to represent the community”. And the close was that it constituted “harassment” and “gravedancing”.

One of the arguments for deletion with T:BMB was that it was being used willye nilye (it had 149 transclusions; is that a lot?) while T:BR was under the hammer because hardly anyone used it. Was there any evidence that either were being used for “gravedancing”? I didn't see any presented.

On the subject of harassment, I notice our policy on that says it is “unacceptable to harass a user … who has been banned..” (though I also note that was added en bloc with this edit, which is ironic, considering). It also describes harassment as making editing “unpleasant for the target”, or “to discourage them from editing” Well, isn't that exactly what we are seeking to do with people who persistently disrupt the project? I'm kind of concerned that this decision is labelling efforts to deal robustly with persistent dickheads is being regarded as harassment.

Is the problem here that we aren't actually serious about WP:BMB? Because I thought JamesWatson's observation at T:BR (that making a banned users editing a waste of their time is a deterrent) was a good one. If having this template is seen as sending the wrong message, I'm wondering what the right message is, and I'm wondering what message is being sent by deleting it.

As for the speedy renomination, it just seems wrong (esp. in the light of DPAFD; it wasn't as if there were no comments from any editor besides the nominator); the only purpose seems to have been to pull a fast one, particularly as the three delete votes were all from people who had already contributed.

Finally, if T:BR was also deleted as being redundant to T:BMB, we've now deleted BMB as well; and as there were some suggestions to incorporate the reasoning for it into another template, it seems premature to delete this one until that has been done. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xyl 54: I'm not really here this week due to travel IRL, but just for reference, my September comment was supposed to be sort of a joke, and I think this template is horrible. Not really anything to do with "harshness" - it's both unpleasant and ineffectual at the same time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis:: Thank you for clarifying that; I really got the wrong end of the stick there, hey? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Genesis (band)

The article Genesis (band) 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:Genesis (band) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Remember that December 6th is the deadline. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I will look at the issues this evening unless LowSelfEstidle gets to them first. Patience. Ritchie333 10:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have little time this week, so please go ahead and start. Good luck! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's mostly good. Just several things left to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering, what's wrong with this source http://louderthanwar.com/will-sergeants-top-10-favourite-albums-number-8/. It's got its own page on Wiki Louder Than War (website). If it was a blog I'd understand. Rodericksilly (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well SNUGGUMS has done a lot of music related GA reviews, and I'm happy to believe them when they say it's an unsuitable source to prove an influence. Any fan page can say anybody is influenced by anybody else, and it's not generally a section I would consider important, as it's highly subjective and doesn't really tell you much about the band. Ritchie333 09:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'd disagree there, if a prog band has influenced acts from post-punk to heavy metal to alternative rock, I'd say that does tell people something about them, especially considering the well-worn "Year Zero" bollocks of 1977. Rodericksilly (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Your AfD closure of Jamie Woodruff

lol! Thanks for that. I did review the subject, and didn't come up with enough to move me into caring a flying monkeys either way. Jacona (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Genesis (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Theodore McDonald

You suck, no one likes you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.171.55 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it National "talk like Usenet" day? Okay, sir I bring you news you beneficiary of 800 squllion zillion dollar from big Nigeria bank please send me all your money and first born son as administrative fee .... sorry, I'm no good at this. Now if you'd asked nicely, I could have restored the article to draft space for you. Ritchie333 08:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Elephant & Castle tube station

Since recently DavidCane is a bit inactive and I don't have access to some books only available in the UK, would you mind helping me out on the article mentioned? This is because recently the number of views of the article suddenly shot up to the Top 10 favourite articles and that I want to improve it. :) Cheers! - Vincent60030 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: By "helping out", do you mean doing a GA review, or improving the article to GA? I would love to write more London transport articles, absolutely, but I don't have any of the books that David has - though I have seen one good book source at my local library. The best book I do have is the third edition of the London Encyclopedia which is a great "all-round" source for London, but it has some notable gaps (eg: Old Kent Road and North Circular Road, both pretty notable London landmarks imho get one paragraph each). Plus, being pragmatic, I really need to finish off Genesis' GA review (see above) and get The White Album past PR and up to FAC, so I can't promise I'd give this any priority right now. Sorry :-( Ritchie333 14:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's ok. Btw I mean to help to improve it to GA - citing reliable sources where I don't have good book sources. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I've just made major works on the article but do you think it is good enough for GA already? PS: I've nominated it for a GA review. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A GA GA barnstar for you!

	The Special Good Article Barnstar
	Congratulations on your 60 Glorious GAs!! You truly are the GA deity! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Here comes GA to applaud the GAs! - I have a few open for reviews, DYK? Also need a DYK review for James Bond (sort of). Going to write the fourth Sibelius composition stub of today ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why

Why would you protect an article so that it can only be edited by an admin when the editor who is edit warring against consensus is an admin? J3Mrs (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: - Lowellian's an admin? Good grief, they should know better than to edit war! Anyway, full-protecting the article for 24 hours is better than blocks all round. Sorry I've been busy all day (main OS X disk went kaboom) so I was going to post a note on the talk page earlier. Hopefully somebody can sort things out. If an admin edit wars against a full-protection, they can generally be blocked or hauled up to ANI where the peanut gallery will cry "off with their heads!" Ritchie333 17:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, I pointed out on the article talk page that as an Admin Lowellian should have known better and simply received a snarky reply from them in response. I too was surprised that you protected it so only the likes of Lowellian could continue their very pointy edits without making comment on their sub-optimal behaviour. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC) PS - Congratulations on your 60th GA - it's so nice to see an Admin who does know about content.

I replied with a straightforward explanation of the purpose of the template and how you flat-out broke the rules explicitly written out on the template. You flouted Misplaced Pages guidelines and breeched process in removing the template. Rather than restoring the template, I went to the talk page to explain why what you did was wrong, but now you're just dismissing the explanation as "snark" while continuing to ignore the Misplaced Pages guidelines written out on the template. —Lowellian (reply) 00:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If he carried on editing with the protection, I'd have blocked him and opened an ANI thread on it! Ritchie333 17:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"Oh no, you wouldn't! .....He's behind you!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, that charge of edit warring is false. There was no edit warring, and page protection was an unnecessary measure since I had already stopped editing the article and instead begun a discussion on the talk page! In fact, I was the one who started the discussion on the talk page instead of continuing to make edits. I made a change; it was reverted, I reverted the text once, and then was the first person to go to the talk page to discuss the issue; this is all a normal part of the WP:BRD cycle. I was bold, I reverted once, and then I went to the talk page to discuss the issue without attempting to reinsert my text. There was an additional dispute over the POV template; despite the POV template being removed against Misplaced Pages guidelines, which are explicitly written out on the template; instead of continuing to attempt to restore the template, I went to the talk page to protest the removal.

I further protest this completely unfounded and baseless accusation that I would use admin powers to edit through a page that has been protected for dispute reasons. Check that page history. Have I do so? No.

—Lowellian (reply) 23:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You were edit warring and then pointedly added templates - definitely behaviour unbecoming of an Administrator ... but I'm willing to be swayed by any proof you have that you are able to provide that you understand exactly what constitutes good content. How many GAs or FAs have you been a significant contributor to, for instance? SagaciousPhil - Chat 01:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Lowellian, you changed established content on a featured article four times within 24 hours here, here, here and here. That is a text book definition of WP:3RR : "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." (emphasis mine). It's also a cliche that BRD means the discussion is the last bit of the process, otherwise it becomes BRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD (recurring). Furthermore, "I wasn't edit warring - my edits were right" is a cliched unblock request. Disagreement over content is fine, but when a war breaks out, you down tools, discuss and wait for the RfC to close. I want you to understand you should consider yourself very lucky you were not blocked, and I feel I would be within policy to block you if you change the article again. Ritchie333 10:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is how he was made a sysop. Maybe its time for a recount. I'm fed up with the claims that admins can do what they like with impunity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• How very quaint. My my, how times change. If I had passed my proficiency test for a cab would that qualify me for something more modern? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil

I regard your recent unblocking of this editor as a misuse of the administrator tools. As you can see from the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard consensus is in support of the original block, yet you unilaterally unblocked. Would you care to review your decision? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I found the conversation very difficult to follow. I see a lot of yelling, anger, upset and not much encyclopedia writing. Of course, if you genuinely think there's been administrator abuse, you are free to request a desysopping at WP:ARC. I think everybody needs to calm down and take a deep breath; I'm looking at the news and seeing Storm Desmond and Syrian air strikes and feel we need to put things in perspective. I've had an email from Sagaciousphil saying admin is free to reblock as she doesn't want drama. Hopefully I can get John Deacon or Trafalgar Square in shape for GA before the festive season is upon is. Ritchie333 14:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Please don't unblock people who were legitimately blocked for violations of our personal attack policy. When you do that you are enabling the abusive behaviour of others and reducing the quality of the site for those who are able to edit without being nasty. If you don't want to enforce our civility policy that is fine, but please do not undermine it. HighInBC 14:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)