Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:38, 7 September 2018

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: 21 days

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.

Content Creation Question

Hey Ritchie, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable in the realm of content creation and I wanted to run an idea by you for an article. I was thinking of starting an article for the California Peace Officers' Memorial. From what I can see there appears to be quite a bit of information on the memorial, but I was hoping to get your opinion first? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: I would start off by seeing if you expand its mention in California State Capitol Museum first - it's currently an unsourced sentence. If you find you can write several paragraphs from 3/4 sources on it and it starts to dwarf the rest of the article, that would be a good time to create a spin-off. Ritchie333 10:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ritchie! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 22:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The Who/Tommy

I decided to remove The Who/Tommy from the August 17 OTD. One of the rules is that the date in question should be especially relevant to the bold article(s), and it doesn't seem to be the case for either one. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Howcheng: No problem. I did think (as you did) to save it for the next year when it'll be the 50th anniversary, but there were plenty of other notable performances at Woodstock on the same date. In any case, it was simply a "quick win" as I thought it would be easier to swap a problematic hook for a simple one linked to two GAs. Getting Aretha in the top spot on ITN is enough main page excitement for the minute ;-) Ritchie333 16:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Houses of the Holy

The article Houses of the Holy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Houses of the Holy 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK anyone? I think I'm going to plump for "...the cover art for Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy was inspired by the ending of Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End?" Ritchie333 12:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

....anyone .... anyone ... Bueller? ..... Ritchie333 10:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Way to piss of the Zepheads by sneaking in a Floyd number :D —SerialNumber54129 11:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

When I went to see Floyd in Earl's Court on the Division Bell tour, the programme had a short quiz. If you got 0, the result was "You really like Led Zeppelin, but they aren't touring this year". :-D Ritchie333 11:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

How about a DYK about the title? It could be something off-the-wall like "...that Houses of the Holy was Led Zepplin's fifth album, but the first with a title? Or somesuch. —SerialNumber54129 11:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"'...that Houses of the Holy's "Rain Song" was inspired by George Harrison complaining that Led Zeppelin never did any ballads?"--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That was the story that jumped out at me, reading it. › Mortee _talk 14:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

... that the cover of Houses of the Holy was designed by Hipgnosis based on a photograph taken at Giant's Causeway? - Mysterious enough? - Having said that, I'd appreciate an admin swapping one hook from queue 4 (for tomorrow) for The Little Nigar, to honour Debussy's birthday. It's in the special occasions on the approved hooks page, and discussed on dyktalk, look for Debussy, but so far without response. I believe that any other day would be a mistake. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Venting

This is amusing. 81.2%, that's reasonable. 81.3%, oh now that's just too far. I know, I know, 17.4% vs 8% in the other department (or whatever), but still... are you serious? Where's da consistency? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin III

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin III 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request to edit summaries on Dave Rubin article

Hi Ritchie. When you've a moment, could you take a look at the recent edit history of Dave Rubin, and consider whether it's appropriate to redact the series of edit summaries made on 21st August by an IP user? The repeated edits and reverts themselves don't need to be removed, but I'm of the view that the very visible edit summaries are akin to shouting "Jew! Jew! Jew!" in a grossly offensive and highly visible manner on the View History page, and should be removed. I've reverted the edits, of course, and have warned the editor at User talk:67.1.130.20. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Revision deleted and blocked. There is absolutely no need to say those sort of things in a global encyclopedia project that encompasses all cultures and ideals. Ritchie333 12:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I completely agree. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

@Wikiasian2408: You don't need to email me unless it contains personal or private information that would be problematic to talk about on-wiki. Keeping discussion here also allows talk page stalkers to comment if they wish. In the case of K. Hari Prasad, it was originally deleted after a full debate at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/K. Hari Prasad (2nd nomination) by Joe Decker, and then again at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/K. Hari Prasad (3rd nomination) by Xymmax. I made the most recent deletion because it was re-created without a review, which is applicable per the policy for deleting re-creating content previously deleted via discussion.

There are a couple of options here. Firstly, with the agreement of the original deleting administrators (which is not required, but still generally a good idea to do), I can restore the article to draft space and you can submit it via the articles for creation process. Secondly, you can open a deletion review if you think the deletion process was not followed correctly, although in my personal view it seemed process was correctly carried out even though it gave you a result you didn't want, so I'm not sure this would be successful. The third, and possibly rather cutting, option is to accept that Misplaced Pages does not believe it can maintain an article about this person at this time, and you should look at one of the many other topics on the encyclopedia instead, most of which need improvement. Sometimes, the participants at deletion discussions "get it wrong" and we need to correct the decision; however, if this article has been the subject of two full deletion discussions, it seems unlikely any restoration of it is going to be taken well by the community as a whole. Indeed, looking through the debates, I can't see a single person who wants to keep this article except you. Sometimes, when you're in a minority of one, you just have to accept things aren't going to go your way.

I hope that addresses your concerns; if not, please let me know. Ritchie333 11:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your details reply. May I humbly request you to adopt the first option? Will really appreciate it if you can do it. Also, I apologise for sending the email, and I will not do so going forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, can I please get an update on this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs)

As neither deleting administrator has responded, I assume it is okay to restore to draft, which I have now done. Follow instructions at Draft:K. Hari Prasad to see what to do next. Ritchie333 14:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've had to delete it again, as another editor pointed out that the prose has been copied and pasted from another website, so it cannot be restored at all. Sorry. Ritchie333 20:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for restoring the page. I understand that you have moved it to drafts due to copyright issues. I have addressed the issue, and have additionally added 55 references - I request you to go through it and restore it to a normal page. Thank you so much. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft_talk:K._Hari_Prasad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced info

How is tagging unsourced information "not constructive"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it's trivial and easy to find a source in two minutes, as I did. Ritchie333 09:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Then why did you find a citation and remove the info...? How does that make sense? Also, are you saying the burden is on me for whenever I see any claim that I have to prove it's true? The burden is on the person who posts it. I have no time to check every unsourced claim to prove it for the person who posted it in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well it improves the article, that's about all there is to it, really. The trouble is that, unfortunately, tags tend to linger for years (and in the case of {{unreferenced}} templates, there are some well over ten years old). I don't really have a good solution to that, other than just make sure we can keep new editors, and stop old ones leaving, which is easier said than done. Ritchie333 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles are worse off for unsourced claims. I agree that retention and invitation are important but so is quality. Again, you claimed that it's easy to source this info but you also removed it, so I really don't understand your solution here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Philafrenzy's RfA

Hi Ritchie. I don't know that we've ever bumped into each other, though i have seen your name on a large number of occasions; anyway, i just wanted to say that i, at least, appreciated your comments/clarification in the general comments section, even if another editor (whom i also respect) did not. I've come here, in line with his suggestion, because i want you to know that your addition was not, in mine opinion, "an out-of-the-blue comment about your reasons to nominate" the candidate. I found it useful, though i didn't see it till after i had !voted.
I will confess i have, in the past, thought, "Good grief, another nominated by Ritchie333; how he does churn them out!" but, you know what, i'm glad you do, and glad you clearly give them the thought they deserve. Happy days, Lindsay 17:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@LindsayH: Basically, 2018 looks like to be by far the lowest intake of admins we've ever had. Now, there's a point to be said that there's only going to be so many editors interested in adminship in the first place, but we're now at the point where we're consistently losing 4-5 admins a month. It's going to take a long time before we're in serious trouble over a lack of administrative presence, so the "not enough admins" argument isn't really true as such. Rather, if admins are leaving, it makes sense to have a net churn and bring in new people, who can come in with fresh ideas, their own ideals and views, and stop the admin corps getting stuck in a rut and doing the same old thing. That's pretty much why I look around for new candidates.

I don't know why nobody else seems to be putting people up for RfA. I certainly wouldn't do it if most of my nominations hadn't passed; and having had one near miss, and another probably near miss on the way, I really think now is time to stop and let somebody else have a go at it. I have turned down far more people than I've actually put up for RfA, some of whom I really think should be admins but can't pass because of content creation / inactivity / civility, or one other showstopper that doesn't really mean they can't do the job in my view. And that's the context to which I made the post on the RfA; if somebody had advised me there might have been a problem, or I had seen evidence of a problem (and that was the central point - I hadn't), I'd have not gone forward with the RfA, told Philafrenzy to check earwig for every new article he creates, and in 6-9 months, ask me about a nomination, which would (probably) have then passed. Ritchie333 13:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Before giving up on recruiting, I would suggest reaching out to a small handful of non-admins or voters, and more recent newer voters, who have been casting RfA votes in 2018, to join in on the next time candidates submit for the Optional RfA candidate poll. I just recently stumbled on that and I think that's a helpful tool. However, I see too many of the same people there that give opinions and comments, which is still a good indicator of voting, but to get a more broad view on how candidates would fair, I suggest reaching out to a couple of random users you have never seen participate in stuff, I think that would be a better indicator on potential votes. While I have not seen eye-to-eye with you on some of the candidates that you have nominated, it doesn't mean that you do not do a good job as an admin. Don't get discouraged just because a couple of RfAs did not go the way you intended. Neovu79 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I've done enough (indeed some might say too much) - it's time to give someone else a go. Ritchie333 11:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sad that you want to stop. You're rather good at it. And you do Misplaced Pages (and Wikipedians) a huge service in your informal role. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't be that good at it, we've got an RfA that is going to close as "failed" imminently because it has less than 65% support. Ritchie333 11:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

More than 5,000 failures. I'd assess the value of your successes, if I were you. Everyone else does. And we're all benefiting from them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

citation needed

Hello Ritchie333 - just as information:

citation needed it is funny if a BOT now asking for citation in this way. I am interested in this article, but never adding any citation - no use for this. just my point. Best. --Maxim Pouska (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I generally use {{fact}} tags when I'm busy improving an article, something I've just added a source for isn't in that source, and I need to break it up into what is verifiable and what's not. It's always my intention to come back to tags I've added and fixed them. If you just want to tag an article and move on from it, forgetting about it, what's the point? Ritchie333 13:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Just two points

I have no idea how this Thank you for supporting our RfA system. Please read WP:RFAV before you vote on another RfA could be remotely interpreted as a criticism. It's a perfectly neutral link to an advice page for a beginner. Secondly, nowhere on Misplaced Pages have I hinted, inferred, or otherwise, that I have, or my be retiring. I will thank you for sticking to facts rather than making assumptions and publishing them, especially where it inappropriate. All you do is fan the flames yourself. More on this when my health improves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I must have got a joe job from someone. It did seem odd that it didn't come from your usual email address. Ritchie333 13:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

My last email to you and other involved parties, was sent on 12 August 01:47 (my time) from my 'C' email, the full text of which was:

Hi All,

I'm sorry I've taken a while to get back to you but I had to do my own research besides one or two unconnected commitments.
I concur fully with Ritchie's findings. There is a need for the tools here, but the voters want to see some creations and content despite the very high number of minor maintenance edits to mainspace.

There is also the fact that the JBH RfA has left things in a bit of a turmoil among the entire regular RfA voting community and feedback is still drifting in. The dust needs to settle and this is not the time for anyone to be considering an RfA that does not have an extremely high chance of passing. When I say 'extremely high' I mean being almost a dead cert. That's not something that Ritchie or I or any other prominent admins can guarantee as nominators right now.

Regards,

Kudpung

Beyond the reference to a recently closed RfA, no mention of any other candidate name was made, but the caveat was clear whoever was to be next in line for one of your nominations. There was absolutely no indication whatsoever that I have any intention of retiring. All I have signaled, and on-Wiki, is my desire to withdraw from NPP after mollycoddling it for years, and the fact that this will be my last month as E-in-C of The Signpost. - which is what I intended from the moment I took over the temporary editorship. I have slowed down in the last week or so due to some personal circumstances which are no one's business but my own. There is also the fact that joe job or not, anything I might have imparted in an email to a Misplaced Pages colleague, should be accorded the respect of confidence and not used in a PA on an RfA of all places. Suffice it to say, your comments have caused quite a flurry of genuine emails to me, all in a very positive nature about my work and engagement to Misplaced Pages. You need to start looking around you for who you can trust - aye, there be trolls... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for The Carpenters

On 27 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Carpenters, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Carpenters received hate mail because they combined a soft ballad with a loud electric guitar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Carpenters. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Carpenters), 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, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp

Given the weakness of policy-based arguments to keep this, and the very clear arguments against the article - the creator and several supporters explicitly wrote it was a memorial, and the obvious canvassing, this should not have been closed this way. The “additional sources supplied” included Revolvy and Reddit. Qwirkle (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

In terms of who turned up, keep vs. delete was about even matched. The clinching argument for me, however, came from E.M.Gregory, where he supplied a good list of sources, including multiple citations to the Herald Sun which were unchallenged by anyone else. The only counter-argument I saw was "but there are unreliable sources in that list" and WP:NOTNEWS. It would have been nice if E.M. had expanded the article as well as supplying the sources, but there you go. At the risk of invoking a well known essay, Murder of Deborah Linsley has just passed GA and is queued for DYK, and that seems to have a similar level of source coverage, multiple news pieces over an extended period of time. Possibly I should have just !voted "keep" instead of closing it, but I don't think it's a major issue. I'll have a go at expanding it; if you still think it's a non-starter, re-nominate it at AfD and I'll stay out of the debate. Ritchie333 11:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding more sources to the AfD discussion found in a Proquest news archive search when this discussion closed. I found sourcing entirely persuasive. Much of the discussion was about an ongoing dispute among several editors about activity on other pages, which I did not attempt to decipher. I often do expand pages at AfD. This one certainly needs it. Kudos ot Ritchie333 for undertaking an expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333,“who showed up”, of course, is one of the issues. The article’s creator blatantly canvassed. The Herald Sun itself is another. Murdochian yellow journalism only is notable in the long run if it has practical effect, or it manages to infect other, better sources, and re-adding it through a different archive doesn’t improve it.

Ms. Linsley’s murder affected transit and long-haul rail design, planning and operations worldwide for about a decade, to say nothing about the effects on greater London’s commuter’s psyches. I’m not sure that is comparable “other stuff.” Qwirkle (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the !keep voters were canvassed; they all seem like regular participants in these sorts of debates. I think we should see if the article can be improved further before doing anything else. Ritchie333 15:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that far more people buy and read the Herald Sun than buy and read The Guardian or The Age so Qwirkle dismissal of it is snobbery and snooty intellectualism. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Global IME Bank

Hello, Global IME Bank is a major bank in Nepal, thus I'd prefer adding reliable sources instead of deleting it. Germartin1 (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Germartin1: Unfortunately I cannot restore it as it is a copyright violation, being copied and pasted from another website. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios for a fuller explanation. However, you can recreate the article from scratch, provided it does not copy another website's words. Ritchie333 21:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Moves Like Jugger?

I saw this and I thought of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Martin, I am absolutely terrified to discover what might be going on inside your head. I fear it would be like opening Pandora's Box. Or even actually getting hold of the Brexit assessment papers. Ritchie333 16:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And I thought my secret was safe with you. *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"In Misplaced Pages, everyone can hear you scream"..... Ritchie333 16:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, well anyway, my very best wishes and such. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC) p.s. but while you're there... any guesses as to the organ used on this classic? It seems it IS a Hammond, played by Winston Wright, although he is un-credited on the record.

Oh yes, I was going to look this up. Sorry, I was busy watching the old Red Dwarf video clip where Lister is teaching Kryten to call Rimmer a "smeeeee heeeeee"..... Ritchie333 21:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, you high-voltage flouncey Admins, just real jet setters, ain't ya. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop your putrid whining you dank tuft of rectal pubic hair! Ritchie333 21:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"You're about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

An award. Yes, for you, Ritchie!

	The admins' admin and admin of making admins award
	For successful and valuable efforts to find new admins for Misplaced Pages over a long period of time, I award this big stick with a floppy head thingy to Richie333. You're the best admin of adminning admins. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear!! Not that you're ever conflicted in your approach, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Salt Jaiden Animations

Hiya. Can you also salt Jaiden Animations as it's been repeatedly re-created. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 17:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ritchie, I am looking to close this discussion at RFPP and wanted to check with you whether you had a strong preference as to whether you wanted to downgrade the page to ECP. I honestly don't think it will make a big difference in the long run but just wanted to check in with you. If you have no preference, I'll go ahead and downgrade to ECP. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 14:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You can downgrade it to ECP if you like; I became an admin before ECP existed and before it became standard practice (and not Arbcom required) so I guess I just need to bone up on current practices. Ritchie333 14:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool, done. And yea, I wasn't aware that this was SOP until a few days ago either. Airplaneman ✈ 15:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

ECP

Hi, Ritchie, thanks for closing the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Extended-confirmed protection doesn't need to invoke any ArbCom case any more; as of 2016, it can be applied as needed, see WP:ECP. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC).

No problem; I was trying to search for a suitable WP:MEDRS related Arbcom case that might cover it, but I thought "well everyone who turned up at the AfD is an experienced editor (or a blocked sock) so I'll assume consensus". Ritchie333 09:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cominar

Hi Ritchie. I am contacting you as you are an admin I trust and respect and are upon a review of your talk page on good terms with Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs). At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cominar, Serial Number 54129 repeatedly collapsed my "keep" rationale over my objections.

The first collapse, I uncollapsed and added a comment about this breaking the page's formatting, the second collapse, and I uncollapsed and added a comment about Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments saying "normally you should stop if there is any objection".

Serial Number 54129 collapsed my "keep" rationale a third time and then closed the AfD the same minute after several editors who supported deletion no longer supported deletion. The collapsing has broken the formatting of the page again in that all subsequent comments are now indented under mine. My signature is collapsed while Serial Number 54129's signature appears below the first sentence of my "keep" rationale. My comment about the analyst reports that establish notability and my objections to the collapsing are also collapsed. In addition to collapsing my comment, Serial Number 54129 also collapsed part of another editor's "keep" rationale which is unnecessary.

Serial Number 54129 communicated only through edit summaries and did not respond in the AfD to my objections to collapsing so I have not contacted them first. Given Serial Number 54129 was involved in a dispute at the AfD, I consider the collapsing of my "keep" rationale and in the next edit the closing of the AfD to be improper. It violates the "lack of impartiality" clause of WP:BADNAC. The close also was done a day early with two outstanding delete votes. Would you review this? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Modified comment to note two points I overlooked: that the AfD was closed a day early and two editors still supported deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cunard: There are several things to deal with here. The most important thing is, you wanted the article kept, and it was, so the easiest option is to accept the result and move on. Secondly, non admins shouldn't close an AfD outside of the reasons documented here, but because that's not actually policy, many do anyway; you could challenge the close at a deletion review and it's possible the AfD would be overturned, but you may just find people endorse the result and asking you to drop the issue.

The issue about hatting is a little more complex. On the one hand, pinpointing exactly what is in a source to provide proof that an article should be kept is helpful and makes it easy to understand your rationale for doing so; however, excessive paraphrasing from sources may be criticised at saying too much without getting to the central point and at worst invite accusations of close paraphrasing of sources. And while you may think it's far fetched for being sanctioned over copyright violations for reproducing paragraphs of sources wholesale, it's not unknown to happen. So hatting is not an unreasonable action simply to keep the discussion focused and allow newcomers to the debate to arrive at the right decision quickly. A far better course of action at AfDs, in my view, is to take the sources you have found, expand the article with prose citing those sources, and simply add a note in the AfD along the lines of : "Keep - I have expanded the article with additional sources, please take a look". One extreme example of this is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ika Hügel-Marshall, where the entire context behind the very brief creation and withdrawl of the AfD is entirely in the history of the article itself; I simply expanded the article greatly and invited the nominator to take a look at its state then.

I hope that addresses your concerns; if not, please let me know. Ritchie333 09:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

In a discussion here I wrote, "I wish I had the time to both find sources and rewrite every article at every AfD I participate in. But I do not." You said you felt the same. I understand your concerns about copyright violations and walls of text. My view is that my quotes fall under fair use and are the best way for me in my limited time to show why I think the sources establish notability. Other editors may disagree with the utility of my posts. I understand and respect that. But I ask that other editors follow Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments and not edit my comments when I object.

My main concern is that Serial Number 54129 collapsed my comments a third time and immediately closed the AfD a day early to ensure their view prevails. I find it alarming that an editor used the closer's position to "win" a dispute. I am disappointed you do not view this the same way. The collapsing is a very minor issue that is not worth spending more time on now that the AfD is closed. I accept your advice and will not pursue any further modifications to the AfD. Thank you for taking the time to review the situation.

Cunard (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did indeed agree that you can't be expected to run round improving every single article at AfD if you don't have time, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to do so if you do have the time. At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Saffron Henderson I did a little bit of work, in the hope that somebody else could pick it up and work on it.

To be honest, the situation looks like "six of one, half a dozen of the other" - you think the level of detail is important to get your point across, another editor doesn't. I can't really say either of you is "right", you're just both independently acting on your viewpoints. Anyway, as I said, you've got the result you wanted at the AfD and the article has been kept, so I think ultimately all is well. Ritchie333 09:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/South Portland Historic District

Hey, I disagree with your close for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/South Portland Historic District. I think there was enough of a consensus there to conclude "Merge" or "Redirect" rather than "Keep" or "no consensus". Did you see my note within the AFD, asking for any closer not to just "kick the can down the road" (which linked to a deletion review about that issue)? Your closing did exactly that. Would you mind reversing yourself and reopening for further discussion? sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a subtle distinction here. I concluded nobody wanted to delete the article and people weren't really sure about a merge / redirect - after relisting there were three "keep" !votes, one merge !vote, one "not sure" and you restating your viewpoint. Additionally, the article was improved significantly by Another Believer during the course of the AfD, which means some of the earlier !votes might be out of date with respect to the current state of the article. So I think the best thing to do here is to conclude a "keep" result and invite those who want a merge / redirect to invoke WP:BRD and simply do it. You could argue that "no consensus" might be more appropriate than "keep", but I think the end result is the same. Ritchie333 09:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

kittens are so lovely

SmokeyJoe has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

I guess you have never experienced the scenario where you are happily typing away and composing something on the keyboard, when suddenly ... *whumph* .... you get a very bad case of what is technically described as "tail in face" and "cat on keybodfg34t09t89u6y98u5t98u5t094t90utr09tu09t" Ritchie333 11:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

"Admins know your limits!" We'll have less talk about returning to the Gold Standard, if you don't mind.....Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

BURMA! Ritchie333 13:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"PawSense is a software utility that helps protect your computer from cats." EEng 01:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, you buy a desk where the keyboard can be easily slid underneath the main part out of the way. Ritchie333 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Advice for a new GA reviewer

Hello. I was wondering if you had time to look over my first GA review. I saw you specialize in music articles as per the GA mentor section. The review is at Talk:The High Llamas/GA1 if you are interested. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I had a quick look, and it looks okay to me. You've covered the prose, balance of detail, and checked the sources to some depth. The only other thing, if you haven't done it, is to check the images are properly licensed (I didn't see any problems, though I question the relevance of the 1994 Stereolab gig picture) and check for copyvios (there's a little close paraphrasing from http://claythescribe.com/2016/03/04/interview-with-sean-ohagan-of-the-high-llamas/ - mostly quotations). Other than that, I think you've got the idea of what GA reviews are about. Ritchie333 20:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I did mention some issues with the quotes in history formation first para and 2000s-present 2nd para. I'll look at the images more closely. Thanks for the advice :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin III

The article Led Zeppelin III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin III 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Woo-hoo, calls for a little celebration!

"Threesie's face is cracked from smiling, all the fears that he's been hiding,

And it seems pretty soon everybody's gonna know.

And his voice is sore from shouting, cheering winners who are losing,

And he worries if their days are few and soon they'll have to go." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Save me from the gallow's pole! Ritchie333 21:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review mentor

Hi, I just created the GA nomination review for USCO (here). It is my first GA review, perhaps you could take a look at it. My main concern is that I have not included a lot of positives: the article is good, but I thought writing "I like this part" a lot was redundant and didn't find a lot of places to specifically highlight where a certain criteria had been met well (i.e. to say "this sentence is written well, it hits criteria X well") - are there other ways of showing where you think an article is good? Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I had a quick look at the review and the article. In general, I think you've got the idea of what a review is supposed to be about; look carefully at the article and check it's well-written, factually correct and verifiable as such, on topic, sufficiently detailed and properly formatted. A couple of specific points:

• In terms of how to present the review, the whole purpose is to give constructive criticism, so by definition most of the points you bring up are going to be things that need improvement. Although I've written nearly 120 GAs, I still expect work to be done on each one I put up for review and wouldn't pretend otherwise! The only comment I'd make here is that I wouldn't directly say "This article does not currently meet all the criteria to be a good article" myself, as that's kind of stating the obvious. I'd say something like, "There are a number of issues to resolve here, but they're all fairly minor so I'm putting the review on hold pending resolution of them."
• The GA criteria does not mandate infoboxes or require any images (for the latter, see criteria 6). You can suggest both, but if the nominator disagrees and gives reasons for not having them, you can't fail the review on that alone.
• A couple of the sources don't look obviously reliable to me and I would ask questions like "What makes warholstars.org a reliable source?" (If the nominator gives a reasonable explanation eg: it's a convenience link for accurate interviews or transcriptions that are possible, but difficult, to locate in their original publication, then that's generally okay).
• I don't understand why the article needs 4-5 citations to verify something. That generally means something's wrong somewhere.
• Some of the book sources don't have page numbers. The GA criteria doesn't specifically mention this, but 2a says "enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source", so it's a de facto requirement.
• Have you checked for copyright violations? The earwig report comes back as "Violation Suspected 76.5% confidence". For established articles, reverse copyvios or mirrors make it difficult for this figure to mean anything on its own, but it does highlight some serious close paraphrases of quotations. You have suggested trimming this down, but you really need to address the paraphrasing - passing a GA with even suspected copyvios in it will cause you problems down the line.
• Finally as a minor point, "External links" needs to go below "References" (see criteria 1b).

If you have any other questions, feel free to drop me a line. Ritchie333 11:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll add to the review, and keep all of this in mind. Kingsif (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The only other thing to consider is that the nominator, James James Morrison Morrison hasn't edited since June, so you may not get a quick response to the issues. If you're still waiting after a week, pop a note on WT:GAN and explain the situation, to see if somebody else can pick it up. Ritchie333 12:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2 up 2 down with central staircase.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2 up 2 down with central staircase.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Any chance of leaving a personalised message here next time? Say, MjolnirPants, GreenMeansGo, I can knock up my own line drawing in AutoCAD (if I can work out where my copy at work has gone) unless one of you has got time to have a go at it? Ritchie333 19:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've saved a copy in case it gets deleted. I could whip one up in Acad that would use the same basic floorplan but obviously be a new work. Gimme a few days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Ritchie333 19:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Here you go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Does that little house really have two kitchens and no bathroom? Cullen Let's discuss it 02:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Lavatory opens to the "Kitchen" without any features in it. Which should be the "Yard" and will be in a moment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Ritchie. Sorry MP. The UK is dumb. I agree that no one with any common sense would create or approve of UK copyright law wrt TOO. But the courts literally ruled that this image was copyrightable. It's really hard to draw any line that's lower than that. It's hard to see that as anything but vested interests protecting the intellectual property of...four letters. But stupid gonna stupid. GMG 02:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't WMF abide by US copyright law? That's where their headquarters and (primary, at least; I don't know what kind of cloud serving en.wp does) server are. In any case, it's a bit of a moot point now unless there's some problem with my newer one that the older one solves.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You are correct; that's why I haven't uploaded my rock rearrangement of "Boléro" as it's still in copyright in the US for a few years. Anyway, just to nitpick a little bit - the yard should probably be marked as a thinner line as that would be a fence, not a wall. And there shouldn't be any windows on the sides, as you wouldn't get that in a mid-terrace, though it might appear on a corner house on the end (where you might typically find a shop, as made memorable in Open All Hours). Anyway, Mr Pants you are a gentlemen and a scholar and I tip my hat off to you for doing this. Ritchie333 09:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I presumed the example was an "end cap" for the sake of "that fireplace really needs some framing windows or my inner architect will strangle me". The placement of the fireplace in the original file suggested the same. But I can remove them if you really like, and swap out the North-facing elevation for a pair of East/West facing ones. I decided that, since I'm doing it, I'd go ahead and make something that could be copyrighted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fence around the yard would very likely be a low stone wall, correct? If not, then what kind of fence? Wrought iron seems a bit extravagant for what this is, but then cheap wrought iron was once a thing, so I'm not sure. I mention that because wrought iron would look fucking epic on that yard, and for no other particular reason.

For the record, now that I've started, I'll likely end up drawing the whole row just because I enjoy that sort of work. If you like, I can upload it all when I'm done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well a better idea would be to keep that one as an end of terrace, and then create a mid-terrace duplicate. No reason we can't have both. As for stone walls vs fences, right I see where you're coming from, I did a google image search for "terraced house yard" and got a mix of walls against fences. Horses for courses, I guess. Ritchie333 12:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I'd do a more or less mirror image for the north end unit, although I'm thinking I might put a shop in there as you mentioned earlier, then use backing side stairs and backing fireplaces on the internal units. Then publish the whole thing as a series of PNG's, maybe put a PDF collection somewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes. Sorry. Full disclosure, we've been sick sick all weekend. Like laying in bed and playing Detroit: Become Human twice through in between coughing fits. So not exactly running on all cylinders here. En.wiki and Commons are hosted in the US. I'm not sure all projects are. I can't swear to it, but I remember thinking that fr.wiki or de.wiki or something was hosted locally. Not that that matters.

If it was clearly below TOO in the US, then we could host it locally with nocommons until the public domain date if we knew it. Not meeting TOO for the UK means it's a no-go for Commons, because home-country plus host-country. But I'm not super warm and fuzzy saying that it is below US TOO. Maybe if you could show that this was a standardized floor plan. So...if there were 100,000 homes built to this exact specification 100 years ago. Then the plan itself could be shown to be PD, and the representation of it would arguably involve minimal original creativity, and thus TOO.

Obviously the new image is better in pretty much every way. The image is however, even more visually complicated than the original. So in this case, I think it's probably better to go with a CC BY SA license (which we can easily do), and that way we end-run any potential future discussions by unequivocally licensing it freely, rather than trying to argue TOO when we don't have to. Maybe that discussion doesn't happen for another 20 years, but there's no reason for it to happen ever. GMG 12:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: The new image is just about the bare minimum I would consider copyrightable. There's some minor creative elements in the compass decorative knots, and the "scroll" border. Even then, the layout of the rooms (while contributing to the overall work) would probably not be copyrightable, in and of itself. Consider: a straircase in the middle divides each level into two rooms. That's it. The exact width of the staircase is up for grabs, but other than that, it's all mechanical. A computer could design this floor plan from a footprint and the description I just gave. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the Mjolnir + Pants logo might want to be copyrightable. Ritchie333 12:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet still, if you can explicitly license something freely, you should, rather than relying on a legal standard that itself may change. Consider that some time in the next 50 years the US changes its legal standard to sweat-of-the-brow because...I dunno...if we're being honest, probably because Disney parked six truck loads of free speech cold hard cash in front of the Capitol building. Now your image isn't free any more, even though your explicit intention was to create a free image, but you neglected to use the right template, and some poor admin in 2041 has to delete it. GMG 12:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's not forget the orange goon in office that is a total loose cannon and, if he could, would probably turn around and make all copyright last indefinitely (unless it was created by Mexicans, Muslims, North Koreans, transgenders, climate change supporters and people with the surname "Clinton", in which case it would be PD). Ritchie333 13:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

climate change supporters...I just imagine angry people with signs protesting the EPA yelling "Yeah! Screw Tuvalu! That's what they get for being a low lying island nation! More climate change!" GMG 13:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the Mjolnir + Pants logo might want to be copyrightable.Naah. The runes are just elder furthark, and the hammer is taken from File:Mjollnir.png which is PD.

Yet still, if you can explicitly license something freely, you should, rather than relying on a legal standard that itself may change.I tend to agree. This is one of the reasons why I release my own work into the public domain when I upload it here. Sure, the CC-by-SA is good enough, but under that license, the creator still owns the copyright, and might not consider the tiny text "courtesy of Misplaced Pages" at the bottom of your page to be sufficient attribution and sue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the attribution bit is a pretty low bar. Re: The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner, and the standard so far upheld by the courts to define "reasonable" is whether it was attributed in a manner consistent with the use of other similar works. But there's not a huge body of case law there AFAIK, and there are lots of people (myself included) who wish more people would lawyer up and sue over it, so we had more available precedent. GMG 14:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Does that little house really have two kitchens and no bathroom?" There's only one kitchen, but yes, in 1900 a typical working-class terrace house had one cold tap, an outside toilet was luxury, for more basic places you made do with an outhouse that got "empties" collected by a horse and cart (that's why there's always a connecting lane at the back of the houses), and no bathroom (you put a tin bath in the lounge, and filled it with pots of water heated on a coal fire). All outlawed by the 1950s after way too many cholera-related deaths. If you look at a run of old terraced houses, (random example) every one has had a bathroom retro-fitted on the back (houses are now legally required to have a bathroom, but the law doesn't say how it should be designed). So yes, Americans, downstairs bathrooms are far more common over here than you may think. Ritchie333 09:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...downstairs bathrooms... <shudders> And they say you Brits are the civilized ones... I refuse to take more than 5 steps (with no more than 1 of them being up or down) from my bed before I expect to find a toilet in front of me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Two kitchens and no bathroom?? You were bloody lucky!".... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Adjusted prejudicial Northernist joke to comply with one-nation post Brexit agenda....

I use to live in a 3-up 3-down terrace with back bathroom extension; seriously, going from my room, across the landing, downstairs, through the dining room and kitchen in order to take a piss at 3am was not that big a deal. If you were lucky, there would be something in the fridge you could snaffle on the way back up again. Ritchie333 13:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Knowing me, I'd grab a beer. Then make the trip again in ten minutes... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ten minutes? I don't know if you've ever been to Clacket Lane services on the M25 (it's not exactly somewhere you'd want to go, I admit), but the gents are full of adverts for incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Ritchie333 13:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Never been, but it sounds like many a truck stop in my neck of the woods. I do have to say though, the ten minutes thing is fairly typical for someone like me, who is of the opinion that "a" beer is generally served in 4-6 individual bottles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There's only one way to drink beer - in a pub, served draught, in a pint glass. (Unless you're Serial Number 54129 who drinks in stereo). Everything else is .... meh. Ritchie333 15:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You can drink ale that way, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin (album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin (album) 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Friends Party

Grateful if you could give me a copy of this deleted page - the information in it may be usable in an article on e.g. minor political parties or within those articles in which it is mentioned (or even for re-creation if they contest 600 seats at the next election|) Emeraude (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Emeraude: Done - User:Emeraude/Friends Party Ritchie333 10:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Emeraude (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

While you're here, and since we're talking about fringe political parties can you (or indeed, anyone else) remember which constituency "Ginger Grab" from the "Jam Spreading Party" stood for in the 1997 election? I thought it was Enfield Southgate against Portillo, but it wasn't, nor was it Putney against David Mellor. Not Kensington and Chelsea either. A search for the party on Google returns no hits. Where was it? (And no, I am not making this up!) Ritchie333 10:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Heathcote Williams

Changing IP repeatedly removing sourced content. May require protection? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What is this, WP:RFPP2? There's only one edit today, and one could make the argument they are adhering to WP:3RRBLP and protecting the children's right to privacy. Perhaps. Anyway, one to watch for the minute. Ritchie333 12:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I've counted three reverts so far over the past few days. No explanation in edit summaries. But you're right that children do not need to be named if not notable. I was more concerned with the wholesale removal of the only source there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Understood; however if the edit war is slow-burning it generally requires a higher level of disruption before administrator action is taken. If you trimmed out the children but left the source, maybe the reverting would stop. Ritchie333 13:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I'll do that, thanks. The previous source, which I replaced, was our favourite Daily Mail. As his son Charlie was named I figured the daughters should be also. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool. And now Ritchie333's talk page will explode. Ritchie333 15:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm...

I am inclined to ask as to how Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rozlyn Khan was a NC? Post the relist by V93, both me and Saqib agreed that the coverage was not sufficient to muster passage of GNG/NACTOR.So, I'm a bit perplexed......∯WBG 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, your arguments were weak. "Typical gossip-style-coverage" doesn't really tell us much except your opinion on the article, which is mostly covered by WP:RUBBISH. As the AfD had already been relisted three times, and nobody had really successfully challenged Oakshade's argument to keep, which I thought was the best and most comprehensive contribution to the debate, I concluded we'd run out of time to get a good challenge on that, and thus a no consensus was appropriate, in my view. Remember that AfD is about the quality of the arguments, not just counting heads! You can always start another AfD later if you don't think the article has improved sufficiently; but I'd recommend waiting a while first. Ritchie333 15:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm.....Typical gossip-style-coverage is about the quality of sourcing, (as argued by GSS and Sakib).So, WP:RUBBISH is a non-starter.(I agree with that and seldom mention it as a stand-alone deletion-reason, ever),And, I regret for not making myself clear-enough.

One of the sources by Oakshade at SpotBoye fails RS.In general, the entertainment sections of TOI, Amarujala et al are heavily un-reliable and mostly a variety of gossip-blog.See this and this for some example stuff, they are into.

As Saqib and GSS can attest, paid-promotion is too rampant in these circles. We had a case where an article creator of a subject (which was borderline A7) was sent to AfD and there was a near-vacuum of sourcing.Out of nowhere, he brought a TOI piece, published in the midst of the AFD and painted the subject, in the choosiest of epithets.{{U|GSS}, can you link the AfD, please?∯WBG 16:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The whole article reminds me of Micaela Schäfer, which I unilaterally deleted as a total and utter BLP violating mess, but which was subsequently restored and cleaned up. I don't think it's a paid-editing piece (or if it was, it had been cleaned up by time the AfD was due to close), and I'm pretty sure that women who like to publicly exhibit themselves in a state of undress can become popular without needing self-promotion. I'll have a look at sources later and see what I can do about improving it. Ritchie333 16:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look:-) And I am not commenting about UPE (neither I have viewed the older revisions) but rather that much of the entertainment-related-coverage in certain media-units is in exchange of payments.But, then I agree as to the case of not needing any self promotion! ∯WBG 17:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Premature Priapus AFD close

I believe that you misinterpreted the consensus at this AFD. In my opinion, it should have been relisted in any case rather than closed, because there was no clear consensus over keep by way of merge or deleting, and the keep votes didn't make strong cases. Also, no one suggested a redirect, so why was that the closing consensus? Etzedek24 15:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I could have relisted it, but there didn't seem to be much activity, and to be honest I'm not really a fan of AfDs lasting a month simply because hardly anyone turns up to the debate. Given the comments, I concluded that most people would be comfortable with a redirect. It preserves the history, so those wanting a merge can do something about that, and also stops us having a full topic, which the delete voters would be comfortable with. So essentially, it works out as a good compromise to all. Ritchie333 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that. Etzedek24 15:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. AfD closing is a bit of a black art, and it's inevitable if you do a lot of closes, they aren't going to go the way everyone wants. Ritchie333 15:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I hear that a priapus going away too soon is a common problem, and that there's a pill for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and have you got a WP:MEDRS for that? Have ya? Have ya? Ritchie333 18:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I've always been more prone to having Priapus show up at inopportune moments. Such as once when I was getting smoked by a DI in basic training. To say I was never allowed to forget it would be an understatement. That bastard still calls me up from time to time to remind me of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin (album)

The article Led Zeppelin (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin (album) 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Who's for ... that the first pressing of Led Zeppelin's debut album used a turquoise typeface instead of orange? Ritchie333 22:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Most of this album was regularly played in late 1968 on LA radio from a white label promo. Don't remember turquoise/orange. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a good link for the label. The white label promos were sent out to promote the group's first US tour before the album was released, so lots of people would turn up. Ritchie333 23:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK ineligible

Hey Ritchie, unfortunately, the article you recently nominated for DYK (Led Zeppelin (album)) has previously been listed on the On This Day section of the main page. Per DYK rules, it is therefore ineligible to appear on the DYK section.--White Shadows 04:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Aughlisnafin GAC - deleted

Hey there. I created the Aughlisnafin GAC page to mark my local football club, but you deleted it. Fair enough - it didn't have a lot of content (yet).

However, → Almost every club in my county has a page, and Aughlisnafin GAC should be no different → There are plenty of local historians in the Aughlisnafin area, and plenty of historical emigration too, meaning plenty of ad hoc interest.

I would like the page to be restored so I can input more information about it, as well as the local area in general.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billdoesjudo (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Billdoesjudo: The page read, in full, "Aughlisnafin GAC was a small, rural Gaelic football club located in the eastern side of the parish of Kilmegan, bordering with Dundrum.". I would recommend using the Article wizard and create a draft page for the club first - articles in the main portion of the encyclopedia ("mainspace") are assumed to be possible to improve by anybody, and if nobody can figure out how (as was the case here) they get deleted (as otherwise they have a tendency to sit abandoned forever). Ritchie333 09:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion about User:CheekyboyOli

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by User:CheekyboyOli. — bieχχ (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaving you a notice about a discussion about behaviour of a user that you have blocked a few days ago for edit warring. — bieχχ (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Rachael Bland

On 5 September 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Rachael Bland, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect of Magik Ninja Entertainment to Twiztid

You are the one who chose the final decision to make a redirect form a company to a single group , so I am writing to you. I submitted a semi protected edit request to get the page restored with evidence of how it fits the WP:NCORP standard. The issue is the label is a smaller one that is not anywhere near mainstream, so articles wont be as plentiful as say Universal records articles. What other information do I need to supply to get that page restored? Froggyfixit (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Froggyfixit: I think John from Idegon has given you the appropriate advice - you can challenge the deletion debate at a deletion review, or file a retargeting request at redirects for discussion. As the closing an administrator, I don't have any strong views on the article - if I did, I would have a conflict of interest, which would be bad). Looking at the page's history, I see a huge amount of disruptive back-and-forth editing, which is what led to the page being semi-protected. I think at this stage you're probably best of forgetting about this topic and looking at one of the other 5 million articles on Misplaced Pages to improve instead. Ritchie333 10:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: So if you as the closing one shouldnt have any conflicts of interest, should the nominating one not have any? John from Idegon was the target of verbal harrassment due to his repeated deletion of linked content (not from me, I saw those last night) before he proposed deleting the entire page; and relenting to the redirect. I feel that may have created animosity there. I will challenge in the other spots you have mentioned, but if the final decision cant be biased, why can the one who initially proposed it have bias? Froggyfixit (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply put - nobody who participated in the debate said they wanted to keep the article. That's pretty much the extent of my involvement. For the record, John from Idegon should not have violated the three revert rule on 27 August, and had I been around at the time, I would probably have blocked him for it - but blocks are not punishment so doing it retrospectively is against policy. Ritchie333 09:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of Majik Ninja Entertainment Misplaced Pages

Hello, one of the readers of Faygoluvers.net, a website that I have owned and operated for nearly 20 years, brought to my attention that the Majik Ninja Entertainment page has been unpublished due to unreliable sources. Most of those sources are from my website, and attributed to myself (Scott Donihoo aka Scottie D). I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that we are unreliable, as we work directly with Majik Ninja Entertainment, as well as other artists and labels that we cover.

This is the link in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Majik_Ninja_Entertainment

Please respond or feel free to contact me directly at (Redacted) with any questions. Thank you.

04:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Scott Donihoo (aka Scottie D) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.179.232 (talk)

As stated above, I have no opinion on this article, I simply closed the Articles for deletion debate. See the above reply for suggestions of what to do. Ritchie333 09:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Subway Challenge

Hi Ritchie333. Regarding this edit, wouldn't we have the diffs of the legal threats as evidence if this issue were ever taken to WP:ANI? Legal threats on the talk page were already removed on four separate occasions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=858232688&oldid=858154856
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=747464268&oldid=747449238
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=736873757&oldid=736870094
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Subway_Challenge&diff=708968328&oldid=707682616 epicgenius (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, possibly yeah. I didn't realise the text I was re-inserting was full of "fuck you I'm taking fucking legal action you fuckity fucker", (yes, I've been watching this again) so reverting probably wasn't a good idea. In general, if somebody doesn't want to be mentioned on WP, and there's no conflict of interest, and it doesn't harm the article to take it out, it's simpler to just do it. I know some people dig their feet in the ground and say, "no, it's reliably sourced!" but when push comes to shove, people are reasonable. Ritchie333 12:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Just another comment, the five names were originally sourced to the Guinness World Records (ref #13, immediately after the sentence in question), so that's where these names came from. I don't really care either way if the names are included or excluded, though. epicgenius (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you and have dropped a note on the talk page. I saw the report at AIV (it's definitely not vandalism), but by the time I came to write my note on the IP's talk page, Dlohcierekim had already blocked. My primary motivation for this is I believe the IP is used by a wide range of people, possibly a public terminal in a hospital. I think the semi-protection was sound, (though I would have preferred "edit warring" or "disruptive editing" over "vandalism" for the protection reason) and "legal threats" is a fair reason for a block, but 3 months just sounds like too much collateral damage, though I can't prove it. Ritchie333 12:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Subway Challenge? I don’t know about you, but I can never manage more than about 10 Double Chipotle Chicken Melts in under 5 minutes. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That's 'cause you're not a student, Martin. Back in the day, we had a challenge to demolish a KFC Bucket in ten minutes. Ritchie333 14:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

KFC and Subway? Ha! Here in NYC we have "down as many buckets of hot dogs as you can in 10 minutes" every July 4th. epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't celebrate July 4th over this side of the pond, nobody likes to be reminded of a war we lost and caused the British Empire to shrink. :-P If you're not familiar with British cuisine, when you go into a typical chip shop and ask for a "medium chips", they typically can easily go round to two people. If you ask for a "large chips", they'll probably be sufficient for a small family. Ritchie333 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We also have the proud British folk tradition of "Nek-Notting-Nominate", which involves running to cram onto an over-crowded train while pouring a bucket of ice-cold Costa Coffee all over one's head.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Ritchie333: You closed this deletion discussion as delete, but did not delete the article. North America 13:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like the script didn't work. Fixed now. Ritchie333 13:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. North America 14:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for being an admin who seems to genuinely care about WP (noted especially after your contribs to AfD discussions and reading your user page)! Redditaddict69 22:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Indef block, community ban

First of all, out of 14 support for block, there were 8 votes for siteban/indef ban (same things) since 2 indef blocks have been already applied on his past accounts before. Either way it is WP:CBAN and should be stated that way. Secondly your message on his talk page, shows that he can be unblocked by any admin contrary to WP:CBAN which is appealed only to the community. Please fix this and also fix the blocking rational in the block log. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN: "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Misplaced Pages community"." This shouldn't be treated as a normal admin action, especially when over a dozen of editors in good standing supported indef block or siteban. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: Here's my thinking. Everyone who wanted a site ban would not complain about an indef block; but everyone who wanted an indef block may not be happy with a site ban. So I do not see consensus beyond a block at this point, and since Nauriya has never been blocked before, I took the view that we should start with a lesser sanction first. I realise that all the support is being made through a profound sense of exhaustion and frustration, and that persistent copyright violations should be blocked, but I don't think we need to run straight for the ban just yet. If he doesn't appeal the block, or no admin is willing to accept any unblock request (which would almost certainly have conditions attached such as a topic ban on creating articles, uploading articles and agreement for a reblock on the first sight of any copyright problems), then it becomes a de-facto ban at that point. Ritchie333 10:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Majik_Ninja_Entertainment