Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) at 21:43, 23 August 2016 (→Lydia Cornell: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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.

DYK for Pentonville Road

On 14 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pentonville Road, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the perpetrators of a major burglary were caught after discussing it in a Pentonville Road pub? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pentonville Road. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pentonville Road), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Congrats! That was my fastest from review to appearing in a long time, DYK? My fastest from writing to in a queue was 10 minutes, Cecil Aronowitz, - in the good old days ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That was a surprise. Mind you, it seems surprises are all the rage right now. Ritchie333 07:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday's concert had all highlights:

• Komm, Jesu, komm - Jesu, meine Freude - Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied
• Nachtlied - Der Mensch lebt und bestehet
• de  - de 

Always more work ;) - For several weeks now, we have concluded every rehearsal by the last peaceful one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Peace much needed. I began a new one, Bells of Beyond, today on my father's birthday, ringing the bells also for Kevin with whom I argued (Ethics of Dissensus, it's where "Talk before you block" came up the first time), but full of hope. - Thank you for your initiative for Martin, - I sent him blessings when the Welsh team lost), - just too lazy to go further, and knowing the feeling too well that to appeal a senseless restriction makes no sense itself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Jet Blue Mint

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:JetBlue#Merge_proposal

This should be closed and made a merge. 3-1 favors it. Logic also favors it. If someone took a tremendous effort and expanded it, such as including traffic data and how Jet Blue was losing premium passengers and how the Jet Blue seat is revolutionary (if it actually is), then maybe I might be swayed. But the current article is just two things, that Jet Blue offers flat bed seats on a few flights and there's a lot of promotional material in the article, such that it is like an ad. Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Dammit Jim, I'm an admin not a scientist ... no wait, that's something else. I think the discussion at WT:DYK also concluded a merge was appropriate, so I've closed this. Ritchie333 09:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone is edit warring about the merge. That person did behavior that causes a block. Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

PROS

About deletion: PROS. I am trying to became writer and I was trying to make all missing profile of : Houston companies list

Because I don't know anything , most of mine article send for speedy deletion. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston-media (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Houston-media: The last article there is written in a way too promotional fashion, e.g provides enterprise revenue and profit realization software solutions. It needs to neutrally document what the company does and why it's important, not a sales brochure.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Abusing checkuser

Regarding that ani. Posting here as well. Apparently, some experienced editors have found a nice loophole on how to ban any editor they wish. Your ISP uses a certain range of ip addresses. For instance mine uses several ranges, one being 89.164.xxx.xxx. Apparently, the only thing that is needed to block a person is to accuse him of being a sock of someone who uses the same ISP. Then they both will have the same ip prefix and appear they are the same person. I still haven't figured out the way they find ip behind a username. However, requesting cu until a suitable candidate is found can work, especially if a suitable candidate had used several isps. I come from Croatia where User:Asdisis is that candidate. There are only a few isps in Croatia so it's not hard to ban a lot of people as socks. Here's how to ban someone. The discussion . The user that you want to ban . The repeated cu requests outside spi . Other cases that I had caught -> My case: I'm being forbidden to post sources: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.143.178 (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC) In fact, I know one way to get someone's ip. Cu editors can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.143.178 (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - not sure what to say about the content other than mention of Djokovic's parents should be limited to what role (if any) they encouraged him to play professional tennis. checkuser abuse is nothing new to Misplaced Pages - see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block, and all it involves is looking up the IP address and user agent sent via a browser requests (since that's all that can possibly be stored), which are reasonably trivial for genuinely disruptive socks to fake. The whole fiasco around this is worth a Wikipediocracy blog post; previous entries , have touched on this, but I think a fuller exploration of this is justified. @Stanistani:, @Scott: I'm not sure if I've got time but if I put together a skeleton of a WO blog post, can somebody else finish it? Ritchie333 09:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why someone would consider sharing an IP range or ISP as a reason to suspect one's the same person, though. Almost always ISPs and ranges are used by several people. On TV Tropes, where I do have access to a CheckUser like function, we always rely on behavioural evidence in such cases, if there is none then we don't block.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The cases that I had referenced were done solely on cu. With Croatia being a small country with only a few isps it isn't hard to block anyone. 213.202.111.38 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank's for the reply. I didn't point you to the rfc. I just noticed a similar case there. I didn't know cu are being abused widely. I know only of my case where 4-5 Serbian editors are banning a lot of people. I didn't quite understand "all it involves is looking up the IP address"...213.202.111.38 (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Mike V is being malicious or nasty, merely having worked in Checkuser for so long, his judgment is being called into question a few too many times for my liking. This is (yet another) reason why why admins should create content, or at least do anything creative to give their mind a rest, because continual "police" work seems to self-corrupt over time as part of human nature. See the Milgram experiment and Stanford prison experiment. Ritchie333 07:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I agree. My thought is that a person shouldn't be banned solely on cu,especially if he's being constructive. There's no reason to compare a previously disruptive user with one that is being constructive solely on ip addresses that are bound to be similar if they come from the same isp. 89.164.170.60 (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Any active admin is going to have their judgment questioned for all sorts of reasons. For example, your judgment was poor in opening that ANI thread and in your subsequent posts. The longer an admin serves, the longer this list becomes. --NeilN 16:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh Neil .... Neil .... orange peel, if you have empathy for others and see their POV, you don't pick up so many enemies. Looks like the power has gone to your head. Ritchie333 16:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Call your attitude what you want, it looks like you're advocating applying a different set of rules for your friends. --NeilN 16:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I notice you censored a viewpoint you don't like. Please do not comment on this discussion further. Ritchie333 17:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This for sure was very educational for me. In-group favoritism was exactly the term I was trying to describe. This especially is visible among admin's. Sometimes it seems to me that one person is behind dozen admin accounts. Of course, that's not true, but what is true is In-group favoritism. Here's an example. A while ago I had participated in rfc with the end result in the favor of my request. However, I had trouble to enforce the consensus be implemented. I made a request . To my surprise, it was rejected by Stabila711 with the explanation that he can't see the consensus. I tried to point it to him, but he didn't reply. It was obvious to me that he didn't want to see a big shaded rectangular. Then I noticed in his contributions that another admin had told him that I'm a sock and that he should reject my request. I tried to find where he had told him that, but I couldn't find. I figure out that admins have their own talk pages. I find this to be a clear case of In-group favoritism. The consensus was established. I merely just pointed to it. How disruptive is it to tell other admins in hidden talk pages to disregard a consensus while pretending that "you are involved so you are letting other admins to objectively deal with the request" ( a thing HighInBC tells often).? Pretty disruptive in my opinion. I can only guess how much more of this things happen behind the curtain. This one slipped, so I noticed.89.164.162.144 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's another case of In-group favoritism . Thanks for teaching me the term. I posted it on talk page. I'm interested how long it will stay there and whether someone actually reads it. Sorry if this unrelated cases bother you. This will be my last post here. Understand that that kind of cases are hard to notice until you deal with it by yourself. That's probably why the person which tries to expose them looks paranoid to someone "outside". 141.138.55.81 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

michele abeles

hi ritchie333, I would love to be in touch with the person who wrote the article. I find communication on[REDACTED] very confusing which has prohibited me following up.

If she/he works at the guggenheim, they can track down my contact information or contact my gallery 47 canal.

At the very least I would like to have the way my work is described changed. It is incorrect in summary and I am the authority on my work. I would do this myself but at the moment it will take me too long to figure out how.

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma343678 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Ma343678: ...the artist is never the best judge of their own work... _Muffled 07:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ma343678: The article was created by @Mlynch345:, who is an Associate Manager at the Guggenheim. This page (advertising the editathon where your article was created) gives an office contact address and phone number that might be useful. Ritchie333 07:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Evans

G'day from Oz; I have no opinion of the situation that MartinEvans123 currently finds himself in, I have spent the last 10-20 minutes reading a bit about it. I recall him in a vague way as a good editor, and he is definitely not on my mental list of Misplaced Pages fuck-knuckles. Anyway, I just wanted to draw your attention to this, which is what prompted my recent interest. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid: Martinevans123 is not banned, although if he has now retired I wouldn't be surprised. Please could you strike that comment? Ritchie333 09:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Martin responded nicely to blessings and flowers and Kafka (his talk, "the story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader"), why should he retire? I didn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I will modify it. Mr. Evans was caught red-handed, admitted his error and apologized. It is nothing like an innocent man who was wrongly prosecuted. He wrote good prose, but was pompous and non-collaborative to the point of being disruptive. Lipsquid (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Whom are you telling your point of view? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Whom owns this talk page? I was asked to respond here. No wonder you got along with Martin... I changed the post on flight 370 from banned to blocked. That was my error, I did not intentionally mislead. Lipsquid (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

FFS: To whom are you- or Who owns- this talkpage. Presumably, the WMF :p _Muffled 15:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Heh, Touche! Lipsquid (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. The indenting told me it was a reply to me, but I couldn't relate to it, so asked if it was perhaps for someone else. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No Worries, sorry that my indenting made it unclear. Was just responding inline quickly and trying to keep some visible order. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine. - EEng, thank you for the image, - would you find one for "Gerda and her infobox flash mob" (as mentioned in an edit summary on the talk of Gustav Holst) also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(we can only be thankful nobody asked EEng to dish up an image of a "fuck-knuckle"....) Ritchie333 07:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

... or Talk:Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators, for that matter. EEng 08:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK Hook help needed. I'd like to use the headline of this review, which is in German. First problem is the translation. It's short for (in the article) "Wie wuchtig diese junge, irische Braut, auf dem Wege nach Cornwall, um dort von Tristan an König Marke ausgeliefert zu werden, ihre Verzweiflung herausschleudert!" which Google renders as "How important these young Syrian Bride, on the way to Cornwall to be there shipped from Tristan to King Marke, their desperation flings!" How they get from Irish to Syrian is some mystery to me (irisch vs. syrisch shouldn't be too much of a problem). Why, with bride a singular, they use plural pronouns, another. I learned "extradite" as probably the closest to "ausgeliefert" here. Problem key words: "wuchtig", which is something at the same time with weight and with force, and "herausschleudern", a sportive word used as a metapher. I said (so far) "powerful" and "catapulted", - improvements welcome, also a potential hook here. EEng, am I right that you would use "ejaculated"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

To do a good translation, you need to parse the whole sentence, then work back from there. I would go for something like "How lonely is this young Irish bride, being taken to Cornwall by Tristan to King Mark , her desperation cries out". This is talking about the alleged affair between Tristan and Princess Iseult. "Lonely" here can be used in English in reference to a spinster approaching middle-age and wanting marriage. Yngvadottir might be able to do better. Ritchie333 13:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I don't need the full sentence translated, just the header (excerpt). The bride is clearly the subject, and "crying out" here desperation is good, but is it close enough to "herausschleudern", with its implied vigour, that is a question. I don't know where you get lonely from. "wuchtig" can also be "massive", "bulky" and "shattering", derived from "Wucht": force, impact, weight, power ... - She is on a boat, traveling to her future husband, accompanied by his friend (and the matchmaker) who had killed her beloved. Desperation is understandable. - The second header in the article is somewhat easier to translate: kisses and bites are close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "filled with passion" is a better translation of "wuchtig". Picture the scene in a modern context; you're on a ferry from Dublin to Holyhead to get engaged to some chap with lots of money, but you absolutely fancy the pants off the bloke who's come to get you, and after a few drinks the weight of doing what is morally correct is too much and ..... I'll leave the rest of that as an exercise for the reader. Ritchie333 14:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice OR. You (and I) agree with Katharina Wagner (the stage director), that passion was already there and didn't need a love potion. Can't use it for a hook, - wuchtig can mean a lot, but not "filled with passion". "Passionately" would also be too ambiguous". But thanks for trying, - try harder ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(I also agree with Katherina Wagner—it's there in the text somewhere.) A close translation of the bit in the headline would be "How heftily this young bride flings out her despair", but that is multiply problematic in English. And please, please don't use "ejaculate". I'm assuming you want to say something in the hook like "DYK that according to a critic, in this year's Bayreuth Festival, Isolde 'heftily ... fl out her despair'?" A better translation might be: "How forcefully this young bride gives voice to her despair!" or "With what force the young bride here launches her despair at us!"—maybe you can adapt one of those? Or maybe another lurking translator can do better. ("Despair" is the standard translation of Verzweiflung, but it always gives me pause because the etymological connection to "doubt" isn't there. Sometimes "desperation" is a better rendition; consider that as an alternative here depending on your reading of the emotional drama.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I like "forcefully" and "heftily", and liked "desperation" even before your comment, feel supported. - Which leaves "herausschleudern" open, "give voice" is too harmless, "fling" too sporty. - Needless to say, the assumed EEng way was a joke. Compare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine why everyone turns to me when they want a winking, off-color hook . EEng 16:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I found a word expressing a bit of "herausschleudern": "express". - I didn't ping your for a hook, only a word ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. For the record, I definitely wouldn't say "ejaculated her despair". EEng 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have something more expressive than "express"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Proclaim. EEng 20:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, howbout 'declaim'? _Muffled 20:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If you really want to keep the throwing metaphor, try "hurls at the audience". (You need "at the audience" because that verb really requires an "at" and because without one, in US slang it means "vomit".) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Good ideas, but in this case I think both proclaim and hurl doesn't work well. I believe the expression of Isolde's feelings comes out of her ("heraus", almost "vomited"), audience or not. Please check article and nom for my latest changes. Open for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

For comparison, same piece, same author whose article Dr. Blofeld started today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Your close has a red link which should go here, - the next request would be III. Did you see who wrote "Is all this grief and drama necessary?"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's sad to see everyone tear each other's heads off. I've noticed the conversation about infoboxes has got uglier from some quarters recently. If somebody wants to raise "Revenge of the Infoboxes III - this time it's personal" then they can do that, while I carry on with making a former redlink River Yarty blue. Ritchie333 21:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about everybody restricted to 2 comments per discussion, and 1RR for the infoboxes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I would rather not think about sanctions. Arbs can deal with this mess. Ritchie333 21:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say sanctions, I mean voluntary self-restriction, - dreaming ;) - What are we doing to our readers if they see the little box, initiated by the article creator, come and go four times? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Allendale! Let Mary make it all better. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody

Ritchie, I know you know your music, so I'd like to draw your attention to a discussion on the "Bohemian Rhapsody" page about the genre. An IP recently removed a sourced genre and replaced it with an unsourced genre of rock opera, which I reverted because we had sources for all the existing genres. My revert was itself then reverted. I say rock opera is not a genre, it's a type of album (for example Tommy, Quadrophenia which I know you will know well from your work on The Who). It doesn't apply accurately to Bohemian Rhapsody, which is a song with operatic elements in it (which is something quite different). My research has found articles which support this (http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/11/the-who-made-the-best-rock-opera-ever-but-its-not-the-one-you-think/248431/ "The mere undertaking of such an album—which typically sprawls to a double or triple set—is enough to fire the imagination of anyone in search of a recording that's more than a mere collection of songs" and this http://uk.ign.com/articles/top-14-greatest-rock-operasconcept-albums-of-all-time) which clearly state that a rock opera is akin to a concept album and is not an indivdual song. Please let me know your thoughts on the Talk page. Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have dropped my 2c on the talk page as requested. Ritchie333 17:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

AllMusic

Hi. In reference to this edit, isn't a database listing (not a review) on AllMusic just as unremarkable as an IMDb listing for a film or a listing in the phone book for a person? Largoplazo (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the entries get reviewed, or at least filtered so complete no-hoper WP:GARAGE bands never get listed - I'd recommend sending to PROD or AfD. Ritchie333 20:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

An article on them in Wired, which I found used as a source in the Misplaced Pages AllMusic article, says of AllMusic: "Compiling discographic information on every artist who's made a record since Enrico Caruso gave the industry its first big boost is a monstrous task." So I venture to say that it isn't filtered. Hence "is listed on AllMusic" means no more than "has made a record", which isn't a credible claim of significance. Largoplazo (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I've made at least five albums, none of which are on AllMusic. In any case, I deleted the article per WP:CSD#G11 in the end. Ritchie333 09:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Are your albums not on AllMusic because the site found them not worthy of inclusion, or simply because no one has put them there yet and they may not even know about them? Their obvious inability to add albums they don't even know about doesn't mean their goal isn't to include, uncritically, all albums, and that they won't include yours the instant they find out about them. Largoplazo (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Guerilla Cricket

Can I ask what made you think that the Guerilla Cricket page was a "blatant hoax"?

As one of the very few (maybe only one of two) broadcasters of cricket commentary around the world, and a spin off from Test Match Sofa (which has a page!), what made you think that there was nothing genuine about the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraclematt (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Come over to http://tunein.com/radio/Guerilla-Cricket-s225655/ to get an idea of whether Guerilla Cricket's real or not.

Your deletion of the Guerilla Cricket page for being a "blatant hoax" is a peculiar decision. The site and its cricket coverage are very real and used regularly by many affectionate listeners. The page had a number of citations and references in place and was expanding rapidly. Checking any one of those links or references would have made the "hoax" case very hard to support. Restoring it to a draft at the very least would be welcome. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinesideburn (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Test Match Sofa has an article about itself in the Daily Telegraph, thus being easy to prove it is a real thing, and not just something made up on the internet. The real problem is that the article as I deleted it was so unsuitable for an encyclopedia article that it was impossible to take seriously. I'm just rewriting the article from scratch, so give me five minutes. Ritchie333 15:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks :) There is an article in the Spectator about GC (I think it was linked in the old text) - we're all a bit new to this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraclematt (talk • contribs) 15:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I appreciate the article was a work in progress, but isn't everything to one degree or another? Your edits will be very welcome. Spinesideburn (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Spinesideburn: - okay, Guerilla Cricket is back up, that version of the article should stick and not be deleted. The problem was if I didn't delete it, it might have been deleted anyway by another admin who has less experience of hearing Test Match Special drone on about nothing in particular when rain stops play. Ritchie333 15:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Spinesideburn (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Several listeners to the station Guerilla Cricket believe that the newly created wiki page of the same name. the reqason given is that they are 'a blatant hoax'. this is wholly untrue. A simple visit to http://www.guerillacricket.com/ will show you this page is not a hoax. not only that you can also tune in and listen to the commentary live during England games. Thripweed (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Go over to http://tunein.com/radio/Guerilla-Cricket-s225655/ to listen to these guys live on Tunein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnawreckyourmom (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

As I've just said above, I have restored the article that makes it far more obvious that the site has been commented in sources internationally and has a genuine purpose. The problem was not the topic, but the way it was presented - it used too much surreal humour for people just checking out a new article from scratch, and it made it extremely difficult to tell what was genuine information, and what was just everyone being silly (sorry, but while Martinevans123 is blocked you're not allowed to be funny on Misplaced Pages by royal decree, so watch it) A rewrite is the answer. Ritchie333 15:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi - can I ask why you've removed the information box from the page? What references do I need to put in there to keep it in place. I used the Test Match Sofa box as a template, put in the correct information, but you've removed it from the page. What should I include to prevent it from being removed again? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraclematt (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes can be controversial, sometimes I use them when there is a lot to summarise, other times the prose is enough on its own. You will need to either cite each field with a reliable source that proves the information is true or worthy of belonging in an encyclopedia, or ensure all the information present is in the article, with each claim also cited to a reliable source. Cassianto, SchroCat, any views on this one? Ritchie333 10:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a borderline one for me, but I think you're probably right to take it out. The best way to explain what something is (especially something from the more 'oddball' end of the spectrum, is through prose. The topic itself will probably raise more questions than answers (is it like guerilla gradening: a flashmob team playing cricket in odd places, etc), and an IB does little to explain things like that. Keeping the information within prose is a better way of explaining they truly important parts of a subject. I know the previous version (and the Test Match Sofa one) have things like founders and producers names in there, but if they are not blue-linked (i.e. not notable enough to have their own article), there is a serious question as to whether they should be flagged up in such a key place as in an IB. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried to restore the parameters that look harmless to me, but please correct or revert if I guessed wrong, - I am no expert in Guerilla and Cricket ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a good compromise actually Gerda, cheers. Ritchie333 11:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is, but I really have little no interest in yet another IB debate... - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The current infobox is pathetic. Everything contained within it can be found in the lead section:

• Guerilla Cricket -- repeated from the top of the page and the first line of the lead section;
• Sport (cricket) commentary -- The word "cricket" gives its genre away. Also in the lede;
• United Kingdom -- Do we need to know this? Also in the lede;
• Since 2014 -- in the lede;
• Internet radio -- in the lede;

So in light of that, I don't see the point of it. Cassianto 18:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Website guerillacricket.com

@Cassianto: Prose is not machine-readable, but infoboxes are: WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. clpo13_(talk) 18:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me, I have Ritchie's page watchlisted. Prose is our business, that's why we call ourselves an encyclopedia. We are not here to help Google. Cassianto 19:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Google isn't the only entity to make use of microformats. I don't see any logical reason to make information harder to access. clpo13_(talk) 19:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Clicking on an article you wish to read is a difficult skill to undertake. Cassianto 19:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Your anti-machine bigotry is noted. clpo13_(talk) 19:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way you can perhaps discuss IBs without stupid insults, clpo13? I don't see any need for you to blithely insult someone just because they hold a reasonable opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The robot uprising cannot be quelled by mere calls for civility. clpo13_(talk) 19:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

With that sort of comment, I think you've told me all I need to know. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"anti-machine bigotry"? Yes, that's right, I'm a bigot towards computers. Idiot. Cassianto 19:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, both of you took that seriously? I thought it was plenty hyperbolic. clpo13_(talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything that could benefit this discussion, or are you here just to fuel a fire that's not yet begun? Cassianto 19:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I did have something and you dismissed it out of hand. I don't know why you lot get so bent out of shape over infoboxes. clpo13_(talk) 19:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't. I do get narked at the aggreessive agenda pushing of a small minority bent on forcing them into articles where they have no interest, even where they are of no value. - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The "machine-readable" argument is the least compelling argument for infoboxes. We already have Wikidata classifying our articles every which way (frequently incorrectly). We don't need to make it easier for Google to pre-empt us at the cost of oversimplifying complex topics for our actual human readers and further cluttering our articles with templates that make them slow or impossible to load for actual readers with bandwidth problems and confuse screen-readers. The arguments that I find valid are for types of articles where there is a lot of stuff—such as championships, Olympic medals and stats for athletes; specs, ownerships and successive names for ships; enrollment, school district, street address, and head for schools; editor, scriptwriter, running time, premiere dates for films; and of course what they were designed for, taxonomy for species—that fans want to see and is either brain-numbing or likely to be in scattered locations in prose. But that's for the convenience of readers. They do readers a disservice if slathered on like whipped cream, because then the encyclopedia looks like a textbook for 11-year-olds, and more seriously, in topics where complex or disputed facts have to be shoehorned in. I add them in some articles as soon as there's enough information for them to make sense. In other articles they are a gross oversimplification. Not that anyone asked me. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A brilliant comment and one that I whole-heartedly concur with. In hindsight, I'm not surprised you weren't asked. I can't imagine anyone who would want to be on the recieving end of that. Cassianto 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, so let's compare the original infobox (now deleted) with the one on Test Match Sofa (still there). "Test Match Sofa was a radio programme providing cricket commentary for all England test matches and selected One Day Internationals." - so someone should remove the "Genre" and "Running Time" (which conflicts the first line) from the info box. The "Producers" field should be removed because it's uncredited and is unsubstantiated (not in any of the referenced articles, not in the Wiki page). So that would leave the country (possibly - surely it's obvious from the text that Tooting Bec, Nunhead and South London are in the UK), language, creators and audio format. The infobox for Test Match Sofa adds very little to the article, so is someone going to remove it from there as well, or just remove the redundant fields? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that one could find where the infobox is (to some people) irrelevant, and to others provides a handy precis of the key information. Ho hum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraclematt (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought there was a bug when I checked WP after breakfast and it said "you have 29 new messages" .... anyway, for consistency's sake I have removed the infobox from Test Match Sofa. Now, that's enough talk about infoboxes on this talk page for one day, so here is a picture of a kitten : Ritchie333 09:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Richie, I don't understand your decision to delete the edit I posted yesterday. The original parts which I removed were inaccurate and/or irrelevant. For example, the statement that they had "not managed to gain interviews from professional English cricketers" is clearly wrong, and the list of guest which I included, instead of the single guest previously cited, included several such cricketers. Midsomer (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midsomer (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Midsomer: - the information you removed was cited to the piece in The Spectator, specifically "It’s safe to say that Alastair Cook or any other England player is unlikely to share the microphone anytime soon. ‘Oh God no,’ says Nigel Walker, co-founder of the channel. ‘The ECB wouldn’t let him speak to us.’". So it disagrees with your assertion that the claim is "clearly wrong". Meanwhile, the information you added was unsourced, so you have made the article less verifiable and hence worse. This is not a good direction to go in. If you want to challenge the information, you will need to supply a better source (eg: The Guardian, The Independent, BBC News) that clearly aligns with these views. Sorry, but we can't accept your personal opinion in articles. Ritchie333 10:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Richie, while the citation referred to is correct, the words used do not reflect the content of the cited article. The statement "Though it has not managed to gain interviews from professional English cricketers", is not a reflection of the quote you used above. Current English Test players have not appeared on GC, nor do I believe such appearances have been sought, but several other professional cricketers have. The reference to the actions of the Cricketer Magazine failing to seize The Sky viewing card, while mildly amusing, is hardly relevant or useful, and the reference to just one guest is far better placed in a more comprehensive list of guests. As far as that list is concerned, it is never going to be possible to provide a citation for such a list, unless you want a copy of the PM I received from Nigel Henderson, one of the co-hosts/founders, in response to my request for him to provide such a list. I will endeavour to do an edit citing the Spectator article in a more accurate manner. Midsomer (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

PS - Just read Zen and the art of W Maintenance - Thoroughly enjoyed it! Thank you :) Midsomer (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bow Street

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bow Street 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bow Street

The article Bow 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:Bow Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bow Street

The article Bow Street you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bow Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite Diego Deiros

Hello ‪Ritchie333 Like you indicate, the article needs a rewrite. And I want to be sure every thing is ok before start. Deiros published many articles refereed journals, that are used in the bibliography of other articles and thesis of geosciences and engineering. Gave classes at a university institute in Caracas, but he appears also in scientific publications as part of the Simon Bolivar University and also as tutor engineering in thesis at the University of the Andes. Although I have understood, his primary job is not academic in nature but he is also known for their academic achievements, like the measure the Pico Bolivar altitude, the highest peak in Venezuela with other two geoscientists climber collaborator. This single research has made significant impact, because before this, the peak measured had not been achieved, even after many attempts for nearly a century. Also he is notable for their primary job. In the Houston geophysical society is referred as part of the company Fugro and some students went to a private laboratory of his property that had assembled for processing and interpreting seismic data. There was a group of engineers working, the interesting thing it is that at that time were pioneers in data processing using free software Linux. They were working in a geo-hazards study for ConocoPhillips using seismic data. Please let me know if this is OK to rewrite the article? Best Regards Biographer1950 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You around Ritchie?

I.P.100.33.90.194 (talk) made a crappy personal attack on User talk:Iryna Harpy‎; due to some gripe the I.P has over an unreliable source it insists on deploying. I used rollback. Could you do errr whatever is admins do in these situations? Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the IP hasn't done anything else, so if "whatever" was a block, I think it's a bit stale now. Ritchie333 22:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a verbal would have done. I think it won't be repeated. Irondome (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Recovery of Draft page ICON Engineeirng Pty Ltd

Hi Ritchie333, I created the page ICON Engineering Pty Ltd under List_of_oilfield_service_companies list and I'd like to recover the work I've done and continue working on it, with a view to getting this company and a few other company omissions on this important list. The list is important but has lots of omissions. The log says you deleted the page. Further, the instructions on creating a replacement page say I should contact you before creating ICON Engineering Pty Ltd. it says quote "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. 17:36, 2 August 2016 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) deleted page ICON Engineering Pty Ltd (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)" I'll get some help form editors, etc.. as this list is really poor. Can you point me to a place where I can recover my deleted work? John21rope (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@John21rope: I have restored the page to User:John21rope/ICON Engineering Pty Ltd where it can be worked on further. If you would like an independent reviewer to assess it, you can click on "Submit your draft for review" and it will either be moved back into mainspace or you'll be given instructions on what else needs to be done. Ritchie333 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:. Thanks! I will try to follow your recommendations. Can you tell me specifically why you deleted it, otherwise I'm shooting in the dark with my edits as i have no idea what the problem is. I want to do the same for a few other missing companies.John21rope (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In this specific instance, I felt the article wasn't really focusing on what a typical reader would want to see in 10-20 years time, which is a general yardstick I use when determining what sort of shape an article can have. I'm confused as to what ICON does - designs and services oil rigs, but I'm not sure about that. That would be the first thing to address. Misplaced Pages:Writing better articles has a lot of information, but I'd particularly draw your attention to Words to watch, as that's an easy way to see what typical encyclopedia articles should look like. Ritchie333 18:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of M32 motorway

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article M32 motorway 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:M32 Bristol.png

Thanks for uploading File:M32 Bristol.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you don't seem to be able to read "Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 2.0" when it's added as free text. Now run along and nag some other newbie, you silly oaf. Ritchie333 18:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Aye, the bot does not like free text copyright tags. Nor do the people at Commons. One of the few things where the use of template is mandatory from what I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Percentages

MOS:PERCENT

I'm not going mad, am I? Adam9007 (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: I think this is a bit of a borderline case. Is the M32 scientific or technical? Well, in some ways (eg: construction and engineering plans, maintenance closures) it is, in other ways (eg: severing of communities, gardening to make the view nice) it isn't. Personally I've used % consistently, but I tend to deal more with technical articles where it's required, and the non-techy ones tend to be music-related where percentages don't seem to crop up that often, bar maybe the odd thing like how much of Live and Dangerous is actually live. Ritchie333 18:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I've never thought of motorways as either. Adam9007 (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you look carefully at MOS:PERCENT you'll see the wording is (intentionally) very loose i.e. "commonly". If you have a lot of %ages in one passage, editors on a particular article might certainly agree to use figures instead of words. EEng 19:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking personally, User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies describes the thought processes in my head perfectly :-) Ritchie333 19:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of M32 motorway

The article M32 motorway you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:M32 motorway 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

16 King Street, Bristol

Hi. I tried to expand this but couldn't find enough even for a destub. Perhaps it would be best to merge it and some of the other landmarks which have little info available into the King Street, Bristol article and develop the main article? Rodw? Perhaps you'd be interested in expanding the street.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a merge to King Street, Bristol is the right move. I don't think 147 Oxford Street (also a Grade II listed building) would survive as a standalone article, for example. I don't have any good offline sources for Bristol streets (the M32 is an exception because being a public construction, enough online documentation is available to fact check everything), while for London we've got The London Encyclopedia (some of it's online at Google Books but I've got the full printed copy too) and the Survey of London which covers huge amounts of material - I certainly would expect to get Colston Hall to GA without too much hassle if I had Bristol equivalents for both of those. Ritchie333 13:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Been to Colston Hall many times, it's one of Britain's most notable rock venues! On King Street some buildings are more notable than others. I think we need to decide which ones to merge. Something like 16 King Street at best should be a small section/paragraph in the street article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Just looking quickly I would probably think it would be best to merge all of the number address ones into it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Basically, it's like the road articles we talked about the other day; if you're reasonably au fait enough with the subject to believe other sources are unlikely to exist to cover the article in-depth, it makes sense to merge. For the same reason, I would oppose merging any of the railway station stubs that I haven't been able to expand, because I am confident that historical print sources will cover them in depth. As for Colston Hall, I've trimmed out a frightening number of copyvios today, though I have noticed on my travels that the Bristol Post appear to be copypasting from Misplaced Pages. Ritchie333 14:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Helpless

Hello dear Ritchie333,, I need your helpless: you must protect and save the article Nikolai Noskov! If you saved this article, I will for you grateful! Thank you! --Anna Jarvinen (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Where is this page being proposed for deletion?? I don't see any AfD debate or PROD going on. Class455 (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I'm not improving Bristol articles left right and centre ;-) .... but you might be better off starting an article on the Russian Misplaced Pages first, then migrating it over to here. He probably can have at least a redirect, but I'd have to go through Russian sources to get a good idea of whether or not he can have a standalone article. In the meantime, some of the prose is far too flowery and needs a trim down to be neutral and impartial. Ritchie333 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Victoria Park, Bristol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bedminster

Colston bun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Currant

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portway, Bristol

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Portway, Bristol 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portway, Bristol

The article Portway, Bristol you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Portway, Bristol 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Le Mesurier

Ritchie, the IP has gone straight back into the edit war without bothering about the talk page again. BTW, I sent you an email yesterday about an RfC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"I don't suppose you could tell them to stop, that'd be awfully nice....", "You're too soft on them Wilson, what this lot need is a good block!" "Do you think that's wise sir?" "Oh for goodness sake, Jones!" "Permission to speak sir?" "Just listen please, I want you to semi-protect the article for a week, understand?" "Yes sir, will semi-protection stop the fuzzie-wuzzies reverting?" "It'd better do .... what is it, Pike?" "Just wondering if we should notify the IP on their talk page, sir?" "Stupid boy." (I'll address the email when I've got a mo, I've been distracted by the allure of free Amazon vouchers from Blofeld recently....) Ritchie333 08:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha, perhaps the funniest and most inspired response I've seen all year! Cassianto 13:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You might be laughing now but you won't be if this bleedin' lot comes down on your head, stupid bloody Wikipedian-on-sea home guard - put that protection notice out! Hodges333 14:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oooo... I'll tell the Vicar on you! - Mr Yeatman (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tamar Bridge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tamar Bridge 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tamar Bridge

The article Tamar Bridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tamar Bridge 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tamar Bridge

I'm pleased to inform you that you won't be getting any more notices about Tamar Bridge, which you nominated as a good article. EEng 22:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tamar Bridge

Just to clarify that the last notice you got about Tamar Bridge, which you nominated as a good article, was the absolutely last notice you were going to get, except of course this notice. This is the end for sure. EEng 22:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Now look, Prince of Boston, that's just a joke too far. Threesie's not some cheap market gardener , you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Go jump in the Tamar. Did you know that the Cornish on the sign halfway across the Tamar Bridge means "here be dragons"? Or perhaps it's "Kelly's vanilla with flake, please?" Ritchie333 07:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Kelly's of Cornwall

Hello, Ritchie333,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kelly's of Cornwall should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kelly's of Cornwall .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I am just utterly gobsmacked at the message above. Of all the people who would have put such a message on my talk, I think only a CSD template notice from MelanieN would have been more of a surprise. I am pleased that the AfD is being met by an avalanche of "keep" votes and suggest you read WP:HNST carefully.

While we're here, can I politely ask you to tone down the rhetoric on WT:RFA and elsewhere that seems to suggest only your opinions and experience is what matters, and that RfA has somehow got worse because it is more widely advertised. As you can see from JJE's RfA, that was very much not the case. In particular, your snark against Biblioworm, who has done more than a few GA reviews and hence is a good guy for the project to have, and who went out of his way to actually do something about RfA is, borderline close to personal attacks. Please give it a rest. Ritchie333 14:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This templated message is something that may be worth noting on your essay about template perception - each templated user receives the same template text no matter how experienced they are - If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.. Also, I believe JJE refers to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I addressed some of this in WP:HITANDRUN, specifically under the section "Templates". Ritchie333 09:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A few additional articles that may be of use. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie, calm down. Kudpung probably used Twinkle or some similar process to nominate the article; those processes automatically put a notification on the author's talk page. Twinkle doesn't know a newbie from a regular. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As the AfD was later withdrawn, I should AGF this was a simple mistake and draw this conversation to a close. Ritchie333 09:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Is you from the Westcountry ways?

The Kelly's of Cornwall message is the second Westcountry-related thing I've seen pop up on your talk page recently, which has got me thinking you might be from down that way? -- samtar 19:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm just editing articles for an editathon Misplaced Pages:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge. I've only been to Cornwall twice, mainly in August 1999 for the same reason lots of other people went. I can remember standing near Pendennis Castle watching the eclipse and seeing all the streetlights of Falmouth come on. The next day I recall swimming in the sea near Godrevy, and driving all the way down the A30 to Land's End, thinking "what a rip-off" and turning around again. I must go back one day. Ritchie333 17:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You certainly should. Cornwall isn't all pasties and hurling (in that order), you know. Maybe Brenda can ring a few bells for you? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yma res nowydh kavadow a Martinevans123 hag yw as humorous as Ritchie333 11:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, can't you just taste the cows? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Leun a sylli yw ow skath bargesi -- samtar 12:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"I hear that Bude is very nice at this time of the year." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for M32 motorway

On 14 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article M32 motorway, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2011, a field of red poppies, cornflowers, and marigolds was planted alongside the M32 motorway in Bristol to improve the view? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/M32 motorway. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, M32 motorway), 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fenchurch Street railway station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fenchurch Street railway station 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fenchurch Street railway station

The article Fenchurch Street railway station 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:Fenchurch Street railway station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh ...

LazyFox980 is a new user and has created Japoodle; I PROD'd it as not notable (see, I was trying to be nice by not saying: "Huh, another 'breed' someone just made up"). The edit summary when the PROD was removed says s/he is doing a class course. My inclination is to take it straight to AfD ('cos I'm narky like that) but what do you think? The three refs used at present are: only about Poodles; a forum; and a Mail article that is actually castigating 'designer dogs' with no mention of a "Japoodle". On a quick search I am finding absolutely zilch except "breeders" trying to sell pups ... ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Japoodle. (sorry, mention of the Mail makes steam come out of my ears) Ritchie333 15:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie. I wonder why their teacher didn't explain what would be required? SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Next question: an article was deleted back in 2013, recreated in June 2016, has just had a copyvio from one crap user generated source (that is usually removed on sight) deleted and I've just removed another crap poor source. Does one passing mention in a book on bear baiting make it notable? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I bet you wish you'd never responded to the previous question as it now makes you the "go to" guy ... ;-)

I've speedy deleted it per WP:CSD#G4 as it is basically a subset of the article that was deleted. If I get a complaint, I will restore it to draft, as I generally do. Ritchie333 13:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

John Earle wiki page

Hi Ritchie333 , just a quick note to say I found the John Earle wiki entry which i believe you set up and wanted to thank you. The subject was my Father and i've been trying to get a wiki page for him off the ground for some time. If you dont mind i would like to contribute more to this page as I know of events / sources that can be referenced as I've been collecting material towards committing his life to print. If you have any problems or questions I'll be happy to talk further. Keep up the good work ! Regards Ibe1972 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC) ibe1972

@Ibe1972: By strange coincidence, I have been listening to Live and Dangerous this afternoon which features John Earle on sax, one of my favourite live albums of all time and easily Thin Lizzy's best album by a wide margin (quick wave to Bretonbanquet). I met Brian Robertson once doing a pub gig in Essex some years back, and his opening line was "this wee bastard amp inn'ae loud enough". One of the problem on working with an article like Earl's is that he was a sidesman to various bands, rather than a frontman or leader, and that means he didn't get as much column inches in the NME, Melody Maker or Sounds, which makes it harder to write an article about him. In any case, I have done a little copyediting and formatting to the article so it's a little better presented. Ritchie333 15:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fenchurch Street railway station

The article Fenchurch Street railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fenchurch Street railway station 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for L.A. Woman

On 17 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article L.A. Woman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jim Morrison recorded some vocals for the Doors' L.A. Woman in the bathroom doorway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/L.A. Woman. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, L.A. Woman), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Not the window, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

question

Is it okay to restore everything through the section titled "Proponents" in the text EEng removed while we discuss that section? LavaBaron (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If EEng is okay with it and there are no other objections, then yes. If not, then no. I saw the section removed and personally I think Trump is perfectly capable of digging his own grave and losing the election without requiring any outside assistance. As mainstream broadsheet outlets random example have not touched on this conspiracy theory, I don't think it has a place in the article at this time. Ritchie333 09:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333 - just to be clear, this is the content I'm talking about (it's currently duplicated in a second article as I'd like to merge this over). I generally consider the Huff Post, CBS News, the WaPo, Snopes, CNN, etc. valid as RS but definitely understand if there's a reason you think we should not rely on those as RS. Also, I don't think we should be trying to dig any candidate's graves. (In the last 48 hours I've been accused of being both a Clinton and a Trump shill. I'm actually just trying to add content to the encyclopedia.) Also, would you mind archiving the 3RR thread? In the interest of keeping everything civil I think it might be best if it's not left open as I know it got a little heated between myself and EEng at the end. Thanks much - LavaBaron (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Saying "'x' is a reliable source" is misleading and doesn't make sense. You need to be thinking "'x' is a reliable source for this claim". Normally, we'd consider BBC News to be a good source for most current events, but you wouldn't use this as a reliable for source for saying "spaghetti grows on trees and is harvested". Still, if we've got Flat Earth and we've got Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories, I suppose we can have Trump plant theory in a separate article, which does correspond with what WP:NPOV and WP:DUE says. Ritchie333 09:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I understand Processed Food News is RS for content about processed food but not about particle physics. But I think most people consider Huff Post, CBS News, the WaPo, Snopes, CNN, etc. RS for information about American politics. I've not yet seen many examples on WP of these being ruled non-RS for American politics? I'm not sure what sources are acceptable if these aren't. I'll check at the RS noticeboard, though, to see if anyone can recommend any others that are reliable. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. 09:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

While the sources mentioned cover the topic, the important thing I see when I read them is that none of them are taking this seriously and describing it as some silly crackpot theory. If you want to write an article about a silly crackpot theory that multiple independent sources have covered as a silly crackpot theory, that's fine, but you must make sure you describe it as such. Ritchie333 10:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi - actually the second sentence says "The Tampa Bay Times described the idea as "outlandish" while Mother Jones jocularly declared it the "best conspiracy story ever" and Gawker opined it as "extremely delicious". I thought that adequately identified it as a silly crackpot theory, but maybe there is other verbiage I can use? LavaBaron (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've linked to conspiracy theory right at the top of the lead, as that's what it is. I think that'll do for now. Ritchie333 10:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

A30 road (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Popham and M3 motorway

A431 road (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Turnpike

River Yarty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to River Axe

Saltash Ferry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Floating bridge

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

apologies

I thought we had a pleasant discussion above, and I'm sorry if I said something to make it seem like I was WP:DEADHORSEing. I won't post on your Talk page further, but I did want to take a quick moment to express my regret if my conversation was unwelcome. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It was more the DYK that was getting heated. Here, I think it was just an observation that you carry on a discussion more than most on this talk page. I don't have a problem with you posting on this page (I don't have a problem with anyone, I can take my kids saying I'm "nasty" or "horrible" for not giving them what they want all the time, everything else is easy), but I think you just need to stop talking to and about Fram everywhere. Like, right now. If Fram says your article is not up to snuff and explains why (and they usually do), blank whatever personal feelings you've got and go and have a look at the specific complaints. If they have merit, fix the article. If they don't, ignore it. Simples. Ritchie333 11:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood, I will stop responding to Fram in the AN thread effective immediately and let it run its course. Also I forgot to thank you for restoring my original verbiage "conspiracy theory" into the Trump plant theory - I was afraid to do it myself and I appreciate you making that revert. Goodnight. LavaBaron (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry again, as per above I have not posted again in the AN thread, however, an editor has requested involvement of an "uninvolved admin" specifically because I haven't responded. The last time I was advised not to offer an explanation for an allegation I got a 30-day block ; I immediately then did offer an explanation and it was pulled as a bad block. I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place - if I don't jump back into the thread I'm going to get another bad block, if I jump back in and start shotgunning diffs I have violated my stated commitment here not to reply. I was quite proud of my clean block log and it was upsetting to have it destroyed due to an erroneous block; I would like to avoid any further damage, if possible. (He has also asked I be blocked for canvassing on the basis of only pinging "support" !voters in a DYK thread. However, not mentioned is that the only people who !voted in that thread were people who voted "support". I literally pinged everyone who !voted without regard to !vote, as per my understanding of WP:NOTIFY, it just happens everyone !voted "support". I feel like I need to clarify that point.) LavaBaron (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Kelly's of Cornwall

On 18 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kelly's of Cornwall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kelly's of Cornwall produced the first advertisement shown on national British television to feature the Cornish language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kelly's of Cornwall. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kelly's of Cornwall), 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

By an ice creamy coincidence, that appears to have been my 99th DYK. Yum... Ritchie333 12:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So contrived you make User:EEng look "spontaneous". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving page

• Bill Bailey
• Lars Ulrich

Hey Ritchie, can you move Untitled tenth Metallica studio album to Hardwired... to Self-Destruct, since Metallica recently announced the title. Thanks.--Retrohead (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Retrohead: Looks like somebody's already done it. Ritchie333 20:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Damn, they moved it seconds after I asked you... but they got the title wrongly spelled. Per WP:BANDNAME, prepositions shorter than five letters (such as to) are in small letters.--Retrohead (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Also if you can protect it from IPs, I see they went crazy with the genres and the songs length already.--Retrohead (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't keep up. Somebody reverted the move (though as you say I'm certain "to" should be in lower case). I don't think there's quite enough disruption to warrant protection just yet, but it'll be worth keeping an eye on. Also, is Lars Ulrich turning into Bill Bailey? Ritchie333 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I requested a formal protection. Things around that article might get messy in the upcoming days. If you're thinking of Ulrich's haircut, yes, they seem alike. And that image with the lyrics from "Cherry Pie" is pure genius.--Retrohead (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the accidental rollback of things on your talkpage. Was on my phone, and accidentally clicked on rollback. Joseph2302 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I was having a nice bowl of Kellogg's Crunchy Nut at the time so I didn't notice :-) Ritchie333 13:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A PR for Taylor Swift

Hello, I see that you contribute to music articles so if you've got time and interest, please consider leaving comments for PR of Ms Swift regarding its prose which I don't feel is under a very good condition. FrB.TG (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know Ms Swift personally, let enough to give a reliable opinion on what "condition" her condition is in ... on a serious note I will take a look if I get a mo. Ritchie333 17:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

IP editing experiment

Yngvadottir, Drmies, you'll be interested in this. Today, I popped into my local library to get some books, and picked up one that was "reference only" that I couldn't take away. I didn't have my laptop, so I was reduced to using a public computer. Now I'm not crazy enough to log in as an admin on a computer any old person can wander in off the street and use. I thought about creating a public account, as many admins do, but then I had an idea. Why don't I just try making the article edits I would normally make, but as an IP without edit summaries, and let's see what happens? It's allowed (AFAIK through numerous discussions) and it allows me to do work without leaving a paper trail of my admin login where prying eyes can see it?

Well, the evidence is in, and it's here. @NgYShung: I would now like an explanation of why you removed a good faith edit that was cited to an expert source on the South Eastern Railway to Folkestone Harbour railway station? Would you have reverted it if I had made the edit logged in as Ritchie333 (which would have been absolutely identical except for an edit summary of "add background to SER purchase")? I await your answers with interest. Ritchie333 13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"Shocked and alarmed", Threesie. Please don't get yourself blocked, with all this permissiveness. Murielevans123 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't say I'm too surprised. The software also tags IP edits much more readily than logged-in editors' (look at the recent changes feed). I must admit I don't understand why a whole bunch of regular editors decline to register accounts. But you should have disabled the autocorrect. I hate hate hate that anyway. (By the way, in fairness I should mention that when I submitted 3 articles via AfC from a public library computer I was treated very nicely each time.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Well, I think I'm the chosen one, hahaha (is this some kind of tribute?). First, I'm a bit new on wikimarkup, and I've never seen something more complex than this. I usually stick with WP:ASL and Template:reflist. Secondly, still on the wikimarkup side, I thought the reference was redundant (I've never seen WP:SFN), because it seems cited wrongly, and I've never thought it linked together. Third, per second, I only know Template:cite book. Last, I was using User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool and I can only see the source code changes instead of the page view so I don't know that this is a valid way of referencing.

I'm just gonna say I know and read WP:IPHUMAN before. But first, I was using Lupin's Anti-vandal tool and was patrolling the Recent IP edits tab and Filter recent changes tab, so I think if you logged in the main account, it will not work, actually... But if you logged in and I saw that (maybe I'm using WP:RTRC), I think I'll maybe visit it and see if there was any error per above reason. In conclusion, I don't know WP:SFN and never used or seen something different than WP:ASL. Well, as a tester, hope your hypothesis is correct! Thanks for conducting the experiment on me! (Don't be disappointed, maybe conduct another one next time on another user?) Cheers! NgYShung 15:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @NgYShung: Given your 'explanation', would you please explain why believing the reference was redundant and the markup complex to you justified the wholesale reversal of an edit which added sourced information, and doing so without an edit summary? This is a very serious error and your reply doesn't suggest to me you understand its gravity. BethNaught (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

{{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} are pretty much shibboleths in Misplaced Pages. If you normally use one, it probably means you are providing sources on hard-to find paper books that aren't online. That means you're a serious researcher who wants to write content; trudging to a library or forking out hard earned cash means you are prepared to sacrifice more of your life on Misplaced Pages to write things than most sane people. I don't think I have ever seen an IP use either template (though I dare say that 99 chap has used one) so putting one in as an IP was an interesting test. Anyway, lesson here for today is NgYShung is this : Anti vandal tools complement encyclopedia writing, they do not replace it. You should never judge whether to revert on whether the edit was by an IP or by a logged-in editor - it is irrelevant. (Can I call this "wiki-racism" or would that upset people?) If you're not up to speed with how to write an article, you are going to run into trouble. FWIW, I decided to write about Folkestone Harbour station because I did a gig on the seafront there last week and was reminiscing about the time I boarded a ferry for France there on a school trip many moons ago. Ritchie333 16:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

{{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} are pretty much shibboleths in Misplaced Pages. If you normally use one, it probably means you are providing sources on hard-to find paper books that aren't online. That means you're a serious researcher who wants to write content; trudging to a library or forking out hard earned cash means you are prepared to sacrifice more of your life on Misplaced Pages to write things than most sane people. Huh. I've recently started using {{sfn}} (on Qal'eh Hasan Ali) because my first articles included no pagenumber citations at all and the method I used on Laguna del Maule (volcano) and others (i.e list-defined references split by page numbers) requires a lot of hopping between sections to verify. I didn't know the people attach that sort of interpretation to it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• No surprise here. I don't understand the editor's explanation for the revert. Anytime you see someone adding what appears to be referenced content you should think very carefully about what's happening. I've done quite a bit of IP editing, and my experiences are mixed. I found admins to be helpful, I found regular editors to be myopic, and that includes a couple of editors whom I know, and who know me. Esp. in spam removal (you know--BLP and company puffery, long lists of accomplishments, directory-style info for organizations) they are sometimes very quick to revert, and what bothers me more is that a. they use semi-automatic machinery for it, templated warnings and all, and b. rarely explain why they revert--probably because they couldn't explain it. I've had some positive experiences like Yngvadottir had with article creation, but I bet that in half or more of those cases the helpful editor/admin suspected they were dealing with a registered editor.

  NgYShung, sorry, but if you make the revert you should be able to explain it and take ownership of it, and if you somehow can't explain it, you should probably apologize and change the way in which you patrol Recent changes. There are many established editors who operate in this way, and it is turning off new editors. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• to 195.194.187.132 (talk); WP:TROUT to NgYShung (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure established editors would stoop to create sock accounts with ridiculous names rather than edit as IP's, for fear of getting blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the revert I did, still I'm still a bit new and can make some mistakes. And yeah, I should've checked the edit before reverting. I'll be more careful next time. (Feel free to WP:TROUT me, haha) And again, sorry. NgYShung 08:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

References

1. "Folkestone Trawler Race 2016: Everything you need to know about this weekend". Kent Live. 3 August 2016. Retrieved 20 August 2016.

A bowl of strawberries for you! (Apology)

Your IP experiment makes me more conscious and careful of what should I do when reverting edits! Please accept my apology for giving you these tasty fresh strawberries. Thank you! NgYShung 08:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe also hang fire when proposing articles for CSD ...20 minutes after creation...? Cheers, _Muffled 09:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, "Professor of Department of Internal Medicine & Dean of faculty of Medicine" is a claim to meet WP:PROF and hence should not be tagged CSD A7. As it was unsourced, you could have tagged it as a blp prod, but I'd recommend you search for sources yourself and add them to the article - which is what Shirt58 did. If in doubt, search the flippin' web. Ritchie333 10:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for ping, Ritchie333. If I specialise in anything at all as admin, it would appear I am Mister Speedy Deletely Pants: "Pages deleted 9399". I prefer my record of rescuing pages tagged for speedy deletion. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - in 15 months of service with the mop and bucket I have deleted over 2,200 pages, none of which I have any recollection of whatsoever (except maybe Guerilla Cricket), but I much prefer my rescue list. Ritchie333 11:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Awww, c'mon guys, poor User:NgYShung. As if anyone doesn't like a lovely cute strawberry. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Okay, will be hanging CSD fire from now on. Thank you. NgYShung 14:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN and Oshwah

The post on RfA was critical of NeilN - that's why he reverted it. He didn't give a reason - just a cryptic comment between two asterisks. Whatever he's getting at, it might be an idea to look at the poster's previous edit, particularly paragraph 265 which discusses him. He doesn't want the voting to be fair - if he tampers with it again report him to the bureaucrats. 79.68.143.255 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Oshwah - as I said in another thread I'm mulling over where to strike my oppose and go with neutral (or even support) instead based on the question I posed. He's civil and his track record at CSD is good. If you want to discuss NeilN, I'm afraid it'll have to go to email, I don't think discussing his behaviour in a public page will have any value. Ritchie333 14:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that you can't oppose anybody at RFC without somebody commenting. It's like they're beyond desperate for admins.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Well they hired me, so they must be :-) Ritchie333 15:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK Light music

Playing some light music for you, too, for that concise answer ;) - Get ready to close the RfC with 15 times "idiot" (one by me, I said I don't exclude myself from the group of "idots".) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know why you entertain socks and banned users here. --NeilN 16:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ouch. I found this page very entertaining, I must say. Still do, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Neil, be nice to Martin please, he's got a sense of humour and he's not afraid to use it. Martin, this place wouldn't be the same without you - I wouldn't have been motivated to get the A4061 through DYK for one thing. Gerda, thankyou for the kind music; right now I feel like putting Live and Dangerous (don't all rush to do the GA review, will you) on full volume. (With headphones, of course :-D) Ritchie333 16:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm? I wasn't replying to Martin. --NeilN 16:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Just Kiddin.... "I am a number not a sock!" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, do I have to spell it out? Yes, I've edited logged out as an IP recently, as you can see a couple of threads above this one. Yes, sometimes people use different accounts because they don't want to be harassed or have their "reputation" get in the way of create content. It happens. Get over it. Meanwhile, here is some music...... Ritchie333 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I find your replies bizarre. But hey, if you want to humor banned users on your talk page, I guess that's up to you. --NeilN 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the IP was quite insightful and (after a little digging) it shows to me that you are a little confused on what WP:RD2 is supposed to be used for, and think blocking users is more important than writing articles. I recommend reading WP:DOLT and User:Gerda Arendt/User talk before you block. Ritchie333 16:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I recommend reading WP:DNFTT. If you believe I am using WP:RD2 inappropriately then please provide a few instances and explain why. We can all stand to improve in certain areas, yourself included. --NeilN 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No don't rush to that review, rush to "mine", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"The cantata comprises six movements" ... oooh, close to the knuckle there.... Ritchie333 16:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Lydia Cornell

@NeilN: Okay, this is related to the complaint the IP raised on the RfA today. I backtracked and it seems a root cause was this edit (only admins can see this) marked as "serious BLP violations", which the policy says "includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statement". The content was cited to IMDB, which as you know is a problem, and it is correct per WP:BLP to remove the content, but it was information that is believable and as the edit also puts a happy ending on the negative event in the person's life, it could be suitable to be retained if there was a better source. A revdel of the edit also prevents non-admins from looking at the diff through the history to help try and search for the claim in better sources. Therefore this does not strike me as being a correct application of RD2.

Anyway, the new user, who we must assume does not know any policies or guidelines, asks quite reasonably why he can't cite IMDB if this other article over here cites it. At this point I would explain that IMDB allows anyone to say anything so we shouldn't use it as a source, but with 5 million articles we can't possibly be consistent everywhere. As the user was angry and upset, I would seek to calm them down and hope they could be a productive editor elsewhere. Instead, you blocked the user per NLT with no other comment and have tried to censor criticism of the block. But WP:NLT says "A legal complainant may be genuinely hurt or upset. Blocking admins should encourage the user to identify factual errors in any article at issue. The user should be shown how to communicate with Misplaced Pages to correct errors", and an angry user saying "I'm going to sue you" in the heat of the moment is not a credible legal threat. A genuine legal threat requiring an NLT block starts with an email to legal@wmf, in my view. The user also complained that a claim of a relationship in the infobox was inaccurate or out of date; as this claim was unsourced I have completely removed it per BLP.

Reading the UTRS, I see the user has given up on Misplaced Pages and has told his friends and colleagues they should never edit here as it is too cliquey and impossible to do anything as an outsider. This is an extremely damaging thing to have done; not only do we have a reduced workforce, we are working against more people who hate us. I am usually a nice guy and accommodating to anyone who wants to help, and if I ever shout or get aggressive with people, it is always established editors who are punching above their station seemingly without realising. Let me reiterate : your actions cost us 4-5 editors.

You mention "do not feed the troll" - and in my view that means you let their comments stand and ignore them without drawing attention to yourself. By reverting them and getting cross, you are feeding the troll and playing into their hands.

I'm sorry this is quite a long-winded message, but if I don't come out and explain my concerns right now, it's going to end up worse. Now, you have a choice. You can take in what I say and understand where I'm coming from. Or you can refute everything I've said (either with a few words or many, either is the same). It's up to you. Ritchie333 20:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to shake my head

• Please explain how you backtracked a post from Vote (X) for Change and determined the root cause was my actions on Lydia Cornell
• Any "information that is believable" should stay unrevdelled? No. Think about how damaging the revdelled statement could be if it was a bio of a politician or religious figure or any other subject whose reputation was important. Another example: an implication of child abuse (not the statement here, non-admins) would be believable for Catholic priest biographies (but unfair, though). I'm going to revdel that every time.
• We block for clear legal threats because it affects our other productive editors. This was completely block-worthy.
• "have tried to censor criticism of the block" - where?
• "your actions cost us 4-5 editors" Come on. Surely you've seen posts like, "You won't let me say that evolution is 'just a theory' and I'm going to never edit here again and I'm going to tell all my friends and family never to edit here." Your assertion is just your unfounded speculation and is doubtful at best.
• "reverting them and getting cross" I'm not getting cross. I'm doing the same thing as I do with all banned editors - WP:RBI. I disagree with your characterizations of censorship, especially as you seem to be unfamiliar with Vote (X) for Change, but I've stopped reverting banned/blocked users on your talk page.

--NeilN 21:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop trying to argue that everyone else is wrong and you are right. Ritchie333 21:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying everyone else is wrong. I'm saying I think most of what you wrote above is wrong or misguided. --NeilN 21:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You are a named party at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. I believe I have until close of play tomorrow to submit evidence. Do not post on this talk page ever again. Also, please stop harassing John, one of the best contributors to the project and a strong supporter of ensuring our BLP policy is adhered to. Ritchie333 21:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of 18Birdies article

Hi Ritchie333,

I am writing in regards to the deletion of the 18Birdies article. When it was originally flagged for speedy deletion yesterday, I pointed out to the editor that a similar competitor, GolfNow, was granted a page, so I wanted to know what the difference was. She let me know they were given a page because they received media coverage in mainstream outlets (Forbes, Business Insider) and advised to wait until 18Birdies received similar coverage. However, I want to let you know that within the golf industry, the biggest golf publication has under one million unique visitors a month. 18Birdies has been covered and interviewed by major publications such as The Examiner (2.5 million unique visitors a month), Dujour Magazine (47K+ unique visitors a month), GolfNewsNet (55k+ unique visitors a month), ESPN Radio, CBS Radio, Golf Channel Sirius FM and Golf Channel (video). These are major hits within the golf industry, but they aren't going to be covered by the Huffington Post/Forbes. The Huffington Post also mostly covers the professional game and lacks golf technology coverage.

Lastly, I wanted to mention that a majority of the coverage that GolfNow received from major publications (Forbes/GolfWeek - no longer active/Business Insider) was about either their competition with a slight mention to GolfNow or acquisition by Comcast. They have no coverage other than that in major publications. Their Forbes piece was focused on EZLinks and had some mentions of GolfNow being a competitor.

Comcast Buying GolfNow.com: http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/3/comcast-buying-golfnow-com Booking Golf Tee Times Gradually Shifting To Online Marketplace (focused on EZLinks): http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2013/06/15/booking-golf-tee-times-gradually-shifting-to-online-marketplace/#cbbf061646e1

I'm hoping to discuss this further, and I would be happy to jump on the phone and explain this further. Let me know if you need any further info.

Thanks Sbjumper21 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sbjumper21: I had a look, and I think the original problem I thought was though the article has been covered in several FM radio stations and nationally prominent journals, it needed a rewrite from scratch. Having had a closer look, I don't actually think that's case and it might be possible to make a sustainable article out of this. (I seem to have a blind spot for sport journalism articles :-/)

I have restored the article to Draft:18Birdies. Have a read through Your first article which gives you some ideas of what to include, and some common pitfalls; also it might be worth having a read through our article on the Masters Tournament, which has been assessed as a good article and should be an example of good writing and research. The draft can be left indefinitely as long as you are regularly editing it. When you think the article is as complete as you can get it, click on the blue "Submit your draft for review" and an independent reviewer will check it. If all is well, then the draft will be fully restored as an article. I hope that's of use. Ritchie333 16:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)