User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Hello

Hello, I have find myself in a situation. As you may now the HBO show Game of Thrones is based of series of books called A Song of Ice and Fire, it's an adaptation and like any adaptation their are some changes between the show and the books. Their is an user on wikipedia who is biased and not neutral when he/she edits wikipedia. The person is clearly a book purist who hates the show. I have learned that when editing articles you have to be neutral. He, who goes by the name "Hijiri88" has time and time again written hateful comments and has used the word "fanfiction" to describe the show in different GoT related articles. - AffeL (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @AffeL: It seems that Administrator Yunshui has already raised this with you on your talk page, no? Well- you know the saying, 'too many cooks,' and all that! ;) take care, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

More the merrier. Hi Ritchie, long time no... er... see? Feel free to weigh in if you like. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not going to respond to anything else in the above, but for what it's worth I don't hate the show; it's probably my second or third favourite American TV show of the past ten years. And I would have a hard time being a "book purist", having not even read the second, fourth, fifth or most of the third books; most of what I know of their content comes from a certain YouTuber who also doesn't hate the show. I just don't think Wikipedia should be treated as a Game of Thrones fan site. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Next time try not to use words like "fanfiction" when editing any of the these pages. You can use it on the talk pages if you want, but not on any of the articles. You are right, Wikipedia should not be treated as a fan site. It's important that we stay neutral when editing, so that personal opinions you have about something does not change how you edit. - AffeL (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. Lots of fan sites can be neutral, and "neutrality" refers only to the stance Wikipedia must take in summarizing the views of others; it doesn't mean that non-"neutral" critical views should not be cited in article. Indeed, fictional characters about whom nothing can be said but a neutral summary of their character sheets should not have standalone articles. What I meant by "Game of Thrones fan site" was having standalone articles on all 22 "Jons" in the story like A Wiki of Ice and Fire apparently has. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, apart from jumping up and down and screaming "vote for Jeremy Corbyn and kick Kim Jong May up the backside" I'm not really on top of things on-wiki at the moment. Ask me after the election. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Can someone file at ANI about Ritchie333's WP:CANVASsing, please :p  :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing? Come on, did you see what Dr. Blofeld wrote about Brexit? Anyway, it'll be gone by 10pm this evening. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've come across some of this before, so I've chimed in on AffeL's talk page, for what it's worth. Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not voted for May nor Corbyn..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• I just wanted to add, Hijiri88, that while you may not hate the show, you should probably not be editing it. After all, you know nothing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I do know some things. ;-) By the way, MPants, for some reason I didn't get your ping. Have you noticed this problem before? Since successful pings require you sign your posts, I'm wondering if it has to do with your alt-account "forging" your main account's sig, which would be ... interesting ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You are the second person in the past few days to say that you didn't get a ping of mine. This is both the {{u}} and the {{ping}} template apparently not working for me. My thoughts are the same: That it might be because I sign with my main account userpage and talk page. My userpage and user talk page are both redirects, so I think I'll just go ahead and change the links, see if that helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

How am I doing?

Hi Ritchie, it's been a while since I got the mop, so I thought to ask you, if you have time, to take a look at and evaluate my admin activities. If you think your reply should be private, please send it by email. Thanks for your support. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Ritchie. I'm just posting to let you know that List of London Monopoly locations – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 10. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

GA nomination for George Town, Penang

Hey @Ritchie333:! I was just wondering if you could help out in reviewing George Town for GA nomination. I have just nominated this article for the GA status, so I would appreciate your timely assistance on this.

Thanks. Best regards.  :) Vnonymous 23:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's quite a lengthy article, but I'll read through it all when I've got a minute and let you know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Noted with thanks. Vnonymous 10:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vnonymous: Just another quick reply as I have to go and see if I can fix a Mac Mini or two, but I've had more of a look at the article now. Firstly, at 66K of prose, the article is probably comprehensive enough, but even then could do with a bit of a trim - in general, readers will start to tire after about 50K. Looking at the "Establishment" section, the prose states "In the 1770s, the British East India Company instructed Francis Light to form trade relations in the Malay Peninsula", while the source says "Francis Light reported this offer to his employers and strongly advised them to persuade the East India Company to accept it" - ie: the other way round. Also, you might be able to find a better source, such as a book, than the first website source given there, though it seems to be well written. The end of the first paragraph is also unsourced - while that's not necessarily a problem in itself, in this case you're giving a historical account of who did what, so you will want to make sure everything is verifiable. Elsewhere, you've got short sentences cited to 3-4 citations (you probably only need one) and a few other unsourced sections. You need to make sure that everything in the article is verifiable and that the article actually says what the source does. Elsewhere, prose such as "The Syariah court, at Jalan Batu Gantung, is a parallel court which hears matters concerning Islamic jurisprudence" just leaves me scratching my head, as I don't understand exactly what that means. In summary, while things are going in the right direction, there's a bit more work required for it to reach GA status. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Roland TR-808

Yo! I'm thinking of nominating Roland TR-808, which you reviewed for GA earlier this year, for FAC, which I've never done before. Do you have any thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: The most important thing I would say is to have a lot of patience, make sure you have the best possible source material going, and have asked somebody else you trust to copyedit it. I don't do much with FAC other than the odd review; I personally haven't got the stamina to sit on an article for a month, though the criticism received at the review is of course worthwhile. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback then was invaluable. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A beer. The sandwiches are still waiting at No.10, comrade

If your WP:CANVASsing took place anywhere in or around the Canterbury Constituency, then that was a result. First non-Tory in 132 years?! Sup up, there's work to be done. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The future's bright....

And of course, if you're ever down in Cookham, old chap, we've got a few barrels of this stuff "going begging", as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't really have much to do with the Canterbury campaign, that was the local student base that did the donkey work, but I did support Peter Chowney's campaign in Hastings and fielded a few questions about why one of the most run down towns in England would vote Tory and why Amber Rudd has bleated about High Speed 1 reaching Hastings but not done anything else. I have further suggested that now it's a Labour target seat, Corbyn should do a campaign speech on Hastings beach, with support from Fatboy Slim. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not so fast, Comrade Ritchie. There are plenty of folks down here at Matthew Parker Street that hold you are your tree-hugging, muesli-knitting, lentil-popping, pinko-commie Wikipedia loons wholly responsible for the recent electoral disaster. So we'll be pleased to consider you in any future contingency planning (.... how does "Lord Threesie of Jaywick" sound"?) yours, ever... Borisevans123 (a.k.a. "Slimboy Fats") (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

----------->...the future's Orange?!?!?? :o — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Under the newly proposed power sharing agreement, Sinn Fein will be getting electric lighting only on alternate Thursdays. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Thank you, O Fortuna, your pun has been successfully recycled below.

But great to hear "Uncle Ed" Stewpot back on Radio 2, tastily sandwiched between Old Ken and Steve in the afternoon? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC) [1]

I have to confess I haven't actually listened to Radio 2 in a while. I used to all the time when Wake up to Wogan was still running (with Chuffer Dandridge complaining that Dickie "Touch" Tingles was making so many excuses about not returning that white fiver he'd owed him since 1952), but the wackiness has kind of gone. Now I just reminisce over old Tango ads. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know, a real tragedy. Someone said something about an enormous car crash. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:BlaccCrab again edit warring at my talk page

"Ooooh Tony, I think we could be in for a quintessential orange taste here!"
"Yeah, super Ralph, the big orange order woman's come in from the left and she's given the weak and wobbly woman a good old slappin'."
You know when you've been Brexited

Hi Ritchie. The user BlaccCrab, who you blocked just last year for edit warring at my talk page has started doing so again ([2], [3], another messages before this I hard removed as well), just to write more snarky edit summaries directed at me. They were told not to post anything on my talk page, reverted me, then self-reverted to write two more summaries. This is blatant harassment under the guise of them thinking they're "educating" me. They know it's wrong to do, but yet did it again and appear not to care or have learned not do so. I've also just noticed they then wrote a section on their own talk page titled "Paging Ss112", just to write something aimed at me again. Ss112 11:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed that last comment you mentioned from their talk page - frankly, people who put up lists of people they don't like on here tend to get burned out and retire as the list gets longer and longer and longer .... (see also WP:OWB #48). We'll see what happens next, if anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

He has reported me at WP:AN (instead of WP:ANI), I'm assuming, after your summary implored him to do so. I think this is waste of time as I have not reverted him at his own talk page nor directly insulted him, so I don't know where it's going to go. Is there any way that you would be able to warn him against reverting me at my talk page in future lest he face further action? It seems like he thinks he has a free pass to do what he likes at someone else's talk page, and can leave attacking summaries all he likes despite being blocked for it previously. Ss112 07:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Quick ANI survival guide, unless you are under serious threat of being blocked for not answering something, ignore it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but ignoring what happens there, he still escaped without a warning yesterday for the same kind of behaviour that previously saw him blocked. I thought his first block would have been enough to persuade him not to, but I'm sure he will feel bold enough to do so again. Ss112 08:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That's life, I'm afraid. Theresa May is still squatting in Number 10 and Donald Trump is still a powermad jackass. Sucks to be a Wikipedian, sometimes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but at least our St Theresa isn't tinged with orange? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, I meant weren't you going to warn him against continuing to do the same thing you originally blocked him for? As you are an admin, your warning holds more sway than me asking him not to do so, which he disregarded. Surely if someone repeats a disruptive action they were blocked for, they should be warned against doing so in future, and past that, then be blocked again? As nothing is going to happen at the AN case. Ss112 09:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Basically, I can see that BlaccCrab does some good work and article writing around here, and I know more than a few of those who are, well, occasionally a bit blunt. Until and unless I can get to the bottom of who has done what and why, I'd rather not take sides and simply look at what is best for the project. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, it now sounds like you're trying to excuse BlaccCrab for the same actions that you blocked him for last November? I removed his messages at my talk page. He reverted me, then reverted himself, only to write more attack summaries aimed at me: "That is constructive. I'm trying to explain to you how radio and promotion works (for a second time) but you keep undoing every edit lol." and then "Oh wait explaining to someone how to interpret something in the music industry will make you cry wolf to the admins, nevermind.". That is it. Before and besides that, there was nothing, and that doesn't excuse reverting an editor at their own talk page anyway. I informed you because you were the admin who blocked him for disruptive editing at my talk page last year. That's who other admins recommend I tell about it, so I did, now you're telling me you're "not taking sides" and almost trying to excuse his actions. I'm confused as to why this was blockable last November, now he's not being warned and if anything, having his actions excused. Ss112 12:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, all I asked you to do was to send a warning to them for the same actions you previously blocked them for. That's all. If you didn't think a warning was warranted, that's all you had to say to me. I don't think your agreement with a rude and incorrect assumption that all I do is "complain" and don't create or contribute to articles (as I pointed out, I created the article Ti Amo (album) quite recently) at my talk page was needed. Ss112 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please move along. There's nothing to see here. Cassianto^Talk 15:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Cassianto I suppose that's one way of describing Arlene Foster's brains. But what about this situation. Ba da boom. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, folks. It's 1960s Brighton all over again.... All your old favourites... "Gunning for Theresa" , "Town Called Brussels, "No UK Surrender"..... yes, Jacob is now officially the new Moggfather!!

"Poor old Johnny Ray, Sounded sad upon the radio, But he moved a million hearts in mono, Our mothers cried ..... Come On Arlene" (?) Kevinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi Ritchie333, I noticed that "The Co-Captains" page I created got deleted. I understand that the reasoning stated insufficient sourcing, so I wanted to try again with more verified citations. Their work has been featured on Billboard and nominated for Grammys, and they're mentioned in numerous Wikipedia pages (Ciara: , Omarion , and Candice Glover . It's imperative that I create the page ASAP. Please let me know how to move forward. Thank you.Brunanessif (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

References

(talk page stalker) @Brunanessif: Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source because it's user-generated. Also, might you be able to tell us why it's "imperative that you create the article ASAP"? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I understand. I was just referencing the Wikipedia pages that they are credited on to show that it would be beneficial to have a page linking back to them. And what I mean is that there are important music events occurring this weekend in which having a Wikipedia page would be highly beneficial. All I'm asking for another chance to do the page again.

@Brunanessif: You could make it at Draft:The Co-Captains for now and then try out the Articles for Creation program. Also, make sure you sign your posts with ~~~~ (4 tildes) . Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Brunanessif: I have rewritten the article, which is now at Draft:The Co-Captains and has a citation to Music Industry Quarterly. The best sources to go for are nationally prominent ones such as Billboard and Rolling Stone, which have covered just about every important band of note - I used these (amongst others) when writing FDT. When you've expanded the article as far as you think you can take it, press the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button, and an independent reviewer will look at it. If the review passes, the article will be put back in mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte:@Ritchie333: Thank you! Brunanessif (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC) @Ritchie333: Hi Ritchie! I have edited the draft and submitted for review. Also, happy birthday!Brunanessif (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Wishing Ritchie333 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chris - got a surprise treat this evening, apparently. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Many happy returns and so on and so forth et cetera! Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Birthday!? Have a good one! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The surprse will be that everyone's forgotten :p  :) Happy bidet! — fortunavelut luna 10:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The surprise will be this if you're not careful :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy birthday Ritchie. Have a good one! how old are you Patient Zero^talk 11:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember, I lost count after 21 :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

:-D Patient Zero^talk 11:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Lightyear

Hello Richie333, thank you for deleting the startup company info on the page Lightyear. Is it possible you could revert it back to when it was a redirect (to Light-year) with its previous history? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The simplest thing to do is recreate the page again with the redirect - I've done this. Actually there's a bit of a mea culpa there, as the CSD criteria are only applicable if every revision of the page qualifies - which obviously the old redirect state doesn't. I've restored the history for that too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Flynn Intel Group

Was that not extraordinarily speedy, not merely speedy. Seems that inadequate time passage and flawed consensus are apparent. Wikipietime (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipietime: At a cursory glance, Flynn Intel Group Inc looked like an advert with no immediately obvious way I could rescue it. However, I'm happy to assume good faith that other people can, so it's now restored. Sorry about that - as you were. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks for the speedy restoration. It's in the news because of its relationship to Trump-Russia activities and Flynn's activities thereabouts and the questioning Flynn is undergoing. Allegedly. Softlavender (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

To be precise, it's in the news in the US. Over this side of the pond, it's been buried by all the election, Brexit and Grenfell shenanigans. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Revdel

Thanks for the Revdel on Trafalgar. There's 2 more revs needing to be nuked: 788202120 and 788202124, and one by Granger that can be restored as he had removed the copyvio in that rev. Thanks! Crow^Caw 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Crow: I was surprised, as the principal contributor to Trafalgar Square and the editor who got it back up to GA, to find a whole bunch of editors descend on it while I was asleep. Anywhere, things should be sorted now. On a different subject, have you ever thought about filing a Request for adminship, then you can make these changes yourself. Copyvio checks are probably one of the most backlogged (if not the most backlogged) parts of the project. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Isbn

You should know that i asked and encouraged other editors to do the automated part of the isbn fixes and i also helped by suggesting improvements to the bot codes. Magioladitis (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

My problem isn't really with the mainspace edits (I think they're low value to the reader, but that's not a reason to sanction an editor, and rightly so) but rather the way you seem to attract large amounts of drama wherever you go, be it on ANI, Arbcom or any number of discussion pages, and seem to just make the situation worse. Now I don't think it's any great secret that I've managed to upset a few people over not liking the sockpuppetry policy much and thinking people get blocked too easily, but that doesn't give me carte blanche to go around unblocking people or arguing endlessly on WP:SPI why I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Sometimes you've just got to pick your battles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about new entries

Hi Richie,

I recently created a page for a local startup software company, RipTide, based on an article in the local paper about it's new technology. I am not an employee or investor in the company. I do know the founder because she is an active contributor in the startup community and I'm on the board of the non-profit that works to foster the startup eco-space.

In keeping with the Wiki guidelines of "just the facts - no fluff, no advertising" I only included the raw basic facts in the initial wiki article. It was quickly flagged for deletion on the basis that there was nothing significant about the company. OK, no problem. I edited the article to add that they were developing a new predictive analysis technology (which was documented with more detail in the cited newspaper article). Then you deleted it claiming it included advertising.

So, what's you advice? Obviously, RipTide is noteworthy as a software company trying to do new technology. Obviously, they have a legitimate cited source. How much detail should I have put in the article to prevent deletion?

Also, is there a place to create pages and work on them with admin feedback to develop a good article as opposed to simply deleting it?

cheers,

-Paul Nielsen Founder, Tejon Technologies Author, SQL Server 2008 Bible (Wiley) x12 Microsoft Data Platform MVP (2004-2016) Board Member, Peak Startup PaulNielsenSQL (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@PaulNielsenSQL: The basic problem is that all Wikipedia articles need to be potentially be improved by anyone in the world, and without the concrete sourcing in prominent national coverage, it's not possible to do that, and that's why we generally delete non-obvious articles unless there's good evidence that somebody will work with it. The corollary to that is that admins will restore pages on reasonable request (which is required by policy).

For now, I've restored the article to Draft:RipTide as a draft page that can be worked on in isolation without any threat of deletion. When you have expanded the article to a suitable size, you can click on the blue "Submit your draft for review" button, and an independent reviewer will have a look to see if its suitable for mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Miltiades Varvounis

Hi Ritchie333. You removed the speedy deletion request on the page for Miltiades Varvounis on the basis of him possibly meeting the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC, but this individual is distinctly not an academic. What was the logic here? Chamboz (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Basically, see User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 and User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes - the threshold for getting past CSD is very low and you don't need much to clear it. All the decline means is that I didn't want to delete the article there and then - if you want to challenge the notability, file a discussion at AfD. He's an historian, and by the looks of quite a serious one, which I guess brings to mind some sort of elderly chap with suspicious hair who happens to be chair of some well known university department. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chamboz: I've now deleted it as a copyright violation. It wasn't a straight cut and paste from one site, but rather it was taken from about 5-6 different ones and glued together. The recent addition of very POV content this morning made me notice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

rationale

im wondering what your rationale here is: you said "the S" [4]68.151.25.115 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I must have hit the return button on my phone which submits the edit before I'd finished writing it, it should have been in full "decline A7, the Spanish Progressive Rock Encyclopedia is potentially a reliable source, try PROD / AfD". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted Transaction Processing Performance Council. You broke the references on 10-20 articles depending on that term being defined. How is that not [significant]?

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?search=Transaction+Processing+Performance+Council&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.64.69 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Just because something is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, it doesn't mean it should have a standalone one - for example, the Faversham Society is name-dropped in Faversham but has no article. The Council's article in the state it was tagged as A7 seemed to be little more then a self-referenced list without any obvious independent source coverage. If you can think of a suitable article to redirect TPPC to, let me know and I can sort that out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this, I've had a look through some of the linked articles, and to be perfectly honest I'm struggling to see any actual citation to a reliable source that explains why TPPC is important to mention in any article. Let me ask Light2021, who placed the A7 tag in the first place. I realise that we don't normally speedy delete articles that have been hanging around for years, and it doesn't seem to make sense when just reading the article prose around it, but it honestly looks like this one just fell below the radar. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes Ritchie333 you are right we do not delete article old in nature. But someday we have to take things if we get to know them. I did not find anywhere its notability or remarkable in nature. Wikipedia has become a spam host for many companies from last few years. I am sure there would be so many, I would love to know few more. thanks Ritchie333. Let me know If i can be any help. Light2021 (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for GoodRelations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GoodRelations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. . Please do not reply here, as I am not watching your talk page. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zazpot: Deletion reviews are for articles that have been deleted by a full deletion debate at Articles for deletion - I've restored the article to Draft:GoodRelations as per best practice, where you can work on the draft without any threat of deletion and submit it to an experienced reviewer when you are happy with it.

The principal problem with the article is it wasn't obvious from a cursory description what GoodRelations is or what it does, and I had to go and examine the book sources carefully to understand it was a software engineering framework. In general, it's best to describe an article's subject in simple terms for the layman reader, so it is easy to understand what you are trying to write about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: thanks for your reply. I would like to note that the article already did address what GoodRelations is. The lede stated that it is a linked online data ontology, and the plentiful references confirmed this. As for accessibility for laypeople, I agree that this is what we should aspire for the article to reach, but it was only minutes old and was marked as a WP:STUB, so was clearly not yet at that standard. I'm sure you meant well, but I would be grateful if you could be a little more patient in future, and spare your fellow editors some wikistress. I may not work at exactly your standard or your pace, but I am doing my best to make constructive contributions in the time I can spare, and a deletion like that one can feel a bit like a slap in the face :( Anyway, thanks again for restoring; at least that means my effort wasn't (completely) wasted! Hope to cross paths again in better circumstances :) zazpot (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zazpot: Okay, I appreciate that it is possible to write an article on this topic, and I've expanded the article a bit using the book sources. I'm still not entirely convinced it would survive a full deletion debate, or at least a "keep" result (it could be merged with something else), we've now got a reasonable stub. I realise that perfection is not required, but experience tells me that a technical article whose first sentence was a pile of bare references, most of which appeared to be wikis or other self-published sources, you can see how I might have accidentally mistaken it for a typical paid editing piece. Again, sorry about that. I can't speak for other admins, but I will generally restore any article on request, which is why there's a note on my talk page. I got involved in Wikipedia editing, and subsequently adminship, because I was fed up with friends and colleagues having their edits reverted or their pages deleted, and wanted to do something about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I very much appreciate the effort you have put into improving the stub, and thanks too for trying to more generally avoid Wikipedians' labour going to waste. All best, zazpot (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop vandalism on my talk page

I'm so tired (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb (who AFAIK is not an admin and does not want to be one) left you a lengthy, sympathetic and reasonable comment on your talk page; in response you blanked it and called everyone a Nazi. Now, I don't mean to be patronising but this reminds me of my youngest son when he was about 4 and I told him "no, you can't have an ice cream". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Make mine a "99": [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather have this 99. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Edris Azizi

It was worth a shot. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why, what's happened now? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I meant worth a shot killing it at AfD. I agree that's the way in cases like this sometimes. watches the world explode because we agree CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Great to see...

That the Monopoly board FL is going to on the Main Page on July 10th!

Alas not on the Monopoly board (though next to a station that is!) but as mentioned previously, I'm working on getting the St Pancras railway station article up as near to GA as I can... some fresh eyes would be appreciated if you have a spare few minutes - especially on getting the references out of the lede. Thank you! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been ordered by The Rambling Man to do all the London mainline termini as my next Good Topic. The most comprehensive source I found was London's Termini, but I'll need to go and borrow it from the library again to cite it as it's not online at all, even in Google Books. In the meantime, I've dropped some tidbits from the London Encyclopedia to move things forward. The main body of the history seems to be sourced, not all of it's great but there are some book sources, so we're heading in the right direction. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a good book! Thanks for the help with referencing the history also - I'm focusing more on the present-day bits below it at present, currently working on updating Southeastern's service patterns as they're hopelessly out of date. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

OTD July 4

I put Kylie (album) back into the staging area, as we normally only show 5 items and I figured we can save it for next year (the album's 30th anniversary). —howcheng {chat} 16:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay - it was the only album of any significance that I think would be deserving to appear in OTD, and I thought it would be good to have a GA in there (though it's quite an old one). I have popped a few album articles into OTD simply because they're an easy source to tap into good content and can be useful as a quick fix for an article plagued with maintenance tags being linked from the main page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

TBH my first instinct was to remove it altogether as it's not an album of any significance, but I did learn that Minogue is the highest-selling Australian recording artist (and I always thought it was The Wiggles) so I'm OK with its inclusion. —howcheng {chat} 16:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If you were in Britain in 1988, you could have not missed Kylie and Jason (and, in turn, the cast of Neighbours) even if you were hiding under a rock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Rose Williams

Thank you very much for your help, I really appreciate it. As you can imagine I've been having big trouble finding any informations about Rose Williams, So even an appearance on Casuality seemed worth it. I'd love it if you could teach me how to add the "Early life", "Career", "Personal life"... domains. Also how can I add references? Thanks again. The Exception (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Exception: The best guide I can give you is Referencing for Beginners, particularly the "Information to include" section. To add sections for "early life" / "career", see the help on creating sections, though for an article of this size, it's probably not worth expanding the article out to sub-sections just yet. I tend to find that "less is more" and you only really need sections when the reader would be left staring at a big wall of text.

As far as actual source material goes, I've had a look, and unfortunately I can't find very much at all. I can see interviews such as http://www.theartofhairstyling.com/2016/05/02/rose-williams/ which would give us straightforward biographic details, but to be honest a basic rule of thumb is any actor whose had any sort of prominence worth writing about will at least have an interview in The Guardian or The Independent, and I can't see either of those. I dare say it will happen in due course, but until it does, we're kind of stuck with a small stub as the sources we do have name check her TV appearances and seemingly little else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I really find myself facing the wall right now. I was pretty shocked that Rose didnt have a wikipedia page, im a big fan of Reign and I absolutely loved her acting as Princess Claude, so I just thought she deserved a page. She's still only 23, so she has a whole career ahead of her. Guess she wont be needing me then. Thanks anyway. The Exception (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello Richie333,

You recently deleted a page titled, 'MGC pharmaceuticals Limited' under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

I have read your, 'Plain and simple guide to A7' and I've done research elsewhere, can you please provide some further guidelines for how I can reinstate the page? I attended a medical cannabis symposium recently and I have identified that there would be significant benefit in having listings for others to contribute as companies gain traction in this emerging industry.

I have explained to other admin users that there is no COI or affiliation to MGC Pharmaceuticals, my intention is to not portray the company in a promotional way. I intend on composing more pages for other companies and I would be very grateful for any suggestions you may have in terms of edits/additions.

I look forward to hearing from you,

(Darryltdavies (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

@Darryltdavies: Thanks for reading the Plain and simple guides! The problem with articles about medical organisations is that the requirements for sourcing are much higher than other types of articles, for the simple reason that people may read medical advice in Wikipedia and assume it is true. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for further information. This is particularly true for cannabis as a lot of claims have been thrown about, ranging from "it's harmless" to "it causes severe psychosis" and absolutely everything in between. So, I would suggest a better course of action is to write about the organisation's research in an existing article instead - Cannabis in Australia#Medicinal use. You will need to have excellent sources as explained above to make edits stick and avoid being reverted, but I think that is the most appropriate way to get the information you want into Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Richie333,

I appreciate your feedback, I take the point that the requirements for sourcing are much higher for medical organisations. I however still wish to pursue publishing pages individually for some of the key orgainsations operating in the industry. My original inspiration came from this page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Canopy_Growth_Corporation In line with this content, there will be no claims made to advise patients but rather just a high-level overview of what each organisation is doing in the industry. If I link my page my further reliable sources, can I submit a review again?

Many thanks, (Darryltdavies (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC))

@Darryltdavies: The best thing to do I think is start off with a draft. Go to Wikipedia:Drafts, and under the section "Creating and editing drafts", you'll be given an option to create a draft instead. Alternatively, to save time, I can undelete the original article as a draft and set it up so it's ready for editing, which may be easier. You can then write the draft without any threat of deletion, and submit it to an experienced editor to review it. If the review passes, the draft will be automatically moved into mainspace, otherwise you'll be given suggestions on how to improve it.

In general, I find it's easier to write about the overall topic rather than any specific organisation, as the latter tend to be viewed suspiciously as paid editing pieces, irrespective if they actually are or not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Richie333,

I would be very grateful if you reinstate the page as a draft as suggested, I take the point about writing about the overall subject. If I struggle to get the page approved for the mainspace following my revisions then I may have to explore this option.

Thanks again for your support,

(Darryltdavies (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC))

@Darryltdavies: Restored at Draft:MGC pharmaceuticals Limited. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional user name, dodgy editing

I just saw this promotional user name User:TrishlaFoundation If it was just a new user who didn't know about the promotional name guidelines, that would be one thing, but his/(her?) edit history suggests something more akin to promotional vandalism. [[6]] Sorry to bug you - is this the right way to report these kinds of things? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is the best place to go, but I see the editor has been given a soft block for having a conflict of interest, which is how these things are normally managed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - looks like somebody else beat me to it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Khans of Bollywood

Hi. You protected Khans of Bollywood because of an editing dispute between myself and User:SoniaKovind. However, SoniaKovind has now been banned from the site. Also, it has been more than 24 hours. Could you unprotect the article? Maestro2016 (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Maestro2016: The protection expired two days ago, so you should be able to edit the article. If not, drop me another line and I'll look into it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

GAB RFA

Does it take long for the bot to log in my striked out oppose? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it gets a bit confused if somebody jumps from oppose to support, and takes a bit of a while to sync itself. You'll have to ask Cyberpower678 as it's his code. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If it doesn't take into account my change of vote, should it be left alone? I'd be happy to move it to the comment section for the bureaucrats. My oppose was truly a mistake. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It's still being numbered. So the vote is still being counted.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I had a go at fixing it, but AFAIK you have to remove the hash tag from the !vote and all replies, and I didn't feel like doing that many changes - can you fix it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the hash and re-indented everything. Cyberpower might recall from a message I left on his talk page a couple months ago that there was some other funky thing about oppose sections that freaked out the bot, but I can't recall what it was and can't find the energy to go look. So we'll see if this worked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It worked! Thank you guys! Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sandro Ravello, request for Deletion

Jhoven Sulla (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)To Ritchie333, thanks for your cooperation, that i create, good job.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is the, barnstar for you, good work :) Jhoven Sulla (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is A few questions.
Message added 11:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

deleting at.

Hi! Why u A del at ab Iarsyshyn, this person make for int law, eco safety and a lot of pepples more than green — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian DaVidov (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Maximilian DaVidov: There were two problems with the article; firstly that it was written like a memorial and I would have had to completely rewrite the article from scratch, secondly while a claim to have lectured in universities does suggest that he meets the notability guidelines for academics, without naming the specific universities it was difficult to salvage the article in a state that could be improved by anybody.

You may have more success writing this article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, then somebody can provide an English translation for this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Alan Futerfas

Actually, the article claims that the man works for the Donald's son ( should that be son-in-law. In any case that is inherited notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it does - I added that ;-) I think my point was (in an oblique way) that you can't just delete articles because you don't like the subjects. In the case of inherited notability, well that might mean we end up with a redirect, but he is namechecked in the Washington Post, and the Trump family and lawsuits go together like peas in a pod, so I dare say we might be able to find some more stuff about him hiding in the woodwork. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with not liking the topic, all about there being no credible claim of notability. But I see that the article has acquired some more references, so maybe he is notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And that is why I like to push stuff back from CSD to AfD (or not delete it at all!) if it's possible - you get more time to get more people on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	"Alternative keeping" - I lolled out loud! - MrX 16:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(for those playing at home, this comment and barnstar relate to this edit Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC))

NHLE parks and gardens

Any help adding the NHLE citations and categories to London's wonderful parks, gardens, cemeteries...and concrete covered traffic surrounded public squares is greatly appreciated! There are so many to do, especially the GII's. Thanks so much once again :) No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I tend to work intensely on one article then move on to the next (in the case of Trafalgar Square and Hyde Park they both happen to be on my watchlist as I took the former to GA as part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of London Monopoly locations and the latter is queued at GAN at the moment) but if I get a moment I will have a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Control this page

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Giovanni_Prinzi --151.57.95.33 (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:road safety in Europe

Hello,

I assume the draft Draft:road safety in Europe risk to be deleted because it is still a draft.

So, Might be you can approve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's still awaiting review, so somebody will have a look at it at some point, plus it could be considered a reasonable content split of Road traffic safety. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)