User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey, Ritchie. Wanted to thank you again for your extensive GA review of Sega Genesis a while back. It's now at FAC, and I was wondering, since you're familiar with the article and have read it over extensively already, if you'd be willing to give a little more feedback on it. There's a consensus now on sales figures that resulted in a "sensible conclusion", but other than that, only minor changes have happened since your review, and I'd be glad to hear what more you might have. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

On 20 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Minories, Colchester, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2013, The Minories in Colchester held an art exhibition by Blur frontman Damon Albarn's father Keith? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Minories, Colchester. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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.

Peter Weltner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pedalboard

Rainthorpe Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Country Life

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help with this article Ritchie.

Sally of Kent (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• No problem, Sally. If I get some spare time in the next day or two I'll go through and improve it to Did you know? status so he can have a mention on the front page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ritchie333, your thoughts have been requested at this nomination; it appears to be in a holding pattern until you do comment. Thanks for your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops - I thought this had been on the main page and gone! Sorry! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ritchie333, an ALT1 hook (for use in case the hook isn't chosen for a lead slot) has been proposed for the nomination; can you please let us know whether you think it works? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Article appears quite sold in terms of content. On hold mainly for a tidy up. A decent copyedit by someone independent would be helpful. Tidy up the presentation and layout. And some statements I have tagged as needed sourcing or clarification. On the whole I don't see significant problems so this should be able to be listed once the work has been done. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. No idea where I can get a copyeditor from, and my own skills seem to have taken such a clobbering recently from other editors (not yourself!) that I'm contemplating a bit of a wikibreak after all this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A building houses a library. A library is a collection of media that people can use, view, borrow. A library may be in a library building, but it is an institution, an organization. The article is about the library as an organization. Not the building that houses it. Dlohcierekim 13:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion an article you approved at AfC : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Johnson (model). You may want to comment. (we don't seem to have any automatic way of notifying this, though we should) Please do not interpret this as in any way a criticism of your excellent work with AfCs--I know I'm always very satisfied at being right 95% of the time in AfC , NPP , and deletion process, because there's always going to be some disagreement. A few people claim 100%, and I never say that I don't believe them--unless they do only the most obvious of them all. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look, and this is a really tricky borderline case. There are a couple of news reports, and a whole load of unreliable sources. Not CSD material by any means, but not an easy one to rescue. Could go any which way at AfD, to be honest.

As for alerts, they appears on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation#Article Alerts and I occasionally look at them, but a delivery bot has been proposed in the past. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ritchie333:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

On 4 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rainthorpe Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the former owner of Rainthorpe Hall, J Maurice Hastings, was described by Sir Cecil Maurice Bowra as throwing "wild parties" there? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rainthorpe Hall. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you have put "Citation needed" beside the date of birth of Keith Paterson. Can you kindly tell me how I can supply the needed citation? I don't think you mean a photocopy of his birth certificate, so in what form will the citation take, please? Thanks a lot. Peminatweb (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Peminatweb

Hi. That's definitely an unsuitable source! As for what is, a significant newspaper or magazine report might be suitable, but per our policy on biographies of living people, we prefer to err on the side of not listing dates of birth unless they are very well documented. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 13:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

On 7 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Epsom General Hospital, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Epsom General Hospital has its own radio station, "Epsom Hospital Radio", which is a registered charity and is staffed by volunteers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Epsom General Hospital. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

But it does exist in the mainspace... Also, the BLP policy does not require that all BLP articles contain inline citations; please don't misrepresent policy. Inline citations are only required for material that is likely to be contentious. I see nothing contentious about this biographical stub. Moreover, are you honestly telling me that you were unable to wade through 4 lines of text and compare the claims against the 4 general references listed? Please undo your undo. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there was a bit of a mid-air collision. The general AfC guidelines suggest that a BLP should not be accepted with zero inline cites, and the example I regularly give is "how do you know the subject's date of birth is correct?". I don't have time to fix up the article right now as I'm about to go and write four big band scores for a rehearsal tomorrow. Happy editing! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, the AfC version does not contain a date of birth, indeed virtually no personal info at all. Which is why I was content to accept it with general references. I'm as hot on the BLP policy as anyone, but I couldn't see any real reason to keep this out of mainspace. I didn't initially realise the author had created a copy in the main space hence why my edits may have seemed odd. Good luck with the rehearsal. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for putting some extra sources in. What I try to do, however, is get new editors to understand why they should add inline citations and what sources are reliable, because as soon as it hits mainspace, editors can lay into it and tear out links to YouTube, anything not well cited, or send it to AfD (it has just enough to tip it over the general notability guidelines, but others might disagree). AfC does protect against this to some extent, as I know from first hand experience that most new editors confronted with a CSD or AfD tag will leave and never return. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not reopen threads that have been closed by an administrator. It's called the administrator's noticeboard for a reason, and if there's nothing that requires administrative action then the thread simply does not belong there. The concern you raised was already addressed during the discussion, and a re-read of it will show you that (the page was a copyvio, so wrong CSD criterion, right action). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's okay if I close ANI threads that have run their course? I've shut down several in the past without general objection. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Non-admin closures that are clearly non-controversial are completely fine, in fact we welcome them. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I think with today's escapade that I (and probably a few others) were just all at cross purposes and shot our mouths off a bit too much. Sorry! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No apologies necessary... I too make mistakes. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

England (band), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The article Leslie speaker 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Leslie speaker for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SilkTork -- SilkTork (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This user helped promote Leslie speaker to good article status.

Nice one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The article Leslie speaker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leslie speaker for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SilkTork -- SilkTork (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised, I thought some of the issues you raised might have resulted in a fail, but it looks like you've fixed them. Thanks very much. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good show. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hammond and Leslie at GA! As I vaguely hinted above, real life has intervened in such a way that my free time to edit on here is greatly reduced, but a couple of hours of just reading articles has reminded why I hang out here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please check if I did the right thing now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Leavitt_Bulldog

Gr Freedombulls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedombulls (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• I see another editor has declined this submission. Fundamentally, the article should be first and foremost about the dog. The article should start by saying "The Leavitt bulldog is a breed of bulldog...." and then describe its key differences between the basic breed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me, but perhaps you should have a look at the logs for this page: it was deleted as A7 already three times today alone by three different admins. Also, in the most recent deleted version I checked all references and none of them even mentioned this person. I have now tagged it as G11, perhaps indeed more appropriate than A7. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah okay, if the article is blatant and obvious falsification of sources, then G3 might be a better step. This, incidentally, is one of the problems with speedies versus AfDs - specific context is lost. All I saw was "(a7 boilerplate) xyz is a famous actor" and thought that suspicious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

I was reviewing your evidence and you may wish to revise it. In the last link, you state Kafziel "refuses to comply". The next sentance states, "while I don't think any admin is obliged to email the text of deleted articles...". These two statements combine to give the appearance that a request for the text was asked for and refused. After following the link, I do not believe this is the case. The person never asked for the text of the article, she asked for an explanation and a way to improve, while expressing a preference to discuss via email.

While I can't say his response was saintly, he did provide a reason for the deletion. He only refused to do so via email. I do not believe this qualifies as refusing to comply as it is neither uncommon nor disruptive to wish to keep wiki discussions onwiki. Especially in COI cases. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded this slightly but the main point remains in that some admins will email text deleted per CSD A7 / G11 as a goodwill gesture. And I have to say his "reason" for the deletion was poor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

On 22 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article England (band), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that England's Robert Webb took a saw to his mellotron and played only the right half? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/England (band). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

[[With Pleasure:Really Scream]]??? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete the redirect yet-- the article at AfC is still much to promotional. Needs condensation, and removing the bold face and other emphasis. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I took the view that all that could be fixed by regular editing. I don't think it is unsalvagely promotional. The article is lop sided, paying too much attention to its staff, but it does so in a partisan manner. The multiple citations to The Guardian lead me to conclude that the agency is notable and should be worked on in mainspace. (I'd chop out bits here and now but trying to edit Wikipedia on an iPhone is torturous.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article to be more neutral in tone and added a few more sources - can you take another look? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

done. There is no clear solution to the question of how fixed an article should be before moving. I've had one or two complaints that I've moved into mainspace too early myself. I think by discussion back and forth we will get to some sort of standard; discussion on talk pages like here, and sometimes at AfD. Nothing is actually unsalvageable if enough work is done, tho sometimes an old version will need to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benjamin Clementine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Crystal Palace and O2 Academy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought of you when I saw this Leslie speaker article at ProSoundWeb. Do you think it can be used? Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a suitable source, though it doesn't really tell us much that's not covered by other sources anyway (although that in itself is a reason to trust it as a source). If you fancy a DYK for the new year, it sings the praises of the Neo Ventilator enough to make me consider it should have an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. FYI I have done my QPQ. Whenever you find the time, if you wouldn't mind checking it and perhaps giving your final approval. Thank you very much for your time and review and Happy New Year! Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. No need, it was promoted. Thank you again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done, glad to be of help. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Ritchie333: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 10:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Oooh, fireworks! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thx for responding in the discussion I started at Revolver's talk page. The Revolution in the Head book that replaced the source I used did not verify all the release information ([1]), so I restored the previous source. Also, I feel like I'm getting the short of the end of the stick by trying to resolve this problem with the other editor. I hope you can respond to my most recent message at the talk page. I don't want this to get out of hand because the editor says very little addressing what they're reverting. Dan56 (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with the article as it currently stands (aside from it needs further improvement and rewriting to meet GA standards, but that's for another time) ... however, this edit summary of "rvv; Liftmoduleinterface has...." (and I assume by "rvv" you mean "revert vandalism") is not going to do you any favours and likely to count against you if somebody raises a WP:AN3 report. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie, I have the same request of you, as of Anup.  :-)   User_talk:Anupmehra#also.2C_please_revisit_this_one_WT:Articles_for_creation.2FSapience_.28software.29

  The article prose needs a severe rewrite, but the sources clearly exist to demonstrate the corporatin is notable (as opposed to their eponymous product ... this article is written like it was about the software but actually it should be rewritten to be about the company). I would suggest pushing this into mainspace, if VirtualAvi agrees, and let the NPP and AfD folks rewrite the contents to fix the tone, stick to the sources, and so on. Does this sound reasonable?

The version of the submission I declined said pretty much nothing about what the company did. That's now been added, but the information is unsourced. If you want to put it into mainspace, I won't object, but if it goes to AfD, somebody will need to explain what's going on to the article's creator. I generally don't like company articles that put too much attention on the founders and the turnover - as you can see above, I gave Red Brick Road a thorough going over to highlight what I thought was the most notable accomplishment (creating a nationally famous slogan) up front. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  p.s. While I'm in the neighborhood, can you give me an opinion on the Duromac article, if you have fifteen minutes? It is borderline, and we've got about four-and-a-half people saying it meets WP:GNG, but about four other folks say it isn't quite there yet. Here is my nice-n-tidy analysis[2] of the sources for Duromac, and here is the article.[3] Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! That looks like a lot of work. A supplier of commercial and military vehicles might be notable, or it might not. I'll have to get back to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You helped this article to get GA where as there is a important problem of WP:NPOV concerning facts that are easy to check via the site Billboard.com. I explained the problem and proposed a solution on the talk of the article. This needs to be fixed quickly. Woovee (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be fixed quickly and I agree with Indigopud's assessment in the article's history. Chill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully you're busy with gigs... but a reminder that you started a GA review of Tommy Flanagan; I've dealt with most of your initial comments. EddieHugh (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about this - I need an hour in front of a desktop PC to close this off, which. I just haven't had (as well as gigs, I'm also writing stuff for the radio now which eats into spare time easily). I will hope to get the review finished by close of play today. Sorry about the wait! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

On 10 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin Clementine, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Benjamin Clementine was discovered by a record company agent while busking on the Paris Metro? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Benjamin Clementine. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hansel and Gretel in 3D is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hansel and Gretel in 3D (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions on whether the article stays or goes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi & Happy New Year! It seems that there's consensus for creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sinclair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Sinclair. Are you still up for it? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. I don't mind the project being created (after all, I created Mined-Out, an excellent example of a new article this project should support, only a few days ago), but there's been very little interest, and I don't want to be the main / sole contributor to the project. Possibly we could create it, but have a fallback option of collapsing it down to a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games if things don't pan out. How does that sound? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  Hmm. Being just one of just a few people concentrating on it would be far from ideal, I agree. Perhaps the proposal should just be left until there's more support then - I'm not sure what's best. As for a potential task force, the subject matter would presumably encompass more than games alone, so wouldn't a task force of WP:COMP be more appropriate than WP:VG? (Happy to take this to the proposal page for further discussion, where others might chime in too one day.) Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Leaving the proposal as is on the back burner sounds like a good idea, and probably the root cause of why the proposal has sat undiscussed for a year. Some relevant articles go into WP:COMP, such as ZX Interface 1, Opus Discovery or Multiface, so possibly a task force, or at least one on a single project, would be inappropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On 30 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Beatles' rooftop concert, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at the end of The Beatles' rooftop concert, John Lennon jokingly said, "I hope we've passed the audition"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Beatles' rooftop concert. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Great job you and Gabe, our resident groovy 60s editors! 45th anniversary today!! You should definitely upload a fair use image of The Beatles' rooftop concert a historic event, the external photo today isn't enough. Done..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Here is me looking groovy I'm not a fan of tackling fair use images, simply because it's far easier to do a Google image search and get a much richer selection. There are always creative ways round these things - Pink Floyd at Pompeii uses nothing but free images outside the infobox, by having the clear nous and foresight to film in a public place and use artwork from a public museum. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hehe I watched In Like Flint the other day and felt really groovy man. In Floyd's case though you have a poster of the event. One photo or poster or whatever I really think is needed in the way a fair use CD cover is used for albums etc but I agree that other than that it's best to be creative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think exchanges like this and this are also a reason I avoid discussions about non-free images. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Aloha. Thanks for commenting on Talk:John Barrowman. I will have a followup question for you shortly, so please keep an eye on your notifications. I want to point out (FYI) that your comment on Flyer22's talk page at 18:34 missed a few things, but this is not necessarily your fault.[4] First of all, you were a little late. Just under a day prior to you saying "You need to file an RFC/U", I informed Flyer22 that I was working on a draft RfC in my userspace.[5] I'm not sure if I will file it just yet as it is a work in progress. Second of all, you've said that you aren't going to file it yourself because your views "align closer to John's" and that you "see where he's coming from". Well, you may want to be careful there. Flyer22 and myself have been strong critics of the Daily Mail. However, the community has maintained that these kinds of sources may still be considered reliable depending on their context (for example, an interview with a celebrity journalist) and their content (such as uncontroversial and matter of fact statements). More to the point, John's position on this matter was discussed last September and the community explained to him why it was wrong.[6] He refused to back down. John's views on this matter, therefore, are not just out of sync with the community, but lack consensus. Editors cannot create private blacklists of sources they personally do not like and then willfully remove those sources from every article. There is no policy or guideline that supports that kind of disruptive behavior. Finally, John has falsely claimed that there were BLP violations (there were not) and he edit warred while threatening to block editors as an involved admin in the dispute he created. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• In terms of the article, I think I am happy with your proposals. As far as John (talk · contribs) is concerned, I didn't see any issue when I reviewed the individual sources in Talk:Brad Pitt, and there is a good argument to make that his methods of working get results and make an article better - would John Barrowman have received this level of attention to detail and improvements otherwise? I would urge you to focus on the content wherever possible and not get distracted by what other editors have done. I don't believe he is in principle against you filing an RFC / RFC/U - at least it will get the conversation out in the open, rather than squirrelled away on some user talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ritchie333 for your thoughts. I try always to follow through with promises so I would have to block Viriditas if they again restored tabloid sourcing to a BLP in contravention of WP:BLPSOURCES. I am curious to know why you think I would be INVOLVED in this instance, as I removed the offending material in an administrative capacity. The community elected me in 2006 to enforce policy, and unless or until WP:BLPSOURCES is repealed or watered down, I intend to enforce it too. On the other hand, if you think it helpful, I could post any block at WP:AN/I for review. I would greatly prefer not to have to block this user who I suspect is well-intentioned, and my preferred outcome would be that better sources be found to support the material this user wishes to add. The idea of holding a community RfC to reconfirm our existing policy on not using tabloid journalism on BLPs also wouldn't do any harm. I see quite a number of mis-statements in Viriditas's comments above, and it may be worth taking into consideration that this user has some kind of axe to grind. Me, I am just upholding our standards, and protecting our project and the subjects of our biographical articles. Take care, --John (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • John, you are mistaken on every point, which tells me you still don't understand the situation. There has been absolutely no BLP violation of any kind nor have you been able to show that there has been one. You have falsely stated there was a BLP violation, followed by your failure to follow BRD, your subsequent edit warring, and a warning by yourself, an involved admin, that I could be blocked, followed by your statement here and in other places that you would in fact act as an involved admin and use your tools in a content dispute. To make matters worse, this is not the first time you have done this. You were corrected by the community in September 2013 that your understanding and interpretation of BLP and RS was in error and you have failed to correct your continuing misunderstanding. John, the evidence is clear. You have willfully and deliberately ignored the consensus on this matter and you have implemented your own personal "blacklist" against policy, which has led you to remove sources and their corresponding content across Wikipedia on no solid evidentiary or policy basis other than your own pet beliefs and unilateral action supported by your threats to use your tools against editors who disagree with your rogue administration. I am curious as to what kind of "axe" I could have to grind here, John, or do you not understand that idiom? You have not responded to any substantive points on this matter nor have you responded directly to any questions about your actions. Does this need to go to ANI, RFC, or straight to arbcom? Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmm. I wonder if you are claiming to have telepathic abilities, as you impute so many opinions to me that I do not hold. By all means, you are welcome to take me to any sort of dispute resolution noticeboard that you see fit. Regarding axes, I am extremely flattered in a way but worry that you may be over-personalising things just a little with this tottering monstrosity. To be absolutely clear, my involvement with the John Barrowman article begins and ends with making sure that you and others do not add content sourced to tabloids onto an article on a living person. You would do well to realise that. Be well. --John (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
        • John, you're wrong as usual. I haven't added any content sourced to "tabloids" into any BLP, and frankly, I don't give a damn about your involvement in the John Barrowman article. My concern begins and ends with bringing you to the attention of the community and seeing that you are sanctioned for creating a personal blacklist of sources against the consensus of the community based on your own misinterpretation of BLP policy and RS guidelines. Your position on this matter is not just in the minority, it isn't supported by any consensus anywhere, and your interpretation of BLPSOURCES and how we evaluate sources has been shown to be completely at odds with how we use them. John, you do not get to unilaterally implement your wild interpretation of policy on this site. I hope that's clear, because you will not be allowed to get away with it. Keep threatening to use your tools and block me John, as that will only provide more diffs for me to use against you. See you on the noticeboards, RFC, arbcom, etc. as I'm willing to go as far as necessary to stop you. Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Aha, so are you claiming that this edit which added material sourced to The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and Metro, as well as the Daily Mail, and for which I quite properly warned you, was made by your little brother or something similar? Or perhaps I am wrong as usual... --John (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
            • John, you did not discuss your edits on the talk page. You "warned" me that you would act as an involved admin during a content dispute, a dispute that you have been waging unilaterally against consensus. When dragged to the talk page kicking and screaming, you failed to address a single point raised, instead trying to change the subject. It's difficult to take you seriously, John. If you want to discuss the use of The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and Metro, then you are welcome to use the convenient subheadings I created for that purpose. For some reason, those areas of the talk page continue to remain blank and devoid of your input. John, what you are doing is unacceptable and does not conform to any policy or guideline. You do not get to personally implement your own source blacklist against consensus. That's not how Wikipedia works. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
              • I'm really sorry but I am struggling to maintain a belief in your good faith here, and it isn't fair to clutter Ritchie's talk page with this discussion, so this will be my last reply here, though I do not rule out discussing it further elsewhere. An admin does not become involved by acting in an administrative capacity, as I did when I removed tabloid sourcing from a BLP per policy, and I did again when I warned you for the edit I highlighted above which you made restoring the poor sources (assuming you aren't really claiming it was your little brother!). I am sorry you find it so infuriating to be pulled up for your mistake, but mistake it was. There's really nothing to discuss regarding The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and the Metro as they are unambiguously tabloids and therefore unambiguously cannot be used in the way that the article was using them before I removed them. The Sun claim was particularly egregious. Thank you for not restoring these claims, as that would have been unambiguously block-worthy. I see you are claiming that SELFSOURCE applies to the waffle from the Mail, and maybe it does. I won't block over that, but if you are so confident of your case, what would be the harm of opening it up to a wider discussion? I won't press you further on the various other false claims you have made, as I don't see any benefit in further embarrassing you and I recognise there may be competency issues here. We all make mistakes, and that is how you learn, if you are able to acknowledge them as such. But that is your responsibility, not mine. Be well, --John (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll explain what my interpretation of "involved" means. I personally don't think you have used any admin tools yet John, you have removed information, you believed your removal improves the project, and you explained why on the talk. Any editor can do that. Acting in an admin capacity would be protecting the article or blocking users. If your proposal to block or protect has legs, it's highly likely another admin will approve it. Even if you think you are acting completely within policy, all it takes is two people who disagree to splurge over ANI about it, and and entire morning's work on the encyclopaedia grinds to a halt as all the regular drama whores pop in to have a look. Why take the risk?

I will have a look at Barrowman's article if and when I have time over the weekend. The BBC has a lot of sources, unsurprisingly, and most of the basic details under contention can be cited to his official biography here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting Ritchie. La comparaison n'est pas la raison of course but if I remove vandalism from an article that doesn't mean I can't block the vandal. I would view removing complete crap sourced to the Sun in an exactly similar light. Someone who reverts stuff like this back into a BLP deserves to be warned then blocked, and I still stand by that. I wonder if it's worth a discussion at WP:AN to clarify this? Thanks for saying you would look at the article; it needs all the help it can get, and I intend to query HJM on how (even in 2009) it passed GA with such rubbish sources on it. Take care, --John (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Helo Ritchie333. I see you recently declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kotlin (programming language). Despite or more likely being unaware of this, another user subsequently created Kotlin (programming language). Perhaps you could check this latter article as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. The mainspace version of the article was created yesterday, so it's small wonder I didn't notice it. And, looking at the sourcing, I wouldn't be particularly confident about sending it to AfD. So I won't - instead I'll redirect the AfC version to the mainspace version, which seems to generally be the best solution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ritchie, I have resubmitted this article multiple times and made the appropriate changes. Frankly I am feeling a bit concerned that you have been quite unfair in your review method. This is quite odd. I have checked my article against other similar articles and find this one well organized, with adequately referenced and contents that follow the Wikipedia policies. Not sure how much more to modify it. So here I am asking you to approve this one and make it work. It is futile to keep on modifying this tiny article. I mean what is the point? This is not serving anyone's purposes. So anyway, please recheck the references if need be and much shorter contents. Thanks lakulish — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAKULISH (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I put it in the queue for review, because I saw it was sourced but I'd have to do a bit of research before determining that it should pass - if I could easily see a pass, I would have done it there and then. As it is, you'll have to ask Dodger67 (talk · contribs) why he declined the submission, particularly as "an advert", which doesn't really make sense to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the article as it was when I declined it the reason will be blatantly obvious. Since then it has been improved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you just need to do a bit of a more detailed explanation to LAKULISH - after all, if people knew policy well enough, all their AfC submissions would pass, or they'd go straight to NPP! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abbey Road, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Magic Christian and Because (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• You need to stop linking to the Dab solver, as it doesn't work now replication on toolserver has been turned off. Do I have to report you on ANI for disruptive behaviour? :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you even see that I was still working on it and asked for your help?--Aichik (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I did, but the BLP violations and lack of sources are unfortunately are a showstopper, I'm afraid, and they're not generally things you can fix quickly and expediently. A "not listed" (I don't like the term "fail" as it implies your efforts were substandard, which they weren't) means that the article cannot be listed as a GA at this time, and indeed I hope it will pass at a later date. I would follow the recommendations laid out in the review. The Wikipedia:Good article reassessment page gives you some other options you can consider, such as opening a community reassessment or requesting a second review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ritchie, how's work going? Listen, if you have some spare time, would you provide some input over the GAN review for Thirty Seconds to Mars? There are a few unresolved notes remaining (listed at the bottom of the page) and I'd appreciate if you share your opinion whether they should be addressed or not. Also, a suggestion whether the article should be promoted would be helpful. Thanks and everything the best.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I have dropped a second opinion on the GA review page. I would recommend going with my suggestions and passing - I haven't look at the article thoroughly but it doesn't have any obvious issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ritchie, how are you? (I figured I'd reply over here rather than clutter GabeMc's talk page.)

And sorry, I meant to drop in at that Albums discussion after messaging with Gabe – but I managed to unearth precisely nothing that would've been helpful, so I didn't bother! Great job getting Abbey Road up at GAN, it's long overdue. I'm sure the nom will get snapped up by a reviewer any day now.

Thanks for the compliment about McCartney. Funny situation with that one, because I only came to the article while trying to help Yeepsi with Ram since, at the time, my head was filled with all things Apple/Beatles break-up, after working on song articles like Sue Me, Sue You Blues, Run of the Mill, Early 1970, etc. With Ram, it needed (needs) so much in the way of background and context, but it seemed to me that much of this had to link back to a similar section under McCartney. (In that, events of early and mid 1970 had such an obvious bearing on those of late 1970/early '71, when Mac sued the others.) So I head to McCartney instead, where I realise that much of that album's background, particularly regarding its release and reception, needed to link to/flow on from a more-dedicated discussion within Break-up of the Beatles. Then I get to that article and see that there's precious little about McCartney's role in breaking up the Beatles, relative to the massive amount of commentary and analysis that his actions over 1970–71 attracts in all the sources I have. So I got a bit stumped(!), because all I'd intended to do was help expand Ram for a shot at GAN, yet the whole exercise revealed how inadequate (imo) the coverage is further up the chain. The upshot was that McCartney, the article in the middle of the two extremes (Break-up of the Beatles vs Ram), ended up sort of okay – with your encouragement now, I just might revisit it after all.

Sorry to go on! … Best, JG66 (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I think we concluded that the unsourced figures were not a showstopper for GAN, so they've been taken out. I normally find there's about 2-3 month waiting list for GA nominations, but since Abbey Road is bit higher profile it might get attention sooner. As you suggest, Beatles sources don't really document much about McCartney making the first album, so much as the reaction to its release which ran parallel with the Beatles' official break-up. The article also gives good credit to Linda's photography, which isn't really remembered too much these days. I've added a bit to the article myself, but there's not really too much more work that's needed to take it to GA status. Keep it up! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)