Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matt-san (talk | contribs) at 21:50, 10 February 2015 (→Who's Next - Artwork context). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Your GA nomination of Jaywick

The article Jaywick you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jaywick for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jaywick

The article Jaywick you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jaywick for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Edit Advice/Direction?

Cymru am byth

Thank you for the Welcome! I do have question if you have minutes to spare. For my first edit I was hoping to update an outdated profile picture of Illustrator Rebecca Guay on her wiki page. How do I go about that? Thanks in advance!

NudgyDragon (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)NudgyDragon[reply]

@NudgyDragon: - provided that the picture of Rebecca Guay was taken by you, the simplest way is to click here for the "Files for upload" process and follow the instructions given there. Your file will be queued, and you'll be told if it was accepted, at which point, you can replace the existing picture. Alternatively, drop me a line on here and I can update the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: - After reading through the instructions, the photo I have is one taken at the illustration master class. Therefore since it's on my computer and not posted elsewhere on the web I'm assuming it will be rejected. I don't really want to start up a flickr just for this one photo. Can I get image approval through you? Or would you be able to replace it with the new image I have? NudgyDragon (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)NudgyDragon[reply]
@NudgyDragon: - Okay, probably the next thing we could try is to wait four days and ensure you have ten edits (you currently have three). Then you will be autoconfirmed and you will be able to upload files yourself from your computer. The problem I have found is that if I upload images made by somebody else, it's hard to prove that I really did have approval from the original photographer, which is why I always recommend editors doing it themselves. Is there anything else you would like to do on Wikipedia in the meantime? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pink cat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Launceston (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) 09:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Yellowknifer... and hopefully Switched-On Bach II, too

Hi Ritchie333. Goodness gracious, I never knew what I write is actually seriously! Next RfA that comes along, I'll remember to mention - no doubt completely out of context - Switched-On Bach, and hope that it will magically make it become available on CD. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your RfA question was excellent - I regularly stalk CSDs and revert ones that I don't think meet the criteria, and every now and again (eg: The White Mandingos), I rescue one and bring it to DYK. Anyway, regarding Switched-On Bach, a vitally important album that really should be a GA if I'm honest .... I have a copy of Keyboard Magazine Presents Vintage Synthesizers which has a lengthy interview with Wendy Carlos explaining her pioneering role in synthesized classical music. Many Brits of a certain age will recall portions of Carlos playing Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (or at least I think it's that and Gerda Arendt will trout slap me if I have the wrong piece) on the Kenny Everett Show during his Marcel Marceau parody pieces. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was a real crossover album, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I appreciate you were trying to be funny, but Carlos has said in several interviews she is sick to the back teeth of journalists banging on about her being transgender, and it has very little to do with her professional music and composition career. [1] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about "bashing"? I'll get my (over-sized) coat. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt Wendy is fed up. And that her gender identity has nothing to do with his or her music. But I've always had a slight difficulty with that first line of the Switched-On Bach article. It's a bit like saying that Tea for the Tillerman was recorded by Yusuf Islam? Or that the Beatles grew up in Merseyside? etc etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you fret over those, don't read this or this. Or, indeed, this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve visited the beautiful Derry and can assure you that they still have cheddar cheese and pineapple on a stick|!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I totally and and utterly reject your keep !vote on that AfD, Mrs Buncefield. Let me be in any doubt, these are crocodile tears which you cry, you heartless loathsome bitch! On a serious note, I'm not sure that William Ulsterman was just parodying Paisley, but just the whole stereotype of Unionist MPs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Harry would see that as a finer achievement. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wachet auf and participate in the merge (or replace) discussion. It doesn't matter if you never used those templates, - I bet most of those supporting a 2007 thing without image and camel case parameters also didn't. - There are several melodies of Wachet auf, the original and the simplified one Bach set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 15#Seth Andrews

Hi Ritchie333. You wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 15#Seth Andrews:

I did find a small amount of independent and reliable third-party coverage, but I don't think it was more than a few sentences. That's not enough to sustain a BLP.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Andrews, I found several sources that provided entire articles of coverage about Seth Andrews. See this article from Tulsa World, this article from the Abilene Reporter-News, and this article from Arizona Daily Sun. I think these sources are sufficient to establish notability. Do you consider these sources insufficient? Cunard (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: The problem I find with BLPs is that we need to be conservative and err on the side of not including information. The sources given are news pieces about him, but they're local, regional, material. Ideally, I find for a BLP to stick, you need to have sources appearing again and again in national news, or even better, books and magazines. The second question is to ask yourself, if we can't have an article on Andrews, could we mention him in another one? Well, we could put something in Atheism, but for a major reaching topic, we'd again need sustained news coverage over an extended period of time for his views to stick. To be fair, I am arguing the same from the other side with Sonia Poulton, and while I have found about 25 sources over several decades, I still think "would she really be upset if she didn't have a Wikipedia article?" It's worth asking yourself the same question about Andrews. I realise the conversation in that AfD was a little frayed, but it's not personal (well, from me it certainly wasn't) and often I find that BLP and corporate articles really don't gain that much from WP presence if their name is unique enough to appear elsewhere on a Google search. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am approaching this from the view: "Does the subject meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, and are there enough reliable sources such that a polished draft of the subject would not need to resort to original research and would comply with BLP?"

I think the sources I found would meet these criteria.

I am not approaching this from the view "would Seth Andrews be upset if he didn't have a Wikipedia article" or "would he gain from having a Wikipedia presence"? I don't think those questions are relevant.

The only relevant related question would be "does Seth Andrews want his Wikipedia article deleted" in which case I would support deletion per subject's request. But that hasn't happened here.

Tulsa World is a major newspaper newspaper. I think the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO but it seems like you have a stricter requirement.

If Sonia Poulton passes WP:GNG (I haven't checked), then I would support keeping. Cunard (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem with guidelines like GNG is that they only go so far. The longest and most complex AfDs come down to differing interpretations of them (what's "significant" to one isn't necessarily to another), and it's a tricky subject. Anyway, if you can overturn the AfD to "no consensus", that's all well and good. An alternative is you could ask for the article to be put into draft, which might be a more suitable alternative than outright deletion, and something I think we need to do more of. In any case, make sure that all the good sources you have mentioned go in, and base the article on those. I've probably overdone Sonia Poulton a bit, in effect I've rewritten the majority of the article with completely new sources. In any case, I hope you get the result you want. Happy editing! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JC's Girls

Given that Neelix is retired and the article is so close, I'd be willing to complete the changes and address the concerns if you would be willing to complete a review following its completion. From one editor to another, the work is indeed good and it will restore some faith in the community for Neelix. After all, Neelix has done a lot of work for Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a think about it this, and while it's a good idea for somebody to go through the points I raised (particularly the BLP violations, excess content, claims that failed verification and most importantly all the images that make it look like something out of The Sun or the Daily Star), I think it's best just leaving the review be for the minute. It needs quite a bit of work to reach GA status, and everything Neelix related seems to have turned into a drama-fest, so I'd rather concentrate on other things, particularly as I have got a bit of a backlog at the moment and not much time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your efforts to improve referencing in articles on living people by removing sub-standard sources in accordance with WP:BLPSOURCES. Keep up the good work. John (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Briarcliff

Hi again Ritchie,

Having dealt with Briarcliff Middle School, I was wondering whether you'd be up to reviewing its replacement, Briarcliff Manor School District. I'd really appreciate that.

Thanks,
ɱ (talk · vbm) 00:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for doing this. I'm kinda confused by what you added to the article though: what does "Demand for school places is high due to its strong performance and ratings" mean?--ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Je suis Charlie

Thanks for helping free speech Victuallers (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be interesting to see how much traffic this article takes from being linked in DYK - over the weekend during the news spike it had over 131,000 readers in one day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tenby Lifeboat Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifeboat (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) 09:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DPL bot, every time I get a message from you I get a sudden urge to file a move request! Anyway, aren't lifeboat (rescue) and lifeboat (shipboard) more or less the same thing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Won't Get Fooled Again

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Won't Get Fooled Again you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You-know-what

Ritchie, I just don't understand what you're doing. I've addressed every issue you (or anyone else) has raised, and you've either endorsed what I've done or just not responded when I asked whether what I did is OK. I have to insist that you now either pass the article or say what specific thing in the article fails what specific point of GACR; otherwise maybe someone else should take over the review. Would that be better? Since Martinevans123 apparently made a pass over your comments once before (and commented here and there) maybe he'd be a good choice. EEng (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issues were discussed and either resolved or (in the case of quotations and images), disputed. There was never a case where I could say "yes, every single action point is agreed between us as satisfactory", and the second opinion editor felt worse. After three weeks, a GA review should be in a position like Talk:Gladstone, Oregon/GA1, which only has a few copyedits and a decision on whether to keep something - not much. I've explained what you can do next to go forward with this and what you're options are. I have closed the review in good faith following the procedure, and your options are to go to WP:GAR to challenge this, start a new review with someone else, or raise a peer preview request. Now, I feel it's best this discussion is closed. See you on WT:DYK. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not followed the procedure. WP:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Failing requires you to "Leave instructions on the review page indicating what needs further improvement." Now, for the nth time, what needs further improvement? If it's any of the things you listed at Talk:Widener_Library/GA1#Images then say why my explanations there aren't sufficient, and what you think still needs doing. If it's about quotations, then say why the actions I took in response to DGG's comments aren't sufficient, and what you think still needs doing. You can't say there's dispute if you raise an issue, I answer it, and you just say "I quit." EEng (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for this. I have a family, children, job and limited spare time, which I like to spend improving articles, not answering seemingly neverending points of order. The problems with quotations and images are still there - I do not believe the article meets the GA criteria because of this and there are avenues you can peruse if you are unhappy. This discussion is now closed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Help Here....

Hey Ritchie333, I was wondering if you'd be able to help me promote "Alexander O'Neal" to at least GA, I've created like four or five articles for his albums some minor work on his actual page etc. and I was wondering if you'd like to help. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Highway 548

Hi, Ritchie! I have reviewed your DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Mississippi Highway 548 and I have a couple of questions about the hook. Want to see if you or the author can resolve them? --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied and pinged some more experienced editors who may be able to help. In my head, I wonder if this chap lived along that road? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hated to quibble with one of your nominations, but I was doing my QPQ and there it was. I had just completed a rescue you'll appreciate: from expired prod to DYK nominee - The Boy Who Fell Out of the Sky. (I may turn out to be a lousy administrator. I had set out to work on expired prods, but after a couple of deletions I spent the rest of the day on this article. My admin hat just falls off when I see rescuable stuff. Look, something shiny!) --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine, I am usually happy with constructive criticism - I've done enough GA reviews to take all of it in good faith, knowing it usually makes the article better! Plus, the background to the highway one is I recommended it not pass GA, it did anyway, and I did the DYK as a gesture of goodwill. Anyway, nice rescue - and for what it's worth all my favourite admins (quick wave to Drmies and Floquenbeam) do regular amounts of article work. It keeps you fresh and have more experience on why policies might apply, not just a laundry list of what they are. I've done a few saves myself recently, but the one sticking out from the last week is this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch and well deserved trout to the nominator; apparently they never read WP:ACADEMIC. BTW turns out he's not just a "distinguished professor" - he actually holds a named professorship. I added that to the lead. I am kind of amazed the road article passed GA. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see it's already at GA review. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Won't Get Fooled Again

AAAAHHHHAAAAAAAGH!

The article Won't Get Fooled Again you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Won't Get Fooled Again for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. It's miles better. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two of my favourite 'Oo songs, though any 1969-76 clip of Amazing Journey / Sparks (such as Woodstock, Live at Leeds, Isle of Wight) is incredible what you can get out of one guitar by just playing rhythm. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remember hearing this first when I was about 14. It sounded like something from another planet. I am still dumbfounded and amazed that it was released in 1971. I regard Glyn Johns as a genius. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I've said this before but I recall my dad's friend playing me "Yours Is No Disgrace"; the opening track on The Yes Album, where this cranked up Hammond organ comes in clear on one channel about 8 seconds in and blows your socks off. Sorry, never been a Rick Wakeman fan myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. That exact same track was also a revelation for me, thanks to an older brother who had that album (and still does as far as I know). I only saw them after Wakeman had joined, but the pre-Wakeman band really were the The Big Country for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ja, ik ben een nutbag"
Since we're on this subject .... I went to see Focus a few years back, but I don't actually know much about them other than the leader plays a good Hammond and flute and does an excellent impression of being a complete nut bag, if of course that is an impression. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went to see them once, at Cardiff University, being a huge Thijs van Leer fan with copies of both "Sylvia" and "Harem Scarem". But they never turned up! [2] .... the yodelling starts at about 3:54... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC) ... grab the Hammond on this classic (Pub Quiz Time: what model is that Banksy Tony is playing in the scrap-yard at 1:56)? [reply]
Oh dear, I'm about to scare you now Martin, right at 1:56, Tony Kaye is miming with a Hammond L-100P, a portable version of the L100 spinet, brought in after they realised there was a market for portable Hammonds about 20 years too late, Chris Squire is on the Telecaster bass copy he had before the Rickenbacker, probably about 10 years old at that point, and ol' Stevie is of course miming to Banks on his ES-175. No idea where they're miming. However, earlier on this evening I saw an advert on TV saying "Did you know that Yellowstone National Park is built on top of an active volcano" and I said "Yes, but I can't remember if the claim is reliably sourced and the article has been expanded 5x in the past 7 days", to which I got the "you sad git" look from the missus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am truly scared. "...and don't accept edits from strangers!" Alf Git (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cassetteboy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conservative Party and Mashup (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) 09:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pink cat

Harrias talk 12:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For @Fylbecatulous: - everyone loves a cat on the internet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Many congratulations on your wonderful article and the DYK front page honour. These cats are awesome. I will have a good day because of this. Thanks for thinking of me. (meow, purr...) all the best and continued happy editing. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 13:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last week, we finally reglazed the hole in the back door where the cat flap once stood .... there are just too many cats in my street, it seems everyone has them, and they all mix and go into each other's gardens, and came in and tried to eat Suede's food. You can't easily defend yourself when you're an 18-year old cat. I'd been wondering about getting a new cat after Suede passed away just over a year ago, but I think for now we'll have a break and concentrate on a different kind of house guest - children. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great name. Did he make the same whiney mewing sounds as Brett Anderson? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really! You'll have to give the RSPCA credit for her name, as she was named as such when I got her from the shelter. I did name another cat Buffy after the eponymous slayer, though my Buffy was more interested in frogs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aw. I would like the idea of a cat flap and gardens and outdoor cats. Where I live we have animal control to strictly pick up all strays. All outdoor cats are to be collared, tagged and vaccinated. In my flat complex we have share-adopted the only roaming cat larger than the geese. We named him Sam and he is black with quite stiff fur and is very gentle. He eats well and gets lots of attention. My personal cat was Fearless, a rescued feral long-haired tortoiseshell, who lived to 13. She was not terribly well named (I named her for a cocker spaniel on a television program). She was terrified of all visitors and was like owning a Jekyl and Hyde. She always greeted me with a wonderful chirrup and was very affectionate but strangers would get a lashing. Even her veterinarian was afraid of her. I shall now remember to honour Suede when I think of Fearless. (I have a cat shrine in her favourite window...shhhh). Fylbecatulous talk 13:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody's had their fresh chicken.....
I'd have gone insane over litter trays, thank goodness for cats going outdoors. When you get cats from rescue shelters (as I and Eric have done), they sometimes are skittish. If you hear some of the stories from the shelters, it's really quite horrible what people can think of and do to cats. I would never get a dog because I know how much maintenance they require regards walking, food and attention, and that's nothing against dogs or their owners. Cats are "low maintenance" pets, but you've still got to feed them and take care of them, and if you don't wrap up a chicken carcass very carefully and take it to the outside wheelie bin immediately, then woe betide you when Suede's "chicken radar" activates. Still, Suede really loved her chicken - I can remember her looking at a plate of KFC popcorn chicken on my lap, lifting up a paw and trying to swipe some of it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Million award

Are you one of the people managing WP:MILLION? I have an aging request on the talk page for a review of two articles. I'm guessing it was overlooked. Anyway, I just need a second person to check my math. Cheers, – Maky « talk » 15:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maky: I don't really manage anything, but I have done a bit of caretaking on WP:MILLION and do keep an eye out for high-traffic articles. The easiest way to see if something is worth these awards is to go to the article, click on "History", and go to "Page view statistics". Click on "90" (for 90 days), and multiply the figure you see by (365/90). By doing that, I can see that Lemur has about 314,000 annual hits, while Slow Loris has about 417,000, so both can have quarter million awards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. The popularity of the "Slow loris" article waxes and wanes with each viral YouTube video. When I calculated it, I used September through November (63,040 + 39,711 + 27,013 = 129,764; x4.06 = 526,841) because it was recently on TFA (in December). Either way, do we assign the award ourselves? I'm more used to the Four Award, where we'd nominate ourselves and the nominations would be processed. – Maky « talk » 16:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a more informal thing. Straight million awards for the table do get checked out, but for a quarter million award, I don't see anything wrong with putting the box on your userpage, if that's what you want. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining and taking a moment to look at my stuff. – Maky « talk » 17:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jaywick

"Congratulations on winning the election, meet us for a pint at the Mermaid Inn, Brooklands Gardens", they said. Were they taking the piss? I am not happy and I want my copper wire back now.
Why not try a holiday in Jaywick this year? (N.B. remember to take your own fresh food and pub entertainment)
"Eyes down .... two-and-four, twenty four" .... "Gandhi's Breakfast? not in this pub, mate."

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup - The Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 5/Final

GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though!

Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all!

Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month.

In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [3] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish!

The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.

Good luck to all our finalists!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: - I think the "prize" I most deserve after this is a break from GA reviewing! I can't believe I managed to do all those reviews, good grief.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Walker GA

Hi, I see you passed Josh Walker for GA, but Checklinks shows four dead URLs. Prose such as "On 19 April 2012, Walker signed for the club on a permanent basis on free transfer on July 2012. Walker signed a one-year contract with them.[57]" seems not to make sense. Could you double-check? Thanks, C679 15:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had all sorts of problem with the external link script on Tools, which times out half the time I try and use it, but AFIAK I did manually click on each and every online source during the review to check the information. The lead prose was done after the review, and the nominator didn't indicate they'd done everything so I missed that - sorry about that! I've done a bit of a copyedit on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had problems with it too. Article looks better though, so thanks for the improvements. Thanks, C679 15:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and done another copyedit - there were some other prose issues as well. Really sorry about that - I don't know what else to say, I pride myself of being a very thorough GA reviewer who digs deep into sources and checks things thoroughly. I do admit that sometimes I have read somebody saying "done" to an action point I raised, briefly checked a diff and thought "yup, they have" without going into the full depth on the initial sweep (largely because checking off 45 action points takes forever), and I'm pretty sure the problematic prose wasn't in the article as first reviewed. Anyway, I think everything's fixed so hopefully that's resolved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 30 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fuck It, We'll Do It Live

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA mentor

Hello Ritchie, I see that you are on the list of GA mentors. I am nearly done with my first review, over at Talk:Dolebury Warren/GA1. I believe the article in nearly ready to pass, and I would appreciate it if you could give it a once over to make sure that I've assessed it correctly. If you are too busy, that's not a problem, please just let me know and I can ask someone else. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I had a look through. The good news is that the nominator is a very experienced editor with many GAs and FAs under his belt, so you shouldn't have too many problems that crop up. I would ask a little bit more about the history of the geology of the area - did the last ice age affect it? A GA has to be "broad in coverage" so it's always worth asking about things you think might deserve a mention, even if the end answer is "nothing in the sources". I wonder why there are two infoboxes? But generally you have done a good job and I don't see any problem with the article reaching GA standard as a result of your comments. And I'm pleased with what you've done on Henry Fownes Luttrell - you listened to Eric and Sitush's comments outside of the GA review and used them to make a better article - exactly the result we should be looking for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking over this, and for your comments regarding the Fownes Luttrell article. I am pleased that you think Dolebury Warren is up to that level too, and I have passed on your suggestions re geology and the infobox at the GAR. Many thanks, it is appreciated, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The customer is not a moron

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hammond Detective Agency

Who is this week's mystery guest?

Any ideas who this organist was?! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one. If I could find a good scan of the back cover and find out who recorded and produced it, that might narrow it down to a few obvious session players, but in Mississippi 1969, a Hammond B3 + Leslie 122 was common currency enough that Gregg Allman, just up the road in Macon, Georgia, had one dropped off as a gift in the same manner that one would drop round a Samsung Galaxy 4 in today's gadget currency. So it could have been any one of a hundred people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, on the article for the album there is no credit for any organ player, nor for what sounds to me like a sitar. Have opened a Talk Page thread over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC) ... either that or I'd better watch what I'm smoking .... [reply]

Your GA nomination of Haim (band)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Haim (band) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Briarcliff

Hi again Ritchie,

Thanks so much for reviewing the Briarcliff school district article. I'm kinda confused by what you added to the article though: what does "Demand for school places is high due to its strong performance and ratings" mean?--ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a school produces good results, parents are more likely to send their kids there. Simples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I hope you don't mind, I reworded it to be more clear. Thanks.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Won't Get Fooled Again

This next song is one that our drummer, Mr Keith Moon is going to play far too fucking loud.
Dear boy, that is a complete and utter slur and I'm not standing for it! I can't anyway, always stuck at the back.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kick the cat effect

Wow, do you recognize your/our article? It's been thoroughly reorganized by a third party. Funny how that happens at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interest in it because I created kiss up kick down and kick the cat effect is another related kick metaphor approximating to the "kick down". Incidentally I earlier put in a technical request to rename this article as kick the cat as the "effect" word is totally incidental and not part of the metaphor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests .--Penbat (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I have carried out the move. Thanks for your work on this; pleasure collaborating with you! --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Penbat (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To tidy up can please can you delete redirects kick the cat effect & kick the dog effect as its most unlkely anyone would search on them.--Penbat (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey, people have been busy with this. Well done, chaps. I can't delete any redirects though, you'll need to ask an admin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can't delete Kick the cat effect per {{R from move}} which says "This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. For more information follow the category link." We could possibly delete Kick the dog effect since there is already a redirect from Kick the dog, but I'm not sure what the rationale for deleting it would be. I'd leave it, it's harmless, and WP:Redirects are cheap. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overload of "background" – possible separate, topical article instead

Hi Ritchie, I hope you're well. I'm wondering if you could spare the time to have a quick look at the long Background section in Wah-Wah (song). I took the article to GA two years ago or more, and as with quite a few from back then, it's one I'd earmarked for a revisit, having learnt plenty during GARs since then. Your initial thoughts on the Background in Awaiting on You All – something like, "Okay, but what's all this got to do with the song?", along with the suggestion that maybe an article on the artist's religious beliefs was needed – have been running through my head … With Wah-Wah, I'm thinking of taking much of the text from the first section to create a topical article, perhaps titled George Harrison's temporary departure from the Beatles. His walking out from the Get Back/Twickenham rehearsals was noted in The Daily Sketch and The Daily Express at the time, it had obvious effect on the Beatles' immediate plans, was a significant issue during the High Court hearing in January–February 1971; then there's McCartney's take on the episode, and the contrasting approaches between Mac and Hari when it came to letting fellow musicians interpret their songs (or not). So, there's a fair bit to add to such an article. Your thoughts would be much appreciated, Ritch. I'm confident that it would be a useful standalone article but on the other hand, I've also seen some objections (and I share them) to indulgent, "fancruft"-y pieces on the Beatles – the level of detail afforded parents, aunties etc of Paul McCartney and John Lennon, for instance … JG66 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a think, and I have an idea. Break-up of the Beatles is only 15K of prose. Per WP:SIZE, it could be three times as long and still meet our inclusion policies. The article is currently assessed as a mix of B and C class; I'm going to go with C for now. I would suggest your proposed Harrison coverage could go in that article and be beefed up by your arsenal of excellent Harrison sources; I can do the same for McCartney via Miles, McDonald and whatever else I have bouncing around. Rather than the current article, which looks like a mish-mash of things, perhaps presenting things in a chronological order, considering all viewpoints (did Yoko Ono contribute to the break-up or was she just an innocent bystander?) would make a much more interesting article. I smell a collaborative GA on the horizon, and that can only be a good thing. How does that grab you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've long found Break-up of the Beatles pretty underwhelming, so anything we do there can only be for the better. Back in 2012–13, I worked on song articles like "Sue Me, Sue You Blues" and "Run of the Mill", always hoping to be able to lean on wider-ranging articles such as Break-up for background – always disappointed. I like the idea of working up the break-up article (and you were quite right to up the importance rating just now). Must say, I consider Harrison's walkout such a key moment and worthy of a separate article. That's partly because I can't help thinking (from Sue Me, Run of the Mill, Ram etc) that we need something substantial in Break-up of the Beatles about the 1971 High Court suit and the events leading up to the official dissolution of the Beatles and Apple in early 1975 (i.e. when the suits all turned Klein's way), so I'm thinking of so much that's missing in that area, you know?
Let's see how it goes with taking some of the Wah-Wah intro there – I welcome the idea of you and I collaborating on Break-up, btw. Only thing to say, and this is what made me lose interest in taking McCartney to GAN (temporarily, I hope, although it's been a while): much of what the likes of Miles and MacDonald take from McCartney as gospel about the Let It Be/Spector/McCartney era appears to be contradicted by Doggett in You Never Give Me Your Money – and that's one helluva well-reasearched book. Tricky. JG66 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even MacDonald concedes that McCartney's views of the Abbey Road sessions were "rose-tinted", citing an episode where a few Apple Scruffs spotted him storming out of the studio in a right old state (possibly during the backing track to "Maxwell's Silver Hammer") and not returning for the day. Indeed, until his 1989's volte face and wholesale embracing of his "Beatles tribute band" guise, McCartney didn't want to talk about the Beatles, particularly when the elephant in the room was that Press to Play might just not have been as good as the Beatles..... So yeah, this is a golden opportunity for Wikipedia to set the record straight with its NPOV policy as a shining beacon. (Or something like that). I don't know when I'll get a good few hours to sit down with my books and start beefing things up, but I'll see what I can do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, but McD takes it as fact that McCartney had no knowledge of Spector working on Let It Be until after the event. That's not true. At least, Doggett says that the others tried to reach him by phone over a period of weeks (which ties in with Spector having been offered the gig after "Instant Karma!" and when he actually began working on the tapes) and that eventually Mac returned the calls and agreed to Spector's involvement. By talking about it for decades since, what McCartney's done is wrap up his announcement that he was (sort of) leaving the Beatles with his irritation at Spector's treatment of "Long and Winding Road" – in fact, he's reversed the chronology so that his leaving was somehow governed by Spector's over-production. The majority of reliable sources all roll in that direction too. (What are they going to do when someone keeps talking about it?!) George Martin started off saying that McCartney told him that he had no idea Spector was involved. Later, that becomes Martin saying that McCartney had no idea Spector was involved – supporting McCartney's claim. This is just one example, but it's why it's so much easier dealing with George and Ringo. Their recollections don't tend to mess with history! JG66 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Galleria, Hatfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great North Road (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) 09:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, the Dab solver is back. Now what I really need to do is add a script so I can just click on "fix dabs" after doing a large edit where I always forget to check links I've added. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An apology

...for what must have been a case of Wikipedia editing while some child was yanking my chain to go play on the trampoline or something like that. An odd typo, for which I think the grammatically negative but rhetorically positive statement before it is a reason, besides distractions. :) Drmies (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What?! No gigs in Wales?! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: - I figured that out from the context, so nothing to worry about there. Trampolines are a good way to remove kids' energy, so that's always a good thing. @Martinevans123: - if you want to play Wales then WP:JIMBOTALK is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iggy would make a great front man, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Mourinho

"Shut up, shut up, look it quite simple, I go to www.google.pt and search for new reliable sources or buy book from amazon.pt. So simple."

Why this edit? If you don't reply I will revert it. SLBedit (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker): The Daily Star isn't generally considered to be a reliable source? [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO at that cover. SLBedit (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SLBedit: Okay, perhaps it wasn't a great idea to have that edit summary that parodied José Mourinho's style at press conferences (the "shut up, shut up" and "the special one" coming directly from José and his Amazing Technicolor Overcoat), but basically someone of his stature should never require a citation to the Daily Star. It is pure tabloid journalism like The Sun and should never be used as a citation for anything serious like Mourinho. As the information cited - opinions of him being one of the best ever football managers - is cited to multiple alternative sources, it's not required. If Mourinho really is regarded as being one of the best ever, the information will also be cited to many more reliable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Beautiful young eggs" recap: [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Your GA nomination of Haim (band)

The article Haim (band) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Haim (band) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Quadrophenia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quadrophenia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Ika

Hi, Ritchie! About the Ika Hügel-Marshall article: right now it has two different sets of page numbers for citations from her book: the ones you found from your preview, and the ones in the actual book. Do you think I should tweak it so they are all based on the hard cover book? Or don't you think that's necessary? --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melanie. Probably a good idea to tweak the citations so they are consistent with one source, and check the ISBN on the back matches what's listed under "References", as different issues can sometimes have different codes. The original book source is always the best one to go for if you've got it. I have been enjoying a bit of Gypsy jazz after saving Le QuecumBar from CSD, and found my CD copy of Genesis Archive 1967–75 which has a great live version of "Firth of Fifth" that I withdrew from AfD and promptly expanded a lot. Who says Wikipedia was habit forming? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, there is an issue. I remember you tried hard to find a birthdate, and eventually came up with the birthdate of 13 March 1947. You cited it to her book, page 49. I can't find an actual date in her book, or on the book jacket. It just says on page 19, "I was born in March, 1947." Later she mentions an event that happened on March 19, 1952, "a few days after my fifth birthday." But I can't find a citation of an actual date. Can you remember where you found that? I'm leaving it as is for now. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The birth date as it appears on the Google Books preview can be found here and the specific text I can see on page 49 is "I was born on 13 March 1947". It is in reference to the letter she attempted to send to her father in 1965. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - in the letter to her father! Yep, there it is. Page 66 in the book. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup Feedback Form

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Feedback

Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it.

Your responses will only be visible to the three judges.

Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition!

2014-15 GA Cup Feedback Form

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Next - Artwork context

Hello Ritchie. Why did you delete the 2001: A Space Odyssey reference (parody) about Who's Next's album cover? It had the reliable source needed. Thanks. Matt-san (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked and I suspect this is because it was off-topic to the album, didn't appear in my copy of the remastered CD (which, admittedly may be a different pressing), the phrase "the photograph is often seen to be a reference" is a weasel phrase that would not withstand a good article review (which this article has now undergone), but most importantly, neither of the two critically acclaimed book sources I used to expand the article said anything about this. If it was that important a fact to mention, either one (if not both) would have done so, as they are both pretty comprehensive sources. Anyway, all that said I've dropped in a note about 2001: A Space Odyssey from a different book source, so it's back in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for putting it back. I think it gives a lot more perspective than just "four men urinating on a large concrete piling at Easington Colliery". Matt-san (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of James Balfour (died 1845)

Hi Ritchie333

Last October you were kind enough to respond to the GA review of James Balfour (died 1845), at Talk:James_Balfour_(died_1845)/GA1#GA_Review. You noted that you felt the review to have been unfair, and were kind enough to also leave a message about this on my talk page.

I have been away from en.wp or the last 6 months, and have only just caught up with this review. I have responded in detail to the review, at Talk:James Balfour (died 1845)/GA1#Reply_to_review, and have left a note for the reviewer (Jonas Vinther) at their talk page (User talk:Jonas Vinther#Your_GA_review_of_James_Balfour_.28died_1845.29).

However, I see that JV has marked their talk page as "semi-retired". I am not sure where this goes from here. Please can you advise me? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a test

Prhartcom - if you can see this, you may be standing too close!

Hi Ritchie333, this is just a question about a sort of test I am conducting: When I refer to a user in this way: {{u|Ritchie333}} such as how I referred to you at the GA discussion group just now, you do receive a notification message, correct? I am only asking because today an editor tried to claim the opposite (in an unrelated discussion). The U template documentation doesn't say but the Ping documentation does have a note about this. Thanks for checking and letting me know (hey you could let me know by using that same template). Prhartcom (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: Hi, no I didn't get a ping, although in this case I have WT:GAN on my watchlist so I read your message and it's roughly what I was going to say to BrownHairedGirl except I wanted to read through the article in question first. I have a notification for this message, and before that I have a thanks for this edit about an hour ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please type this {{u|Prhartcom}} in a reply to me now? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There ya go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha, thank-you, I did not receive a notification, yet I received one when you used the Ping template and received one when BrownHairedGirl used [[User:Prhartcom|Prhartcom]], so my other editor friend was right; this is good to know; I will no longer use the U template. Thanks for helping with my little test. Prhartcom (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, one more test please: Use the U template to place my name below without putting the template in a file or anything else. Prhartcom (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

On John Slegers, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OutofTheBoxThinker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the sockpuppetry (and I tend to feel that if a sock has written good edits, let the good edits stand), but Cascade Framework looks to be unsalvagable to I've sent it to AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&oldid=646557200"