User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 52
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Draft:Samuel Neaman Institute
Hi. I see that there was a potential copyright infringement in one section of my draft article. In order that I can re-work it to avoid the infringement, please can you restore it in a place where I can rework it? Thanks Samuel Neaman Institute draft Golan789 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Golan789: The easiest thing for me to do is to email the text to you. You can then add portions of it back into the draft at your own pace. You may find it useful to install User:The Earwig/copyvios.js into Special:MyPage/vector.js (please let me know if you need help with this), which gives you a "Copyvio check" menu option, making it easy to see if you are close-copying too much of the original prose. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Regarding that copyright check tool, could you help me with that? i tried putting it into Special:MyPage/vector.js but I didn't see any "Copyvio check" menu. thank you.--Golan789 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Golan789: It might not be called that - the actual file is dependent on what skin you are using, which you can find at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. You then need to go to Special:MyPage/{name of skin}.js - most people have Vector, so it's vector.js, but some old fogeys like me still use MonoBook, in which case it's monobook.js Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Regent Street
The article Regent Street you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Regent Street for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Kees08: Thanks for the review! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I just started reviewing transportation articles, so thanks for bearing through me figuring out how those are reviewed. Thanks for bearing through the image PD question too, trying to make sure I understand all the things I am supposed to be reviewing. Nice article, I am sure I will see plenty more from you! Kees08 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
David Morris
Thanks for the revert on David Morris (Conservative politician). I was doing a mass-rollback of unconstructive edits from someone trying to purge the DM. I thought I did only the ref-to-CN removals, but I apparently missed one. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: I realise quoting Jimbo Wales is controversial, but I agree with his widely-quoted view that "Pseudo information should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". So replacing Daily Mail citations with
{{fact}}is a problem for this very reason, but so is reverting the source to the Mail back in! If the source can't be replaced quickly, get rid of the information per WP:BLP if you possibly can. There has been a lot of talk both on and off-wiki of removing citations to the Daily Mail where appropriate, but my personal log of BLPs citing the Mail is staying pretty static. In the case of David Morris, the expenses scandal is picked up by other sources, so we can use that, but the follow-on article appears to be only in the Mail and of too specific interest to really be relevant, in my view. While MPs are all high-profile individuals in the public eye, we should take extra care not to turn their articles into things like this. The Mail is far from the only offender - we still have 100+ BLPs that cite The Sun - and I personally think a total ban was a step too far, but getting it out of BLPs can only be a good thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Enemies of the People
On 21 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Enemies of the People, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that over 1,000 people complained when the Daily Mail called three High Court judges "enemies of the people"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Enemies of the People. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Enemies of the People), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
- Still a MASSIVE backlog
We now have 813 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Marshlink Line
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marshlink Line 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Richard Wright
Please get familiar with policies before reverting. The WP:QUOTENAME guideline justifies my edit. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Sabbatino: Why does it, and what material difference does it make to the end reader? In fact, the article as it stood adhered perfectly to the guideline (not absolute dogma) mentioned in WP:QUOTENAME, so you are edit-warring over something cosmetic and pointless. I see from your talk page this is far from the first time you have been in hot lather, so may I suggest taking a deep breath and realising that some hills are not worth dying on. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's funny that you write "mos" as your edit summary, but when I give you THAT MoS section, you suddenly change your tone to "not needed". Please make up your mind – are you following the MoS or don't. As for edit-warring, I'm not doing that at the moment and there's nothing about that on my talk page aside from ANI notice, which was brought up, because someone completely misunderstood me, but that's none of your business. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fine, I'll write the article as requested in the below thread, you just waste time moaning about inconsequential edits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's funny that you write "mos" as your edit summary, but when I give you THAT MoS section, you suddenly change your tone to "not needed". Please make up your mind – are you following the MoS or don't. As for edit-warring, I'm not doing that at the moment and there's nothing about that on my talk page aside from ANI notice, which was brought up, because someone completely misunderstood me, but that's none of your business. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Rhondda by-pass
.jpg)
Hi, when you've finished battling idiots, any chance you could create an article on the Rhondda by-pass? here. There's some notable bridges built too which are missing I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Dr. Blofeld: Bore da, that's done. Personally I think the Rhondda is best admired from a distance, such as one of the laybys on the A4061 (provided your ice cream doesn't get accidentally consumed by a passing sheep). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nice one. I wasn't sure if it was already part of a road article on here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like it, I think the mountain roads are obviously notable because of the engineering / unemployment relief, the urban streets just sprung up to accommodate miners and are nothing specific beyond a cursory mention in the history of the area, while this is something different altogether. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nice one. I wasn't sure if it was already part of a road article on here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
Does this now pass muster? We hope (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just a couple of unsourced paragraphs, and then we're done. Cheers for helping out! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- ... and now we're all done. Hurrah - extra lemon all round! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Spam?
Why did you remove my question as spam? I just asked for help with the wizard. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- The "spam" was the, er, spam in the section above yours, which was what I meant to remove. I've restored your bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Just going to point out that having sources is not a valid reason for declining an A7, especially when one is merely an acknowledgement and the other is basically social media puff. Working on two web comics and being an intern for iTunes does not constitute a claim of significance; that constitutes a job. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- According to WP:A7M#CI, it is a valid reason. It's not a valid reason to !vote "keep" at AfD though, which is why I recommended a full discussion be raised there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Essay != Policy, especially not one written almost entirely by a single editor, which is, on its face, contrary to or entirely beyond the standards established in the relevant policy. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, let's throw policy out of the window and focus on good old-fashioned common sense. Way back in the early days of WP, we decided that you shouldn't delete stuff without a discussion. So why do we have speedies? Well, it's because sometimes a deletion debate on things like "Susie is my pet cat. She is small, ginger and likes fish" is a complete waste of time. However, because you are short-circuiting the usual consensus process, you need to make sure what you are deleting is absolutely water-tight and beyond question. If you have any doubts whatsoever, kick it to a full discussion. Since the article is not (AFAIK) a blatant copyright violation, an attack page or vandalism, it will not hurt to leave it around for a few days - we're not exactly short of disk space. (I need to write myself an essay, I've said the preceding prose to I think 4 different editors now). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- If it is your opinion that this is the case, and the criteria of
Has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sources
should be added to A7, that is a perfectly reasonable argument to seek consensus on at WT:CSD, and your rationale above may be a perfectly solid one for supporting it. But currently, having sources with no credible claim of significance still qualifies, in the same manner that making a credible claim of significance with no sources is still disqualifying. Having had this discussion with four different editors may be an indication that your current interpretation of policy is out of line what guidance policy actually gives. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)- Okay, I'll go through CAT:CSD and delete everything per WP:CSD#A7 and tell all the article creators to fuck off to Facebook. Thanks for the advice! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, because that's a fair interpretation of what I just said, and not at all hyperbolic. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm having a bad day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- No worries. TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm having a bad day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, because that's a fair interpretation of what I just said, and not at all hyperbolic. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll go through CAT:CSD and delete everything per WP:CSD#A7 and tell all the article creators to fuck off to Facebook. Thanks for the advice! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- If it is your opinion that this is the case, and the criteria of
- Okay, let's throw policy out of the window and focus on good old-fashioned common sense. Way back in the early days of WP, we decided that you shouldn't delete stuff without a discussion. So why do we have speedies? Well, it's because sometimes a deletion debate on things like "Susie is my pet cat. She is small, ginger and likes fish" is a complete waste of time. However, because you are short-circuiting the usual consensus process, you need to make sure what you are deleting is absolutely water-tight and beyond question. If you have any doubts whatsoever, kick it to a full discussion. Since the article is not (AFAIK) a blatant copyright violation, an attack page or vandalism, it will not hurt to leave it around for a few days - we're not exactly short of disk space. (I need to write myself an essay, I've said the preceding prose to I think 4 different editors now). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Essay != Policy, especially not one written almost entirely by a single editor, which is, on its face, contrary to or entirely beyond the standards established in the relevant policy. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie--I need a small favor. As a classroom demo, I moved this draft into mainspace in the wrong way, by copying and pasting. Can you please delete it, saying "test" edit or "gross negligence and incompetence? Ta! Dr Aaij (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Where did you cut and paste it from? The article seems to meet WP:MILPEOPLE so I'd be reluctant to just delete it - what you want is a history merge from the draft. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- User space--it's User:Aporter90's work. Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, a copyvio (and promotional to boot) was introduced into our beautiful project here--with thanks to User:Michaelgav09. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Got it. There are little copyvios all over the place on WP; here's one from a few days back that had been kicking around for years. Unless it's stamped on quickly, it spreads to mirrors, at which point the copyvio tools will mix up the real positives from the false ones, making an automated check impossible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you so much for your quick help, To The Benefit Of Our Beautiful Project. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks for the support, I was beginning to wonder if I was actually a fuckwit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Congratulations, it's a... |
| ...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Marshlink Line
The article Marshlink Line you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marshlink Line 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Liverpool Street station
The article Liverpool Street station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Liverpool Street station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Esquivalience -- Esquivalience (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Congratulations, it's a... |
| ...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
- I never get to see that nice view of Liverpool Street, I just use it to change from tube to mainline. Actually, I don't even do that anymore as I tend to change at Stratford or West Ham these days. Ho hum. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Enemies of the people
|
I have to say I was surprised. I have begun a discussion at talk:Enemies of the People#Aftermath, let's debate it there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Even if you don't agree on stuff, the blog post I linked to is worth reading anyway, it really is (or at least should be!) eye opening, which is why I thought it was important for this article to exist. Since then, Wikipedia has banned the Daily Mail, and while I don't personally agree with a total ban, I say good riddance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
How to decline a Speedy deletion?
Hi Ritchie, I hope you can point me to the instructions on the procedure for declining a speedy deletion. I have not been able to find it. I've been cautiously getting involved with various admin tasks since my RFA, this is the first time I have made a decision to refuse a speedy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a specific procedure other than just undoing the edit that adds the speedy or manually removing the
{{db-meta}}derived tag. Normally, I will suggest further action in the edit summary eg: "decline A7, does not apply to buildings / books / arcade games / public parks etc", "decline A7, one source, try PROD / AfD", "decline A7, has a claim to win an award, try PROD / AfD", "decline A7, notability clearly established" or (when annoyed) "decline A7, did you actually search for sources?" (warning, this last one should not be used unless you are planning to 5x expand the article and send it to DYK ;-D) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)- Thanks, so it's quite simple, I will explain the reason in the edit summary. BTW, I think maybe WP:DGFA should say something about this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I misread that as WP:DGAF ;-) ... but if you feel it would be helpful to add it, then go for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, so it's quite simple, I will explain the reason in the edit summary. BTW, I think maybe WP:DGFA should say something about this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of South Circular Road, London
The article South Circular Road, London 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:South Circular Road, London for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Grondemar -- Grondemar (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of Sofiano
The deletion of this page was proposed by another admin on the grounds of notability, which I then contested on grounds of the fact that I was still editing the page and adding sources, plus the evidence that I had created two previous Burkinabé musician articles which survived the patrol and demonstrated my confidence that I was attempting to make notable musician pages that meet criteria. Now that it has been deleted for this other apparent reason of unambiguous advertising/promoting, it is unknown if my contestation was seen, let alone replied to. I would like to request to have back the original source code of the page revision which you deleted, firstly so that I can continue to improve and build it as I was doing so, so that it meets criteria, and additionally on the grounds that the reason it was nominated for speedy deletion was not the same reason that you deleted the page for, meaning any contestation I made must not have been regarded by you, the deleting admin; however, correct me if I'm wrong. Indeed, nomination for speedy deletion allows any admin to delete an article at their discretion. However, there must be a reason for an article to be nominated, a reason which must be stated beforehand and which legitimises the speedy deletion to take place on the grounds of that reason. The reason you deleted it for was not that for which it was nominated, making the deletion seem to have been unwarranted and arbitrary. I would, therefore, also like clarification on how the revision was unambiguously advertising and promoting, instead of, as was intended, being ensured to have notable sources and relationships to make it qualify for the criteria it was initially reported for. Thank you. SpikeballUnion (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @SpikeballUnion: I have restored the article to User:SpikeballUnion/Sofiano where it can be worked on, and on a closer look I agree it doesn't meet the criteria for CSD A7 or G11. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the restoration of my article. As advice for the betterment of my editing in the future, please would you be able to clarify why the current revision (not the one that was nominated for speedy deletion) didn't fit notability guidelines in your view, and, indeed, didn't fit your criteria reason of unambiguous advertising/promotion? Thanks again. SpikeballUnion (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know about A7, since I didn't agree with that in the first place; as for the G11, I think it was because the writing had vague claims about "generally encompasses the afro-zouk and coupé-décalé genres" and "contributed greatly to the beginning and later success of Sofiano's musical career" without having anything of clear substance that demonstrates without doubt this is a good topic for a worldwide encyclopedia. The best advice I can give you for musician articles is to read our notability guidelines for musicians and state the claim to notability in the very first edit. Something like "Sofiano is a musician for Burkina Faso. His 2014 album Dossé reached number 'x' on the 'y' chart and reached critical acclaim by [newspaper] and [magazine]". Stick to the basic unquestionable facts. I realise this is easier for certain classes of musicians than others, but that's basically the direction you want to head in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll take that into account. SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know about A7, since I didn't agree with that in the first place; as for the G11, I think it was because the writing had vague claims about "generally encompasses the afro-zouk and coupé-décalé genres" and "contributed greatly to the beginning and later success of Sofiano's musical career" without having anything of clear substance that demonstrates without doubt this is a good topic for a worldwide encyclopedia. The best advice I can give you for musician articles is to read our notability guidelines for musicians and state the claim to notability in the very first edit. Something like "Sofiano is a musician for Burkina Faso. His 2014 album Dossé reached number 'x' on the 'y' chart and reached critical acclaim by [newspaper] and [magazine]". Stick to the basic unquestionable facts. I realise this is easier for certain classes of musicians than others, but that's basically the direction you want to head in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the restoration of my article. As advice for the betterment of my editing in the future, please would you be able to clarify why the current revision (not the one that was nominated for speedy deletion) didn't fit notability guidelines in your view, and, indeed, didn't fit your criteria reason of unambiguous advertising/promotion? Thanks again. SpikeballUnion (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)