User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

DYK for Pentonville Road

On 14 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pentonville Road, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the perpetrators of a major burglary were caught after discussing it in a Pentonville Road pub? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pentonville Road. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pentonville Road), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

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

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

Yesterday's concert had all highlights:

• Komm, Jesu, komm - Jesu, meine Freude - Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied
• Nachtlied - Der Mensch lebt und bestehet
• Warum ist das Licht gegeben dem Mühseligen - Abendlied (Rheinberger)

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

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

michele abeles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bohemian Rhapsody

Beelzebub has a devil of a sideboard...

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

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

AllMusic

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

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

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

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

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

Abusing checkuser

Regarding that ani. Posting here as well. Apparently, some experienced editors have found a nice loophole on how to ban any editor they wish. Your ISP uses a certain range of ip addresses. For instance mine uses several ranges, one being 89.164.xxx.xxx. Apparently, the only thing that is needed to block a person is to accuse him of being a sock of someone who uses the same ISP. Then they both will have the same ip prefix and appear they are the same person. I still haven't figured out the way they find ip behind a username. However, requesting cu until a suitable candidate is found can work, especially if a suitable candidate had used several isps. I come from Croatia where User:Asdisis is that candidate. There are only a few isps in Croatia so it's not hard to ban a lot of people as socks. Here's how to ban someone. The discussion [1]. The user that you want to ban [2]. The repeated cu requests outside spi [3]. Other cases that I had caught [4]->[5] My case: I'm being forbidden to post sources: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.143.178 (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC) In fact, I know one way to get someone's ip. Cu editors can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.143.178 (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - not sure what to say about the content other than mention of Djokovic's parents should be limited to what role (if any) they encouraged him to play professional tennis. checkuser abuse is nothing new to Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block, and all it involves is looking up the IP address and user agent sent via a browser requests (since that's all that can possibly be stored), which are reasonably trivial for genuinely disruptive socks to fake. The whole fiasco around this is worth a Wikipediocracy blog post; previous entries [7], [8] have touched on this, but I think a fuller exploration of this is justified. @Stanistani:, @Scott: I'm not sure if I've got time but if I put together a skeleton of a WO blog post, can somebody else finish it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This for sure was very educational for me. In-group favoritism was exactly the term I was trying to describe. This especially is visible among admin's. Sometimes it seems to me that one person is behind dozen admin accounts. Of course, that's not true, but what is true is In-group favoritism. Here's an example. A while ago I had participated in rfc with the end result in the favor of my request. However, I had trouble to enforce the consensus be implemented. I made a request [9]. To my surprise, it was rejected by Stabila711 with the explanation that he can't see the consensus. I tried to point it to him, but he didn't reply. It was obvious to me that he didn't want to see a big shaded rectangular. Then I noticed in his contributions that another admin had told him that I'm a sock and that he should reject my request[10]. I tried to find where he had told him that, but I couldn't find. I figure out that admins have their own talk pages. I find this to be a clear case of In-group favoritism. The consensus was established. I merely just pointed to it. How disruptive is it to tell other admins in hidden talk pages to disregard a consensus while pretending that "you are involved so you are letting other admins to objectively deal with the request" ( a thing HighInBC tells often).? Pretty disruptive in my opinion. I can only guess how much more of this things happen behind the curtain. This one slipped, so I noticed.89.164.162.144 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's another case of In-group favoritism [11]. Thanks for teaching me the term. I posted it on talk page. I'm interested how long it will stay there and whether someone actually reads it. Sorry if this unrelated cases bother you. This will be my last post here. Understand that that kind of cases are hard to notice until you deal with it by yourself. That's probably why the person which tries to expose them looks paranoid to someone "outside". 141.138.55.81 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bow Street

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bow Street you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bow Street

The article Bow Street you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bow Street for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bow Street

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

Rewrite Diego Deiros

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

You around Ritchie?

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of M32 motorway

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article M32 motorway you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Recovery of Draft page ICON Engineeirng Pty Ltd

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

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

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

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

Percentages

MOS:PERCENT

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

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

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

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

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

Guerilla Cricket

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, so let's compare the original infobox (now deleted) with the one on Test Match Sofa (still there). "Test Match Sofa was a radio programme providing cricket commentary for all England test matches[2] and selected One Day Internationals." - so someone should remove the "Genre" and "Running Time" (which conflicts the first line) from the info box. The "Producers" field should be removed because it's uncredited and is unsubstantiated (not in any of the referenced articles, not in the Wiki page). So that would leave the country (possibly - surely it's obvious from the text that Tooting Bec, Nunhead and South London are in the UK), language, creators and audio format. The infobox for Test Match Sofa adds very little to the article, so is someone going to remove it from there as well, or just remove the redundant fields? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that one could find where the infobox is (to some people) irrelevant, and to others provides a handy precis of the key information. Ho hum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraclematt (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Kittehs!

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

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of M32 motorway

"Do you want a flake with that cone?"

The article M32 motorway you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:M32 motorway for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:M32 Bristol.png

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

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

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

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

16 King Street, Bristol

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

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.

Victoria Park, Bristol

added a link pointing to Bedminster

Colston bun

added a link pointing to Currant

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

Your GA nomination of Portway, Bristol

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Portway, Bristol you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portway, Bristol

The article Portway, Bristol you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Portway, Bristol for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Helpless

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Tamar Bridge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tamar Bridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tamar Bridge

The article Tamar Bridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tamar Bridge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Le Mesurier

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

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Tamar Bridge

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

Your GA nomination of Tamar Bridge

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

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

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

DYK for M32 motorway

On 14 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article M32 motorway, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2011, a field of red poppies, cornflowers, and marigolds was planted alongside the M32 motorway in Bristol to improve the view? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/M32 motorway. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, M32 motorway), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

This motorway is a stub. You can help the country's economy by expanding it. (shamelessly stolen from here)

Deletion discussion about Kelly's of Cornwall

Hello, Ritchie333,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

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

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

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

Is you from the Westcountry ways?

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

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

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

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

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

Leun a sylli yw ow skath bargesi -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Your GA nomination of Fenchurch Street railway station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fenchurch Street railway station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fenchurch Street railway station

The article Fenchurch Street railway station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fenchurch Street railway station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)