Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keeping an eye on stuff. Meanwhile, here is some music.[1]

"I'm not a cat. I'm a Texas lawyer!"
THIS USER MISSES RexxS

April music

[edit]
story · music · places

Tout est lumière --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my talk: for a great woman's Johannes-Passion (listen!), our music in detail, and three people who recently died and are on the main page (where she isn't). My call for collaboration has the first "no", and the second - for the Easter Oratorio - seems inevitable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good. I still haven't managed a (successful) FAC yet, not sure if I ever will to be honest. As mentioned in the below thread, I have been watching Pink Floyd at Pompeii .... again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Reproductive Investigation

[edit]

Can you please help me with the Wikipedia page for this society. It is an international society for translational research in reproduction. The society has existed for close to 75 years with annual meetings and over 1000 members. The wikipedia site is needed advocacy that the society does. Many thanks!

Druberif (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I deleted, with a view that it was unambigious advertising and needed to be completely rewritten from the ground up. The first thing I would like to see is some independent references that talk about the society, and its importance to obstetrics and genecology. Once I have those, I can then recommend how to move forward with writing the encyclopedia article. The best way to start is with a page in draft space that can be worked on in isolation, using the references that are found. I hope that all makes sense, and if you have any further questions, please let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syd Barrett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selmer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sock reported at AIV

[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer says Clerk note: All cases fitting the stereotypical Jinnifer modus operandi should be reported to AIV or any available admin, rather than here. Requests for global blocks/locks can be made at m:SRG in lieu of or in addition to such requests for local action. There's not LTA page because they love having an LTA page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering ...

[edit]

if you considered this? Not that I'm trying to change your views, just wondering if this might be more complex than at first appears. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expected on that RfA to be in a minority of opposition, that might be commented on briefly then ignored as 100 other editors supported, at which point I'd accept the consensus and move on. I wasn't anticipating the resulting pile-on. As it is, I think pausing voting for a few days while general comments are given would have been a nicer way of doing things. I'd have still commented on the issues I raised, but they could be addressed in conversation then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely about the pausing... and to emphasise, I don't think you've done anything wrong (apologies if my comment came across that way), I'm just coming from a position of concern for the nominee. Perhaps requesting a pause should be raised at the bureaucrat noticeboard? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you thought I'd done anything wrong (if you get my drift). But this is a case where a user wandered into a minefield and suffered the consequences, even when everybody was acting in good faith. As my general RfA essay says, you can't fix RfA - a diversity of opinions and human nature stops it from being fixable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you...

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your diligent attention to Syd Barrett. "Shine on", as they say in Grantchester, &etc ... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pink Floyd not pictured
As you're probably aware, my favourite era of Pink Floyd is from the immediate post-Syd gigs in early 1968 through to the end of 1972, when they were a tight self-contained four-piece band, improvising all over the place and giving a different show all the time. But without Syd, they'd have never had the appeal to do that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Roger Keith. A lost cause, it seems. Still a huge favourite with me. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But the one guy I really miss is Rick, and I've noticed my enjoyment of certain eras of Pink Floyd is linearly aligned with how much Rick contributed to them. Some day I'll get to the Amphitheatre of Pompeii and blast out "Echoes" (even if it's just on a phone). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Oooh, errrr, missus... Titter ye not!" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Went to see the reissued Pink Floyd at Pompeii last night - amazing restoration job, I didn't think it was possible to bring the film more "to life" but they did. Huge round of applause at the end. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Am now tempted to go myself... (the local Odeon that is, not Italy)! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Dhavidh (11:06, 13 April 2025)

[edit]

Hi, how do I begin a page? I would like to begin a page about a local human rights advocate. Thank you. --Dhavidh (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What source material do you have about this person, and where was it published? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Amirahistory (06:24, 15 April 2025)

[edit]

Hi there, I read the entry on AMIRA Global which is incorrect or missing information. I was the CEO from 1994 -2003. The correct original name was the Australian Mineral IndustrIES Research Association. The plural was considered important by the founders who were the heads of major mining, mineral and chemical companies not CSIRO. I changed the name to AMIRA International to encompass the more international nature of the program. I reviewed the history in the 1999 Annual Report and in an international forum convened to celebrate 40 years of technical innovation on its 40th anniversary. I am not clear on how to update the entry. Dick Davies --Amirahistory (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only edit by this account, and the article AMIRA has no obvious edits by you (as an IP or another account), so I'm not sure what to look at exactly. Can you clarify this is the right article? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge a close. I would like to suggest that a "No consensus" close would have been the best here then given your closing comments. How do I go about challenging your closing opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Hamer (2nd nomination)? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also isn't "U = Userfy/Draftify" the correct close given that you left it as draft? Even if the close is not challenged or appealed? "Delete" would appear to be the wrong closing code or language (or whatever we call that). Iljhgtn (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus" was the second choice, after "delete and concentrate on draft". I thought the views to delete, with that in mind were slightly better., and a NC close would have probably resulted in those wanting to delete the article raising a deletion review anyway. It's a hard life being an admin closing difficult AfDs!
Still, I'll change the close result to be a bit more detailed. If you want to improve the draft, then send it to review at AfC, that would allow the article to remain in mainspace, without being challenged for another AfD. Altogether, that seems the best option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for updating the close result. And most importantly I think it should reflect "U = Userfy/Draftify", which is in fact the close you opted for, as opposed to an outright "Delete". Iljhgtn (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion decision was taken despite an obvious lack of consensus and against wikipedia guidelines on notability. The article clearly passes GNG. "I deleted it because I didn't want to deal with a deletion review" isn't a legitimate reason for a delete decision. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I fully would support an appeal. @Macktheknifeau I just am not really familiar with doing one. I think "No consensus" was the correct close here if I was closing it from a disinterested closer perspective. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar either but I'm looking into it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely can be done. That much I know. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Amelia Hamer

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amelia Hamer. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macktheknifeau (talkcontribs) 03:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Brokebutbrilliant (21:38, 15 April 2025)

[edit]

hey I just uploaded my first article for review. anything that I missed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Presearch --Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've had to decline the Articles for creation submission, and have left a detailed note explaining why. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on Rhodes piano

[edit]
"Tuning a Mellotron doesn't"

Hi, and thanks for asking. Addition of {{Wikiquote}} beside inserting meaningless captions and overly specific categorization of articles is a giveaway for Risto hot sir, a known LTA. I suggest reverting you revert. Best regards, A09|(talk) 12:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I improved Rhodes piano to WP:GA (albeit a long time ago) and so having a wikiquote link is a useful addition to the article alongside the Commons link template. Looking the article now, it seems to be okay, there are some cites to Lenhoff & Robertson 2019, which has now become my "go-to" source for musical instruments, having used it as a key source for several music GAs. Anyway, to summarise, concentrate on the content, not the authors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a Wikiquote page for Mellotron, as I reckon that's far more quotable than a Rhodes. I'm sure there's load of stuff that can be ferreted out, such as the engineer for King Crimson's first album complaining about a "noise-to-signal ratio" on them, Paul McCartney talking about the flute pitch-bend, and various other tidbits. Mello-Martin, have you got any source material to use? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am only here for the vibes, man. But will try and have a look. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even problematise English Wikiquote at all and it wasn't my point; I just don't like LTAs :) A09|(talk) 14:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent to them myself.
When reacting to a long-term abuse case, the foremost question you should ask is "what's the best way to improve the encyclopedia"? I've seen several heated discussions where people are arguing back and forth about whether it's okay to let edits by banned editors stand. A lot of the time, people just repeat entrenched views, and nobody brings forward any actual concrete examples. The most recent time it did (I forget where, now) it turned out the edits made a seriously slanted POV towards Indian politics (or something like that, I can't remember the details), so in that case it was a good idea to revert all of them because it improved the encyclopedia.
Now, compare and contrast that with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, where most of the time the edits were okay. (But not always - I recall them having a content dispute on West Pier while it was undergoing a GA review and also while I was running an RfA all at the same time!) So reverting those isn't necessarily productive.
All in all, it depends on what the editors was originally banned for. If they make greats edits but simply cannot get along with people who disagree with them, leading to a ban (quick wave to Eric Corbett) then it can be counter-productive to just do wholesale reverts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RHS likes to go on projects for languages they don't speak and cause a ruckus. That's in addition to auditory issues on languages they do speak. And also they've created hundreds of socks, which isn't necessarily an insignificant use of community time. GMGtalk 15:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally second this! A09|(talk) 20:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad editor, good edit. Wikiquote there a little ray of sunshine, I feel: [2]. Still searching for suitable additions. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to relist this for me? There was only one relist, and we've got two weak redirect !votes with three weak keep !votes, as well as a neutral. I don't see how that's a consensus for a redirect (or how that's something that would satisfy the majority of participants). I was thinking about doing an analysis of the sources / doing a search myself before I noticed the closure, and would do so within the next week if its relisted. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's now back up for another week. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bare minimums for new page

[edit]

Hello, I'd like to know how to and what the bare minimums are to create a new page on Wikipedia. I'd like to add some stub pages for people with more time & experience to one day continue. Feinbecausewhynot (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only real minimum is to ensure that an article has significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. The best guideline to give for creating a new page is, to ask yourself first - can the content I want to write (and its sources) be covered in an existing article? If it can, put the information there. Only create a new, spin-off article if you feel there's no better way of representing that information in an existing one, or if it would be too confusing to including it one place and not another. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Feinbecausewhynot (00:59, 17 April 2025)

[edit]

Good night, I also don't understand how I can apply to be a translator in here, I wish to translate some English articles to Turkish yet can't find what to do as this UI isn't really that user friendly from what I can see --Feinbecausewhynot (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Trebles all round has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 17 § Trebles all round until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I refer the discussion to the response given in Arkell vs Pressdram Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"... 'ere mate, I 'ad that Arkle in the back of me cab, last week. Sorry to say, 'e done a runner." Ev-Cabs-R-Us-123 (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]
I hope he wasn't having Ugandan discussions in the back of it, and if he was, best clean the back seat out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]
I'll get the brushes! E-Vans-R-Us-123 (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me about Draft:Veronica Sawyer, a fictional character, and said that if I accepted the draft, it would likely go to another AFD. I think that I asked you what the first AFD had been, and I don't think that you answered me. Could you please provide me a link to any AFD that I can review, and possibly discuss with the submitter? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought there was a previous AfD where the consensus was "redirect". Must have got confused with something else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In that case, I will again tag the redirect for G6, and will accept the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackfriars Underground

[edit]

Thank you for your reversion of my edit to the Blackfriars station article. If my rewrite didn't reflect the source, then that was the right thing to do according to our policies.

However, that sentence as it stands is ambiguous on two points. Since you have the source, it will be much easier for you to clear those points up than me! Perhaps that the sentence is clear to you because you have the context supplied by the source, but a reader of the Blackfriars article has a different context. So maybe I can contribute more helpfully by pointing out the ambiguities so that you can re-write the sentence to avoid them.

Firstly, the entities involved are ambiguous. Have a look at this example:

Tesco Sainsburys plc was created as a new company to complete the supermarket chain, which split the operations from Tesco and Sainsburys. 

The natural reading of that sentence is that Tesco and Sainsburys existed as two independent entities, and then Tesco Sainsburys was created as a new, third company. Likewise, the natural reading of the Blackfriars sentence that I edited is that "the District and Metropolitan Railways" existed as two independent entities and the the MDR was created as a new, third company. Is that what your source says? If not, then I think it would be helpful to re-write the sentence. I think you are using "the District" as an elegant variation for MDR, which is good English style. However, the reader of the Blackfriars article has already been introduced to "the District Railway" in the London, Chatham and Dover Railway section, without any hint that it's a synonym for the MDR, so in the context of the current article revision, the wording in the Underground section is unhelpful.

Secondly, it is not clear what "would split the budget from" refers to. What is the budget for: the MDR, the Circle line, or the completion of the Circle line? All of them are syntactically possible. And is it the budget for the completion of the Circle line or for its operation afterwards? In my re-write, I plumped for a reading that it was the budget for the completion of the Circle line and that that was identical (as far as Blackfriars station is concerned) with the construction of the MDR. If that is incorrect and your source has a different explanation, then it would be helpful if you could make that clear.

This has become a comically large amount of feedback for one sentence, but it looks like you made a major contribution to creating a Good Article about Blackfriars, so perhaps you can take heart that a small flaw looks much worse when it's in the middle of something beautiful! Matt's talk 14:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you note. I've trimmed the text down and rewritten it to be a bit more unambiguous. The sentence isn't vitally important for the overall history of Blackfriars, so it can be trimmed down somewhat.
Because only one source (Day / Reed) is being cited, it may be worth consulting further sources. The District Line - an Illustrated History (M A C Horne, Capital Transport) is another one worth consulting, but I don't have a copy of that. Once we've had a look at multiple sources, things might be a bit clearer.
Blackfriars is also an interesting station to visit, not many trains call there, and you wouldn't normally stop there if you were coming from outside London, but to embark or disembark when you're standing above the middle of the Thames is quite an interesting experience.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. The new text completely removes both ambiguities, which is ideal. I agree that the information that was lost isn't vital for the Blackfriars article.
And yes, I also had the privilege of using the rebuilt Blackfriars and it was indeed a magnificent location. One of the few occasions when I was almost annoyed that my train left on time! Matt's talk 15:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin O'Reilly page

[edit]

Hi there, Gavin O'Reilly's Wikipedia page was changed this morning by a friend. It was a joke - but now we don't know how to bring the page back to normal. Some edits were so tiny that I'm afraid we would leave the page damaged forever. Please help me. C, 212.98.104.23 (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, huh, my friend did it. IP blocked for six months. Better luck next time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie, thanks for the close. I don't think there were many good options for a close, and I'm bringing this up more to hear your thinking than to directly challenge.

In your close, you write This is a marginal case, with views roughly split between merge and delete. There were 6 votes for delete and 5 votes for merge, and one comment from a user that didn't vote. That user said "A merge to History of Columbia University would also be undue weight" and then supported an alternative, unrelated merge target. I wouldn't consider this support simply for "merge", and even though there wasn't a bolded !vote, I would read this as 7 users against a merge to History of Columbia University and 5 in favor.

Maybe that falls into your margin for "views roughly split between merge and delete", maybe it doesn't. Anyway, hopefully you can expand/clarify. Thanks, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 07:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's really much more I can add to what I said at the AfD. In terms of views, delete and merge were about equal, and a number of targets were considered, but the one that got support from most editors was the History of Columbia University article. The other choice, Celia Reyes, you appeared to agree on, but in the second relist it got no support from anyone. In any case, it still meant there was no consensus to delete the article, but equally no support at all to keep it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GoSun Inc.

[edit]

I did not see that last delete !vote or would have disputed it. Can you draftify for me for the time being? CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]