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.
Having had a listen, there's no effects or anything, it's simply picking the string with your finger close to it, so you can immediately mute it. It's easier to show in person than describe it in prose! As for the article, did the song chart? If it was featured on Top of the Pops (though citing a bootleg YouTube video is not exactly policy compliant, as it 'appens) it probably did, in which case the song will deserve an article per WP:NSONG. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh right. That's a triplet played over Common Time. Fairly standard in music notation, particularly classical, doesn't turn up in rock much, especially punk, where anything other than three chords over a straight 4/4 beat is viewed with suspicion. The other place I can recall it is the live ending to McFly's "Star Girl". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there can you please help me - i need to get back the file of the page you deleted and fix it. The page (World Rafting Federation) wasn't ambiguous advertising or promotion i need to understand what was wrong and fix it but i have no draft. Serioushaha (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I've put the deleted article in User:Serioushaha/World Rafting Federation. However, I would advise not using any of the page's contents to improve it. Rather, you'd need to start with sources of information first, and then base an article round those. Help:Your first article may have further information.
As a general note, creating a brand new article from scratch is one of the hardest tasks a new editor can face, and you are much better off attempting to improve coverage of existing articles first, such as spelling or grammar fixes. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my edit on this page. You are correct, I should have looked at the body of the article to find the sourcing. Sorry for my mistake. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @JeffSpaceman: not sure if it compares to III. Fucking off to Wales and getting caned everyday was probably consequentially different to anything they achieved with II or V, although whether that was actually a bonus, I dunno. What say ye? ——Serial21:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that's a particularly good source, being a Wordpress blog. The original Gentle Giant LPs seem to just credit him with "keyboards" generically, although Acquiring the Taste does have "organ" on a few of the credits. In fact, the whole article on the band and associated LPs could really do with some good references. Have there been any books written about them? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I’m replying here rather than on the ANI thread as it’s not directly related to what’s being discussed there, but (as a non-sysop) I’m getting a MediaWiki exception when I try to view the logs for User:ThisIsaTest. I just wanted to check if you’d mind if I filed a Phabricator task for this, so that sysadmins can investigate what’s gone wrong. (To be honest, I don’t know if this error was occurring before today as this is the first time I’ve attempted to view the user’s logs, but I couldn’t find any similar tickets from a quick search of Phabricator.)
Hmm, interesting. This is the first time I've ever tried to scrub out a block log entry (usually, that sort of stuff is verboten and shouldn't be done by anyone), so I've never tested this before. Anyway, when I log out and try and view the logs, I also get a MediaWiki exception. So that's definitely a bug. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Looks like Ivanvector is having problems looking at that log as well, and he's looking at it with an admin account. There's definitely something amiss there. I'll probably have to undelete the redaction in the log the next time a new admin wants to test the blocking tool. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Not trying to be difficult on that block. Unblock them if you think its appropriate; I won't complain, even if I think the block should remain. - UtherSRG(talk)13:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, for the WikiCup, I have a question. To get points for editing articles and pages, do you have to have previously worked on them, or can you just find a page and edit it? Thanks! --"Girls are like bonbons - why have just one when you can have the whole box?" Googolplexior (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I see great minds think alike. So alike, in fact, that we have overlapped on a couple pages! I didn't think anyone else was enough of a nerd to actually go through and do this. If you want, I can put up a list somewhere and then we can cross off each page we handle to avoid double-dipping. jp×g🗯️12:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, through some trial and error, I have figured out that Cluebot absolutely sucks for this task -- it only respects the archive size limits inasmuch as they apply to the whole task. So, for example, if the max archive size is set to be 100kb, and it notices that 600kb of threads need to be archived.... it will just ram 600kb into the latest archive, and then make a note for the next run. This creates a giant pain in the ass. So I just use the template for sigmabot instead.
I'll give EEng some more time to archive his talk page further, but I've got a feeling I'm going to get to a point where I've asked ten people, all of whom have instantly agreed on bot archiving, and question why he's being stubborn about it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
You may have noticed that nowadays everything is advertised as being curated. My talk page is curated. I'm not annoyed or anything, but you don't need to push. EEng00:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
In case you didn't see it, I put a link to your comment at EEng's talk page, in the interests of transparency. In one fish's opinion, EEng should not be required to use any kind of bot archiving, so long as he archives manually to an extent that satisfies those who care. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
And that's fine, and if EEng gets his talk page down to the same size as those who've had bot archiving recently added (whether by responding to a request or us adding the directive on a dormant account), which is about 80k of prose, then I'll have no problem. But we're not there yet. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The correct measure is not 80k based on what a bot does on someone else's talk page. The correct measure is whether other editors have any problems communicating with him. I hope that we don't get to the point where I have to question why you're being stubborn about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's probably a good idea. What happened here is that I went through the top ten on the list, checked there was no archiving template at the top of the page, and then added it, unless the user had edited in the last 6 months, in which case I asked them to do it. I guess you put the archiving elsewhere than the very top, because I couldn't see anything, and also by definition I couldn't scroll through the talk page text to find it as it was hammering a CPU at 100% and causing weird usability errors. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Image tagging for File:Wikipedia Vector 2022 issues.png
Thanks for uploading File:Wikipedia Vector 2022 issues.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is the only website I can think of where posting a screenshot to resolve a technical issue gets you nagged by a bot. Mind you, it's not as bad as the time I uploaded a picture of my bookcase (with a caption like "offline sources are great!") which somebody took to FfD because of the "copyright" on the book spines. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Help!
I was wondering when you have time, if you could take a look into the Contributions of User:107.10.129.126 . His edits on wikipedia have been highly disruptive and each time he gets warned he removes it from his talk page as “vandalism”. I believe he should be banned from Wikipedia. Thank you for your help always Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you taking the time to look into this. User @Beccaynr & I came to an agreement on a section on page Brett Cooper (commentator) & then the I.P began a similar dialogue much like the one you mentioned above. It didn’t seem productive or accurate what he was insinuating referring to the sources being used. Again, thank you for your help Elvisisalive95 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Elvisisalive95, thanks for the ping, and hi Ritchie333 - I am mostly off-wiki for the nearish future but did notice my 16 January 2024 warning to User:107.10.129.126 was reverted with the edit summary "Removed vandalism" [1] and then followed by further participation [2] in the discussion originally between Elvisisalive95 and myself at the Brett Cooper (commentator) talk page. I was thinking because User:107.10 may be continuing to edit war at Shenna Bellows, [3], [4], [5], [6], their contribs might get reviewed and a further warning at minimum might be warranted; e.g. [7] (Jan 4 2024); [8], [9], [10] (20 Aug 2023), [11] (21 Nov 2023), etc. [12] (22 Apr 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I do like a day out to Rye along the Marshlink in the spring or summer, having a pint or two in the garden of the Cinque Ports which overlooks the station. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm WikiUser: NilsLahr, reaching out regarding the recent decision to delete the Wikipedia page for IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation. As one of the top experts in the streaming media industry and a key inventor within this sector, I have significant historical knowledge and insights to share on this topic.
IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was a pioneering force in the early streaming media market, significantly contributing to the industry with numerous patents and innovations. Notably, it was among the first to extensively use satellite technology for digital streaming, setting a precedent in the field. The company's impact was further validated when it went public, achieving a valuation of $2 billion. This financial milestone underscores the company's significance and the importance of maintaining its history independently.
It's noteworthy to mention that Broadcast.com, a competitor which utilized technologies developed by IBEAM, has its own Wikipedia page ([Broadcast.com](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com)). While Broadcast.com is known mainly for its association with Mark Cuban, IBEAM was a key inventor in the market space and was larger at the time. This comparison highlights the need for IBEAM's history to be similarly recognized and preserved.
I acknowledge that I may have a biased perspective due to my close connection with the topic. However, I have endeavored to source all data from internet sources and am open to ideas on how to minimize my bias. The historical significance I can provide should not be overlooked due to my personal connection to the subject.
I understand the challenges posed by the scarcity of online references from the late 1990s. Yet, the lack of these references should not diminish the historical importance of IBEAM. Existing sources, like Streaming Media Magazine, can provide verifiable information to support the company's notability.
I am concerned that merging IBEAM's history with another entity may lead to a loss of valuable historical context. Therefore, I am eager to explore ways to reinstate the page with adequate references and a balanced perspective. I believe that my expertise and firsthand experience in the industry can contribute significantly to this effort.
As someone still learning the nuances of Wikipedia editing, I seek your guidance on how to proceed with revising and potentially reinstating the IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation page. I am ready to collaborate and provide detailed information to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the article.
Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to any advice you can offer on how to best preserve this important piece of digital streaming history on Wikipedia.
Well, you seem to be the only chance I've got, and the only expert around on the matter. Please, see what's happening in that DRN case of mine, read it a bit. There is some WP:OR in the article, but that's not really what this case is about. Also, I agree that the article has a confusing title, but that's not my fault. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I now understand the problem. The truth can only be found by reading, checking and investigating. Here on Wikipedia, either noone has sufficient time for that, or noone really cares. Z80Spectrum (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
You must consider the possbility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers. Even long-time editors might be such. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Z80Spectrum, please stop saying things such as you seem to be the only chance I've got, and the only expert around on the matter (my emphasis) - it's long since ceased to be attributable to a new editor, and suggesting that all other editors involved don't know what they're talking about is insulting.
Additionally, I highly advise you redact the above statement that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers. Even long-time editors might be such - unless you have solid proof or evidence of such a situation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I have seen your discussion about piping on the talk page of Jean-de-Nivelle. Much to my chagrin, he still acts if removing direct links in favour of redirects is something like mandatory. Recently I came across another editor with the same idea. As far as I read the pages so often liked by Jean, I can not see any obligation to fix these already correct links. Is that my flaw? The Bannertalk17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Deliberately posted here as Jean gets upset when his spiel is questioned or opposed
I really don't know which is the right way to proceed with this. I thought that changing lots of articles en masse needed a link to an RfC or extended talk page discussion to show most editors were on board with the changes. There was a discussion, and the bulk of changes has been paused for the minute, so that's my main concern out of the way. To be honest, extended discussions about the MOS start sending me to sleep and I end up thinking "decide amongst yourself what we should do, and let me know". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello.
I created a wikipedia page for a school organization last year by November. But it hasn't been published. I wonder why that is the case. Please can you enlighten me? How long should it take for a wikipedia page to be published publicly? Ivan-Carl (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
My mind is much simpler, Ritchie, I just enjoyed visiting the location pictured in 2019. (And I never looked at any block-log.) When I proudly announced the TFA of 1 January 2019, I wanted to see the location. In 2023, I did, as pictured. (more on Floq) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing! - The 2023 picture is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
What is “userfying”? You wrote: “If anyone wants this userfying for improvement, let me know.” Under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Estrin. If I can locate enough secondary sources, I might submit this page as a draft. Probably not anytime soon, there are not enough verifiable sources. Is this what is meant by userfying, as in user-verifying? Thanks Christian Roess (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) No, not quite. "Userfying" is Wikipedia jargon for moving an article to a user's userspace so that they can improve it as a draft and eventually submit it to be restored as an article. Even though it has been deleted, Ritchie is offering to take the article and move it to User:Christian Roess/Jerry Estrin, including its contribution history which will be needed if the article is restored (per WP:ATTRIBUTION), and leave it for you to work on. Pages in userspace aren't technically "articles" - readers are unlikely to come across them and they're not indexed by search engines. You can generally have as much time as you want to work "out of sight" so to speak, but you should remove any controversial or negative information about a living person if it does not have a source (you can restore it later when a source is found). Then, when you think you have addressed the issues which led to its deletion, you can ask for a review and for your improved draft to be restored, or if you're confident you can do it yourself. I hope that helps. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333,
Thank you very much for your work at Afds. I don't wish to undermine your recent decision and won't discuss the outcome if you think it's fair. But, for the record, your assessment that "particularly the in-depth analysis from Timothy (that) went unchallenged" is not, in my view, totally accurate. I did challenge it and still think it does not analyse sources for what they are. Maybe my comment quoting it was not clear and maybe I was wrong but I insisted that sources had been presented to show the veracity of the awards not as SIGCOV. Also the fact that all of them were explicitly not "reviewed" and were called spamming (a nice comment, don't you think?) should in my view also have attracted attention. But again, that's only for the record. Thank you again. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)10:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I should have been more specific. What I meant was that Timothy's source analysis wasn't refuted indvidually, but rather generally as a whole. Combined with other views that mention the biography of living persons policy, where we must be certain to get the article right and rely on high-quality sources, it seemed to me that deleting the article was the most appropriate thing to do, I'm afraid. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I need help writing an essay about major functions of money, including: unit of account, store value, medium exchange --Fidelia2006 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie, you recently closed the AfD for Ring My Bell (webtoon) as no consensus. Aside from my nomination statement, there was only one other editor who participated in the discussion, and he changed his !vote from keep to delete. It looks to me like there is consensus, and should be enough to close as soft delete. Would you be able to elaborate on why you closed the way you did? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to raise one AfD that you closed and one that you relisted.
[13] has two folks wanting to keep (well 3, but one withdrew their !vote) and 4 to delete. The keep !voters cite no policy or guideline in support of their !votes. The delete !voters note the lack of any reliable independent coverage. Could you take another look at that?
[14] is fairly similar. Here we have 4 folks pushing for deletion on the basis of no sources and one making an IAR argument to keep. I know admins have a lot of leeway on relisting, but this doesn't feel close. Could you also take another look at that?
I don't think the two lines going back and forth were hugely disruptive. One person felt badgered, the other (me) felt that it wasn't badgering to ask for more detail about how a link was being used. I don't think being concise is disruptive (maybe rude, but not disruptive). But there were no policy or guideline-based arguments for keeping and the numbers went for deletion also. I just want to verify you're set on this close before moving forward. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I want to note that I also found this close confusing, given the total lack of guideline-based arguments from the keep side. @Red-tailed hawk had even commented in his relist that NJOURNALS-based !votes did not at all address the notability concerns of the AfD. And just to clarify something, the claim that being listed in Scopus equates to GNG coverage is untenable since a) even if Scopus was independent secondary SIGCOV, GNG asks for multiple such sources; b) multiple other RS indexing services provide the same amount of "coverage" (database listings, automated rankings and factors, etc.) as Scopus, but these are explicitly not sufficient to meet NJOURNALS because they are not "selective" enough--which is consistent with the criterion being intentionally completely divorced from the GNG meaning of "significant coverage"; c) even more autogenerated indexing info, including rankings, field-weighted impact, h-index, graphs, etc. is provided by Scopus for every single article and author it indexes, yet Scopus would never be acceptable as a GNG-contributing source for a person or academic paper. JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm surprised nobody has given you a more comprehensive answer, but the essential problem is that you cited court documents. However, the biographies of living persons policy prohibits this, and assumes people are innocent until definitely proven guilty, or at least enough to be mentioned in a neutral, worldwide encyclopedia. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
You can make any edit, large or small, as long as it improves the encyclopedia. Indeed, I'd recommend starting with small edits, such as spelling or grammar corrections, before moving on to adding sourced content. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
As you can see from my contributions, my on-wiki time at the moment is dedicated to giving FAC another go, after years of saying "I can't do it, it's too hard". It'll either end with a) actually writing an FA for the first time in almost 20 years or b) dropping out with exhaustion and taking a sabbatical. Wagers are currently being taken at William Hill to which one will happen. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Ritchie333 can you kindly help me contribute to a new profile? I don't have any interest and their information is publicly available but they have no wikipedia profile. They asked if someone can help them put up one for their work to be appreciated. Kindly guide. Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Gavin Ngabonziza, I assume you are referring to a new Wikipedia article. Please note that any subject must meet notability guidelines for a standalone article. If the individual is notable, someone will likely create a Wikipedia article about them soon. You can use our "Article Wizard" to determine if your topic is suitable for a Wikipedia article. If it is, you'll have the option to create a draft and submit it for review by experienced editors as part of the "Articles for Creation" project. Please be aware that there may be a wait time for your draft to be reviewed. If approved, your article will be created, and if not, you'll receive feedback on how to improve it. Additionally, if you have a close personal connection to the subject, be sure to disclose any conflicts of interest when creating the article. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. I hope this helps. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
