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.
Ritchie, I saw your comments at Megadeth's review page. Are you interested in giving the article a more detailed review, perhaps? You saw yourself that it lacks reviewers, and your input can only do well. So, are you in?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a look through if I can, though as I freely admit I find it difficult to comment on FA quality prose other than "I know it when I see it". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for the review! I've implemented nearly all suggestions. Some notes:
I based this line on a quote from the biography. Odom has a quote about the Winnebago, and afterwards, Red Dog is quoted: “I really think that kind of life [i.e., traveling in close proximity] led to a lot of the drug problems.” Either way, I’ve rephrased it.
Spot on on the royalty payments and session work attributing to their higher pay! I glossed over that while writing the article, but it’s included now.
The “appropriate” line is from the book. The indication was that Blood, Sweat & Tears were very different in terms of sound, and that Graham would pair them with more comparable acts, like the Grateful Dead. I’ve reworded it.
The “other horn player” is not mentioned or unknown in my sources. I’ve marked it as such.
“Ethereal-to-furious” was a holdover from a previous draft of the article. I’ve removed it, as it could be considered biased.
"Aside from the opening bassline and lyrics, the two versions are completely unalike”. This is based on a line from Scott Freeman’s Midnight Riders, in which he states that “Other than the baseline and lyrics, the live version of Whipping Post bears little resemblance to the original.” I’ve left it as is, but if you want to delete it, feel free to do so.
I left “editions” more or less the same from an earlier draft, but as it really isn’t crucial to the article (and difficult to source) I’ve removed it.
Hey, saw that you guys got Sgt. Pepper to FA, so congratulations on that. By the way, are you getting Abbey Road to FA as well? I see that we got the ball a-rolling at the WikiProject Beatles.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
For an album article, it's infeasible to get it to A-class because the Wiki Project Albums has never used that rating. On the contrary, there are several bands already rated A-class, so it's more likely to revive that idea rather than starting this thing with the albums. But anyway, if Megadeth doesn't get through the FA procedure, I'm sure that all of the parties involved there would agree that it should be an A-class article.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll see if there's any further discussion on the rock music talk page, but I was thinking of checking The Who over and possibly using that as a pilot A class review drive. Anyway, regarding Abbey Road, I'm happy to publicise it a bit more and reopen the PR if people are up for it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ashford, Kent, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aerial bombing and Tim Burgess (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I realize that you don't want that article to be deleted. But you cannot close the Afd or any other request yourself. You have to ask an uninvolved administrator or even a user who has no involvement. Read WP:CLOSURE#Closure_procedure. OccultZone (Talk) 17:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
But WP:AFD#Withdrawing a nomination says "If no-one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it." Nobody had endorsed the deletion and discussion had run dry for a few days, so it was worth closing per WP:SNOW. You can cherry pick information pages or essays (since neither of those links were actual policies or guidelines) and use them to say that black is white, if you're so inclined! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a delete vote already. You still have to contact 3rd person, if they failed to close, then you may close, but that's the last move. I have notified Northamerica1000 to close this one. OccultZone (Talk) 09:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie, just a reminder to wrap up your review on Megadeth's FAC. You don't need to go section by section as you started if you're busy right now; just leave some general recommendations on what should be corrected. Sorry for bothering you with this again!--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ashford, Kent 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 Droodkin -- Droodkin (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Rocky and the Natives
Hi Ritchie, I have recently updated and re-submitted an article that I originally prepared for Rocky and the Natives last August. Any help and advice that you could give would be gratefully received. Sally of Kent (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sally. I'll give you the good news first, since Rocky and the Natives includes Jim Leverton, Andy Newmark and Geoffrey Richardson as members, it passes the notability guidelines for musicians criteria 6 : "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." That means it should be accepted.
However, you've also used ritchieandrhonda.co.uk as a source - well it's nice you think it's a suitable reference, but it's not really what I would define as a reliable source by Wikipedia terms (it's our opinions, not hard facts, and while we try and get things right, nobody's job is on the line for it), and if I passed this article, somebody may put two and two together and declare I have a conflict of interest by getting involved with an article that cites a blog I'm involved with. The best thing to do for now it to leave it on the Articles for Creation queue for now, and I'll keep an eye on it. If somebody else declines it, I'll point them at the notability guideline I mentioned above. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, this article has been declined by Bonkers the Clown... is there anything you can do to assist me please? Many thanks. Sally of Kent (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much for sorting out the rather strange intervention of Bonkers but my article has now been declined by LukeSurl. Any advice you can offer (when you have a chance) gratefully received. 86.184.202.200 (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. What would help massively if the band got a mention in the national press or major music magazines such as Mojo who often cover this stuff. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
You have no idea what a triumph this is. I have no words to thank you. This article will definitely be improved. I now have to give thanks to the other two stellar, generous, beautiful wikipedia editors, who helped me achieve this wonderful triumph. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara.steinberg (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for trying to start a discussion regarding Megadeth discography page, can you please please take a look at this and offer your opinion, after us both being unblocked the first thing Retrohead does is decide to falsify a claim about me and has sent me multiple messages of no meaning, after him calling me a troll, someone with no education and other things I am sick of it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
With hold due respect it seems you have made your mind up already that you are going to disagree with me and side with him, he has been personally attacking me now for days, which has caused me great stress and pushes me to bite back. Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think that way - I'm just trying to calm the dispute down, though since I see the discussion has spilled over to ANI I fear it will now end in tears for somebody. If I were you, I'd just ignore him. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
But why is he constantly reverted all my edits no matter what page they are on, he has tried 3 or 4 times to get me blocked even falsifying a claim (please take a look) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring dispute it being very clear I was reverting vandalism, he has also called me a troll, a german word I can't remember what and an uneducated person, he has caused me so much stress, that I have today bites back (which I know I shouldn't have) Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a thread on ANI, which means somebody will look at both sides of the conduct and determine what action should be taken. Remember that you both got blocked, so just because one person starts an ANI thread, there's no reason why sanctions may not fall against them too. See WP:BOOMERANG. I would, however, ask both of you to focus on content, not each other, and if you keep butting heads, it's probably worth one or both of you finding something else to edit. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply and I appreciate what your trying to do, my mind has only ever been about the edits as I don't see the point in making things personal over the internet, do you understand why I removed the content, I hope you do as I AM NOT A VANDAL, I was just trying to tidy up the page and make it less untidy. Lukejordan02 (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course you're not a vandal. You made good faith attempts in your edits to do what you thought would improve the encyclopaedia. You both (and I have to emphasise that it was both of you - nobody took sides) got blocked for 24 hours so that other editors can look at the article and make a judgement call on what direction it can go, without getting disrupted by back and forth reverts on it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thank you, I just don't like how retro isn't assuming good faith and has called me names such as a troll and uneducated, and his latest comment about how I should edit places where he isn't interested so I don't interfere with "his" work. I appreciate that he is trying to improve the page and have never thought otherwise but the last time I looked Wikipedia was for anyone to edit constructively. Lukejordan02 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Lukejordan02, by now you should have realized what I've been trying to say to you. I'll put it in three simple numbers so that you can understand it without misinterpreting it:
1) Avoid clashing with more experienced editors (including me). How to do this? Well, let's see, how about playing with pages that they are not editing?
2) Don't slander the editor you diasgree with at other talk pages. This causes animosity and is time wasting.
3) When discussing on a certain theme, stick to it. This means when discussing Megadeth's discography, discuss Megadeth's discography (not the reports I've sent to ANI).
|m sorry but you have broken the rules just as much if not more than me.
1- Ritchie has already spoke about this.
2- you slander more than anyone you made up 2 reports, one of which was reverting vandalism which is exempt from the 3RR and two I didn't revert 3 times.
Hi, could you please provide your opinion over at the Megadeth discography page, Retrohead thinks that the video albums should be listed in the albums section and I think that they should be listed in the video section because they are videos and it makes it clearer for people to view the page if all the music videos and videos are together and all of the albums are together, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't see any discussion on the talk page, but to be honest it probably matters to the causal reader as much as whether or not I should have raspberry or strawberry jam on my toast for breakfast tomorrow. If you can't agree, flip a coin and whoever calls correctly gets it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can you have a word with that user please, I gave in on his constant winning about the other things on the page and I don't see why I should on this when I know I am right, a coin toss isn't going to work here nor should I have to put it down to fate. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Listen Ritchie333, I'm done talking to that "editor". Where can I report him so the admins can take a look at his "edits"? And one more thing, please don't put an equal mark between me (with ten GAs and two FAs) and him (who spents 99% of his time messing around with the band's discographies). It is indeed a Herculean task to cope with a 12 year old kid who hasn't heard of punctuation marks and capital leters and find "stressful" when other editos disagree with him.--Retrohead (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Look at your own fucking speech before you criticise others you stupid idiot, you are a bully, you think you own the Megadeth discography page and revert anything you don't agree with. I gave in to you regarding the formats and label numbers but I won't over this. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Facepalm You can report each other at WP:ANI. If the WP:BOOMERANG hits both of you, don't say you weren't warned. I have mediated this morning's dispute, but I've got other things I want to edit now, so I'm afraid you're on your own. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ritch, is there some place where the edits by some editor can be analysed? This is not an incident, it appears that he has been vandalising the discography pages for entire month.--Retrohead (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This user is a fucking bully, who bully's people an owns articles. I gave in on the discussion regarding the numbers and formats on the page why should I this time, rich please see my point I don't want this aggro. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrohead as just spend 10 minutes getting a load of discography pages I have edited together and posted them on my user page,, look Ritchie I know you don't want to get involved and you are busy with your own edits and stuff but I beg you please help me to sort this stuff out I have never dealt with anyone so awkward as him before. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for wasting your time. I don't know how I got you involved into this, but it wasn't my intention to ruin your day. I don't know if you can excuse me, but one thing I can't get through is a cynic treatment by someone who thinks "he certainly knows better". I know that his edits are in good faith, but what we are talking here is whether they are correct or not.--Retrohead (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll give you my philosophy on wikilife. It's served me well through 8 years of editing, the last two of which have really seen the heat being turned up. There is a lot of hate, destruction, poverty and violence in the world. I, however, have a loving family, career and exciting hobbies, one of which is practicing my amateur writing skills to create informative factual content that the world is free to use. With that in mind, the specific format that a discography should take, even if its one I laboured over for an evening, is really not that important in the grand scheme of things. I find if you are sure you are right, somebody will agree with you. If nobody does, it probably isn't important. Something to think about.
Incidentally, the reason I got involved with this was actually to leave a note on your talk page yesterday apologising that I never got round to finishing Megadeth's FAC. I saw you were blocked, and tried to defuse the situation. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I know that the world won't end if the video albums are placed in another section. I don't agree with you on the last part that someone else will revert him because hardly anyone watches those pages. What I'm trying to tell that user is to act according to the "rules". I've went through his entire edit history, and he spends all his time changing genres and discographies. Those edits are in good faith, but they are not helpful. We got to tell new editors how to make useful contributions, not allow them to edit what they want because they are having fun doing that.--Retrohead (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Almost all of them! If you look at something like List of Hammond organ players, you'll notice every entry has a footnote somewhere which links to a reliable source such as a book, newspaper, magazine or some sort of web-based equivalent that justifies their inclusion in the list. The problem that arises if you don't cite each entry is that mistakes creep in, and list articles tend to be magnets for new editors to add to them, which means they get unwieldy. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Made in Japan (Deep Purple album)
Can we have everything louder than everything else?
Hi Snuggums, the original impetus for the essay was a very old article on MSDN, back in the olden days when developer documentation still shipped on CDs in the mail, that gave advice on user interface design. One of the tips was to make your dialogs short and to the point, as verbose wording turns off people, and to illustrate this, there were two dialogs. One was a real "cannot rename file" Windows dialog, the other being a box saying "Ding! Thanks for playing!" and a button saying "I am not worthy". I've been trying to find it on the net ever since. The excellent User interface design series from Joel Spolsky is on a similar theme - users don't read the manual, and heck, they don't actually read anything! Read through that and have a guess what Joel might think of most of our Twinkle templates (and I'll bet it won't be favourable). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333. Not to dispute your CSD decline, but correct me if I'm wrong that CSD:A7 can apply to sports teams, as they are considered organizations. Is that correct? That understanding is based on WP:NSPORTS#Applicable policies and guidelines. My question is a general one. I just want to make sure that my interpretation of P & Gs is correct.- MrX13:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, yes you can CSD things like the local youth football team. The reason for commuting this down to an AfD is because it claims (but doesn't verify) a notable baseball player passed through their ranks as a youth, and by quoting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in the talk page. Not normally a reason to keep an article, but enough to have a full discussion on AfD. It won't hurt to leave it for a week. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Paul Tucker.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PocketPlug, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Staples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Zistebá made the same edit again on Abbey Road here, which you previously reverted per MacDonald. Since I don't have the MacDonald book, I cannot reasonably revert the change. Would you care to rv it again?
And, thanks for your work on the Made in Japan article. It revived my interest in that great album, and made me dig out my 3-CD version, which still sounds great!
Thanks for your support (and your copyediting). I've reverted back (since I assume we have consensus to do so) and dropped a note on the talk page. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You just gave me a helpful talk about new page tagging. Here is Edit action. Should this be tagged for a test or A7, or not at all? I would like your wisdom. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
That looks like somebody whose first language is not English trying things out. I would go for {{db-test}} (CSD G2) as a first instance, though it does fail the CSD A7 criteria as simply saying "'x' is a person born in 'y'" is no obvious indication of importance. Though "'x' is a well known politician born in 'y'" (for example) isn't. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you didn't think I was trying to hold up the DYK, I was really only trying to get it to be more pleasing on the "reading ear" (that'll be your eyes I suppose, but you know what I mean) I should have probably made the comments on the talk page, rather than side-tracking the DYK nomination before abandoning it for weeks. Anyway, I saw it on my watchlist this morning and thought I should apologise for drifting away. Belle (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. No, in fact you were absolutely right to comment - you have helped make the article better, and there is no deadline as I implied on the nomination. I put it to one side because I felt a third opinion was required (and was eventually supplied). Given the recent discussion about hook quality that's erupted on WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS, I think we're right to be careful. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a look, but I'll be honest - I've never done much in the way of FL reviews, and thrash metal isn't my special subject (I'm just too much of a 60s pop / soul fan) so I'd like to look at a few others first. If it goes well, I'd quite like to put up List of Hammond organs (though it needs clearing up a bit first). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Goldfish Syndrome, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Good call. The user realized he was wrong with the Metallica albums and self-reverted him, so I closed the report for edit warring. I think I deserved a Wiki-break after this.--Retrohead (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey there Ritchie. I was wondering if I could ask a favor of you. As I'm sure you are aware there is an ongoing discussion about deprecated HTML tags, and as you may have noted in the discussion some of these tags are just being dropped from pages. This means that I can't see your signature on the device that this is happening on. Due to this fact, I'm here to request an update to your current signature, and if you are will to accept my assistance in this, I suggest replacing:
There we go. I think that's right. The important bit is that you can see my page, my talk and my contributions. The colour is vaguely like Deep Purple, for no other reason that I've got a few of their albums and am not averse to improving related articles to GA status. And that's the only "fancy" concession I'll make to my signature - I think people who do silly fancy things with fonts and colours, or make the talk link called something other than "talk" (your "t" is okay) have got the wrong end of the stick. We don't allow easter egg links in articles, why put one in your sig? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Como Brothers Band
Hi Ritchie,
Thank you for reviewing the page on The Como Brothers Band. Yes, I think the band is totally awesome and deserving of a Wikipedia page. I do agree with your assessment of too many citations of being on the AMA charts and I will condense them. I am having trouble with your assessment of notability. The Como Brothers Band's music has been on major television shows, a commercial for Canon Camera and in a movie soundtrack. That critera meets that standard for notability. I know of quite a few bands that have met some of that criteria and have Wikipedia pages. I know that I am a new editor but those same standards should be applied evenly regardless of editor or who is reviewing the page that is being created. The band does have independent press coverage and should not have to meet every criteria for notability (ie. be signed on tour nationally) In the standards for notability for bands its says that "at least one of the guidelines should be met" not all of the guidelines. I have corrected the deficiencies/corrections from the pages first review - about the bands music licensing and have provided the correct references and will correct the overloading problem. I have removed the awards even though I know other musicians have referenced them. I do appreciate your help as I think this band totally deserves a Wikipedia page.
@Bco66209: Hi. I felt this was a tricky case, but ultimately I think the problem was that the news coverage was limited and based around the NY area, rather than sustained national coverage. You really need something like a Billboard chart hit to get a good article written. One of the reasons we have this sort of restriction is fans of a band (which you are, and I agree the music is pretty good) have a tendency to over-inflate the writing in a positive slant, rather than a neutral point of view. You don't have to meet all the notability criteria for musicians, just one of them - I just felt the band fell slightly short. As I said, there does look the potential for an article to exist, just a little more care on the sources is needed. Has the group had any coverage in Billboard, the New York Times, or similar? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Lightshow Wikipedia Notability (music) Criteria
Ritchie333: Thanks for the notes after reviewing our page. The musician's page User:Allinentertainment/sandbox/Lightshow currently does not have a few upcoming performances that I failed to add, as they had not (or have not) been announced to the public. For example, we were finally able to announce yesterday that he will be performing[1] on the Coca-Cola "World of AHH" stage at the BET Experience Fan Fest on Sunday, June 29, 2014 at LA Live. He is also going to be part of the A3C Circuit Tour as well as other large festival dates that will be announced on Wednesday. Hopefully these items will improve his significance in coverage and we can try to resubmit to you soon.
Per the Wikipedia Notability (music) Criteria, Lightshow has met at least one guideline as he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician: to include XXL Magazine, Complex Magazine, The Source.
@Allinentertainment: Hi. You're almost there with understanding the notability criteria for musicians, but the one thing missing is that it has to be significant coverage. The Complex magazine is about lots of rappers, the XXL magazine coverage appears to have been written by Lightshow (and therefore not independent), the Source article relegates Lightshow to little more than a paragraph, and Evan Carmichael can't obviously be an independent source about himself! Now, at the other end of the scale, let's see a Google search for Tupac Shakur in Rolling Stone magazine - from that one magazine alone, we can see pages and pages of coverage, and most articles are specifically about Tupac Shakur and no-one else. That's the sort of coverage you need to aim for.
I am surprised that the KeyShot article was rejected again based on the references. The references 1-8 are articles and a book about the software - not press releases, and some of the later references document the integration of KeyShot into major CAD packages. KeyShot is already mentioned on several other wikipedia pages. I think the description is quite factual. There are several rendering software packages with pages on wikipedia with significantly less impact than KeyShot. I will add a few more impact statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrikwj (talk • contribs) 09:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@Henrikwj: I think the problem is there didn't seem to be independent coverage, everything seemed to be some tutorial or advert. I did have a good look round for sources myself, but I couldn't find anything really good, because I can appreciate being rejected again and again is not fun and I was hoping to fix it up and pass it. However, I really did want to mention some positive things about it - the use in Skullcandy, a notable independent client, is the sort of stuff you want to write about. The idea of starting off with a line in raytracing is that it's a far easier way to get a mention of KeyShot on Wikipedia, as you only need one or two sources that describe the company. If that sticks, we can make KeyShot a redirect to somewhere in that article and work from there. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@APerson: : I've never edited this article (I did nominate it for DYK, but that's it) and there's no obvious link to the DYK nomination (there is a link with "here" but I didn't notice it). Hopefully that'll be useful feedback for your bot. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
There was a problem with the template causing the link not to work, and I'm working on the bot correctly determining who to notify. Thank you for your feedback! APerson (talk!) 21:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Your Comment to my submission June 16
Helllo Ritchie333,
Thanks for your comment. I*ll see what I do. Looks difficult though.
Articles for creation/Help desk#12:10:51, 16 June 2014 review of submission by Karinsoika. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet for Wikiproject Editor Retention at Wikimania 2014
Hi Ritchie333,
I noticed that you took interest in submitting a leaflet for Wikiproject Editor Retention to be displayed Wikimania 2014. If you are still interested, then the deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014. Therefore, it's important to jump on this one as soon as you can.
Kind regards,
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Who may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
25 years |last=Watkins |first=James |date=11 June 2014 |work=Get Surrey|accessdate=18 June 2014]}}</ref>
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Denmark Street may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Manager [[Malcolm McLaren]] asked architect [Ben Kelly to refurbish a basement rehearsal room for [[The Sex Pistols]], which McLaren had bought
Not finding much on the guy, and it's tricky since there are at least two other musicians named Eric Lee. His official website's dead, and I'm only finding places that sell his CD. Also, most of the page appears to be copied from here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)18:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, not a problem. There's definitely some copying going on, and after I noticed the fire date did not match a book source, I was suspicious about the other content. There has been some copying going on, that's for sure. In any case, hopefully I can largely rewrite the article so this point will become moot. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)06:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
My complaint
I do not agree with you. I am absolutely certain that "Jesus Christ, you are angry, don't get you bowels etc etc etc," was intended to be offensive. Suggesting that it was "light-hearted" shows a certain disregard for common courtesy? Where are you coming from?
At what point are people sanctioned? If I use the word "nigger" as an insult, does someone take action? If I use the name of the prophet of Islam as a profanity, does someone take action? If I state that I fucked your mother, does someone take action?
You closed the discussion while I was in the middle of writing a reply. I want the people who responded to read my reply and pay some attention to it. Amandajm (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I responded to the thread in the hope that the conversation would die down and people would get back to improving articles. As this essay rightly says, conflict can be addictive and should be avoided at all costs where it interferes with writing articles.
I tend to follow Jon Postel's mantra of "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - that applies to computer programs, but it works well with written conversation. This means I personally won't use the "f" word in discussions (there are exceptions in articles) but if somebody else used it, I would look at the context and not immediately assume offence. At the end of the day, you're a highly experienced editor, as are all the other editors who've commented at ANI. Why fall out with them? It won't benefit the encyclopaedia.
Take some time away from Wikipedia (not long, half a day should be enough) and have a look at some of the off-wiki essays I linked to. You should feel much better as a result. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
DYK hook
The reason why I wish to maintain the reference to "gender" rather than simply say "because she was a woman" is that the word "gender" in itself has connotations that go far beyond simply saying "she can't be ordained because she is a woman". The Roman Catholic Church doesn't ordain women, and up to this point in time, the ordination of women hasn't been a really big issue, except on a limited scale and without a great deal of publicity. So the fact that women are not ordained seems natural to any Roman Catholic.
In the Anglican Communion it is another matter. Women have been ordained in most countries since about 1994 and earlier in New Zealand and the Episcopal Church in the US. In the 1980s there was a very powerful Movement for the Ordination of Women in Sydney, of which Dr Patricia Brennan, another very significant woman who is recently deceased, was the president. The Sydney Diocese maintained their strong opposition. They were the richest and most populous diocese in the world, and they put their money, and the young men that they trained at Moore Theological College behind there efforts to make sure that it didn't happen in Australia. There efforts included taking another diocese to the high court. They lost the fight in the UK, and over most of Australia, but maintained influence in some Australian diocese, as well as parts of Africa.
If you want a picture of the situation, this is very telling [1] and really worth watching as it gives a clear image of the sort of situation under which Margaret Rodgers succeeded in functioning, and makes her success all the more remarkable. If you look at the right hand menu, you can fast-forward to "Marriage and Submission". Don't miss the question from the young gay man and the cunning avoidance of answering it by the continued repetition of how important the question is and how much it deserves discussion.. Amandajm (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
