User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 56

Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58→Archive 60

JamesBWatson asks me for a response but no way to do it!

@JamesBWatson: Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I seemingly have no choice but to reply to JamesBWatson here Ritchie333 I am afraid as I cannot seem to reply to this further nameless, voiceless and faceless electronic screen name except here so apologies for having to post it here! Please ensure JamesBWatson knows I have replied here, thanks.

Ritchie333, just as I thought I was getting somewhere with finding someone to liase with on this, my concerns about Wikipedia and your one rule for one and one rule for another approach is extremely concerning to me that yes as someone who has not only been supported by the Daily Mail, including its editor Paul Dacre (and I can send a link to his editors column about me in 2008) and I also in 2008 won an award from the Daily Mail (again all fact and I can send on the links to it) then I am going to look up what articles they have written about Wikipedia as I note you mentioned it on the wall thing.

You say you have to have reliable sources (whilst seemingly not wanting to take the word of the person who is the best source to know about themselves both professionally and personally!) and yet this JamesBWatson has just said that it is immaterial if I have ever referred to myself as an environmental activist or not it is what others have called me. NO ONE Has called me an environmental activist and certainly not as far as I recall in the national press, including in the Guardian which seems to be your source of choice. With the greatest of respect none of you people know anything about me or my work and yet you are professing to decide how I should be referred to!

Again in the one rule for one and one rule for another theme, whilst you say I have a conflict of interest when I do not - I just want things to be factually correct and quite right too - where is the evidence that anyone changing my page is not someone with a conflict of interest against me such as someone with a pesticide industry allegiance, a farmer, or other?

There seems to be a rather misogynistic feel to some of the changes and comments I have been receiving and I note your own comment Ritchie333 about some editors and women. This begs the question who on earth is policing this website, where is anyone of authority to be able to take up properly genuine complaints of substance?

I object to being described as an environmental activist for the very reasons I gave in my previous message to you but perhaps JamesBWatson has not seen and therefore I will repeat them again. As someone fighting for the protection of residents HEALTH then it is a public health issue and in the pesticides world you have two categories in protecting health or the environment and whilst others focus on the environment side as such (eg. bees, birds etc.) anyone who reads any of the articles in relation to my campaign will see it focuses on the health side, although really they are actually inextricably linked, but still to wrongly describe me in that way plays into the hands of all those who keep focusing on environmental issues only whilst ignoring the health side. This is infuriating to someone who does work tirelessly to highlight that the problems with pesticides are not merely environmental but most importantly on human health! Also I object to activist as I have never done direct action which that word is often associated with and have always campaigned in a non direct action and professional way.

Most crucially though, it is not factually correct to call me that as I am a recognized journalist and campaigner and am described as such in the media and you keep saying facts are important yet others then make comments that seem to have no real interest in the facts!

Let me be clear before I get more warnings for being firm, there is NOTHING is this message that is attacking anyone but I have been asked to again explain my objection to the wording and that is what I am doing but am getting increasingly exasperated by all this.

I would prefer to deal directly with yourself Ritchie333 and will send on the response to your previous message to me either later this evening or tomorrow (as I am very tired having been up til 6am trying to resolve all these very serious and genuine issues).

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have explained yet again why environmental activist is not the recognized description of what I do and actually I was going to say in the message just left that no doubt someone would try and find just one even if its in some pesticide or farming industry material to change it to! And in fact the farming and pesticides industry never get anything right in relation to what I do as they are the one of the opposing parties to my whole existence!! Anyway, there are literally HUNDREDS of articles about my campaign in the press and the vast majority refer to me as a journalist and a campaigner (and NOT a pesticides campaigner as that then sounds as if I am for pesticides!)

I would ask that what I actually do is properly referred to in a page about what I do and that is as a campaigner and journalist and if you need me to send you the many articles that refer to me as such let me know and I shall do that.

And to clarify when I said I was upset by all this I mean all of it the whole thing in relation to this page having been rewritten and the many hours I have spent trying to resolve it with people that you cannot even speak to, do not know the real name of, and only have a screen name.

I still intend to respond to your previous response soon.

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thefactcorrecter: I have actually been watching your talk page, so replying to me there would have been perfectly sufficient. For future reference, however, I can suggest other possible ways of contacting me. If you are replying to a message on your talk page, as was so in this case, then the best method is to me there, so that the discussion is kept together, and put {{Ping|JamesBWatson}} with your message. Provided you also make sure you sign your post with ~~~~ the Wikimedia software will then automatically notify me of your message. Alternatively, you can post to User talk:JamesBWatson/Open, which I check frequently for messages. From 17 April 2017 at 00:38 GMT your account will be autoconfirmed, and you will then be able to post to my main talk page at User talk:JamesBWatson. I hope that information may be helpful to you.
I see that you regard the word "activist" as specifically referring to what you call "direct action", which goes some way towards explaining why you dislike the term. Thanks for clarifying that. However, I'm afraid I really don't understand why you object to use of the word "environmental", nor why you regard it as so essential to separate environment from health. Isn't the central point of your campaign a belief that pesticides in the environment are harmful to health? If not, then I have significantly misunderstood, so perhaps you can put me right on that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Further to previous message

The examples JamesBWatson have given 3 appear to be the SAME article just in different places and all of which are farming and pesticides industry aligned publications and the other is a website I am not sure I have heard of.

It appears that some are keen to get in farming and pesticides industry links in here and yet you previously seemed keen to rely on national press sources! That's gone out the window now then. And yet again I get a warning for wanting my work to be CORRECTLY referred to as it has been in hundreds of articles in the national press and which I said I could send some links on for.

People here just seem to want to find things that fit the narrative they want it to fit. And these are all nameless, faceless and voiceless people who cannot be checked for conflicts of interest. This is not any way to run a business and is highly unprofessional. I will now decide on the next appropriate action to take on this as it is completely unacceptable and will also go look up the Daily Mail articles you have referred to on the wall as I have not read them yet so no idea what you were referring to!

I would say though that if you tell others you are dealing with something and then those others continue to try and fan the flames that is really counterproductive.

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Urgent removal required

Ritchie333,

I have not seen all the various changes that others keep making but there is now a monumental and potentially offensive error which is why people who do not know the facts should not be messing about with this page.

As I had correctly written yesterday it is GORDON Roddick who has signed the petition as you can see if you go to my website click on the petition link scroll down to reasons for signing and you will see Michael Mansfield QC first and then I think Gordon Roddick is 4th. He and Anita were environmentalists together but others may not know that Anita passed away in 2006 I think it was. Therefore you must have that changed back to what it correctly is which is Gordon Roddick please.

One other thing to say is that where it says the "petition was signed[when?]" as it is clearly referring to "by thousands of other rural residents also reporting adverse health impacts of crop spraying in their localities" then it should say that the "petition has been signed by thousands of other rural residents........" as it clearly says at the beginning of that paragraph that the petition was started in 2016 and so whoever added the "when" cannot possibly mean a date needs to be included for each of the thousands of residents who have signed it!! Thus saying that the petition has been signed rather than was signed thus resolves that.

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yes, I can possibly mean that a date needs to be included. Not for each individual signatory, of course, but for when the total reached "thousands." But I'm quite happy for you to provide any source to support that claim, or else remove it from the article wholesale. Similarly with the high-profile signatories. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. by the way, I think about 90% of the discussion threads you have posted here should not really be here at all, but instead be at the Talk:Georgina Downs page. Thanks.

Response to your message

Ritchie333,

I presume it is you who sent me this message no idea as it is not signed.

You said to please let you know if any concerns and I have done and am doing and am quite right to (although am still struggling a bit technically with it all).

These are justified and valid concerns and to be blocked from trying to ensure that how my work description is referred to is correct is extraordinary (as the description you and your colleagues continue to use is not correct and appears to be only how farming and industry publications have referred to me, and btw I had not actually seen those particular ones before and am surprised it is considered as a reliable source).

Anyway in response to your message to me, as you said in an earlier message that the Ecologist articles would be okay then in the absence of having in the actual petition link then there are at least 2 articles that have referred to it one is in the Ecologist here http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988609/pesticide_deregulation_the_real_reason_for_myron_ebells_number_10_meeting.html and the other is the same article in Counterpunch in the US.

Alternatively there is the same references to all that text in the Wikipedia entry (regarding the current and live petition) in the House of Lords committee written evidence (at paras 1.45 to 1.51) and that was published on the House of Lords committee website here http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-energy-and-environment-subcommittee/brexit-agriculture/written/47151.html

Incidentally I note that in your previous message you said the name of the petition could be put in quote marks with the word “poisonous” put back in seeing as that is the correct title.

On a separate note can I just ask what was the problem with the bit about the RSA, especially as you have it as a strap link at the bottom but then no mention of it in the page as it was removed (although not sure who removed it as lost track). It is factually correct I am a fellow of the RSA and in fact if you click on that link at the bottom and go to the separate Wikipedia page you will see me there under D for Downs. Therefore would be clearer to people reading it if the line about the RSA was back in otherwise surely they won’t get why it is linked at the bottom. As said it is factually correct, I am a fellow! I can take a pic of my fellows card and send it on if that helps to confirm it even further…

Thanks Thefactcorrecter (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As Martin said above, discussions about the content are best put at Talk:Georgina Downs now people are looking at it. I think all the issues you've raised here have now been fixed in the article; I've copied the links to sources over there as well.
"The essential building blocks towards satisfying and collaborative Wikipedia editing"
I don't have any more time this weekend to look at this. Essentially, you need to realise that everybody working on Wikipedia is a volunteer and we are all trying to do the right thing with limited time and resources. I'm not happy about Mlpearc templating you with a stupid block message, but I've complained about him until I'm blue in the face and now just find a suitable brick wall to bash my head against. I cannot be held responsible for anything any other editor does on the site. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Live and Dangerous

The article Live and Dangerous you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Live and Dangerous 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 Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply to a message I have only just seen

Hi Ritchie,

Only just seen your message (not sure why the notifications still aren't lighting up to tell me when messages come).

Anyway, thanks but the remaining issues are really not sorted with the most important one being the description of what I do at the beginning. The last 2 or 3 posts at the bottom of Martin's talk page again provide further reliable sources that I have found to show that that farming articles description of me is not an accurate description of what I do. I think I know what I do better than a farming publication who doesn't know me from a bar of soap! Anyway, I have provided the relevant sources (from the Telegraph and Guardian) that supports what I have continued to argue on this that I am a campaigner that runs an independent voluntary campaign of 16 years (and I have spent many an hour working and volunteering to try and help others and would quite rightly like to have what I do correctly described PLEASE).

You will also see that I have provided links in the last couple of messages at the bottom of Martin's talk page for the citations for the Cosmopolitan award and for the IFAJ and BGAJ citation also.

Thanks

Thefactcorrecter (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think everything's been updated in the article and on the talk page, so hopefully that's all sorted. Good luck with your continuing campaign. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A tool to analyze CSD logs

Hi there. I noticed you suggested adding a scan of the CSD log to the Asynchronous Admin Score tool. While checking red links is a perfunctory way to assess CSD logs, I wonder if we shouldn't have a tool that can do a better analysis of such logs. For example, checking red links does not account for pages deleted for other reasons, i. e. when the tagging was incorrect but AfD or PROD took care of it. Do you think you can write a tool that can check the logs of deleted pages against the CSD tags used to determine whether the page was deleted as tagged? Or maybe you know someone else I could ask? It would also be great if such a tool could display successful taggings by criteria, seeing as some criteria are easier to apply than others. I'd try to do it myself but honestly I have no clue whatsoever how to use the information the API spews out (what little PHP skills I have were honed before JSON became a standard). Regards SoWhy 14:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Well, you can use the API to do something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/w/api.php?action=query&format=json&list=logevents&titles=&leprop=comment&letype=delete&letitle=Jemma+Green&lelimit=1 (in the example here, the article was deleted per A7 a few times but recreated, eventually taken to AfD and deleted there). That will give you the most recent deletion entry, which you can parse via a regular expression.
To use the API with something like PHP, the equivalent is roughly:

<?php

$title = 'Jemma Green';

$params = array(

'action' => 'query',
'format' => 'php',
'list' => 'logevents',
'leprop' => 'comment',
'letype' => 'delete',
'letitle' => $title,
'lelimit' => '1' );

$enc_params = array(); foreach( $params as $key => $value ) {

$enc_params[] = urlencode( $key ) . '=' . urlencode( $value );

} $url = 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?' . implode( '&', $enc_params );

$str = file_get_contents( $url );

$response = unserialize( $str );

$log_events = $response[ 'query' ][ 'logevents' ];

if( count( $log_events ) > 0 ) {

$comment = $log_events[ 0 ][ 'comment' ];
if( preg_match( '/\[\[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion\/.*\]\]/', $comment ) ) {
echo "Article was deleted at AfD";
}

} ?>

Hope that's of some use! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the code, that is certainly helpful to determine why a page was deleted. Now I just need to figure out how to parse someone's Twinkle generated CSD log (e. g. User:CaroleHenson/CSD log) to check whether the taggings match the deletion reasons. I'll have another look myself these days using the code you provided. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Operation Great Storm

@Dweller:, @The Rambling Man: Similar to Operation Alf Ramsey .... the 30th anniversary of the worst spell of weather I have ever personally experienced is on 15 October. I could probably take it to GA in a week, given the right book sources from the library (of which there are several); beyond that, do you think there's a hope in hell on getting it as TFA for that date? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA

I don't want to flood RfA with walls of text, but wanted to respond further re Caleb Walker. I'm very aware of the possibility of driving away new editors, but AGF is not a suicide pact; when three different accounts try to recreate the same article in two weeks, resulting in speedy deletion every time, I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that nothing constructive is going to come of it. I'm happy to be educated on this one; am I missing something? I'm at a slight disadvantage because I (obviously) can't see the article content; my recollection is that it was pretty naf. GoldenRing (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @GoldenRing: Just FYI, that was the comment that I was agreeing to part of, not SoWhy's- I've moved it to where it's meant to be, but Ritchie might want to reword his subsequent reply. Sorry for the confusion. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 11:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: Basically, if you read a lot of encyclopedia articles and are familiar with how things are structured, you can pick up signals that can help you spot things. In this case, Caleb Walker is a real person and was put as a stand-in for his brother Paul Walker in Furious 7 following the latter's death. At this point, I think it's worth mentioning my specialist subjects are streets and architecture in London, and 1960s / 70s experimental rock, of which this article is neither, but I've read enough articles around here to pick up on that being sufficient to stop A7, because at the very least you can redirect somewhere. Remember that AfDs don't always end in "keep" or "delete" - any possibility of a non-delete consensus there (which "redirect" is) stops the deletion. For now, I have restored Caleb Walker as a redirect to Paul Walker#Career, and the full history is available so you can see all the revisions that were deleted.
As I said on the RfA, deleting something can be upsetting, but what's more upsetting is if the creator tries to ask you as deleting admin to help, and you don't come up with the goods. Hence, in this case, a message "sorry about that, I can clearly see film magazine reports that show he was a CGI stand-in for his more famous brother; I have restored as a redirect" might go some way towards building bridges. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has more information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the history. I see the only content in the article when I tagged it was "jo puta." I'll readily admit that film actors are not my area of expertise - but isn't that the whole point of A1? The article didn't have enough content/context to identify the subject. If you happened to know that a person called Caleb Walker once stood in for his brother in the seventh instalment of a fairly forgettable (IMO) film franchise then perhaps you might have put two and two together and thought maybe that's who they were talking about. But maybe it's not - all you've got to go on is a name that's not exactly uncommon. What "signals" should I have picked up on in this article's content? GoldenRing (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
"jo puta" is plain and simple WP:CSD#G3. However, that doesn't mean you couldn't re-appropriate the page as the redirect. As for "signals", to coin an old saying - STFW! You simply a) type "Caleb Walker" into Google and / or b) type "Caleb Walker" into the search box here. Incidentally, I brought up Aldford House specifically because it's right on the edge of what a Google Search could do to tip the balance; in this case, the first hit is an archived copy of the Survey of London which is a dedicated piece about the property. That's way outside A7 (but you knew that as you said so in your answer), as to whether it could survive AfD, it's tricky but again I think a redirect to Mayfair#Properties would probably be my alternative if "keep" wasn't an option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Two things you have to remember: 1) WP:ATD applies to speedy deletion as well. If you google the subject and it turns out this might be a plausible search term (as "Caleb Walker") clearly is, redirect it appropriately. 2) A1 explicitly says "Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created." That was the reason I raised the objection. AGF is not a suicide pact but simply saying "no suicide pact" is not sufficient to ignore the clear wording of the policy. Regards SoWhy 13:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
While I understand the basic concept, I would like to see somebody explain how an article whose first (undeleted) revision reads as "fuck off" and nothing else could possibly be expanded to something that isn't blatant vandalism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Putting this here, because a) this is where I noticed the discussion that sent me to the RfA and b) I rather suspect more people will notice this here, and that suits me... User:GoldenRing, please read my comment carefully because I mean every word. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also add that your RfA is not tanking with pile-on opposes, indeed quite the opposite, and the tally is creeping upwards. I might describe this as a "Brexit RfA" ie: "well this isn't going to pass but I'm going to moral support anyway" and lo and behold it succeeds. So hang in there for a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes! For once, I thikn people are actually looking beyond the statistics, and judging the answers against what they want in an admin- and finding that, where the statistics and the answers given are in contradiction, the answers trump the stats. Told you- Leicester City! :D — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
If this RfA somehow passes, perhaps it will herald a new age of less restrictive RfA standards. I think it would be healthy for Wikipedia to return to the concept of adminship not being a big deal. Lepricavark (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. GoldenRing is turning his RfA around (seriously, give it 12 hours and he could be in the pass range, and I'm not kidding) primarily because his answers to the questions exhibit precisely the sort of attitude and clue I expect admins to have. Most of what I wrote at WP:WRITE is basically a rough set of criteria that allow me to easily tell if somebody has clue or not. I don't think it's any great secret that I think CaroleHenson should have passed RfA as she has clue coming out of her ears (I'm not a metaphor kind of guy, but bear with me...) and I wouldn't be at all surprised that SoWhy is going to be good on his word and put forward RfA #2 when he thinks she's ready and the time is appropriate. However, clue is impossible to fake; it's very easy to use the right buzz-words to pull the wool over people's eyes, but there have been so many upsets caused by admins pulling above their station that people have a right to be suspicious. So I'm not quite sure yet that we're going to have more "purple patches" of RfA. We did have a good run over Christmas with people like Cyberpower678 getting the bit, who are very much not the usual sort of candidate I'd put forward, but still someone I think absolutely deserves the mop and bucket. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I probably overstated the optimism. Still, I was disappointed when the momentum surge in early January petered out and then very little happened over the past coupe of months. I don't really expect GoldenRing's RfA to pass, but it's fun to think optimistically about seeing new life breathed into the process. Lepricavark (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Considering that I'm definitely a different breed of users than the average candidate that passes, I'm certainly surprised I passed, and even more so that I passed with 97% support. I'm not complaining or anything, but the views are typically, lack of AfD, lack of main space, or oh god an admin bot operator is too dangerous is what floats around RfA.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: Mate, I've got to say, I think he's actually going to do it. Whilst I don't think it will (probably unfortunately) open any flood-gates, it's still a rare and curious thing that we are witnessing.[citation needed] Humbling actually. As well as making me feel somewhat guilty now! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 17:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
We'll see. I certainly hope you are correct. Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, you might still be- I took my eye off the ball there- the serious (well, large scale?) opposes usually start after a day or two, don't they, and I suppose we haven't got to that stage yet. But even so- — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 17:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't expect from this point it'll pass - it's tantalisingly close, but stubbornly short of the mark - but I'm glad I'm providing entertainment for someone. Thank you all for your kind words about me. I hope I live up to them. GoldenRing (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: This is the closest RfA I've seen since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678. It is technically possible that the RfA will close with a 'crat chat, and from my perspective while some of the opposes are fair comment, a number are weak ("needs more experience" - yes, what in and why? Be specific!) and also suggest they won't particularly mind you having the tools. The 'crats may agree and decide the community has a neutral to positive view of you getting the bit, and granting it. I can badger the 'crats a bit to force a chat whatever happens, even if the RfA closes on 62-63%. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 closed successful on 68% support, and that was under the old standards, so I think even a 63% support is worth a discussion. For gawd's sake, don't withdraw - nobody's saying anything new and insightful anymore, so I'd sit it out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I would absolutely agree in urging you to stick with it GoldenRing. I see this as in some ways a groundbreaking RfA, (in a positve sense), which may help to reshape !voter perceptions on candidates, although with your amazingly long tenure this is somewhat unique. Also I continue to nag about getting the amazing Q5 into expanded essay form. It should be required reading. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Irondome: I've had a go in User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators. It's my fourth or fifth attempt at starting the same thing; I've struggled badly to find the right voice for it. An answer to an RfA question is not really the right form for an essay. I'm not sure about the economic impact of making it required reading, either. Comments welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
TBH I've been thinking seriously about it - mostly because of opposition from a couple of editors who I have a good deal of respect for (not going to name names here). My line of thinking is, "Maybe if they're opposed, I'm really not ready." OTOH there is support from a number who I also respect, and a couple who I expected to oppose it. I think I'm happy to let it run its course - as I said there, I don't have a lot of my self-esteem invested in this. If it ends with "no" then so be it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I joked earlier about this being a "Brexit RfA" but the analogy is uncanny. Opinion is split right down the middle, the result could go either way, a bit of name-calling between sides is going on (admittedly I've jumped in and done a bit, though I have called opinions wide of the mark rather than directed at specific people) and however it does, a sizeable number of people are going to go away disappointed. I've been thinking about the split for the past couple of days, and I can phrase it simply as "do you like WP:IAR?" Everyone that does has looked at the questions, weighed up the insight and clue they have delivered, and voted support. Everyone that doesn't has gone to count beans, look at arbitrary standards and figures that they like, and can't hand on heart ignore them quite enough, and voted oppose. Those that are torn between the two have gone neutral. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: This really is the "Brexit RfA"! Opinion split down the middle, people unsure about the result until the very end, the underdog wins, and the losers go ballistic over it. Fortunately I'm not Nick Ferrari so I won't scream "you lost, get over it" in a high-pitched voice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Heh. And at least we didn't have a Johnson running around throughout :D — O Fortuna velut luna 13:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

So, I return from my Wikibreak and....

...I see still no takers on the Marylebone station GA review! Well, it *is* the most forgotten of the London termini after all! Congrats on getting Mayfair through though! Just need to decide which Monopoly square to tackle next... hmmmmm... OcarinaOfTime (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Just looked at the board and it seems you're just about there actually, just this one and Kings Cross to go! Might tackle Kings Cross' grander neighbour...gosh that article needs pruning! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I wondered who you were, but I've worked it out. There is also List of London Monopoly locations at FLC to complete the set. Somebody will do the GA reviews eventually. In the meantime I've been tinkering with Soho. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry! Occupational hazard of working in education - my old username got found out by a particularly 'enterprising' student which forced a change. (And so far, they haven't managed to link the two usernames, despite it not taking a genius to do so!). OcarinaOfTime (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not rocket science to work out my real name and my job - hells bells a reliable source printed my home address once - but I'm not going to make it easy or obvious, as that would be just asking for trouble. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Titan Sports Plus

Hi, there. I am the editor of Titan Sports Plus. It was deleted by you 5 minutes ago. Could you please resume the page? I am still constructing this article to meet the criteria of wiki. Could you leave me one or two days to finish it and add all references? If it still does not meet your criteria, you can delete it then. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ujishadow: I have restored this to Draft:Titan Sports Plus. Follow the instructions on the draft template to see how it will be reviewed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Monopoly list

Well that was straight-forward enough! Congrats. Anything more like that in your back pocket you need some teasing out? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, I never realised FLCs were that quick! As you can see from above, we still need GA reviews for King's Cross station and Marylebone Station, then we can go for the GT. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
They typically aren't. That's pretty special in the current climate. I can review one of those if you'd like? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well I don't see a mad rush for anyone else to review them! Only caveat is I had to give some of the book sources back to the library, but hopefully I can work around it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London King's Cross railway station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article London King's Cross 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London King's Cross railway station

The article London King's Cross 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:London King's Cross railway station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marylebone station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marylebone 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marylebone station

The article Marylebone 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:Marylebone station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of London King's Cross railway station

The article London King's Cross railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:London King's Cross railway station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Beta Kappa Gamma page deletion

Hey Ritchie, Beta Kappa Gamma is a multicultural service fraternity that participates in the Multicultural Greek Council. As an active member of this fraternity, I'd hate to break any necessary rules regarding wikipedia entries on our article.

Could you delineate the exact reasons why our page is being considered for deletion and how we could improve it?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.65.25.122 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically I checked the logs, and administrators appear to have deleted and re-created it on several occasions. Somebody tagged for speedy deletion recently, so I took it to a full discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Kappa Gamma (2nd nomination) to see what consensus will arise from it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is made for a fraternity that has been running for 17 years. Multiple websites showing brothers are www.betakappagamma.org and bkgbaylor.org . I have been working on the website for the past hour and would be very disappointed if my efforts were in vain. The fraternity has grown immensely since 2012 and even the content on the page has resembled that of any other fraternity on Wikipedia. In terms of national presence, if you look on school websites like Baylor, UT Austin or LSU, you will find Beta Kappa Gamma's influence on the community. In terms of chapter numbers, there are multiple fraternities and sororities that have less than 7 and ones that only have 1 chapter(local fraternities).

These are sources that show that it is an established official organization in the United States and that it is a fraternity:

http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sfl/chapter_orgpage.php?id=55

http://www.baylor.edu/studentactivities/greeklife/index.php?id=74963

https://www.docdroid.net/fTrEh2s/bk-articles-of-incorporation-1.pdf.html (Official document of article of incorporation)

https://issuu.com/thedailyreveille/docs/issuu1026 (Page 3 showing BKG fundraising)

https://www.gofundme.com/BetaKappaGamma

In addition to all these websites, Relay for life is the biggest cancer research event in America. Beta Kappa Gamma was the GOLD sponsor of Relay for life donating thousands of dollars. Here it is on their website. http://main.acsevents.org/site/TR?fr_id=82902&pg=informational&sid=209324


To show the publicity of the organization and both it's service and social impacts:

http://baylorlariat.com/2017/03/16/fraternity-to-hold-dodge-for-a-cause-fundraiser/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTJ1kYwIsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKvHSeVmYAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpR5qFYnpZg http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Beta%20Kappa%20Gamma


Not only was there local coverage, there was also outside local coverage by cities outside of the fraternity's main residence/university.

These are additional sources for Beta Kappa Gamma in Houston and nationally

http://www.uh.edu/af/news/March12/green4.htm

https://www.google.com/search?q=Beta+kappa+gamma+friends+for+life&oq=beta+kappa+gamma+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i60l3j69i59.3587j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.facebook.com/The-Phoenix-Educational-Foundation-319334178173227/

https://www.facebook.com/bkgbaylor/photos/a.833981646649720.1073741830.830174837030401/997157443665472/?type=1&theater

Thank you Appie094 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Appie094: You need to take this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Kappa Gamma (2nd nomination) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Chiltern Main Line

What were the problems at Template:Chiltern Main Line that led you to create Template:Chiltern Main Line RDT? You could have created Template:Chiltern Main Line/sandbox and developed it there. As things stand, Template:Chiltern Main Line RDT is eligible for WP:CSD#T3. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically, I couldn't get the template to appear in a collapsible box - it always appeared fully sized and taking up the entire space of the page. More specifically, I set a navbar title and added the collapse flags. I didn't see a suitable solution on the existing template that would not break compatibility with where it is already used (ie: on the infobox on Chiltern Main Line. So it doesn't meet T3 as the same functionality can't be provided by that other template right now - although it could be with the right fixes, then I'll delete the fork per G7 when I know it works. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It already had a navbar - the row "This diagram: view talk edit" at the very bottom. Anyway, the sandbox now exists. All you should need to do is make the |inline=yes conditional, something like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope, that sandbox just has the same problem as earlier :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Gosh, where does the time go? Well, my aims for this year are to have 100 confirmed GAs, and get Category:London Monopoly places to Good Topic status - only a few articles left now.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Good goals! I would have liked to have a TFA on 2 February, but it's still open, in case you want to comment peace and joy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
It was just promoted, - and please never feel guilty ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Is that you Greda? —usernamekiran[talk] 15:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Who's Greda? - DYK that I need a GA review? Soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
That GA review done, I hope for the next, soon, Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen, BWV 66. You seem to have too much time ;) - "hammer and tong", what does that mean? a synonym for shaking one's head? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
"hammer and tongs" means doing something with all the might and power you can possibly put into it, like a blacksmith holding a molten horseshoe and repeatedly banging it into shape. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
what's "tong", literally? or is that a silly question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
In German, they are "Hammer Zangen" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Learning, thank you. How about a review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
In German, we have no such image in an expression, we say "mit aller Gewalt" (with all force), most often in "will es mit aller Gewalt durchsetzen", implying that the thing to be enforced is not desirable. I have good news for you (I hope): music in my ears. I am rather sure that the infobox wars are over ("Schnee vom vergangenen Jahr", snow from a past year) when such a thing (not by me) is presented as TFA, with no question raised in the FAC or the day. Softly, no force ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion (Prosperity Indiana)

Hi! An article that I have been in the process of creating about a Community Economic Development organization, Prosperity Indiana, and it was speedily deleted by you for "not being of significance." I didn't have an opportunity to really even finish the article, and am still finishing the drafts, but it was deleted shortly ago. Can I have a better explanation as to why that explanation was given to it, and what I can do to fix this issue so this is not deleted?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcpreddy (talk • contribs)

@Tcpreddy: The best thing to do in this situation is not to create an article in the main encyclopedia space, but start a draft page first, which can be reviewed by an experienced editor, without the threat of deletion. To this end, I have restored the article to Draft:Prosperity Indiana where it can be worked on further. When you are ready for a review, follow the instructions at the top of the page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marylebone station

The article Marylebone station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marylebone station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

.... and that is, I believe, the last Monopoly location to pass GA, and hence User:Ritchie333/Monopoly is, after a 21-month slog, done. Woohoo! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, @The Rambling Man:, @Anarchyte:, @OcarinaOfTime: : See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/List of London Monopoly locations/archive1. I've included you lot as you all made major contributions to at least one article in the set. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

ಠ_ಠ

FWIW, I still think you're wrong, but we've probably pretty well covered why. So... to the janitor go the spoils. TimothyJosephWood 10:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Surely you mean Victor?? Or perhaps you were just looking for a favourable position? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
...I'm not sure which one of us is supposed to be the grumpy old man... probably both considering how long we've argued about this point in particular. TimothyJosephWood 11:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was going to follow up on this but I'm confused as to what context this is about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The People's Front of Judea

I did click the link, and appreciate the reference :) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Understand? Good, now write it out 100 times, and if it's not done by sunrise, I'll chop your balls off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've heard of relinquishing tools, but perhaps that's going a bit far. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
That's the ablative you cretin, not the genetive! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Some advice, please?

I fucked up. No two ways about it. This came up at CSD. I deleted it straight away as an attack page - which in its state at the time I thought was fair enough. Twinkle took me to User talk:Owen1234567890 who I blocked as WP:NOTHERE. What I'd neglected to do was check the page history. Of course the article that account had created was rubbish, but nothing deserving a NOTHERE block. Another account had edited it after the CSD tag was added to turn it into something between a gross BLP violation and an attack page. I've unblocked the user, left apologies at their talk page and left an only warning at User talk:Teddykoide, who actually inserted the offending content.

What else should I do to try to clear this up? There are revisions of that page that would be restorable, but the original author had blanked it and the tag that was there was for G7, so it seems daft to restore the previous revision just so I can CSD it again under a different criterion. Add to that, the usernames that show up in the page history leave a faint echo of quacking in my ears. On the other hand, I feel pretty rotten about having blocked a newbie as NOTHERE in error.

Any advice to offer, beyond the obvious, "Look at the history before you jump to conclusions"? GoldenRing (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: The best thing to do (and what I indeed do in these circumstances) is to rewrite the article from scratch so it doesn't qualify for any of the CSD criteria, which an experienced editor ought to be able to do in a few minutes. In this instance, a quick news search shows no revisions of Owen McCarthy were describing any notable person obviously verifiable in reliable sources. So I think it's fine to leave it deleted.
Since there was only five minutes' between block and unblock, I wouldn't have kept the {{uw-block}} message up, as there's the chance they may not even have read it or known they were blocked - instead simply getting an apology from you. I don't know what their reaction is going to be, as they haven't told us and it's hard to judge what people think.
The other advice I would give you is to never do blocks via Twinkle - always write out the block template by hand. By doing that, you are forced to consciously think about what you're going to say, and can never do an accidental block by a simple misclick. Aside from blatant and obvious rapid vandalism (for which I don't even bother posting a block message but block and move on, that's the "I" in WP:RBI), there is no need to rush a block - ever. Make the process slightly difficult for yourself, so you always block when you know its necessary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I edit-conflicted with Ritchie but he made the points I was going to make. Just adding about the quacking: it's probably just some school kids on their lunch making a joke article about their buddy. As far as policy there's not much to do, maybe watch their contribs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Lifesdear & Livelife2die

"12:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)" you blocked Lifesdear as a promo-account. You can call me suspicious, but shortly after that the account Livelife2die was created. That account waited two days and then started adding channels to BeIN Channels Network, exactly the same thing Lifesdear was doing on OSN. To my opinion, this is rather loud quacking... The Banner talk 18:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted - we'll see what happens next. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
He reverted you... The Banner talk 20:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Faboolus trash/sandbox

Hi,

You blocked this user, but I noticed something strange about this page. Is it WP:999 worthy? Or are they just having a laugh? I don't see why he'd want to die if he's happy, although I'm not sure if the page actually makes any sense . Adam9007 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a vandalism / test page. Nothing to worry about I think, it looks like somebody buggering about. I G3'd it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It just seemed that "I am gay I want to die" is a contradiction in terms (hence my confusion). Unless he meant gay as in rubbish? Adam9007 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)