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.
In fact, the more I look into this, the more I think that the article might be a hoax. The website states that the school is affiliated with the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, but it is not listed as affiliated here. See also the photoshopped images here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It might be my eyes, CL, but those pics are so small I can't tell if they're photoshopped at all! Fair play on your mince pies :) and if that school motto is anything to go by, you could be right. That just sounds slightly- juvenile, perhaps? >SerialNumber54129...speculates15:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Shortly confirming whether such group really exists.My !vote was the reflection of some frustration in response to the usual !votes school-project-clique which are equally ludicrous rationales(IMO).Winged BladesGodric15:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
54129, can you help with checking the veracity of The school has been affiliated with Cambridge University of London.? And, I agree that all the photographs over here are blatantly photoshopped!Winged BladesGodric16:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I note that some of the addresses over here could not be parsed by GMaps and that is somewhat highly strange.Can't help much due to the added disadvantage that many of Pakistani websites (esp. Govt. ones) are blocked in India.Regrets:)Stil looking at some alternatives, though:)Winged BladesGodric16:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I got two of them.Drew a blank on the rest like over here.And I have, in the meanwhile, accesed some of the provincial BISEs.None of them seems to list the school.Winged BladesGodric16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Cancel that, I saw your link. Shame streetview isn't available; are locations sometimes also 'user-generated content' though? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC
Not sure about that, but I see multiple reviews from "local guides", so if it is a hoax, then it's an elaborate one, and it's far more likely that they are just falsifying stuff on their website. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The GMap reviews could be easily manipulated by a quite small bunch of guys.And as Lguides they aren't not very reliable, given the user-levels.I once saw an oldage home, in a secluded place turning to a four-star bar with multiple five star reviews, before somebody discovered it and (prob.) some sort of official communic. from the mgmt. to Google managed to get it pulled it down:) But, the photo look very real though! Winged BladesGodric17:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Incidentally, forgot to say, that "Cambridge University of London" is no sech thing; apart from being the combination of the names of two prestigious UK institutions which the uninformed might assume to be some sort of Super-Uni :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I still think a delete close would have been justified given the failure of anyone to provide any independent sources during the original AfD, but a relisting is fine by me. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I found a source to state that Pink Floyd's 1972 album "Obscured by Clouds" was specifically mixed at Morgan Sound Studios, since the source cited for the recording sessions occurring at Chateau d'Herouville, as famously used by Elton John for his album "Honky Chateau" as well as Joan Armatrading, David Bowie, Fleetwood Mac, The Grateful Dead and Rick Wakeman to name just a few, but it keeps being reverted for some reasons when I did provide a reliable source from a book written by Glenn Povey that definitely says that the album was mixed at Morgan, thus verifying the mixed at Morgan claim.
Furthermore, albums mixed or overdubbed at certain studios (e.g. Abbey Road, Trident, Sunset Sound, Capitol) have been listed in those categories.
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk14:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sir Tim Hunt controversy at WCSJ
Hello. You deleted Sir Tim Hunt controversy at WCSJ speedily. I once separated this section from the actual Tim Hunt article which seemed to be dominated by the incident at WCSJ. The article was edited by many others and I don't think it is a copyright infringement of www.jaymaron.com/badass.html, a website that I have never seen before, and where I cannot find any reference to Sir Tim Hunt whatsoever. Maybe it's the other way round and Jaymaron.badass copied some text from Wikipedia? Actually I am okay with the nomination since this bizarre controversy attracted far too much attention which should have gone to the scientific achievements of a Nobel Prizer winner, but I am sure you agree with me that deletion should be on proper grounds. Hartenhof (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
When the Tim Hunt controversy occurred, many users contributed. They added information as well as their views on the incident to the Tim Hunt main page and also to the Tim Hunt talk page. This section grew and grew, ultimately consuming two thirds of the Tim Hunt article, overshadowing all other information on the man himself, his life and work. There was a lot of discussion whether the subject should be covered so extensively on the Tim Hunt main page. So at a certain point I decided to separate this heavily edited subject, as a spin-off, from the main page. I created a new page, covering the controversy only. Since many contributors expressed their view that nothing should be lost, I removed the entire section from the Tim Hunt page (replacing it by a small paragraph), and copied it to the new page I created. I don't know who or what jaymaron.badass is, but it certainly had nothing to do with the Tim Hunt article, or the spin-off, at that time. You can find all this in the history of the main article and its talk page. I forget about the whole thing until now, and could not care less about the Tim Hunt controversy and its nomination or deletion. But I don't like to be blamed by User:El cid, el campeador as someone who violates copyrights. Hartenhof (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
You created a new page without giving any sort of credit or notice that you copied content from the Tim Hunt page, which in itself is a violation of WP policy. But regardless, there was a new page with content which matched a copyright search and the only real response is to tag the page for deletion and then delete it. It is really your job to state that it is a copy-paste split. But no one is 'blaming' you for anything, I just notified you that I tagged your page for CSD because it was flagged in a copyright search. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ22:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course I gave a notice that it was an obvious copy-paste split from the Tim Hunt page, and I wouldn't know what kind of "violation" this could be. However, thanks to the more-than-speedy deletion this notification vanished forever, as did the whole WCSJ incident by the way, as a happy result of your actions, albeit historically incorrect. Hartenhof (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It's really too much... thank you... thank you my friend... but... aren't you overdoing it a little...? Now it's your turn to produce a shortened version... I'm looking forward to it ;-) Hartenhof (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Didn't you violate jaymaron.com/badass's copyrights now? (I'm not joking, since this was your reason for the nomination anyway) Hartenhof (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The Yes Album
Why vandalism? The mannikin image is just the image of a whatever mannikin, put there just to decorate. I also corrected the book title in italics, and you removed it. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Also the sentence "Anderson wrote "A Venture" in the studio, which..." is wrong, as "which" put there in that way refers to the studio, not to the song. Please leave this correction.--'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Richie -- I made some hatnotes about Heuston and Euston, and notice you reverted an edit of mine with the comment "who is going to get confused with something spelled and pronounced differently?" The answer is: non-native speakers that I met, at Heuston, a group which is often confused about how to pronounce initial H and the many similar sounding eu/ou/oo/u spellings. I still think it's helpful: would you object if I put it back? Jonathan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euston_railway_station&oldid=810458191 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.229.22 (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
FWIW I agree with the IP here; "Heuston" and "Euston" are pronounced the same in many accents, and I can easily imagine someone visiting from abroad who isn't familiar with the station names being told "I'll meet you at Heuston" and searching for "Euston", and vice versa. [[Heuston railway station]] in particular, being the first Google hit on "Heuston", is a particularly likely false-positive search result. ("Euston" is a counter-intuitive spelling—a non-English speaker would expect it to be spelled "Yewston"—so it's entirely plausible that someone would guess at "Heuston" as the potential spelling.) ‑ Iridescent13:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
As someone who's worked in and around Euston for many years (on and off) I can tell you that the main confusion tourists have is between Euston and [the nearby] Euston Square. I've never encountered any confusion with a place in another country altogether but if we're going to go down this route, I suggest a hat-note for Houston too. And probably Whitney. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!13:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone is suggesting Heuston station was ever called Euston nor vice-versa. What I'm saying is that a) I have seen people confuse the names, and b) that "Not to be confused with X" is appropriate for the Wikipedia article. What "made-up information" are you speaking of? Regards, Jonathan. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Following these comments: I put the edit back and also added Euston Square tube per Dweller's comment. Richie if I misunderstood you as not disagreeing my apologies and please edit. Regards, Jonathan. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
No fancy template, Ritch, but just to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are. Wish you were here, could use a jam session! 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a happy Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
Good afternoon :) you recently deleted a page called Left/Right, this page was about a person. Due to Left/Right not having a top 100 hit, the page was deleted. I understand if there isn't a work around to this issue, but is it possible for the page to be recovered so that i can retain/save a copy of the edit source? I put well over 10 hours into the page and I'd be very disheartened if it all disappeared. I could then save the page in my laptop or in a SandBox format until it has enough info to be approved by y'all. Thanks for your time & happy holidays. let me know :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZAYLAVIE (talk • contribs) 17:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk)23:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
I've done a thorough look into 331dot, digging through about a year of CSDs. Basically I've told to hang on until spring, so he can get a smack-the-ball-out-of-the-park RfA. If somebody else wants to nominate now, I'll support, and it'll probably pass, but I tend to focus on getting people an easy ride and passing with flying colours. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
On 2 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Line the Label, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that so many people wanted a Line the Label jacket that the company's server crashed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Line the Label. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Line the Label), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
(Udon Thani, 08:00 am, Thursday): I went to Everymorning's AN proposal this morning in order to add a comment to a recent user !vote and I was astounded to see it already closed. The discussion was only allowed to run for just over 48 hours, ignoring other users' time zones that could be as much as 12 hours or more outside yours. Even Alex Shih lives in Japan not to mention those like Bduke who might live in Australia or NZ. This was a discussing in which the vast majority of users are well established and well known editors; it wasn't comparable to an ANI-style kangaroo court typipically run by the peanut gallery.
I appreciate your effort to close the discussion. However, I feel the synopsis could have merited somewhat more detail, especially as many of the opposers were not addresing the proposer's concern that Davidson's behaviour is serial, disruptive, and deliberately conceived to create drama. The opposers were mainly defending the right for anyone to vote on RfA . That's quite different. AN is not a vote, irrespective of the boldened 'support'/'oppose' tags. On that premise therefore , on the strength of the arguments, the opposers comments would have outweighed their own 'oppose' votes. See what 11 of the opposers said:
I agree the editor in question's motivation look to be disruption,
Lets be honest, Andrew's contributions to AFD RFA are silly, unhelpful, and unconstructive.
I do not like Andrew D.'s reasons often
Andrew's comments at BethNaught's RfA dives into a personal matter, and does cross the line of what is acceptable (…)
I disagree with most of Andrew's votes, some of them I find ridiculous,
I think asking questions whether a person is male or female is totally unacceptable. Asking anything about a person that they have not seen fit to put on their home page is unacceptable.
Like many others I'm frequently irritated by the pedantism of Andrew's opposes, and rarely if ever agree with them
...some of Andrew's opposes at RFA are ridiculous
…Andrew's often stupid but generally fairly insipid comments
I do, strongly, disagree with the Oppose votes of Andrew's that have been raised and which I've examined - in fact, I think some of them are quite absurd (The BethNaught one in particularly had me shaking my head in astonishment over how petty and mean-minded I thought Andrew was being). It also does appear to me that Andrew is making a big effort to find any reason he can to oppose, however ludicrous.
I think asking questions whether a person is male or female is totally unacceptable. Asking anything about a person that they have not seen fit to put on their home page is unacceptable.
Having been the most vocal proponent for clean up of RfA for years, I was obviously a vociferous supporter of the motion at the AN. You are also one of the editors most actively concerned the lack of successful RfAs, and working closely with other admins such as, for example, MelanieN to find suitable adminship candidates - and you wonder why we're not getting any? Piniging TonyBallioni, BU Rob13,Miniapolis, and Boing! said Zebedee - who might not share my opinion but their balanced comment might be welcome here. One thing is almost sure, if the AN case has not been sufficient to finally encourage Andrew to clean his act up, there will be another, and more convincing request for a topic ban. For those who can remember it, I voted to disband WP:RFC/U a few years ago - something that I'm perhgaps regretting now.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)More or less agree with Kudz's wall of text.The opposers were mainly defending the right for anyone to vote on RfA is a good summary of the oppposer's broad stance and since they were in the majority, obviously, the topic ban wasn't coming.But, at the same time, your closure could have been a lot better.Something along Boing's or Ad's preferred closing stance rather than otherwise he is likely to continue finding his votes being at best ignored and at worst yelled at would have been good enough.Winged BladesGodric04:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I think Ritchie's close was fine, as much as I wish the community would have enacted a topic ban. Not a vote and all, but numbers also matter, and the comments above were describing it as disruptive were also effectively saying that they didn't think that it rose to the level of disruption that merited a topic ban. I strongly disagree with those standpoints, but many of them are form Wikipedians that I respect. I also wouldn't quibble with Ritchie's wording. We all have our own ways of conveying a point: I tend to speak in understatement rhetorically most of the time, so if I had closed, my wording would have likely been milder than Ritchies while still getting the point across. That being said, I endorse Kudpung's view of Andrew's contributions at RfA, and if nothing changes, will also support the next topic ban discussion that comes up. I just can't really fault Ritchie here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
At the point at which I came across the thread, I think it had just about run its course, and there was an obvious split in opinion about whether Andrew should receive sanctions. He has, however, received a loud and clear message from the community that he is a low-value contributor to RfA. Of the various candidates I have queued up at the moment, I don't think any of them have put forward Andrew as a reason for not running - most of them can picture a solid RfA with a sole daft Davidson oppose is nothing to worry about. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I think what a lot of people find most galling about Davidson's odious commentary is how hypocritical it is, particularly those of us who remember him in his Colonel Warden persona. As CW, he abused people, lied continually, and fabricated sources for years while operating the seemingly respectable Andrew Davidson account concurrently. It's only because he accidentally commented while logged into the wrong account that the socking was detected. A mere mortal would rightly have been permabanned for that, but because he's a high profile inclusionist he had enough buddies voting along party lines to protect him. Now this guy wants to pass judgment on other people; he's the last person who should ever question someone else's integrity or competence. ReykYO!15:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 seems to be on my case a lot lately. I'm not sure why but notice that they seem to have changed their account name recently. Perhaps everyone else knows what that's all about but I didn't get the memo. Can they please clarify? Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The account is declared as an alternate account per WP:VALIDALT and registered with arbcom per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Today, I have been doing some year-end housekeeping. The account still gets dozens of notifications and has messages to respond to and so I was attending to those. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
If the Colonel Warden account was only doing the minimal local stuff (responding to messages on the CW user talk and such) that he said he'd restrict himself to in his unblock request, I would say no. But since the CW account has been branching out again into article work, certainly. But I'd advise against it- right or not, all his buddies would descend from the heavens to screech at you, you'd end up desysopped and reduced to a smoldering crater, and all the inclusionist derps over at ANI would stand around patting Andy on the back, saying what a stand-up guy he is, and urinating into the crater. ReykYO!18:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're looking at there, but his contribution history shows file uploads today, plus many file and wikipedia-space edits in September and October. ReykYO!18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, file uploads aren't disallowed for alternative accounts. And while the Andrew Davidson account has been active in projectspace, the last activity by Colonel Warden there goes back to October 2014 per their edits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The conditions of the unblock were to retire the account. VALIDALT doesn't enter into it. Answering talk page messages with a view to eventually winding the account down are one thing- but file uploads, article edits, and deprods don't sound like any kind of retirement to me. ReykYO!21:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, yep, I see we have been talking past each other. Now that I understand you were talking about second accounts in general, your comments make a lot more sense to me. Hope you can say the same for my opinions. Cheers! ReykYO!21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Let me explain why I didn't think we need to ban AD from RfA - look at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological). In the last year we've only had two successful candidacies that were under 80% support - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/K6ka. K6ka's was 79% support so it wasn't really close. AD did vote oppose in GoldenRing's RfA, but was pretty much lined up with many of the other opposers there. AD also voted against K6ka - but again, the concerns were shared by others. We haven't had any close RfAs this last year that failed - most failed RfAs have been withdrawn by the user. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 4 is the only unsucessful RfA that went all the way and while AD opposed, there were lots of others involved in that. Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship/2016 shows that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem was closed at 79% - AD opposed but others shared his content concerns. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2 closed as successful at 75% - with AD opposing - here he seems to have been the only one to express those particular concerns, but others were concerned with content creation in general. The other 14 successful candidates in 2016 were all over 80% - with most being well into the 90+% category. Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2016 - three of the 20 were actually full term - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brianhe, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2. A few folks took issue with AD's vote in Godsy's but there were other votes just as controversial - BMK's vote against a self-nom ended up on the talk page and was much nastier thatn AD's vote discussion. And AD supported in Hawkeye's... I'm just not seeing that his votes matter a lot. I got the impression that he's being blamed for a nasty enviroment at RfA ... that quite frankly doesn't appear to exist any more. We haven't had that many close calls lately - and when he votes, he doesn't usually swing others around to his views. I think the precedent is just bad to be indulging in banning someone from a part of Wikipedia because they are occasionally annoying. If that's the case - there are a number of other editors I'd like banned from AN/ANI because they are annoying... and let's not get started on the reference desks... Now if he's violating a sockpuppet rule - that's a total different story. Ealdgyth - Talk18:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to rehash the argument, but really just to say that I agree with Kudpung's summary of the Oppose votes and I think he is accurate in that - but that I do think that being very wary of the slippery slope of excluding dissenters is a valid reason to oppose. Also, I was surprised it was closed so quickly, and I wouldn't object to an extension. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
In general, I think threads calling for a ban or sanctions on an experienced and well-known editor are best kept an eye on and closed as early as possible before the peanut gallery turn up to throw mud at the editor in question. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I was going to reply to this, but I'm not sure how and to be honest I can't be bothered. Happy New Year to all my talk page stalkers and hangers-on; I've been largely off-wiki over the Christmas period partly by being away from home, teaching my eldest son basic Linux shell scripting on a Raspberry Pi and porting an open-source clone of Adventure Game Interpreter to Mac OS and upgrading it to support SDL 2.0. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I've done that previously with user "serial number <some number>". Not from an RfA or ORCP point of view, but I was wondering to get a peer review in general. Pinging Lex, I think he might like to do this. I do not want to run for RfA, but I want to know where I stand as an editor, and what should I do to improve my contributions. Would you be kind enough to do that? —usernamekiran(talk)17:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Great Eastern Railway
I wasn't aware that Norwich station (Thorpe) was highly regarded architecturally. While working in the city I heard a manager tell a joke that involved a long list of different varieties of grass (it's an agricultural community). I just remember the last few words of the punchline -
I stand by my view that the platforms on Liverpool Street (particularly what is now the TfL Rail one) are dark and seem to permanently smell vaguely of urine. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh do keep up Mr Pants, I indef-blocked them 15 minutes before you wrote this message :-P .... anyway, it's an obvious troll (the clue is a near absence of mainspace edits) so I hope the door doesn't hit them on the way out. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I saw you declined my speedy nom for Street times. Just wondered why {{Db-inc}} does not apply? It was my belief that any company, print media or otherwise, is covered by this. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Since the article is about the newspaper, not the company that produces it (or is ambigious enough to be one or the other), it does not come under the "individual real people, animals, organisations, web content, bands or events" criteria for A7. Additionally, the article asserts "The Street Times has its largest base of circulation in Jammu & Kashmir and is the most widely read English weekly newspaper in the state" which is a clear indication of importance. Having said all of that, I've stuck a PROD on it as I can't find a single source that backs any of that up. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
