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.
Dear WMF, thankyou for letting me know about the EU copyright changes - it is one of a handful of sane arguments I have heard in favour of Brexit (see here), although the odds of the British government not following with worse copyright laws than the EU are somewhat slim. Unfortunately my MEP is Nigel Farage who I wouldn't trust to go and do the shopping for me, let alone anything else. All he will do is shout "well that's why we should leave the EU" in a loud ranty voice, as per usual. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
So I just got this notification from Wikipedia say that Ritchie333 mentioned me and it reads "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for..." Followed by the button marked "View Mention." If somebody is trying to break my habit of just deleting these on sight... that one worked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
You got an email notification for that? Bizarre. Anyway, as soon as TheOldJacobite says something approximating "oh yeah, hit the revert button too many times, should've left it, oops" I will unblock. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Without looking at any dispute that led to this query, in my personal opinion I don't see a primary topic there. In general, pageviews alone don't really establish a definitive answer, Google news / book searches and informed discussion tend to be required as well to cement an argument, but in this case I would be surprised if the answer was different. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to improve Fool in the Rain and perhaps get it to GA-class, but I've never written a song article before. I spent an hour or so trying to find sources and this is what I found. I've been having trouble finding sources for the background and recording section, would you happen to know of any good places to look? Also, where do I find chart positions and track listings? I'm aware I can go to each individual chart's website and look through their archives, but is there an easier way? Anarchyte (work | talk)11:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a massive Zep fan (unfortunately Page and Bonham's talents in particular have been diluted by about 8 billion rock musicans copying them) nor an expert on Zep sources, as I have only one, but it seems to be a good one. Also, In Through The Out Door is probably their only album that's a bit "meh", in my view. Yesterday, I discovered I still had a copy of Dave Lewis' Led Zeppelin - A Celebration tucked away, that I assumed I had thrown out years ago. It's a pretty good factual book for just about everything up to 1990 and is written by a certified band expert who edited the Tight But Loose fanzine. There's a Google Books preview here. It includes a few pages documenting the 1978 Polar Studios sessions that produced In Through The Out Door. There's a follow-up book, "The Tight But Loose Files" printed in 2010. I can't find any official band endorsement of Lewis' work, but there seems to be a general consensus that he's the most reliable source going. Certainly, his research is based on contemporary interviews and listening to studio leaks of recording chat, so it's likely to be more reliable than the distant memories of the band themselves. Avoid "Hammer of the Gods" and anything to do with Richard Cole like the plague - they might be an entertaining read, but only if you force yourself to think that nothing in those books is factually accurate. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I agree that In Through The Out Door wasn't the best, with Fool in the Rain being the only song I actively seek out. The Google Books preview for Led Zeppelin: The 'Tight But Loose' Files and Led Zeppelin: A Celebration look quite expansive and hopefully they'll contain some background information (though I may end up combining everything into one section). I'll reach out to Dan56 or Binksternet when I get to that bit of the article. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk)05:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I cross-checked the revision currently at AfD and the revision previously deleted, and aside from 2017 / 2018 as the year, they are pretty much substantially identical, so yes I consider it a G4 and have done the necessary. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) : 2:19 pm, Today (UTC+1)
I think describing Roy Harper as merely a "singer" is disingenuous. I saw him in concert around 2002-3 (I forget) and he was the first person I saw to really lay into Tony Blair and explain why the power was going to his head and he was going to start a war somewhere. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. They're not test edits, they're spamming a telephone number ((Redacted)), and it's being repeatedly done by multiple throw away accounts (Petersam1212 (talk·contribs) is another, still unblocked, one}, so you might want to upp it to indef. The same number is being spammed not only as normal numerals but also as special characters (like the ones added by Dhonimahi), and with the letter O instead of a zero, to make it harder to search for. I don't know what the telephone number leads to, but a quick search on Google shows that it's being done on multiple websites, not only WP, usually adding the number with a claim about going to the telephone support of whatever company they're adding the number to... - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Got it, both indeffed and hurled through the door with a notice not to let it hit them on the way out. "I don't know what the telephone number leads to" I remember that number, I think you get a voice at the other end, and then you say that you want to swap your collection of Beano comics for an equivalent set of The Dandy, with a few copies of Whizzer and Chips thrown in. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh great, an Indian paid editing farm ... don't these guys ever think about giving it up as a bad job and going into plumbing or something? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Physical Graffiti 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Best thing to do is ignore it and go and work on an article somewhere. As you may have noticed, I'm blitzing through all the Led Zeppelin articles this week, cleaning them into shape and putting proper sourcing in place. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)00:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks I’m trying to put Raz Cues Page back together. BTW I’m friends with him it’s pretty interesting on how it’ll turn out ARMcgrath (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Europe '72 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 MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I've kind of enjoyed working some on the ANI page - it seems my niche is addressing incidents that aren't getting addressed by admins. Well, generally anyway. But don't want to wear out my welcome. Any pointers about things I should do differently?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Usually, it's best for an admin to close threads, but non-admins can with good judgement. You can close one if you think it's going to be more disruptive than keeping it open - let's say two editors are arguing, no admin feels action is warranted, and there's a general lack of WP:STICK-dropping happening. That's a good time to close it. Otherwise, I personally think you can just wait until the thread disappears off the active list into the archives. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't actually have a television and haven't watched any football match anywhere in about 15 years. I'm not a fan of Russia with Putin in charge and I don't like the racist undertones present in English nationalism (which given my mum isn't English, is kind of understandable I guess). (It's only because I caught the front page of The Sun in the shop today that I actually know what you're talking about!) I've just been busy writing articles, mostly of the Led Zeppelin variety this past week. Sorry if that makes me a bit of a grump. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I have fixed up the article. It is not hard to verify that Sarah Close has a huge following on YouTube, has had a number one chart hit, and has played on the same bill as Justin Bieber at Hyde Park. I, meanwhile, have been playing music since before she was born and have achieved none of these things, so I say - fair play to her and I'm pleased she's got a strong grassroots following.
That AfD and template job on a new user whose only crime was to be one of the million plus fans of this musician was a completely boneheaded and reckless thing to do. If you read the discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, you will notice we have difficulty attracting women editors, and you've just done an excellent job in scaring one away this evening. I am regretting calling for an unblock now, and fear you'll probably be blocked again in a few days by somebody else. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)00:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I have wondered that myself, RandNetter. It seems that your edits are focused on an over-zealous need to find fault. Have you thought about working on improving articles or creating articles, by chance? Or, joining a WP:Wikiprojects of particular interest to you and see what needs to be done there? Often projects have lists of articles that need to be improved, and often interesting conversations on the talk page. A thought anyway.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Reply
Thank you for improving the article. I found their contribution through the recent changes feed and noticed their user. Thinking that that was an inappropriate username, I reported them. If you think that their contributions were valid, feel free to revert me.
You're welcome. I was going to finish off my work on Led Zeppelin IV tonight (it still has a few fact tags and needs re-reading and copyediting) with the view of maybe taking it to GA review in the next day or two - now I've wasted my evening on this. Still, I have learned about the Kempner function - it does look like the sort of thing Numberphile would cover in time, but not yet. (Would be interested to hear your views on the 1+2+3+ ..... = -1/12 claim, which just looks bonkers). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again. I have never been a big watcher of YouTube videos (about math or anything else); some of Vi Hart's stuff makes me think I should, and I recently enjoyed this one. About -1/12: my feeling is that it's all about what the meaning of the word "is" is. If I tell you that there's a method (one of many) that assigns a real number to sequences of real numbers and has the properties that
if a + b + c + ... converges, then it assigns that value to the sequence (a, b, c, ...), and
it assigns the value -1/12 to the sequence (1, 2, 3, 4, ...),
I don't think it sounds quite as mysterious. It's only (?) the choice to use the symbol "=" to denote this operation that causes any unease. I quite like the section of our article on the subject that discusses the failure of a stable, linear summation method to sum this series (even though it's never been as well-sourced as it should be) -- in some sense, what it says is that if you want to assign a sum to this series, you had better be willing to give up something that feels natural. What do you think? --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
That ties up with something I read about a long time ago. If you start with integers and try and divide 3 into 1; you can't use another integer to represent that, so you "pretend" you can do it and call it ⅓. Later on you discover you can't get the square root of -1, so you use complex numbers to "pretend" you can. And that seems to be the similar case here - you can't really sum a divergent infinite series, so you reinvent the ground rules so you can. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting analogy! I wouldn't have thought of it, for the following reason: I think it's pretty clear that none of these other summation techniques will rise to the level of ubiquity that, say, the rational numbers or complex numbers have. Maybe this is because there is no single one of them that is obviously "right", or maybe it's because the particular question they address is just less central to mathematical thought than "what is a number?". But certainly this kind of broadening of context is one of the main ways in which mathematics has developed over the last century or two. --2601:142:3:F83A:355E:CA3A:18ED:2F33 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't remember if userpages containing lists of editors or edits they don't like is instantly speedable - I recall an admin had a list about four months ago (I know because I was on it) and got into serious trouble over it. It's definitely frowned on. I think RandNetter96 is getting the ANI thread he deserves, and if he doesn't take my advice of "log off and do something else", then more fool him. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at that and taking action on the clear defiance of the warning that you provided. — Mr X☎️23:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
You did an excellent job with a very trying situation. I don't think I have ever seen anything quite like it here at WP.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The sad thing is, I really do think that Numberphile is a great YouTube channel, it's fun and educational, and I've learned loads of things about maths on it. He should have taken that advice. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Led Zeppelin IV 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 Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Like buses, you wait ages for a GA review, then three come along at once during a busy weekend :-/ I'll have a look in the next day or two, hopefully. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Heads up, I fat-fingered the rollback button on your edit to Tony's talk page just now. I have reverted myself. Sorry! ♠PMC♠ (talk)16:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
On the occasions I have actually wanted to revert multiple edits en-masse, I go to the history, pull up the revision I want to go back to, click "Edit", then "Save". It's "fat finger friendly" and allows you to preview your changes with a diff to the current revision. Works for me, at least. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
And you would be completely wrong about that. I'm heading to RSN right now to sort this out and possibly ANI to get you desysopped and indeffed for besmirching the reputation of the venearealvenerable Sunday Sport. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey whoa slow down, some of us like looking at naked men and would like to interject that they are just as encyclopedic as naked women. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I take it you have not had the experience of my youngest son running stark naked around the house having been in the shower, simply because he's too lazy to get dressed. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I thankfully have not; I suspect if I had, we might be having this conversation through lawyers and not your talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
A shame that was deleted - I found it funny. If it's discriminating against anyone, it's the stereotypical bedroom geek's narrow-minded view of the world. I do admit that I think Hannah Fry's rather nice looking and has the sexiest talking voice since Sally Boazman. However, I also admire that she's managed to get a whole demographic of people (teenage girls who like shopping) interested in mathematics, and outlined the topic in such a way that it seems relevant to their lives and affects them in ways they can relate to. It is possible to have both opinions! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Never one to encourage third-patty YouTube copyvio linking, I'd never suggest "Countdown wankers outtake" is worth a replay. (But it has been there nearly 12 years now). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Somewhere on YouTube there is the complete 1-hour "Gotcha" episode of Countdown where Whiteley fell for one practical joke after another, hook line and sinker. But he took it in the good grace and spirit intended. What a great chap. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Credit where credit is due: I stole someone's patty image (above) for use here [5] (be sure to scroll down to the fourth image). EEng20:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes on this place you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't!,
Just wanted to say thanks for taking that to ANI and atleast trying to come up with a solution,
Anyway happy editing, –Davey2010Talk15:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It's never pleasant doing this stuff - I assume this is for making a valiant attempt at stopping DF from being blocked and failing. It's not an indefinite block, so he will be back (assuming he wants to do so). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, As I said on his talkpage a months block might do them the world of good, Ah well just wanted to say thanks for atleast trying, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk16:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
![[1]](https://img.memecdn.com/always-check-your-surroundings-when-eating-a-corn-dog_o_1606151.jpg){kind=link}