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.
Hi Ritchie. I contacted you a while back re- the Beatles White Album. This item is nothing to do with you, but unfortunately I can't see how to get it corrected by using the edit facility on the Wikipedia page. You are the only 'contact' I have!
It's an incorrect Football League Table for the (English) 1967-68 season. I'll give the details so that if you could kindly forward to the correct person(s) they have all the info., though it's pretty self explanatory.
Errors: (scroll to First Division Table)
Liverpool (3rd) and Leeds United (4th, also winners of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in 1967-68) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, NOT the 1967-68 tournament (!)
Chelsea (6th) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. According to the table they did not qualify for European football the following (1968-69) season.
Newcastle United (10th) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. According to the table they did not qualify for European football the following (1968-69) season.
Nottingham Forest (11th) qualified for the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. Again, wrong season. The final league position in 1967-68 may determine whether you qualify for European football the next season, in this case 1968-69.
However, this alternate Wikipedia page also shows the 1967-68 First Division table and it is 100% correct, and also gives an explanation under the table as to who qualified and why, shown as Notes [a] [b] [c] and [d]
(talk page stalker) Hey, Keith, I'm not a football fan myself, but I know wikitables pretty well. If you have some sources that show that your suggested changes are correct (or if Ritchie can just endorse your suggested changes), then I'd be happy to make the changes for you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The table has been amended to show Nottingham Forest (11th) qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. As of yesterday, this table showed them qualified for the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. This would have been impossible lol. Think about it. Nottingham Forest did not compete in the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. They competed in the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, and this was acheived by finishing second in the First Division at the end of the 1966-67 season.
Sir Sputnik - you're quite right with your link. It shows Nottingham Forest competed in the 1967-68 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, but they acheived this by finishing second in the First Division in 1966-67. (Sorry to repeat myself but I can't understand the confusion here) They did not compete in the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup tournament. The four English clubs who did were Liverpool, Leeds United, Chelsea & Newcastle United. http://www.rsssf.com/ec/ec196869.html#icfc
I'm repeating myself again here by borrowing from my first message yesterday, but Wikipedia are already showing the correct final table for the English First Division at the end of the 1967-68 season on another page. It's found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967%E2%80%9368_in_English_football
It correctly shows Manchester City (champions) and Manchester United (winners of the 1967-68 European Cup tournament, therefore the current holders) qualified for the 1968-69 European Cup tournament.
It correctly shows Liverpool (third) and Leeds United (fourth) as qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup.
Note, Leeds United won the inter-Cities Fairs Cup in 1967-68, so the English First Division had four participants in the 1968-69 tournament, the default three based on final league positions at the end of the 1967-68 season, plus Leeds united as the current holders.
It correctly shows Chelsea (sixth) as qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup.
It correctly shows West Bromwich Albion (eighth) qualified for the 1968-69 Cup Winners Cup (having defeated Everton in the Final of the 1967-68 FA Cup tournament).
It correctly shows Newcastle United (tenth) as qualified for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup.
It correctly notes that Everton (fifth) failed to qualify for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup due to Liverpool's third place finish, as per the one-club one-city rule.
It correctly notes that Tottenham Hotspur (seventh) and Arsenal (ninth) failed to qualify for the 1968-69 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup due to Chelsea's sixth place finish as per the one-club one-city rule.
Final repeat of what I've already suggested, that the incorrect table is simply replaced by the correct table with the applicable notes of explanation.
Oh yes, forgot to mention, it clearly notes that Nottingham Forest (eleventh) did not qualify for the 1968-69 edition of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, or the 1968-69 European Cup, or the 1968-69 Cup Winners Cup. Nothing, just finished eleventh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1959 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) --Keith1959 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, regarding your decline of Sliver records on the basis of "has sources": a spam-sized flood of links to the company's own promotional materials and routine listings (see Steve Martin in The Jerk finding his name in the phone book and crying in glee "I'm famous!" or something like that) isn't remotely a claim of significance. Instead, it's pretty much an abuse, close to, if not squarely situated in, G11 territory. Largoplazo (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) - I think an A7 decline was correct, not because it has sources (everything there is directly tied to the company), but because it "claims" to have released material by several notable acts. Note the quote marks, because those articles don't mention Silver Records at all, so has Silver merely re-released material in compilation form? I think Speedy decline was correct, but I'd !vote "delete" in an AfD. Unfortunately, the name of the company will make it nearly impossible to search for reliable sources, not that I think they are very likely to exist. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)14:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The article claims it released material by The Generators; that alone disqualifies it for A7 as we would need to investigate to see if the claim can be verified. If it can, the label is likely to be notable by virtue of having commercially successful bands on its roster. The page is certainly not long enough to qualify for G11. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"Aah ahh aaah I want all the credit for improving the article!" "Bu bu bu Zippy, that's not very nice, all you did was nominate it." "I didn't just nominate it, I AM A VERY HARD WORKING WIKIPEDIAN!" "Oh, stop talking like Trump, Zippy! And where's Bungle got to with the shopping?"
On 29 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Renee Powell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Renee Powell was the first female golfer to compete in a British men's tournament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Renee Powell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Renee Powell), 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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carol Kaye 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 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Meghan Trainor article
Hi. An interesting edit was made at the Meghan Trainor article 3 hours after I nominated it for GA status. It changed Trainor's profession from singer-songwriter (which there is long-standing consensus for [1]) to singer and songwriter. Do you think this constitutes an IBAN violation since I had GA nominated it hours before this? Thankful for your help. Will add a ping for Drmies since they're familiar with this situation.--NØ17:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey MaranoFan, just looked at your contributions after editing Mariah's album article so hope you don't mind. Ritchie, Marano and I have had our differences (especially of late) so I'm not on her "side" really at all (or anyone's), but looking at this objectively: Winkelvi was basically told explicitly to stay away from MaranoFan when reminded of their IBAN at ANI when Marano was unblocked, but this editing not long after her looks pretty much like they have just disregarded that and gone straight back to it while dancing around explicitly addressing her edits or her. I'm sure Winkelvi will say it was on their watchlist or whatever, but this looks like straight-up IBAN violation and targeting of an editor—I've had the latter done to me plenty of times. The discussion clearly shows "singer-songwriter" was preferred in a discussion and Winkelvi doesn't like it so is basically violating an IBAN to restore "singer and songwriter". Looking at WP:IBAN, it looks there were indirect references to her ("please discuss on talk page rather than revert back", a directive to her as an assumption that she would) and they basically reverted her indirectly ("by other means") by partially undoing what she had added. Ss11218:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
They've now taken to adding their own view via sources that are irrelevant to the article to contradict consensus on what it should state: [2]. It's like going around to every article that has "singer-songwriter" listed as an occupation or in the lead and adding those sources to basically say elsewhere that "well, technically they're not a singer-songwriter because they don't meet these subjective criteria". Winkelvi has not touched this article in at least two years but are now extensively editing to undo significant parts of what MaranoFan has done. I'm no expert, but that seems like an IBAN violation to me. There's no other real explanation. At the very least, they should be warned away from editing topics that MaranoFan has just edited. Ss11220:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Update: The article is now being rapidly changed in what is seemingly a bid to make it unstable before its GAN. An infobox image change has also taken place without any talk page discussion.—NØ20:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
All about that bass
@MaranoFan: Sorry for the belated response, but I have blocked Winkelvi indefinitely as a clear and obvious violation of the two-way interaction ban. If you want somebody to do the GA review, I can give it a go, or see if one of the GA stalwarts at Women in Red like SusunW are interested in doing a popular culture review. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. I'm not withdrawing the GA nomination as of now so anyone is free to pick up the review. You're welcome to, if you would like to review it!--NØ13:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic . Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic . Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I looked into this one and took care of it for you. I noticed Iridescent getting tetchy about this vexatious badgering too and reckon that something should be done. Andrew D. (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Aussie Journo Hoping To Have A Chat
Hello,
I'm a Sydney based journalist and I am writing a feature story on Wiki editors and administrators who make changes/reports of high profile people's deaths.
Any chance you can contact me via email if you're keen to learn more?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journo10 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, you deleted the page Syed Ghulam Moinuddin Gilani after deadlock on its deletion request talk. I wanted permission to create a new page under the same title as I have better citations now.
Thank you! I've submitted it for review. These are all the citations I could provide. The mainstream media wasn't so developed in Pakistan that time. He, his father, grandfather and son were popular around the world and are their mausoleum is visited daily by hundred of devotees from around the world. Zaydbinumar (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic . Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The reason that a lot of requests for better sourcing have been made recently, is because in good faith I was trying to bring the sourcing quality of media on Wikipedia up to a higher standard. It seems in this instance, I may have been more than a little forward in requesting additional information.
However, the reasons why I was wanting to raise the sourcing and metadata quality are threefold :
The pending implementation of structured data on Commons (and other projects), if the information is already present on Wikipedia in a semi-structured form (such as completed {{information}} blocks , this makes it easier to convert.
The proposed changes in European copyright policy, which could have made certain platforms more directly responsible for copyright violations. Whilst for the most part Wikipedia is understood to have certain exemptions from the proposed changes, being able to "prove" something is directly from a public domain or freely licensable source is useful, in defending against claims from entities that don't necessarily understand 'free' content collaborative projects (and that they very strongly attempt to respect copyrights).
So that media , that the uploader, other contributors and potential re-users implicitly assume IS under a given license, is definitively confirmed as such, so that it can (eventually) be transferred to Wikimedia Commons, without their being a move, delete local, time passes, deleted at Commons on a pedantic technicality, resulting in the loss of the resource.
If processing a lot of images in this way is "disruptive", I'd appreciate some mentoring support or guidelines on how to make it less so, especially given that as a human reviewer, I can (and have) made mistakes or errors of analysis and reasoning which result in tags or notifcations which may be percived as badgering (or vexatious) as you and others have described.
Sure, let's chat. Now let me get this right, ShakespeareFan00, you had some questions about some of my uploads you wanted to ask. That's fine, and had you left a personalised message, or just formatted the reference yourself, there would be no issue. What I am not happy about is you spamming people's talk pages - and I use this definition of spam - "the same thing lots and lots of times". I have WP:MCQ on my watchlist and have commented there several times - so patronisingly telling me about it is at best going to be ignored, and at worst going to get you mocked for being insincere and reckless. Now, most of these issues are easy to fix, and in the case of the Old Street image I was sure I was right, or at least could back my views up with experts (and despite what Gove says, no we haven't had enough of them), but new users aren't necessarily going to have the motivation to do that. So when I go to an editathon, and tell people "Don't upload images, it's more hassle than it's worth, use Flickr, Picasa, Instagram, anything else", that's why. Do you understand why you are disruptive? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333, could I please request you refrain from asking people to not upload images. Yes, sometimes it could be a hassle in some cases where the copyright is unclear, but it’s no reason to encourage people to stop contributing to Commons (or enwiki file space if they upload it locally). Thanks, Vermont (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
To be precise, I don't say that to new recruits, but I think saying it to Andrew D after the editathon finishes (or to SN51429 in the pub over a pint) is absolutely fine. I also think it's fine to have the opinion that Flickr and Instagram are better than Wikimedia Commons because they are more popular and used by a wider demographic of the population. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec) In my experience, it's nearly impossible for new users to upload images successfully on Wikipedia because of disruptive editors like ShakespeareFan00. This is despite numerous policies like WP:BITE, WP:BURO, WP:IAR and WP:NLT, which indicate that we should be relaxed and tolerant about this. Note, by the way, that Flickr is changing its charging policy and is about to start deleting many free images. I expect that this will trigger a corresponding wave of deletions here, where the image copyright status is based on Flickr. The WMF ought to become more accomodating and make it easier for editors to upload images from their phones but we still don't have a properly-supported suite of apps. This should be a top priority on the development wishlist but that's another bureaucratic maze and I'm not seeing anything relevant currently. Andrew D. (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
That will need some urgent work to archive the file information pages on Flickr before they're going. I'm hoping @Cyberpower678: who runs the Internet Archive bot might have some thoughts on how to handle this impending clusterfuck. Nick (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Nick, I can submit a crawl request to the Wayback Machine. I just need the domain/complete list of pages, that need to be archived and a due date.
@Andrew D: - My "political" views on Flikr's definition of a "free" service are not printable here.On your other substantive concerns, I do follow what you are saying, but would ask for clarification what you would consider actively (or even passively) "disruptive", given that are some aspects of image policy that I was led by other contributors to understand were less negotiable. (Wikipedia can't host obvious copyright violations for example). However on the other hand, I've encountered more than once uploaders that have uploaded material in good faith, but don't understand copyright complexities (sigh). It's a shame that apparently due to the way US copyright practice works, the WMF can't have paid patrollers to proactive review certain media, meaning projects like Wikipedia have to rely on semi-knowledgeable volunteers (who aren't necessarily more aware than the uploaders they are patrolling (rant mode suppressed) ).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem is not really what you do, SFan, but how you do it. In the vast majority of cases here, you could have probably fixed the issues in about two minutes; instead you've basically left a big load of redundant struck-through text on my talk page. What was the point of that? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
If you are saying 'slow down' and apply more care, agreed, but that could be asked of anyone patrolling images.
If you are saying 'do more research' before tagging, then I would argue that sometimes it is not easy to determine things like more appropriate sourcing from the file description page, or an on-wiki context (which I had been using recently), and that deferring to the original uploader may well be the most appropriate course of action, given they are more familiar with the off-wiki sources they used. I suppose we may have a difference of opinion, as to the respective priorities of various backlogs. (For example, many images that are without "machine readable" sourcing, are not without sourcing, it's just that various mechanisms don't recognise a 'free-form' structure.. This is another reason for converting a LOT of uplaods to use {{information}} blocks.
Yes, I can see EXACTLY why a lot of similar, notifications could be percived as disruptive (I've had the situation of mass notification walls happen to me at Commons.) (The same logic could be applied to CSD notifcation walls as well). So on that basis, time to pause and reconsider how to proceed (if at all).
Generally to find media that needed to be examined (or which needed meta-data). I've been using a combination of the upload log, (which I had also been using to find material which was already well sourced and suitable for commons BTW) and a query here, https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18892. In a past comment, someone had mentioned that rather than the scattered evaluation of images (by type of issue), it might be better to do analysis 'per user', which is an approach I've sometimes used when trying to identify media that was commons suitable (the logic here being that if an uploader has already got a few 'free' license images, others by them are likely to follow a pattern.)
In most instances where {{information}} was lacking ( identifed by the query noted previously), I'd added an information block based on the infromation on the file description page, (and on other context on wiki, such as where a user had transcluded the image, and captions etc..). Where the sourcing wasn't clear, I've attempted to only use CSD in obvious absences, in more ambiguous situations I've tried to use {{bsr}} or some templates of my own creation like {{img-unclaimed}}. (I recently created {{bsr-old}} in anticipation of finding media which is almost certainly PD, but for whatever reasons Wikipedia doesn't currently have definitive sourcing, such as pre 1923 postcards to give one example). In respect of {{img-unclaimed}}, I'd been using the wording here User:ShakespeareFan00/Un-fileclaim to notify uploaders. (I will note that this template DOES need updating to be able to cope with multiple requests, as the approach I'd been using of using one notifcation for the first file found, and then a list following it for subsequent entries isn't ideal.)
I do think someone else needs to review the wording of some templates (And possibly the advice on when to use them), TWINKLE also needs an overhaul, (but of course the users of semi automated tools are still ultimately responsible for HOW and WHERE they are used).
Also would it be possible to have a multi-image/issue selector tool? That way the "wall" of notications could be be avoided, as the tool would let various issues be selected en-masse, and an image patroller could "batch" up requests, into ONE notifcation, perhaps for some uploaders containing ALL the media with issues that had been identified or flagged.
Alternatively (And possibly combined with the above), perhaps an upload "dashboard" (An extension of Special:ListFiles) for users would be helpful, so that rather than seeing a wall of notifcations on the talk page, you get a 'bell' style notification in the UI, which links to the relevant concern in the image dashboard. This would also allow for the consideration that some people don't read their talk pages often, but do respond to the 'bell' or 'tray icons. (Not all CSD notifications or image tagging operations generate notifications, my custom notifcations)
There is already a tool on Commons for preforming batch tasks such as this based on category or uploader. You can use it to nominate for speedy deletion, start a mass deletion discussion, or even add custom text (such as cleanup templates) on an unlimited number of files, while leaving a single standard or customized message for a user. Sounds like we just need to get someone who knows how to computer to import VisualFileChange over to enwiki. GMGtalk12:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
VisualFileChange at Commons, is only part of the soloution, VFC can't do multiple tags per image, or per batch as I understood it..
If someone is able to extend VFC, so that it can be used as "per uploader", "multi-image", "multi-issue", one mass notifcation tool though ...
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It can certainly do multiple tags per image, you just add custom text and insert {{no no no}} {{god no why}} {{please no more}} and it applies whatever templates to each file. GMGtalk12:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I perhaps didn't quite explain things fully, VFC works on a 'batch' of images to apply the "same" set of issues. What's needed is a tool that can see a batch of images , and if needed apply 'differing' tags (by user selection to each image in the batch. Some CSD are applied slightly differently if you have different licens tags.. Some Tags need date= tag applied ( or on one of mine placed= tags, and so on. Once a set of images and associated tags are logged, the tool I am describing should generate ONE BIG notification covering all the affected media and issues, rather than a wall of notifcations like TWINKLE does when patrolling a lot of images.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Additionaly, The previous version of TWINKLE (and FURME), used to have functionality to generate {{information}} blocks. The current version doesn't. When it was updated previously there were plans to integrate this functionality (and that of FURME which generated boiler-plate Non free use rationales for certain types of well defined rationale), but these seem to have either stalled or been abbandoned. I have had to add {{information blocks manually for each media file I've examined recently, which is time consuming.
At one time there was also a bot pulling 'captioning' information for 'freely' licensed images, from Article pages where the media file was used. This is something that an {{information}} block adder for TWINKLE should have.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you (possibly belatedly) for your contribution to Wikipedia.
Whilst it's almost certainly, not something you could have necessarily foreseen when you uploaded, it appears some media you previously uploaded appears to be currently sourced to a dead link. This isn't your fault as linkrot occurs on a regular basis.
I am leaving this message to encourage you to revisit this upload with a view to finding an archived copy of the media (such as from a site like) archive.org, or to provide additional information which would allow a replacement to be located if needed.
Please consider revisiting it and replace the reference with a link to an archived copy on site such as archive.org, or
provide additional information which would allow a replacement source to be located.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further please use the Talk page for the media concerned.
There are at least half a dozen things wrong with this comment. In order: 1) Volunteer project, nobody is holding him at gunpoint forcing him to deal with the vandal. It's his choice whether he does so or not. That's true of editors, and it's true of admins. 2) Unless his parents are entirely incompetent, they will ask what him the hell he is doing and then have their jaws smack the floor when they find out that Wikipedia allows porn on articles linked from the main fucking page. Seriously, why on God's green Earth aren't TFAs and anything else linked to from the main page at least semi-protected? That's a reputation hit for Wikipedia, not for the kid... unless they conclude that their kid is the vandal... but that's beside the point. 3) He's sixteen, the likelihood that he's seen worse stuff then that by now is very nearly 100%. No citation needed because BLUE. 4) He has rollback rights, he can't be "caught" mid-revert because there is no mid to speak of. Even if there was a mid to speak of, i.e. manual revert, then he'd be in source editing mode and the only thing his parents would see is text. Alright, I only have a third of a dozen criticisms, but I felt the need to criticize the arguments because they are unconvincing. Actually, 5) He could be fighting the vandal without admin rights, and his parents could still catch him "mid-revert" (presuming that a mid to speak of existed... which it does not). Right, 5/12ths of a dozen problems. Other than that, I think we could all see the snow falling into the volcano from base camp. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into this. I just wanted to illustrate the point that adminship is not a laugh-a-minute cabaret show, and some of it (particularly towards the vandalism and sockpuppetry end) is genuinely unpleasant, so he may want to rethink his priorities over what he wants to do here. I can't speak for anyone else, but as a parent I'm going to look fondly back at my kids' pre-teen years. Yeah, kids grow up, and jerking off to bad quality porn is not actually evil compared to what else could happen, but it's really not something as a dad I like to dwell on. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I had some conception that your point was about the position and it's lack of grandness (admins are janitors, not CEOs type thing). I just saw too many holes with that specific way of making the point. In as far as the substance of the matter, I'm on the same page with you though. I don't really know how to formulate it, but, as a general rule, I do prefer editors who write to those who go into CV. Particularly so if they're younger editors. I'm not sure if it's the muck of CV, or the game-like nature of it; but I get the vibes that CVers aren't so much serious about the encyclopedia as much as some semblance of authority gained from it. I don't if that makes sense. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The game-like nature sounds about right - I have described "Wikipedia as video game" as a class of editors before. To be honest, despite what people say elsewhere, I think we have sufficient admins working at AIV and we don't really need any more. If we're starved for anything, it's Files for Discussion and copyright cleanups. To take an analogy, when you get a "McJob" working in a fast food restaurant, you get a whole bunch of rules on what you should say to customers, call them "sir" (do they still do that?) and treat them respectively, lest you get fired. Because Wikipedia's voluntary, you can't do that to the, umm, less-mature editors. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Victoria line 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 Vincent60030 -- Vincent60030 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your posting here, I think this situation warrants a re-look. The two cited sources are the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Dallas Morning News, which don't appear to be gossip tabloids if you look at their Wikipedia entries. One of them is a major regional paper, and the other is among the top 20 papers in paid circulation nationwide in the United States as well as having won nine Pulitzer prizes. Concerningly, the "SKSLaw" account is a textbook WP:SPA account, having made a total of 7 edits, all to the Hollywood Forever Cemetery article, claiming that Brent Cassity has never been a part owner in Hollywood Forever Cemetery, and alleging that the material constitutes slander and defamation. "SKSLaw" is Stearns Kim Stearns, which is a litigation firm located in Torrance, California, about 25 miles from Hollywood Forever Cemetery (Google them to see their website, it's blacklisted on Wikipedia so I can't post the link here on your page). Their position that Brent Cassity has never been a part owner of the cemetery is contradicted by the two cited sources. Given that the two reliable sources support the contention that Cassity was indeed a part owner and that a Ponzi scheme was involved, can you articulate what the precise BLP violation was here with regard to the content at issue? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@AzureCitizen: There are several factors at play here. I've no reason to believe the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Dallas Morning News are not generally reliable sources, although I can't access the articles outside the US. However, it seems a little unusual that a local paper in Missouri and Texas is referring to a criminal conviction in California without any more substantial coverage and it seems more likely they were just given the story from a press agency to fill space. (See WP:109PAPERS). As a general rule of thumb, I want to see coverage at the level of the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times before I think we can include it. That doesn't mean we can't partially restore some of the content (eg: just name checking he worked at the cemetery) at a later date, but it needs discussion first. In the case of BLPs, if in doubt, don't.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The article in question isn't a BLP, it's just an article about a famous cemetery in California. Nonetheless, "defamatory" content should always be approached with caution, with priority first given to checking the facts and the reliable sources. In this situation, Cassity didn't work at the cemetery, he owned it (to be specific, he and his father owned National Prearranged Services, and NPS owned the Hollywood Forever Cemetery along with others). The St. Louis Post-Dispatch was following the story about the Cassity trial because NPS was physically located in Missouri, so the criminal charges had to be brought in federal court in St. Louis. The Ponzi scheme defrauded the victims of more than 450,000,000 USD (over 97,000 customers who had pre-purchased funeral arrangements). Cassity and his co-defendants were convicted of various felony charges and sent to federal prison (all public record, so there is no actionable libel/slander claim here because truth is an absolute defense to defamation). The text that the SPA account keeps trying to remove is "In 2010, Brent Cassity and his father, along with several others, were indicted for running a Ponzi-like scheme stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from pre-need funeral contracts. Authorities later found that the money the brothers invested in the cemetery came from the proceeds of the scheme." Given the above, what concerns (if any) would you continue to have about this content being included in the Hollywood Forever Cemetery article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
BLP still applies anywhere living people are concerned; it isn't restricted to just biography articles. As stated above, what I'm concerned about is why so few sources have seen to pick up on this story if it's important enough to mention in the article. Compare and contrast with Kevin Trudeau, where a search for sources produces numerous hits about his criminal activities. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The real issue here, however, is that the other party in the dispute, Kirbanzo, made no attempt to try and resolve it, but just reverted again and again, and broke 3RR themselves. So I could have blocked Kirbanzo and had policy on my side, but I don't think that would have been particularly productive, and preferred to just spell out the issues for them. Yes, Skslaw is here for a very specific reason, but that doesn't mean they haven't made a legitimate point, and we should stop and think before breaking out the banhammers. WP:DOLT has more information. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
No problem here with your admin judgement about what the facts were with regard to the edit warring situation; my concern here is that it looks like a SPA account looking to effect a desired outcome is falsely (or at least incorrectly) claiming that something is defamation, which bumps right up against the edge of the bright line rule against making legal threats. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Carol Kaye is a kind and generous teacher who is always happy to explain how catchy basslines can improve a song (especially "The Beat Goes On" and "Good Vibrations") and show people how to do that sort of thing themselves. Forget Meghan Trainor - she really IS all about the bass! TBH I didn't really improve it because we need better coverage of women musicians (although that in itself is a good idea), it's just I happen to be a fan of obscure but extremely important session players like Kaye, Tommy Tedesco, James Jamerson and Big Jim Sullivan, to name but three others. I don't have any sources to hand for Suzi Q, but I did like listening to her selection of classic rock'n'roll and rockabilly on Rockin' with Suzi Q, and it seems the main problem with her article is close paraphrasing. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Another DYK
Hi Ritchie333. I think there's a possibility for a couple DYK hooks from an article I recently created, 1986 Mount Hood Disaster. I was really surprised to see Wikipedia didn't already have an article on this. I'm not sure how to create the DYK template or hooks, so I was hoping you could show me how? Thanks for any help, and thanks again for all the help on the Luitpoldpark article. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
