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.
Again, apologies, or appreciation for your transparency. My own meet-ups were very pleasant, some years ago now, but there are a couple of locals (Western Australians) I have become friendly with via wikipedia. It is nice to see their usernames on my watchlist, although it is likely I disagree on some triviality (they cannot being wrong :-) No one can, of course, account for the absence of many years, and that would raise a flag to anyone; I can only say that I am committed to this username, and use no other, and take pride in—at least—adhering to that polite form of accountability. So much that you did not ask to know, but I wanted to state this somewhere and you were the poor bastard who got in the way of that. cygnis insignis14:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I have long discovered that people are very rarely incivil, mean or aggressive to people they have actually met. As soon as you put a face behind the username, it causes some sort of psychological trip that stops you from just firing both barrels off. I'm not bothered about being yelled at; last night I was speaking to someone who served for 3 years in the Army and has seen somebody point a gun at his head with the full intent of pulling the trigger. A few aggressive words on the internet has no comparison. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
[ec, excuse me tps] Psychologically there is a parallel. I experienced that moment [so I say, my responses were unusual and here I am, the word of a survivor] and the correlation to establishing discourse is not the exactly same thing. All discussion / discourse is an ongoing experience that may 'trigger' other incidents. If I equate Joe Racist screwing up my contribution with a weapon pointed at me, that is only my problem; I work at solutions instead because my feelings are irrelevant. The first premise for me is that my opinion is irrelevant, except where that reflects on my own consideration of our document and how we can improve that; this is what I thought about in my absence. Thanks again for letting me state this, vent really, it is very helpful to my investment in our beautiful project. 15:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
As I explained in my concession, I am not planning to become a different editor. Some of the issues identified were erroneous, and others were matters of real disagreement, and I am not planning to take the standard advice to become a different editor. In any case, I don't know who this editor is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
i dont like you much you banned me for having my fun i cant call you names or i will get banned again but i still think you reproduce with your immediate family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdunw (talk • contribs) 13:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
If by "immediate family" you mean the woman I married, no the Decree nisi is scheduled to be finalised next Friday, although it's none of your fucking business. Be grateful you used a named account and not an IP address, because if you had used the latter, I would do a WHOIS lookup, and if I found it was a school or public library (as it almost certainly was) I would telephone the secretary / administrator and tell them what was going on. It's a trick James O'Brien has used on Brexit fruitcakes, and it works rather well. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, the translation of French wikipedia page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapt_(logiciel) on enwiki has been deleted today. I have added some arguments against deletion on the talk page and I don't think I got any counterarguments to the one I gave. I would like at least to have some explanation at why you have deleted it, and I think it should be reinstated. Cardondenis (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wapt (logiciel) is missing a big part of the discussion... I did some argument in the talk page that sadly do not reflect in the aforementioned page... I would argue that there was no majority for or against the deletion of the page, at least from what I understand of how it works (how do one vote for or against?)... I probably do not know how to interact with a AfD banner, if you could explain me how to reinstate the page and argue for it, I would be happy to do it.Cardondenis (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cardondenis: The easiest thing to do is I can simply say I was challenged on the close and relist the deletion debate. I've now done this, the article has been restored and the debate is live again. Pop over there and have your say. First of all, though, you should read a list of arguments to avoid - each "vote" should say why the article can be improved, ideally listing source material to cite from. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Thanks Richie for restoring the article and letting the discussion going live again. I spent some time this evening improving the English and typography as well as adding some references to improve notability. There is still quite some work to do, but it is getting better. I did my homework going through WP:ATA and improved my arguments in the discussion and added my keep in front (for what it is worth :-) Cardondenis (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
You can write the critical reception section ;) - Seriously, I'd love to do it together, - half of this years new articles seem to be teamwork. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
If I could work out which violin concerto we were talking about (as Previn has composed more than a few orchestral works, to put it mildly) then I'll see if I can take a look. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Violin Concerto (Previn), and he composed only one, and I have a list of my to-do on my user page. Your turn now, - I didn't want edit conflicts, but will turn to something else for now. Many critical voices not yet in the article ;) - I wonder if anybody but the two ever performed it, or will perform it. Some ref for that they performed it together even after divorce welcome, couldn't find it so far, nor the program of when I heard it. No pic of him at the time, looks way too young on one, and way too old on the other, so two women pictured, - for women's month ;) - btw, I didn't know the blue was inflammatory, but I do know: no intention ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that has nothing to do with the blue. The "Rubbish" is simply a reference to Previn's most famous appearance in the UK on the 1971 Morecambe and Wise Christmas Show; however outside of Britain I don't think it's known at all. For the benefit of those who know Previn for his music .... he was persuaded to conduct the Grieg Piano Concerto with Eric Morecambe (then probably the most famous comic and light entertainer in the country). After humorously failing to spot Previn's cue twice (and getting him to jump in the air a third time), he starts playing the piano theme in a Music Hall ragtime style (which is absolutely brilliant, and I have played this version at soundchecks for gigs and people do recognise it!) Previn stops conducting, asking Morecambe what on earth he's doing, and that he's playing all the wrong notes, which leads to the most famous line, "I am playing all the right notes .... but not necessarily in the right order!" Frustrated, Previn plays the introduction to the concerto on the piano "properly", there's a comic pause for about ten seconds, and Morecambe retorts with "Rubbish" and "for four more pound we could have got Edward Heath!" Video of some of the sketch hereRitchie333(talk)(cont)12:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the expansion, and the nom. Sometimes they take months. (Want to review Zuzana, perhaps?) Ignoring some rules, someone could review the concerto today, and an admin could put it in a queue for tomorrow. We just exercised that for a late Black history month nom, for Bad News for Outlaws. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid inspiration usually leaves for a short holiday when I have to think of a good DYK hook off the top of my head. Let me read the article and see if an ALT leaps out? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
You mean Zuzana? Just unstrike the original. Some reviewers don't like opera singer sings role, and I say: which role says more about her or him than some little quirky thing. Elvira in Beliini's puritani was bellissima, - I saw it. - You shouldn't make a hook, because then someone else will have to review, and may be again from the party ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
On 2 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Curious Brewery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the crowd-fundedCurious Brewery has the names of the most significant funders engraved on one of the fermentation tanks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Curious Brewery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Curious Brewery), 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.
1- It was created by the subject of the article. Look at the editor's name- Sadakatamankhan look at the article name Sadakat Aman Khan. Take the spaces out between the names, what do you get? Sadakatamankhan!
2- The only reference is the person's website. Go to it, it has his name on it.
Hi. The FAC is now one of the older open FACs and I'm hoping the co-ordinators will start thinking about wrapping it up. Please could you return and comment on the article, indicate you don't plan to comment, or, dare I say it, support! ;-) thanks, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!12:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
"People trying to get other people fired for expressing their views"
I'll ask here rather than clutter up the RFAR, but the same question I asked Collect; have you any evidence that anyone at any point has done this, and if not why are you raising it in an unrelated case unless it's an attempt to insinuate that someone (presumably Fae) has been doing it? WVS and Tech Ambassador are just on-wiki statuses, not real life jobs; "Fae tried to get SMcC fired from his job as Tech Ambassador" is equivalent to describing this as my "firing WBG from his job as a Rollbacker". (If you do take "fired" to have a definition broad enough to encompass "stripped of a Wikipedia user right", then people being "fired for expressing their views" happens routinely, up to and including people being "fired" from editing Wikipedia altogether, and you and I have both done our fair share of the firing.) ‑ Iridescent09:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh right. I thought Tech Ambassador was a job, although possibly a part time one, and this was a request to dismiss them from that post. I'm afraid I'm not up to speed with all of these positions; I thought the WMF had enough spare cash to pay them, or am I just being naive in that respect? Anyway, my main point was that people (on both sides of this feud) have acted disproportionately. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
No; "tech ambassador" isn't any kind of formal title; it just means that you've signed yourself up as a volunteer to speak to the WMF on behalf of editors who don't feel comfortable approaching them directly (generally because they don't understand the jargon and the technical limitations to make Phabricator requests or bug reports themselves, don't understand the technical language used in a reply, or just feel uncomfortable "going to the boss"), and to make sure that feature changes get posted on the appropriate noticeboards as the devs themselves sometimes forget. In this particular case I don't agree with Fae, but I think the point being (clumsily) raised—"if people are uncomfortable speaking to SMC because they consider him transphobic they might be reluctant to contact the WMF in case he's the one to reply"—was a legitimate one to raise. (I'm aware and you're aware that SMC is obsessed with stylistic standardization across Wikipedia articles, and consequently I'm certain that the essay was expressing frustration with non-standard pronouns rather than a dislike of trans people per se, but I can certainly see that to someone unfamiliar with SMC it might look like an attack page.) ‑ Iridescent11:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
That's how I see it as well. There was that whole ANI thread last November where people absolutely insisted I was personally attacking another editor when I had no intention of doing so, and required significant demonstrations of remorse from my end. Had I done the same as SMC and dug my heels in I'd have been in serious trouble. Anyway, I've stated my opinion at the case request, and I think these two obviously have clashing personalities and need to give each other a wide berth. (I've said before that one of my best friends is transgender but she doesn't like to be used for political point scoring). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I feel very sorry for Stanton. I'll sure he had no intentions whatsoever of offending anyone in that way with that article. I'm sure, if we all tried hard enough, we could find something to be offended about in The Signpost. It's a shame Jimbo doesn't seem to be sufficiently bothered to actually read it himself and form a proper opinion? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. I wouldn't be at all sorry to see the Signpost shut down; while it used to be a useful internal newsletter, in its more recent incarnation it's metastasised into a throughly nasty third-rate ripoff of Wikipedia Review, targeted at whoever happens to be deemed to have shown insufficient respect to its WP:OWNers that week. (The alleged 'humour' pages are a particularly charmless mix of sneering and self-importance.) However, this isn't the way it ought to go. If Arbcom are going to hang someone out to dry, it should be the people who run the Signpost; they're the ones who copied something from SMC's userspace (where he was writing in the reasonable assumption that anyone reading it would be someone who knew him and consequently would understand that he was attacking inconsistency in Wikipedia's approach to pronoun usage), slapped their own branding on it and disseminated it to a wider audience without stopping to think that what's appropriate as chat between friends isn't necessarily appropriate as the public face of Wikipedia.
I'd like to think that the reason Jimbo is staying out of this isn't that he has no opinion, but that he's aware that any intervention by him would make the situation worse as his hangers-on all pile in to try to curry favour by doing what they think their master wants. Plus, there's a small but not impossible chance that this will escalate further, in which case it's important the WMF retain both neutrality and the appearance of neutrality as the board may end up having to start taking office actions at some stage. ‑ Iridescent14:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oooh, Doc-James-Gate all over again?? At least there's no money involved this time (unless Fae decides to sue for defamation, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC) p.s. maybe what is needed is for the "offending" article to be sent to all editors and a poll taken as to whether it's seen as insulting transgender people or not. (But, of course, that wouldn't be fair because most editors are not transgender.... )
I read the "humour" piece and had no idea what it was really getting at, apart from some reference to Prince. If the joke's not obvious, I'm not surprised people took offence at it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I do agree with one point that it seems a bit backwards getting this to FAC while Christgau's article has maintenance tags on and doesn't look as comprehensive. However, I don't believe that's part of the FA criteria. At 19K of prose, it does seem a bit on the "lean" side for an FA, though I suppose there's only so much you can write about a book. As I'm all done with the Alf Ramsey FAC bar one issue, I can give this a more closer look this evening. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I took Chaffee to FAC before Apollo 1, the Apollo program, the Space Race, and spaceflight :P. I get what you mean, but I think it happens often and is not a big issue. That would be great if you could take a closer look after the Ramsey FAC. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk)21:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fanny (band) 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 78.26 -- 78.26 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@STATicVapor: It depends on the content being added. In this case, the most recent edit was formatting on an infobox, and hasn't been challenged. Meanwhile, the changes on Fastlane (2019)here weren't reverted or immediately challenged by other editors. So there's not an issue that AIV can deal with; remember the "I" means intervention ie: "I need a block right now". For plain old disruption on wrestling articles (quick wave to Drmies), if you're certain the editor is not paying attention to any warnings and editing regardless, then you need to go to WP:ANI. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I just did not want to have to drag anyone to the drama board lol, but you are right this is a little more complex. StaticVapormessage me!10:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately ANI has a (deserved) reputation for where complete headbangers hang out, but it is the correct venue to discuss an editor's disruptive behaviour that does not easily fit into any of the other noticeboards. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
For crying out loud, do you see any threats in anything I wrote? I pointed out to him, before you created the draft, that if he created a draft without dealing with the issues, he was in danger of the draft being deleted; I did not at any time suggest that I would do so. The fact that you disagree with me as to whether it is G11 and that you went through a more gruelling admin review than I did - simply because you went through it later - doesn't make him right and me wrong. What you've done now is to aggravate the situation unnecessarily, just as things appeared to be calming down. Deb (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333 - you completely reverted my entire edit on Hal's contribution to Be My Bay. Put it back, edit warrior. If you want to delete the link to YouTube, go ahead, I'm just trying to add citations, but the recording stands and is useful for people wanting to access Hal's legacy. 184.69.174.194 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
No I didn't, I only partially reverted the part cited to a copyright violation, the rest stood and has been changed by other editors in the meantime. And manually reverting something (not even using "undo" which is just rude) once is not edit warring even by my definition. Ask Martinevans123 about the grief he got from citing YouTube. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Vivian Li
Thank you for your intervention earlier. I was disheartened by the admin's response - probably the most negative reaction I have received in 15 years of editing (and one that made my briefly consider giving up editing altogether). Overnight, however, I have recovered my enthusiasm (and I've continued to offer support to some of yesterday's editathon participants). Your support is much appreciated. Paul W (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Paul W No problem. I think that even if you delete something and policy backs you up, you should still remember you're getting rid of somebody's work, and should express empathy. This is why I think all admins should create content, as the act of doing so and seeing what happens when other people interact with your contributions is invaluable. I have actually met RHaworth in real life and he's a nice guy, and most of his admin actions are completely within policy, and even those aren't are still grey areas, but communication lets him down. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Ritchie333. I was once asked if I wanted to be an admin, but decided I enjoyed editing too much, so didn't pursue it. On an unrelated matter, I saw the note about the five-inch maps in a preceding Talk thread - it took me down a complete new rabbit hole looking at maps of old Deptford, Greenwich and Woolwich (which I shared with my daughter, who liked them too). Thanks for sharing that resource. Paul W (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Fanny (band) 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:Fanny (band) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 78.26 -- 78.26 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Fanny (band)
I was looking over the article, mulling a possible GA review (which I've never done, but it's probably overdue...) There's no mention of the single "I've Had It" which reached #79, first appearing on 8 June 1974, staying for seven weeks. Casablanca Cat# 0009. I could look up which album it came from (I think I know where my Whitburn albums book is.) Anyway this record nerd thinks a comprehensive article should include it. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)22:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I'm taking the plunge. Please be patient with me, as this is my first GA review, and I'll probably mess up a review template or two. Rather than clutter up the review page, there are two minor spelling issues because it is an American topic. "emphasising" should be "emphasizing" (in lede), and "favoured" should be "favored" (in Musical style and legacy). That'll get 1A and 1B passed. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)15:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I'm useless at getting spelling right for AmEng articles; fortunately there are plenty of Wikignomes floating around to fix it :-) The most important thing to check at a GA review aside from wording is that everything in it is true and supported by each citation - a basic sibboleth of a good GA review is a comment such as "ABC did XYZ doesn't appear to be cited by the source given". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Working on it, going through sources. Apologies, I'm slow. So far, so good, which is why you haven't heard from me. If you're in a rush to get it approved by a certain date, let me know and I'll step aside. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a "failing" regarding GA status, but I find Brie Howard's place in the band confusing. She left in 1970 to get married, and the next mention of her is that she is dismissed by Perry. At what point did she re-join the band? I from the articles I've written how frustrating gaps in sources can be, but just in case you know this, it would be valuable to the article. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)17:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@78.26: The GA review looks broadly comprehensive to me. If my nitpicky self were to review this, I would suggest that the discography be cited inline, and also ask whether this source is reliable; it might be, but it looks a bit dodgy at first glance. Vanamonde (Talk)00:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly how selected is not very clear. I've tried to engage successive anon IPs without any success. We're currently at 134. But I guess if there truly are no criteria here, and we consider all episodes from the full 17 years, we may end up with quite a large list. No problem with just letting this run it's course? I guess it's currently still too small to fork. Any advice gratefully received. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You'll find your reward at watch?v=bVNvC2sNxio. This would be one good reason for keeping the entire list, of course. But another dastardly copyvio, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
... wholly unconnected p.s. Did you know ...that this was the "most probable inspiration" for David Bowie's 1972 "The Jean Genie"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC) ... possibly my most favourite Bowie track ever, I saw the live John Henshall number when TOTP was broadcast originally in 1973, and then again when it was re-shown on the Top of the Pops 2 Christmas Special on 21 December 2011. But alas, watch?v=yEmGQYCuc6M is also a copyvio. That really is a shame, as I think it blows the socks off the original Mick Rock Mars Hotel video, not least as it has David playing the harmonica (and maracas).
ROFOMCL = rolling on floor of Martian canal laughing. "'ere, Threesie me ol' ontological plate, I had fucking Bertrand Russell in the back of my epistemological cab the uvver nite...." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sha. However, I'm a bit puzzled. How is it a variation on WP:ITSNOTABLE to point out the existence of hundreds of sources about the subject? And how does that end up apparently carrying equal weight against a delete argument that's not based on anything. I know that's not the intended effect, but this close certainly feels like it's reinforcing the impression that in order to be taken seriously, a participant in deletion debates should intersperse their comments with random strings of capital letters, like GNG or MUSICBIO. I'm not challenging the close, I'm just asking, and I wouldn't have bothered if you were a random editor and not one of the most experienced people in this area. – Uanfala (talk)16:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In this case, I think a better link would be WP:LOTSOFSOURCES - the point was more that the "keep" arguments were a bit vague, but the deletion nomination wasn't challenged either, so nobody really had the upper hand in the debate in my opinion. Anyway, simply saying "there are lots of sources" without linking to a few, or adding them to the article during the debate, isn't particularly helpful, as it doesn't give anyone else a concrete suggestion that the article could be improved. I think if any editor had either linked to specific sources, or expanded / improved the article, I would probably have closed it as "keep". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't too bad, just DYK on 'roids. I purposely picked this one knowing the author would make it easy on me. Anyway, Samuel May Williams has been languishing since September. But that's nothing, some have been there since April. Now I'll have guilt about about doing more reviews. Or I could write more articles from my project list. Shove it, maybe I'll just patrol the boards and block people, who needs content? 78.26(spin me / revolutions)18:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Every time I wander onto the noticeboards to do "admin stuff", it means I've got writer's block and am procrastinating, wondering which article to get stuck into next. I have missed entire dramah fests at ANI by getting buried in article work, and that's quite an important point that needs to be stressed. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In this instance, I looked at the article and thought "would I accept a PROD", and concluded that since the article is cited to multiple sources that have only been challenged by one editor without any consensus, that a soft delete would not be appropriate. I have modified the AfD to read "No prejudice against renomination", which means if you want to file a new AfD immediately, I won't complain. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your point but doesn't this become an exercise in sheer process-wonkery; if I am indeed able to renominate it very now? What about a 4th relist? ∯WBGconverse16:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Per the guidelines, "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended ... Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation." Since the explanation is "nobody except Godric seems to care if this article stays or goes", a relist would not be appropriate. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I think sometimes the mere fact that something has been relisted 2 or 3 times can put people off commenting, so I don't think it is just process that would call for a renomination rather than a relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Better Call Bobby
Re-watching a certain American television crime drama, I was reminded of a 1968 C&W gem by Bobby Bare. Any idea what effect is used on the guitar solo here? Would Bobby have played that solo himself? Perhaps sources could be found to improve the article. 2 minutes 10 of country genius. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Cool FB beans, dude. I had always assumed that Bobby was more of a strummer than a twanger. But any information on 1960s Liverpool band The Hillsiders seems to be in rather short supply. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC) p.s. looks like someone's still having "Sorry, this content isn't available at the moment"-type issues.
NPR Newsletter No.17
Hello Ritchie333,
News
The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
Discussions of interest
Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Hey Ritchie333, I hope you are having a good time. Its been long time since i approached you for helping me in adding the quotebox on the page of Eddie Vedder regarding Roger Daltrey's comment.
Actually, I lately saw a blog which is the only source of the rankings given by Hit Parader of Top 100 Metal Vocalists of all Time.
So consquently i added the corresponding rank of Eddie Vedder in his Legacy section that can be seen with a "expansion needed" template. Moments after my edit was reverted by RegentsPark here Special:diff/887834630. I knew about this policy but there's one fault in the whole situation. See the page of Chester Bennington, On top of which you will find his ranking of the exact same list. The only difference is that its corresponding citation is from Heavy.com which has directly took the information from the blog itself. So shouldn't we declare that unreliable too? Because directly or indirectly, the blog is the source. So either both the articles should have the content or none. Tell me what you think. Regards 117.234.154.48 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I too admit that hear ya is not a good source but ofcourse that wasn't exactly my point. My point is that Hear ya is used as the source for the same thing about chester bennington too. So it shouldn't be there too. The reference provided there is Heavy.com which has created a hyperlink referring to the same list by Hear ya. So it should be removed from Chester Bennington too because the source is indirectly unreliable there. There's no other source on the whole internet for it. Regards 117.234.188.156 (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
