User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 17

GA Cup Newsletter Correction

Hi everyone,

It was brought to the attention of the judges that there was an error in the newsletter sent out earlier today.

Sign-ups for the GA Cup will close on October 15, 2014, not September 15, 2014 (as mentioned in the newsletter).

Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 1 Newsletter #2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1 Hello GA Cup competitors! The judges have learned a great deal in this first part of the competition, and we appreciate your patience with us as we've figured out what works and what doesn't work. As we reported in our last newsletter, an inadequacy in the scoring system has been illuminated in the past 15 days, which has resulted in a major change in the rules. It has also resulted in one withdrawal. To ensure fairness, we've decided to further increase the number of participants moving onto Round 2. Everyone who has reviewed at least one article will automatically be moved forward, and will be placed in pools. You have until October 29 to take advantage of this opportunity. It is our hope that this will make up for the unforeseen glitch in our scoring system. Best of wishes to all of you as you continue to help improve articles and make Wikipedia a better place. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review help

Hi there. I've just submitted my very first review for the backlog of Good Articles. I see you are listed as a GA review mentor - if you should get the chance, could you please give it a read through and let me know if it's OK? I'd be happier with an experienced pair of eyes looking at it.... Many, many thanks in advance :) — sparklism ^hey! 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sparklism: - I've had a quick look, and I think your review is exactly what you should be doing. You have made constructive criticisms to improve the article, and they have been actioned upon. I'm particularly happy that you have raised concerns about missing content, and questioned the overattention towards Sunburst - the "broad in coverage" and "focused" parts of the GA criteria can be overlooked, and that's why I would insist on any GA reviewer either having background knowledge of the subject or doing some research themselves. Overall, it looks like a good GA review, and one I would not question. Well done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's brilliant Ritchie, thanks for taking the time to look at it. Getting assurance from someone with your experience gives me confidence to continue reviewing in this area (I'm actually BOLD-ly halfway through my second one...). I hope to review many more album articles in the future - thanks again! — sparklism ^hey! 11:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The who at the List of best-selling music artists with 100m-records

Hi, if you not agree that band being listed as one of the best selling artists in wiki list. Please inform me, I will erase that band's name from the list immediately.

Please inform me. thanks Politsi (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Politsi: - it's nothing to do with that, it's just that on Talk:The Who, there has recently been a large discussion on what to include in the opening paragraph, and a consensus still hasn't been reached. That's what I was getting it - have a look and have your say on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jaywick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Colne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent comment. Ritchie333 appreciates your help. I noticed though that when I showed a colleague pictures of Jaywick from the Daily Mail, their response was "f*** me, that looks like a cross between Southend on Sea and Bosnia". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

My/your edits

I'm about to go out, I'll get back to you. Sorry I repeated the edit without discussing first. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mr Stephen: I dropped a note on the talk page, but I won't be reverting again. Seriously - I will never revert more than once over these things, because to do so is silly and it's old news, I've moved on etc etc. I would, however, recommend if you do these things, to put a link to some sort of essay that explains what you're doing and why, otherwise suspicious people like me will think "hmmm, they're not paying attention to what they're doing" and smell a rat. User:Giraffedata/comprised of is a good example, because every edit summary reverting "comprised of" will put a link to what the problem is. On the internet, it's very easy to misunderstand someone or something and without verbal queues combined with our mastadon fighting instincts, things have an alarming tendency to go pear shaped. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC

The mediation Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ayers Rock (band) have convened an RfC in order to stimulate discussion on the key issue in the mediation. Unfortunately, only a few Wikipedians have expressed an opinion which is causing a dilemma. All parties have agreed on a shortlist of editors whose thoughts, and experience we believe will be valuable to this RfC. You are, therefore, personally invited to assist us, by giving your opinion, whatever that may be at the Ayers Rock RfC CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Track list numbering

Thank you for your comments at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple. A Rfc is currently open at Template talk:Track listing to finally settle the dispute. It would be greatly appreciated if you could give your opinion on the matter one last time. Lewismaster (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I beg to remind you that a poll is in progress at Template talk:Track listing and is stuck on equality for lack of participants. After such a long discussion it would be a shame if we could not arrive to a conclusion. Lewismaster (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have dropped a word in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Lewismaster (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haim (band), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages You May Be Right and Indio. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Gascoigne

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for re-reviewing at least 25 user reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by (t) Josve05a (c) on 08:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Halloween cheer!

While I have to AGF and not sound like a humourless curmudgeonly old fart, I cannot in good conscience support a socially acceptable version of what amounts to a protection racket. But I can support apple bobbing....
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Happy Halloween! Hello Ritchie333: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!     – Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. Happy Halloween!!! Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Hubble bubble toil and toffee" (the noo) Nos Calan Gaeaf Hapus! Hello Prince Ritchie of Darkness: Thanks for your all of your melodious edits here at Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!     – As you stoke up your steaming wiki-cauldron, please help yourself to some tasty plot toffee, Tom Trot, claggum or clack ….. or else how about some cinder toffee, hokey pokey, puff candy or seafoam??! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha!! You wanna da best pumpkins?? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got a nice enyclopedia here Jimbo. Very nice. Be a shame if someone was to set fire to it, wouldn't it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Harry "Snapper" Organs says, "Strike a light, me ol' china! That just takes the biscuit!" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Jaguar took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 238. In a tight race for second, Peacemaker67 and Ritchie333 finished second and third with 152 and 141 points, respectively. Two users have scored the maximum five bonus points for article length (60,000 characters+). Anotherclown reviewed Spanish conquest of Yucatán (77,350 characters) and MrWooHoo reviewed Communist Party of China (76,740 characters). The longest review was by Bilorv who reviewed Caldas da Rainha. The review was approximately 22,400 characters which earned s/he two bonus points (20, 000 - 29, 999 characters). In Round 1, 117 reviews were completed, making the first round of the GA Cup a success! A total of 86 articles were removed from the backlog during the month of October! We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, one completed review was needed, which 28 users accomplished. Participants have been randomly put into 7 pools of 4; the top 2 in each pool will move onto Round 3. There will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 15th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on November 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into affect starting on November 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with this new rule. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Book of Taliesyn

Editor FunkMonk is currently doing the GA review for The Book of Taliesyn and he thinks that your expertise in Deep Purple history could be of help. If you could give a second opinion on the article it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know very much about this article, other than it's got "Wring That Neck", a classic early 70s Purple live track, but I'll see what I can do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You dirty bastard you deleted the Wikipedia page about the Sysysphus song I was doing a research on it. You dirty bastard put the song page back online, immediately!79.45.190.191 (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I cannot and did not delete anything. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about my accepted article: Emil Fischer, Cartographer

Dear Ritchie333,

Thank you for reviewing my submission and accepting it as Start Class. I appreciate your taking the time to edit it and I see it's already posted to Wikipedia. Emil Fischer received so little recognition for his notable abilities while he was alive, I am gratified Wikipedia users now have the opportunity to learn about this remarkable man.

My question involves which changes I need to make to my article. Could you please be specific? Is the article incomplete and/or does it not contain sufficient footnote documentation? I will say that much of what I wrote came from personal experience. I have personally examined all six maps and Fischer's 1895 painting, so associated references don't appear to be necessary.

Please let me know what I must do to improve my article.

Best wishes, Larry Godwin <redacted>

Luckybrian (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Larry Godwin, November 7, 2014

@Luckybrian: Thanks for the comments. When we accept articles in the Articles for Creation process, it means they have potential to be improved and should not be deleted, but not much more. I did some research online and found Emil Fischer is mentioned in several sources (eg: [1], [2], [3]), so I think he is notable enough to have an article. As for improvements, the most obvious and best improvement you could make is find a proper biography in a book, and use that to cite the rest of the article. I'd also cut down some things like "This quiet, unobtrusive German immigrant" - unless it's important for his professional cartography, it probably isn't necessary. I'm trying to think of a good example of a cartographer article that would give you some ideas, but I can't find a really good one - Category:Cartographers by nationality has some examples of other cartographers that might help. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sinclair C5 FAC

Following your GA review of Sinclair C5, I thought I'd notify you that I've nominated it as a featured article candidate with the aim of having it appear as TFA on 10 January, the 30th anniversary of the C5's launch. If you have any comments on the nomination they'd be most welcome. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinclair C5/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestions regarding my article on Emil Fischer, cartographer

Dear Ritchie333,

Thank you for the super-fast reply to my query. Re the references you found with your online research on Emil Fischer:

1. Rocky Mountain Map Society website: Actually, I wrote this article.

2. RareMaps.com: This page displays Fischer's 1893 map on Barry Ruderman's website. I referred to this map on Ruderman's site in footnote 5 on my Wikipedia article and the fact he sold it for $6,500.

3. Silverton Railroads website: The fact Mr. Fischer created a lead engraving is new information for me and I am indebted to you for it.

During a year of intense research about Mr. Fischer, I did not find his biography as a book or published article so I do not believe one exists. The most comprehensive biography, I believe, is the one I wrote for the 2014 Mining History Journal, just published last month.

I referred to "This quiet, unobtrusive German immigrant" in order to give the Wikipedia reader an idea of what Emil Fischer was like as a person. I agree, it's not necessary but I believe it's relevant.

Luckybrian (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Larry Godwin

BNA access

Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Christmas has come early. Did a search for "Dartford Tunnel", "Mersea Island" and "Jaywick" and the results screen exploded. Happy times! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of slang

A fine young beat combo conducting an engagement in the Limcano Ballroom, Lymeswold

Please explain why you think use of slang in an encyclopedia article is preferable to use of correct English, as you twice reverted my edit in Rhodes piano, substituting "gig" for "engagement". Is it your intention to deliberately degrade the quality of writing in Wikipedia? — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gig" is not slang. Do a search for "beatles gig" and see how many appearances turn up in quality sources such as Mojo [4], The Daily Telegraph [5] and The Independent [6]. Therefore, in five minutes of searching, I find the word used in high-quality reliable sources that would be unlikely to be challenged. Moreover, if you cannot possibly abide the word, please use "concert". I don't know what other policy talk page you can use, but you'll have to take further conversation there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would have thought the Beatles or the Stones might well have had "gigs", while Lang Lang or Yehudi Menuhin etc. would almost certainly have had "concerts". The only artists that I'd immediately imagine might have had "engagements" would be Noel Coward, Flanders and Swann, Hinge and Bracket, etc. (But then I probably have a mind irreparably warped by modern popular music, alas). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Whereas I think of "engagements" as something that Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge do on a tour of Sri Lanka, for example. Or possibly, something that Russell Brand and Georgina Baillie would announce if the world could get over them having had a "bit of slap and tickle" ^Que? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Guitar lick

I sent you a guitar lick by email and didn't get a response!..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my email is an official disaster area. Would now be a good time to say I learn most stuff by ear and have never actually learned to sight-read tab (though I can do conventional sheet music at a push). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There's many many guitarists who only learn by ear. But seriously, I don't know how you would even begin to "learn by ear" for pieces like this without paperwork.. My playing came on leaps and bounds actually by learning actual pieces like that from tab. I'd never have learned to play jazz chops without being instructed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

... and here's a few more to keep you going: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a literal lick!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Terry Kath

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Terry Kath 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Terry Kath

The article Terry Kath you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Terry Kath for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Terry Kath page, your edit caused a URL error (help) and an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Ritchie333. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:GAN test

I noticed your test edit at WP:GAN. Legobot operates based on the parameters on the article talk pages and reverted your edits. Please make the proper changes to the article talk page so that the bot will make the changes to WP:GAN that you want it to.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I don't know what the "proper changes" are though. What I've put in ought to have worked. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Bot having trouble marking reviews as passed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

pizza cheese!

Don't let the Pizza cheese jihadists get you down...

Hey Ritchie, I was pleased to be reminded of the insanity of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza cheese, albeit contained in your oppose vote to NA1K's RfA. AfD is so boring and ill-attended these days it is rarely as much fun. There was a time when something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Tridevil would draw a bevy of keep voters, but alas, no more. NA1K voted to delete as well. He would not be a bad admin, he does all that crappy work I would hate doing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh gawd, not Pizza cheese - that's a standing joke in my house (who called whom a "pizza cheese jihadist" again?) I have concerns that NA1K will find adminship troublesome and unenjoyable, and his tendency to labour a point has a risk of people starting ANI threads about him (particularly if he closes an AfD as "delete" that the ARS have a stake in). However, my opinion isn't gospel, and if you think he should have the mop, vote "support", and if consensus is that he gets the mop and proves me (and, by extension Drmies and TParis) wrong, then that's all well and good.

I think the comment "a bevy of keep voters" demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the ARS. The focus should be on identifying articles on AfD and improve them. Then the question of who turns up to vote "keep" is moot, as you only need one person saying "I've found a lot more sources and improved the article per the Heymann standard" to make the deciding call. In the case of Ms Tridevil, I'm sure in 20 years' time she will thank us for not having a Wikipedia article documenting something she did when she was young and naive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• If that's really a joke in your house I am seriously quite happy! My comment about "a bevy of keep voters" is not meant as a positive thing; NA1K resigned from the ARS something like 2 years ago and that project is worse off as a result. I did vote to support NA1K, but Drmies (especially) carries so much weight it could well doom him. But if he passes it doesn't make your votes wrong; if anything you've set a high standard because y'all are far more competent that most candidates can hope to be. That is by no means a bad thing as long as there are admins to get that work done. As for Ms. Tridevil, she's no Alex from Target! Cheers!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I looked at the pizza cheese discussion again. That was fun. Is ARS still around? I did not care for NA1000's involvement therein, but without him there's not much to it anymore, it seems. I added more verbiage to the RfA after looking at dozens and dozens and more dozens of his closures; I did not find what I was looking for. But I do see now what I myself have experienced: AfD suffers from serious lack of participation, and I am hereby making a promise to look at more of these discussions and help out--not in closing them, but in saving or killing articles. I urge everyone else to do the same. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't done much on AfD recently, though I have in the past. I'm more interested in picking off an AfD or CSD candidate that I can obviously improve to far greater standards than a simple "keep" vote, but that takes time and energy focused on a single article. One of the reasons I've stalked out AfD in the past is to find new articles to look at, and it can be successful if you're prepared to wade through a lot of chaff. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• • And yeah, "pizza cheese jihadists". I really don't know who said it, but man, it's comments like that get my knickers totally in a twist, like mozzarella in a hairy Italian's arms. Milowent, don't you agree that such personal attacks are wholly unwarranted and should be immediately blockable? I think you and I should find out who said that and read them the riot act. Or, if NA1000's RfA passes, he can block that rascal. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I am curious to how exactly how and when you have observed hairy Italians putting mozzarella in their armpits, but like the sausage factory (there's an article suggestion for NA1K right there!), there are some things you're best off not knowing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Some time before the pizza cheese discussion, someone was called a member of the "inclusionist Taliban", I believe at RFA. This caused horrified reactions, but you might guess I adored it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Who's Next may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• John Ned |last=Mendelsohn |authorlink=John Mendelsohn (musician) |title=The Who ''Who's Next'' > Album Review |url=http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/whos-next-19970122 |accessdate={{
• *[[Keith Moon]&nbsp;- [[Drums]], [[Percussion]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

SamWalton RfA

Ritchie, it's very rare that I do this, so please don't take this as badgering. It is not intended to be such. But, how is your question realistic? An editor with 100,000 edits (we don't have that many of them) refuses to leave edit summaries and fails to respond (in any way) to three warnings, but presumably continues to blank content/the page... I have no problem with low-ball questions, but based on the line you opened the question with, I'm really not sure where you're going with this one? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. (And to be transparent I'll ping @Samwalton9: so he is aware of this discussion). I appreciate your concerns, which are perfectly fair. To be clear, I have supported Sam's RfA and remain in support.

I was thinking about Q7 last night myself actually, as it was quite an interesting one as I have come across the subjects of BLPs complaining about their own articles in the past, and the only nagging doubt I have is that his response started with "I would block the IP for disruption". I'm happy with the rest of his response saying he would defer to a more experienced admin etc, that's great, but putting "block" up-front concerns me. From my experience, it's not necessarily obvious that an IP blanking an article is disruptive, they may be the subject of a BLP they find upsetting and desperate to remove "lies" from it, without having any other interest in Wikipedia, and per WP:DOLT, blocking them runs the risk of a complaint to the WMF. IPs may "ignore" warnings simply because they're not aware that they have them - since the loss of the "big orange bar", knowing you have messages (particularly for new and inexperienced Wikipedians) is not necessarily obvious.

All I want is for Sam to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that he understands the pros and cons of using the block button. I'd be happy if he showed me I misunderstood his answer, which is why I asked the follow-up, trying to give an example of somebody where blocking would be contentious or problematic. I didn't want to directly name names, but I previously documented my thoughts in User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 30#Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY, specifically "I think it's reasonably well known that there are some editors, such as Eric, who have been blocked for superficial or trivial reasons (or at least that's what I've observed) so often that if anyone blocked him again, there'd be an insanely long thread on ANI while people argue about the block, Eric's behaviour, the decline of Wikipedia, "all admins are nazis" etc etc ... while the actual issue on the article remains unresolved, or at best attended to as a footnote to the dramamongering."

I hope that clarifies things. I don't want to derail Sam's RfA, which is going very well at the moment, I'd just rather ensure all nagging doubts are ironed out here and now, if that makes sense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Thanks for the clarification. I understand the issue of blocking an IP who may simply be trying to remove the 'lies' Wikipedia has written about them, and it is of course very important we all do our bit to protect Wikipedia from unnecessary legal action. I didn't really think that scenario played out in Q7 because of "but does not contain any immediately apparent libelous, defamatory or otherwise problematic information." However, we all read and interpret things differently. I also believe that, regardless of intention, disruptive behaviour is still disruptive and we block accounts and IPs rather than people. Had I the tools, I would likely have followed the same course of action as Sam. For the reason that communication is key on Wikipedia, and although I too lament the loss of the big orange bar, the new notifications system is still reasonably noticeable. Failure to communicate with others who disagree with your actions on Wikipedia is either an unambiguous example of when scholarship gives way to partisanship, or highly indicative of CIR issues. Either case is disruptive to the community and both are examples of lessons new editors must learn. However, these are just my opinions and I'm fully able to empathise with yours. Thanks again for the clarification. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 11:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment about my question in that RFA. Usually, I am ok but rarely I get a little annoyed at the way some admins treated me at first. One blocked me, falsely accusing me of vandalism, then refused to fix it citing a slow internet connection. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Eating Glass Is Bad: : I see IPs and new users regularly changing things on articles I've done, and while some of it is vandalism, the majority of it is not, so I've become fine-tuned on these things. The blocking admin did apologise on your talk page, though, that he'd used the wrong template, and the unblocking admin was right that your original username doesn't meet the username policy. Now, I'm happy to accept that an admin made a mistake and apologised for it, and I think you ought to accept that apology graciously. I have assumed good faith up until now, and can see your point of view on things, but your conduct at Sam's RFA is starting to resemble harassment, so I really would advise you to just tone things down a bit and concentrate on articles - which is, after all, what we're all here for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Who's Next, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Barnes and The Seeker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Length

I agree about Good Articles not needing certain length, but instead to be representative of all major points and be reliably sourced for those details. In the cases of the parks, they represent every detail I could find online or in books. It does not help that the history of many parks is obscured and not even a great effort can dig up some information on sites. This includes from the organization themselves! Which seem to have numerous lapses in knowledge even a decade or two later. Short articles like - How Brown Saw the Baseball Game or Katsudō Shashin (something I researched) are not indicative of a fault in the encyclopedia, but known or relevant details on a topic. For a park the details are simple for readers: history, activities and location. Wikipedia's greatest use is reference to items of international to local importance and be able to be in-depth and broad at the same time. I wish all civic structures on the NRHP and other places of note be recorded and accessible for the general reader or a scholar. Minnie Island State Park exceeds the DEEPs own website and actually has more information than a dozen other parks which are more about preserving certain scenic areas - which are entirely "natural" and lack scientific study or research into the lands.

I will not put up certain articles because I have not become satisfied in my ability to cover all the details I can and I have 30 books on the register for the state and a book dedicated to the history of the parks! Bluff Point State Park is a major park, but it's 1/3rd done. Hammonasset Beach State Park is even bigger. If you can get any (and I do mean that) data that I've missed on a Good Article nomination on a park, I'll be shocked. This occurred with a historical pamphlet from Brown University for Columbus (Providence, Rhode Island). Though small, you come away from the article(s) knowing essentially everything there is to be found on the topic. Many civic or public art monuments do not generate much publicity or coverage, in respect to video games or other ephemeral cultural or artistic works - but it is important. I waited months to get the sources for the Avery Homestead, but there is lots of work to be done while waiting! Thanks for reviewing these, you help me tighten up the wording and make it more presentable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Thanks for your support. As you can see from the nominations page, I'm not averse to improving geography articles such as Mersea Island myself. I can't agree more that having these sort of articles on WP is important and we should have them. As I said on the GA review, I was happy with passing Farm River State Park because I looked for online and book sources myself, and concluded from that search that the article was acceptably broad yet focused to meet the GA criteria. If I had found additional information, I would have probably said something like "[This source] (link) contains some information about x, y and z that may be worth adding to the article" and hoped you'd agree to expand it. I used Yellowstone National Park as a counter-example simply as it's the biggest park article I could think of, and it's also a featured article, so may contain good examples of what to include and write about.

The problem with Minnie Island State Park isn't that it's short per se, but rather it is sufficiently short that I could make a good argument for merging it with a general article about Minnie Island, Gardner Lake State Park or even Gardner Lake without making that "umbrella" article especially large. Remember that at the end of the day, it's the reader that is our key focus, and they typically won't be looking at green blobs or brown stars - they'll want to know if the article covers the information they were looking for, is easy to read, looks correct, and leaves them satisfied that they'd learned something. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point with Minnie Island since one is within the larger! For something like Farm River, it wouldn't make sense. Minnie Island was also the smallest state park, nationally for a few decades. Despite Minnie Island being the smallest in the nation, of unusual land claim and rather plain - it is its own, but not its own in a sense. But Gardner Lake State Park is not actually the "whole lake" it is a fragment of 9 acres which the state owns, but given the water issues - is effectively the entire range. I was planning to make Gardner Lake State Park part of the whole "Gardner Lake", but I don't want to throw Hopemead State Park in because that history and details will start to get a bit confusing. The lead would be like Gardner Lake has Gardner Lake State Park on its south and Minnie Island State Park on the lake and is abutted by Hopemead State Park.... - Because the article is a stub right now, and will require a mention, it may seem odd, but I'll try to sway you on it with a little work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I did Gardner Lake - with what sources I had on hand and I am pretty sure that the balance and flow of Gardner Lake (combined with the park) should be sufficient for readers. Gardner Lake probably has another couple of paragraphs and I need to go through the depth and charts - and I got a gap on the Gardner family which I can likely fix. I think I'll just push that Minnie Island was the smallest in the nation once I double check a source and I might ask the GLA about it. Though I think Gardner Lake is actually a good overview of the lake's history, the connection to the state parks and the public use of the land in relation to the glorified boat launch. Better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that looks great considering it was a redlink a few hours ago! Nice one. That looks like it good be good to take to GA with a bit of spit and polish. In the meantime, what are we going to do about Minnie Island? I've left the GA hanging for the minute with some action points, but I'll need to make a decision whether to stick at it or close it now and make Gardner Lake the priority, and to be honest I'm leaning towards the latter at the moment. Anyway, I've done too much chatting and not enough writing today so I've got my two favourite book sources to improve Who's Next a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am leaning towards merge as well, but for reasons slightly different from your own. I recognize the issues, but I must note that combining two or three different topics of different histories is sorta of awkward. I do not think that Hopemead could be combined, but stripping out the duplicate content for Minnie Island is likely to hold in the Lake Gardner article because of its size and location within the lake. I am going to think about it some more and if I cannot find what I am looking for, will move to merge and refocus to Gardner Lake. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well whatever we do, I think a more important point is that the GA reviews have highlighted good ways to take these articles forward, and now the points have been actioned, the encyclopaedia is better for everyone, particularly for those editors who have family in CT and would like to roadtrip the area when it's not under several feet of snow (or have I picked the wrong bit of the US from the news?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No snow in my part, but that is about 150 miles northwest of these places. Some very localized snow in Buffalo which made national news over the past few days. A combined run at Gardner Lake is probably for the best. I was thinking of doing this for a few really poorly outlined MPS in NRHP listings. I halted on the Trails matter because the parks were not done and its a pain to dig up 19 versions of the books (largely the same) on the trails. It is really hard to document small plots of "natural" land because while they are designated as parks, they are almost entirely unattended. It is a bad sign that officials cannot cite whether an old military installation is within the park limits or not, but probably 80 of the parks are so obscure that they are termed "state park in name only" by local governments. The state does this rather haphazardly, but they are all valuable in this day an age. Some like Minnie Island were more notorious for being a King Solomon type decision by the state even though you cannot actually "dock" on it. Its the main reason why I tried to keep something which I know was nationally the smallest park in the nation for so long, but there is nothing on it. Gardner Lake State Park would be a cheat to give it an article when it is little more than glorified boat ramp with vandalism and trash problems. Given the situation, it is probably for the best they be merged together with the lake, which also is devoid of great documentation, for the purposes of our readers. I'm a bit defensive over notability as an "inclusionist", but you'll get little pushback from me over up-merging things like this when stretching two pages is about all there is. I don't have enough on Gardner yet to renominate and complete the merge on Minnie, but I'm working on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Big women

Saw your edit summary on Eric's talk page. Now I know what to buy you as Christmas present. A dinner tray with a print of File:Vanessa_feltz_podium.jpg on it!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

At least you can hide a dinner tray in a cupboard, and it's more original than a pair of socks. (See, ever the eternal optimist). Oh, my other half has only heard "Fat Bottom Girls" recently and can't believe one of the world's biggest rock bands ever could write a song like that! Still, could be worse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Bloom6123 at ANI

Hi Ritchie. I don't really want to add any further to the escalating ANI dramafest, but just to clarify after your comment in this edit: I've never blocked Bloom6123, although I did decline one of his unblock appeals. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 15:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah okay. My main rationale for writing that was to try and dispel any thoughts Bloom6123 might have of you being "out to get him". I'll reword my comment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anything's going to change that opinion somehow, but thanks nevertheless for trying to pour oil on troubled waters. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Time spent with cats is never wasted"

caps shift + symbol shift to get from K to E, then symbol shift + 9. Was there a cat? No, just a question mark. Looks like you needed a ZX Microwave or something like that for a cat to appear. Bloody youngsters moaning about auto-correct on their iPhone don't know they've been born....

Psychology!?? Ah, so that's what he meant! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The CAT is a fun place to go and have a look. Please don't kick it, it leaves scuffs around the place. And their exhibition of poo had to be censored - boo, hiss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Holy cats! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to have a conversation about cats without pulling Fylbecatulous into the conversation, is it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, even in soundbite form, I fear that may be the kiss of death for any feline psychology article. Did he get that quote from a can of Whiskas, one wonders? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

8 out 10 people (who expressed to preference, obviously) probably do. Now, only about 400 characters to fill in and we have a DYK. Come on, Drmies, throw me a few sources and I'll lap them up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"DYKs like this are a real tonic for our Raj": [11] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Catatonia, you say? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's all over the front page, you give me cat rage". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You rang? Human weakness of mine and Pavlov's dog apparently. No cat ever comes when called, even if they desire to. Nor would a feline ever submit to an IQ test: The perfect gift book for cat lovers everywhere, showing how to measure your cat’s intelligence in a series of easy and fun tests. HA! The hapless administrator of said easy and fun tests would surely end up in a surgery for stitches and heavy doses of antibiotics. So where do we need a DYK? I got caged into attempting one and it went so badly I had a panic attack. Even catnip tea was no solace. Thanks for the ping, but it didn't work. I have your page on watch though. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My sadly missed cat, Suede, attempting to play Chopsticks on a Nord Electro. Didn't work as cats don't have suitable digits to plug the mains cable in.

Well, one of my favourite activities on Wikipedia that gives me a warm fuzzy glow inside (just like a cat curled up on your lap purring nineteen to the dozen) is what I humorously call "stick it to the deletionists" or "beat the Article Rescue Squadron at their own game", and the candidate here was Kick the cat effect. To play this game, you need to find an article at AfD (or even CSD) that several other people think should be deleted, but which you personally are convinced you can improve per the Heymann Standard, and then improve it not just to a "Keep" closure, but to some higher standard such as GA or DYK. It was inspired by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What is black and white and red all over? where the much-missed Uncle G (talk · contribs) took a woefully inadequate article, turned it around and made everyone seriously impressed enough to !vote "keep" instead. I think my favourite goes at this game have been University of Michigan Men's Glee Club (AfD to GA), The White Mandingos (CSD to DYK), Medium (service) (CSD to DYK and I reckon there's scope for GA potential if I could face sitting down and quadrupling the article size), and Cardiff West services ("keep" on an article that common sense ought to suggest "delete"). More fun than any Wiki Cup I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Game on! I am saving this paragraph in my sandbox for reference to the links. I am decidedly an anti-deletionist. This is why I write no articles on English but do on Simple English. There they do still want articles and some of us have actually helped argue for keeps after improvement. Here, right now I am watching G3 Misa, which is a new article I did some patchwork repairs on. I have no idea whether this entertainer is notable, but I was astounded when someone placed a 'speedy delete' tag on it. At least it should be discussed! The creator merrily just reverted the tag and is still working on adding to the article. My theory has been if an article is doomed to be deleted, I haven't wanted to add to my deleted edits count with any further contributions, but I see the error of my ways. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 15:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Former Mayor of London, "Red Ken" Livingstone in his natural rocky habitat.

I've done quite a bit of AfD and CSD work now, but sadly most articles are called correctly, and CSD in particular filters out a ton of crap you never want to see. But every time I can edit an article, remove a CSD tag and add three high quality sources in the same edit, all I can think of is, as you say, "game on!" and trout slap the tagger. There's an old project, WP:NEWT which documents the experience of several highly experienced editors seeing how newbies got treated - it's about five years old and I would like to think things have got better since then, but still well worth reading. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

(DYK ... that true jazz cats "may have as many as eight digits on their front and/or hind paws"?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

james vinicombe 27/11/14

Hi Ritchie, many thanks for your help, what do you suggest I do if I have no credible references? All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Vinicombe (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@James.Vinicombe: If you have no references, there cannot be an article on this topic. If your business is important and significant enough to attract encyclopedic interest, somebody else will probably create it. For instance, I composed and arranged the music for The Brilliant Book, which my partner created and wrote, and am mentioned in the closing credits (under my real name) for each episode, but the only reason this article can exist on Wikipedia is because I have not edited it (thus preventing a conflict of interest), and it contains references to two newspaper articles and a link to the programme's entry in the Radio Times. Even then, I don't personally think that's a particularly strong reason to keep an article and if another editor decided to nominate it for deletion, they could probably put up a good argument for doing so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, much appreciated for you to take the time to write an explanation. As I understand it, I would need someone else to create a unique wiki article on my business in addition to some independent stories on the subject? On a separate note, on the Wiki article 'independent financial adviser', there are links to other companies like mine. Is it possible to have a link to YourMoneyHub.co.uk just as the others are doing? All the best, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Vinicombe (talk • contribs) 14:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@James.Vinicombe: Hi. The Independent Financial Adviser article is unfortunately not very good. There should not be any external links prose of the article, as it is against the manual of style. Only other Wikipedia articles should be linked in the body of that article, so the links to the other companies you mentioned should be removed. Indeed, I note that Theroadislong has just removed that section of the article for that reason. As far as your own company is concerned, the best option is to wait until somebody else without any conflict of interest creates the article independently. This may be next week, next month, or next year. I have to ask the question though, what is your main motivation for creating the article in the first place? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, thank you for your reply, my motivation for making a wiki page for YourMoneyhub.co.uk is to explain what this not-for-profit organisation is. We have connections to the Money Advice Service (to help people better understand their Financial situations in accordance with UK government), Cancer Research UK (we donate what we can to this charity) and also have a 'Financial Dictionary' (for those who do not understand any Financial terminology). If I were to get some newspaper articles made about YourMoneyhub.co.uk, how many would I realistically need in order to pass your censors? Many thanks. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Vinicombe (talk • contribs) 10:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@James.Vinicombe: Okay, I think the best thing to do here is to include the information on your own website, and ask the Money Advice Service to link there. With a name like yourmoneyhub.co.uk, people generally won't search for it on Wikipedia unless they happen to know the name, which means they know what the service is already. So in that respect, you'll probably find that a Wikipedia article won't be much use. The other problem is that An article about your own business isn't necessarily a good idea because if (heaven forbid) reports in Which? and The Independent give negative views of your business, Wikipedia can say those negative things and you will encounter extreme resistance if you try and delete them. So caveat emptor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just doin' the housework

Ritchie, I hope you're well. I'm just cleaning up my talk page, ditching those priceless disambig notices and other bot-generated gems, and was wondering if you could send the green/passed message for "The Lord Loves …" GA. No probs if you can't, it's simply for the record once I archive the year's messages. Oh, and best of luck with The Who FAC. From all I've seen, you generate such goodwill on Wikipedia – I've no doubt everyone will be willing you on to succeed! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The bot seems to have had difficult logging my passes, I brought it up on WT:GAN but I don't think anyone's got to the bottom of it. I briefly looked at the Who FAC and pre-FAC and all I can see is a rough consensus that it needs a hell of a lot of work. I'm holding off on doing things just for a day or two so I can take a break and do other stuff, but I don't fancy its chances at the minute. I really don't have the time, commitment and aptitude to get an article to FA single handedly, and I'm concerned if I do knuckle down and get things sorted out I'll end up being sick of the article subject - and that's not to take anything away from any comments, which as ever are in good faith, constructive and welcome. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The pink is gone, and the green is good – thank you.

Sorry to hear to about your reservations re The Who. I thought you'd done an admirable job, showing diligence and patience before nominating, whereas in the past I've seen others a little too, er, focused on attaining the prize … I wish I could say I'd help, but I'm stretched so thin right now as it is. I'm pretty sure I came across an Uncut special on the Who just recently (usual thing: I'm looking through a pile of old mags trying to find an article or review I know I've got somewhere; I don't find what I'm actually searching for, but I discover a whole heap of things I never knew I had.) I'll try to take a look over the next couple of days, and at the comments that WastedTime's raised … JG66 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well there's no point me sitting here moping about it, so I've made a start on the Who FAC and tackled some of the easier issues. Hopefully if I do a few a day it'll keep the backlog down. Looking through the issues, the real stickers are decisions over what material should stay and go, and for that you need all the book sources I've used (which are not merely "reliable sources" but critically acclaimed material by subject experts - I chose this article to take to FA for a reason). Unfortunately an article in Uncut is unlikely to dig out anything we haven't got elsewhere. In all seriousness, I couldn't give a monkeys about brown stars, I just want the best rock band article in the whole damn encyclopedia (except, maybe the Beatles of course....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)