User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 32

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Ritchie333. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Friend of Alice unblock request

Hi Ritchie, Fortunately, I saw this while monitoring Unblock requests because the ping didn't work. I've left a question for them. No one should unblock them while I'm discussing with them. There is more than meets the eye and additionally a second related case. My finding is that these are COI accounts. RooMorgue's situation is different than the other sock/meats, I believe COI and MEAT still apply here but would like the blocked editor to explain themselves.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I'll leave this in your hands then - if that means the unblock request has to be declined, can you handle that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I wouldn't be the one to decline their appeal although I could accept it. That depends on how they respond to the inquiry. Sorry for not going further but there is a reason. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

EN 50436 page is deleted

Dear Ritchie333,

yesterday you deleted a contribution "EN 50436" written by me. Reason is a question of copyright.

EN 50436 gives an overview and short introduction of the content of a series of European Standards on alcohol interlocks. I am the convenor of this standardization committee at CENELEC.

In doing this it is necessary of course also to report the content of the scope of the relevant standards. That is what I have done using partly the original words of the standards. And only this procedure really can reflect the basic content of the standard. The whole wordings of the standards however are not used in my contribution.

For one of the standards of EN 50436 the scope is also mentioned in a webpage of the Dutch standardisation organisation NEN which causes the deletion of my contribution.

I think that my contribution is not a violation of the copyright regulations. Without using some original wordings of the standards it will not be possible to give an exact overview of the content.

Therefore, please do not delete my contribution. It will be very useful for the interested public.

With best regards

Johannes Lagois

JLagois (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@JLagois: In the context of copyright violation on Wikipedia, we mean text that was copied from an external source that does not confirm to the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence and the GDFL (you can see this disclaimer every time you make an edit). All text content must (with a few small exceptions such as direct quotations) comply with this licence, which in summary allows anyone to take the text and freely redistribute it, or even sell it. Since most external sources do not want this to happen, we cannot allow any text that does not clearly state a compatible Creative Commons licence on it. I cannot restore this text anywhere, even to a draft as it violates Wikipedia's terms and conditions. Even disregarding this issue, official standards documents tend to have a different audience to Wikipedia articles, and while they can be used as sources, they tend not to comply to our house style for writing articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

bex

The full Bex

Hey Ritchie

That's her. Bex travels al over the world.

This wikipedia is complicated.

Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinoBoley (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@TinoBoley: Had a listen to Bex Marshall's music last night and it sounds great, and it turns out I do indeed have a friend who has seen her live several times in London and recalls her other half running the Borderline Club in London, so I made a concerted effort to make the article stick. Wikipedia is difficult to get to grips with given the poor quality of the user interface, and that's a real shame. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Genesis (band)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Genesis (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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations: more success at GAN

Congratulations on your recent successful GA nominations for In the Land of Grey and Pink and Richard Wright (Musician): two subjects that I am very interested in. You seem to have a real production line of GA's. Keep up the good work. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hanson Musical Instruments, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page P90. 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) 09:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

new links

Hey Ritchie

I like to add 2 more links from shows Bex did in Moscow

can you explain how i do that?

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/arts_n_ideas/article/the-year-of-british-rhythm-blues/493964.html

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/arts_n_ideas/article/bex-marshall-rocks-the-blues-in-moscow/494791.html

thanks

Tino — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinoBoley (talk • contribs) 13:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@TinoBoley: I've dropped them into the article as sources (they are reliable so can be used as such) and expanded the article a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A Ta

Thanks for yr thoughtful protection of the Dk of M article. A purring cat stamp for you. Discuss with the other party? Best not I would think. =: o http://www.thedukeanddoxieofmanchester.info/p/the-duke-and-duchess-alexander-montagu.html

How do you cite for World Renowned Mobile Games?

I have written an article on Real Steel World Robot Boxing based on facts provided by published articles. But my article has not been approved as citations are not strong. If regular gaming media is not a strong source, please let me know what to do. I feel that gaming has become such a part of people all over the world and there's knowledge to be shared. If this is not the conveyed reason please forgive me and let me know why? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewin51 (talk • contribs)

I don't know about article approval, but it might be helpful to know that WikiProject Video Games has an extensive list of sources they consider reliable and unreliable at this page. LjL (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Barmouth Bridge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Barmouth Bridge 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deletion to Quality Award

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring University of Michigan Men's Glee Club (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Michigan Men's Glee Club) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deletion to Quality Award

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Ika Hügel-Marshall (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ika Hügel-Marshall) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: The "Deletion to Quality Award" sounds clunky - why not call it the Heymann Award? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Because I read the talk page at Wikipedia talk:The Heymann Standard and saw there were several complaints there. I like keeping it descriptive so new visitors to the page will know right away just from the title what it's for. — Cirt (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah well, I prefer Heymann Award myself. I'm pretty sure I have suggested the name to MelanieN some time back. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's okay, I'm just glad we can agree with both like the concept behind the award. :) If it makes it any easier, I've added some shortcuts, WP:DQUAL and WP:DELQUAL, to make it easier to navigate there and refer back to it on other pages, in the future. — Cirt (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Besides, we already have WP:ARSBARNSTARS for those that don't make it to GA or FA. :) — Cirt (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And finally — I'd just really like to avoid internal-Wikipedia-based-jargon for the title of the award itself. :P — Cirt (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I dare say it would not take too much work to add Vine Street, London to the list. Just needs a thorough check of sources first. Although I don't think that counts as I didn't participate in the original AfD (the others I added I took an active part in) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's totally okay if you didn't participate in the AFD ! :) It's the fact that it was at AFD, at risk of deletion, in the article's history, and then brought to much higher level of quality as GA or FA. — Cirt (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, consider the history of Twitter. It has been speedied twice, prodded, passed GA and was then reassessed. Who on earth would you award there? So I think a little bit of discretion and common sense should be advised. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, there is a bit of a discussion about the name at Wikipedia talk:Deletion to Quality Award#Better name?. I had the same thoughts about the name "Deletion to quality" being unclear. In fact, when I first saw it I thought it meant "achieving quality through deletion," and I thought "huh??" I do agree with Cirt that "Heymann" is too Wiki-jargonish, it would mean nothing to most people. Anyhow, I do love the idea of the award. And when I said "I know people that will deserve a dozen of these awards" I was thinking of you! --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm so glad you both appreciate the idea for the Award !!! "Deletion" is supposed to be short for "Articles for Deletion". :) — Cirt (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I also find the name confusing, FWIW. Suggestions: "The From Risking Deletion To Quality Award" (awkward, I know); "The Deleted? No, Quality! Award" LjL (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deletion to Quality Award

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Watford Gap services (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This IP

Come on chaps ... settle down
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[1] is our "best known for" friend. What are we doing about this guy at the moment? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I hear the WP:QUACKing load and clear. We are currently anon-only rangeblocking for a year, which I have just done. He's going to run out of internet access, the trouble is the collateral that may result. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC) You think so, do you? Hahaha! 190.49.60.251 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Um, yes. "Hahaha!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks for that, I wasn't sure what the current policy was. I'd been trying to forget him! Yes, it's sad that it will inconvenience so many others, but equally sad that one person can cause so much trouble. I wish he'd get the help he needs. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Well, quite. Has he ever actually added content? Certainly removing a reliably sourced quote from Rolling Stone with an edit summary not relating to content is good to revert, whoever makes it. One day he's going to trip up on an article Eric Corbett has taken to FAC and then the heavens will tremble.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I've written featured articles. Have you? And do you really, honestly, sincerely not understand the problem with explicitly endorsing the opinions of a source? Well apparently you don't understand that 4 US examples out of 5 was US-centric, so you're really not the sharpest tool. Get an adult to read WP:YESPOV and explain it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.60.251 (talk) To my knowledge, he's never added so much as an original sentence of his own. He just likes to nitpick at other people's work. Sometimes he's right and sometimes he's wrong. Maybe he's an art critic. He's a distinctly average proofreader anyway; he misses far more errors than he spots. And well, haha, I'm not sure Wikipedia's servers would be able to cope with that. I'd just sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show, I think! Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Your knowledge is, unsurprisingly, highly deficient. And don't be so utterly stupid as to think that if I didn't correct an error, it's because I didn't see it. I haven't seen you correcting a single error on any article I've ever edits; you only ever restore them. So for you to criticise me for leaving errors uncorrected is laughable in the extreme. So, go on, block another entirely disposable IP for a year, pointlessly revert some edits, make the encyclopaedia worse, and see if I care even a tiny little bit. Does pointlessly and disruptively reverting someone's edits purely because they get annoyed at pointlessly disruptive reverts feel good? I mean really? 190.49.60.251 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "And don't be so utterly stupid as to think that if I didn't correct an error, it's because I didn't see it." Exactly, I'm not stupid enough to think it's because you didn't see it. Like your woeful sentence structure which left you saying something you didn't mean, you didn't correct those errors because you missed them. Like I said above, I wish you'd get the help you so obviously need. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Beat it

What a 60s classic this was. Surely a Hammond... but any idea who was playing?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It was probably The Wrecking Crew (music), and the most likely candidate would be Larry Knechtel, but I'm not sure where I could find a source for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Threesie! It's quite a trippy organ sound for such an R&B belter. Have always loved the horns in this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like Stephen Stills playing but I don't think he was doing sessions in 67. The Porpoise Song is another one from the same group. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

voter encouragement

I'm thinking of using this self-made boilerplate more often when users try to screw up RfAs. What's your opinion?

==RfA  -  You  can help==

Hi [username]. Thank you for participating at RfA. We urgently need new, active admins, but obviously they must  be of the right calibre. Potential candidates have clearly told us that they will not run for adminship so long as the RfA process continues to draw contentious !votes, an over abundance of questions, and unfriendly remarks. Help us to find and recruit new admins and help to make the RfA pages a more inviting  environment  for everyone concerned. Imagine it were your RfA, and how you would like it to be conducted. Any suggestions you might have for improvement can be made here, Thanks.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I'm concerned this may cause more harm than good. By all means advise somebody you don't recognise who votes "Oppose per x, candidate does have 100% perfection on AfD scores" to think about what they're doing and put themselves in the candidate's shoes, but there's no point sending the above message to the "usual suspects" - it'll just invite drama to a magnet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No need to worry about that, it's obviously not aimed at any of the regulars who are hell bent on turning every RfA into a drama fest if they possibly can. It's aimed more at the clueless newbies and drive by voters who just think it's cool to throw a vote in without realising the consequences their vote can have. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: It's still PC protected for about 6 hours - if somebody else comes along and disrupts it, drop a note on WP:RFPP and somebody will protect it, probably for longer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bex Marshall

added a link pointing to Roots music

Don Tate

added a link pointing to Chatham County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

F1 Challenge '99-'02. Edit war, spam and vandalism.

Hello, good afternoon there. I'm here for request a protection for the "EA Sports F1 Series" article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA_Sports_F1_series).

On the last days, there was an edit war. This is because there is a user that doesn't stop spamming on the page, by dint of using Wikipedia as a sponsorship page for his Facebook page, for get people to download his multiple mod F1 Challenge 1988-2014. The afromentioned mod is composed by an amount of leeched stuff from their original authors (there are no 2012, 2013 and 2014 mods made from scratch, 1988 mod uses Dudi stuff, 1989 uses David Marques, Cheery, BMCM3 and MonteSky stuff, 1995 and 1996 uses CrashKing stuff, etc.) Since September, I'm restauring the article deleting spam daily. He even distorted on one ocassion a link referenced of the article I'm talking about.

Please, protect the page if you can. Banning the user solves nothing, because he utilises a dynamic IP.

Kind regards, --84.125.220.68 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page, but frankly you should be very grateful I didn't block you for edit warring too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Barefoot IT

Hi Ritchie333, am I missing something over at Barefoot IT? It was created today by a user, and I tagged as CSD A7 (Corp) due to a lack of notability. I now see it's been redirected. Apologies if I got in the way there samtar ^{t} 11:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: Yes, I was reviewing CSDs, and I decided that one wasn't quite worth deleting, but could be redirected to the article about its owner, where the content could be merged. Redirects are cheap, relatively uncontroversial, and they stop the article being created again and again and again and again (as this one has) until an admin loses patience, salts it and blocks the creating editor. As the organisation doesn't appear to be a blatant hoax, a redirect is the best out of all options in my view. I've also semi-protected the redirect for a short time so it can stabilise there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: thanks for taking the time to explain that :) seems to make a lot more sense samtar ^{t} 11:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Deletion

Hello Ritchie333, Recently i found that you removed the speedy deletion of Abi Varghese by commenting "If he's been at the Cannes festival, I don't think we can A7)". But i would like to say that there's no reference for whether he's been at Cannes festival, so i feel that there's no importance of the article (Rest of the article says about looks like promotional). Also his movie is not yet released, so it looks like a promotional or A7. Hope you'll undo the speedy deletion A7 removal. Thanks. Josu4u (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:A7 is about indication or claim to importance or significance, there doesn't have to be any reference or source verifying it. LjL (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)@Josu4u: You only need a claim of importance to clear A7. If you type "Abi Varghese" "cannes festival" into Google you may have some more idea of whether there's a reference for it or not. ;-) If you believe that in itself is insufficient to be able to write a full biography, you need to start a full debate at Articles for deletion. The only possible exception is if you can show me the article is completely made up and deliberately misleading, in which case I could delete it per WP:CSD#G3 ("blatant hoax"), but I don't think that's likely. Also, you can get into a lot of trouble with speedy tagging if you're not every careful - consider this nomination of Clara H. Hasse which made a piece in The Atlantic which is creating much lather all over project space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)@Ritchie333:When I learned more about Wikipedia i taught that, as for creating Article's it needs a article from relevant newspapers/websites. During my initial creation stage on Wikipedia, when i added references from a WordPress website some of the article creators removed and commented as WordPress is not a trusted reference and it can be able to be created by anyone and as for relevance we need to add reference from Google News or from any reputed websites. May be its because of my little knowledge. Thanks for the information's. Josu4u (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A Wordpress blog is usually not a reliable source. But for WP:Speedy deletion, reliable sources are not the issue; it's about something else. The article can still be nominated for deletion, and it will be deleted if a consensus is reached. LjL (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: sorry, but I usually leave every page I interact with in my watchlist, including talk pages, so I end up doing this :P LjL (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Martinevans123 and Gerda Arendt seem to enjoy hanging out here too for some reason. If it takes the load off me for a bit, is civil and helps with general camardarie that is a collaborative encyclopedia project, I'm all for it. I'm not expecting the traffic of Jimbo's page or anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to suggest that LjL was ever like a dog with a bone. That might be seen as a blot on my copybook? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

‎Green Banana Marketing

I reverted myself because I figured we ought to wait a few minutes, both to give the guy a chance to do anything better with it, and to give someone else a chance to look at it before I did anything. By deleting it half an hour after I came along, you satisfied both goals :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Old days

Keep out of reach of cats

Never say never! OohBunnies! (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@OohBunnies!: - oooh, long time no see, and welcome back! Since we last spoke I've written about 40 GAs and become an admin (yikes!) but that "not overreacting" piece on your home page has been an inspiration for me not to go ballistic and shout my mouth off at anyone on here (at least too often). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on your GAs and admin bits! Have you sold your soul to a shadowy cabal yet? If not, then you certainly aren't doing it right. ;) And wow, it's strange to think something I said was an inspiration for someone - in a good way. Anyway, I'm back to studying now, so hopefully I'll have a lot more sources to play around with and might get some writing done. And I'd like to return to AfC, but I'll need to brush up on everything. I'm pretty rusty after a long break. OohBunnies! (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists. The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents! Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best. The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input. Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

Abbey Road

• Hello Ritchie333, when you have time, can you give reference 187 on that page a look? It is for the French certification for the album. The ref is giving an error. I have not used the certification tables / layouts previously and hence don't want to touch it. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Should be all fixed now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Minor Barnstar
		Although you did not make the top 16 of Round 1, you did participate and you still deserve a barnstar. Thank you so much for being a part of the 2nd Annual GA Cup and we hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A past situation resurrected

Hey - please take this section in the least antagonistic way possible, I really do mean it just as an example to demonstrate why it's good to consult with blocking admins before unblocking. A while ago, after a long and disturbing pattern of behavior, I blocked someone. Without any consultation with me or asking for any further clarification as to why I blocked them (and despite the fact that they had, frankly, one of the weirdest and most out of policy unblock requests I've ever seen,) you unblocked them, while stating that I had made a WP:INVOLVED block. If you had asked me further about it, I could have clarified that I was in no way WP:INVOLVED and further discussed the block with you, including linking to eleven previous AN and ANI sections directly relevant to it. But after taking a block review to AN an instantly being mobbed, I let the issue drop.

The user you unblocked has now been indefinitely blocked by a well-respected checkuser as a puppet of a long term disruptive master who has been around for years intentionally sowing discord among ENWPians and planting hard to detect hoaxes in our content. So... can we agree that, especially for blocks where the full context of the block isn't apparent from just the initial block message alone (and keep in mind that would've made my initial block message contain probably 50 diffs,) we should be consult with the blocking admin before arbitrarily accepting unblock requests? Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about. We should do whatever is best for improving the reader's perception of the encyclopaedia, and not dwell on who blocked who or who spilled whoever's pint. I certainly strongly dislike the "never mind the quality - feel the width" statement on the current logo ("4,000,000 crappy start class articles?") And people who dwell on old blocks miss the point - there is much more to life than blocking. Pick an article on User:Ritchie333/Monopoly to improve. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

new link

Hi

Bex is nominated for best Acoustic bluesartist in Europe.

Can you add a link

https://europeanbluesawards.wordpress.com/

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinoBoley (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oxford Street

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Oxford Street 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 Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

An unrelated ongoing situation , which is self-resurrecting , but which I shall also bring up

Howdy Ritchie333, I'm wiki-friends with Hafspajen and Yngvadottir,[2] and am interested in trying to have a conversation with the person from Santiago-slash-England, about coming down from the Reichstag. I may have better success that others who have tried in the past, talking to this particular Santiago-slash-England editor, because of three factors:

• I also edit purely as an anon (albeit from a quasi-static single-physical-location IP),
• I also think unexplained reverts are a slap in the face (albeit do not edit-war about such rudeness), and
• I also want wikipedia's voice to be objectively objective in a strict sense (though I do understand why the constant threat of AfD leads to prominent nigh-subconscious attempts to make a claim to wiki-notability in the lede).

Now although these favorable bullet-points don't guarantee I will succeed, and although it is a long shot that everybody can once again sing O Come All Ye Faithful together in wiki-harmony, I would like to make the attempt. Trouble being... for obvious reasons... I cannot edit the LTA casepage (nor even the case-talkpage thereof), and the conversation at User_talk:190.45.93.157 is also anon-blocked now. Can I write a message, asking the person in question, to contact me on my usertalk, and have you copy the message to the various locations that it might be noticed, by the person from Santiago-slash-England? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I have seen you around, though it beats me why anyone editing more than once a month would want to stay as an IP as the user experience is pretty awful in my view (I can't even ping you to tell you I've replied, for one thing). Anyway, the semi-protection on talk expires tomorrow, but I'm not sure you'll get a suitable audience there. I didn't semi-protect the LTA talk page and I don't think proxy editing to work around a protection is a good thing for an admin to do as somebody somewhere will moan about it. I've dropped a note on the protecting admin's talk page to see if I've got clearance to lift the protection. Failing that, I think your best bet is to probably start a thread on ANI, so you get a wider consensus of administrators. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, to answer your comments roughly in order mentioned, my personally remaining an anon, is mostly a philosophical stubbornness, related to anyone-can-edit. I'm working on the ping-thing, actually, it annoys me as well.  :-)     And yes, eventually there will have to be a consensus amongst some subset of admins, but until and unless I manage to get a two-way consensus betwixt myself and the Santiago-slash-England person, about how they can best contribute sensibly and potentially be unblocked (on the basis of blocks-apply-to-humans-not-to-IP-addresses), a wider audience seems unlikely to be low-drama. It is possible they are reading this comment here, which is partly why I asked you. And of course, the other reason why I asked here, is because I didn't want to be mistaken for a sock.  :-)     So point being, no problem about not wanting to proxy-edit, it is likely not even necessary. I'll try to catch a time when pageprot has expired on the LTA pages, and put a please-contact-me note there at some point. If you notice another IP get rangeblocked, and want to leave me a talkback-or-equivalent, prior to the talkpage-access of the latest rangeblocked group being revoked, I will try to help at that point. Ideally, of course, the person from Santiago-slash-England will just come directly to my usertalk, after which I can move the how-to-best-get-unblocked conversation to their then-current usertalk. In any case, thanks for your work on this Ritchie333, and your open-ness to the admittedly-slim but still non-negligible possibility of a win-win outcome.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Wright (musician)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Wright (musician)

The article Richard Wright (musician) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Richard Wright (musician) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Want to help rescue an article?

Hi, Ritchie! Here's something that might be right up your alley: the article Don Tate. I deleted it earlier this month per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Tate (2nd nomination). An IP identifying himself as the subject just posted a note about it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive230#Don Tate. The discussants at the AfD had held out the possibility that the article could be improved. So I have restored it and will give a shot at improving it. Want to help?

Background: The subject had earlier written an article about himself; it was just what you might expect, full of puffery. He tried several times in 2006-2007 and all of those were deleted. He says that since then he respected the rules and did not write about himself. The current version appears to have been written by someone else, in 2013, and is encyclopedic. I told the IP/subject that he could make suggestions at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel Bogado

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Eddy/Eddie Offord + The Yes Album

First, I wanted to write that my edit was in good faith, and I hope the understanding is mutual. I wanted to request clarification for your reversion. I see you wrote in your edit summary that the sleeve says Eddie Offord and not Eddy Offord. That being said, it seems that most Yes–related websites and prog rock publications use Eddy and not Eddie. I'd like to dialogue with you to hear your perspective. Best, The Obento Musubi (t · c) 09:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Obento Musubi: Of course your edit was in good faith, that's without question. What I have learned from working on these types of articles over an extended period is that we tend to have arguments about names that really aren't that important to the layman reader who just wants to find out key information. So I've noticed a general consensus to defer what is written on the sleeve notes (eg: "John" vs "Jon" Anderson, which model of Hammond did Tony Kaye play, both in the same article). Hope that clarifies things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Could I request that we link to Eddy Offord while maintaining Eddie Offord? That way we can prevent linking to a redirect. Thanks! The Obento Musubi (t · c) 10:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with that - we do that already for John / Jon Anderson as it is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI

• Great! Now that you've "found it..." Do you have any suggestions/Are you going to attempt to be part of the solution.... or will you simply fade away into the background with nothing more to offer?Cebr1979 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Cause we're now at almost 7 hours later and you haven't done anything with what you "found" (y'know: what you were (supposedly) looking for the entire time)! This is a serious problem and I (shouldn't have to/)won't be letting it go. 11 hours had passed before you went running for help, whereas I have been asking for help for weeks. With you being an admin, I do expect that you will now help to solve this issue. We should be allies at this point, I shouldn't need to come to you 7 hours later for a follow-up on something you (even being an admin) felt the need to go for assistance on. You should have already started... something.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page, it says "This user is gigging a lot and may not respond quickly to enquiries" (although in the case last night it was a recording session). Slakr has given a good situation of the scale of the problem on ANI, and I don't think there is any solution short of disabling anonymous editing or semi-protecting a lot more pages, both of which will get strong resistance from the community. I think you're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that a rock and a hard place? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil

This editor believes in less bull and more writing

I regard your recent unblocking of this editor as a misuse of the administrator tools. As you can see from the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard consensus is in support of the original block, yet you unilaterally unblocked. Would you care to review your decision? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I found the conversation very difficult to follow. I see a lot of yelling, anger, upset and not much encyclopedia writing. Of course, if you genuinely think there's been administrator abuse, you are free to request a desysopping at WP:ARC. I think everybody needs to calm down and take a deep breath; I'm looking at the news and seeing Storm Desmond and Syrian air strikes and feel we need to put things in perspective. I've had an email from Sagaciousphil saying admin is free to reblock as she doesn't want drama. Hopefully I can get John Deacon or Trafalgar Square in shape for GA before the festive season is upon is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see a reason for this to go to ArbCom, it's a community discussion about the merits of two admin actions. Would you mind answering Martin's question, in light of the discussion AN would you care to review your decision (or comment in the AN thread as to why you still believe you were right to unblock). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't unblock people who were legitimately blocked for violations of our personal attack policy. When you do that you are enabling the abusive behaviour of others and reducing the quality of the site for those who are able to edit without being nasty. If you don't want to enforce our civility policy that is fine, but please do not undermine it.

If you found the conversation difficult to follow then you probably should not have been the one to decide the outcome. HighInBC 14:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia, not yell at each other. What is going on with the world? Sorry if I seem sentimental today but there just seems to be so much anger over things, and that makes me feel like this. (And while I'm here, why can't I find a copy of the Inside Out DVD in my local Tesco?) I'm busy for the rest of the day, so anyone else is free to do whatever they think improves the project. Have a nice day, y'all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comment above, specifically about WP:ADMINACCT. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes Ritchie we are here to write an encyclopedia and not yell at each other. That is why when a user makes personal attacks against other users we block them, so that we can write an encyclopedia and not yell at each other. When a user is blocked for personal attacks and insisting they have done nothing wrong then unblocking them validates the idea that they did nothing wrong. If the civility policy is not enforced then those who like yelling will drive off those who prefer to work collaboratively.

I don't think people are angry, just annoyed. HighInBC 14:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You have only made five contributions to article space in the last month, so I'm afraid I don't find your assertation that you are here to write an encyclopedia convincing. If you want to correct that, I could really do with some help fixing the tags I put on Trafalgar Square. You should be able to get the information from British History Online I would have thought, and it's a nationally famous landmark, so in theory I think anyone in the world anywhere should be able to make some improvements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It was your assertion that we are here to write an encyclopedia, I just agreed with you. You will never find me complaining to you about the things you don't do Richie. It is the things you do that are the issue here. I have contributed to this site for almost 10 years now just like you. No need to belittle my contributions, it in no way makes your actions any better. HighInBC 15:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You are being asked to justify your unblock, say you're busy for the rest of the day, but have the time to write this garbage? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• It was more than unwise, at least bordering on tool misuse. Especially considering your stated goals and awareness in this thread - Cowboy unblocks revisited - where you were reminded and were aware that those type of unblocks can lead to not only more drama, but tool misuse charges. Stop it. Directing others to edit articles or trying to demean their contributions is not a sufficient response. Dave Dial (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Ritche333, since you say "if you genuinely think there's been administrator abuse, you are free to request a desysopping at WP:ARC" instead of going this route, would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall as a show of good faith? —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see abuse of tools, but I think both Berean Hunter and you jumped the gun a little. I also think you both did so in the best of faith, but it still would have served us better if you had slowed down a little and been less reactive. This isn't an Arb case, this is a community issue, and I think you would be best served to just take what people are saying and move on, with the understanding that you should hesitate when there isn't absolutely clear consensus. I would have unblocked her anyway, based on my discussion with her in private. She gets it, she knows she crossed a line. This doesn't change the fact that you should have waited a bit.

And I do think that we need to be careful. Berean Hunter is a friend, in real life and here. Ritchie is a fellow musician. I can genuinely say I really like both guys. I can also say I think they both erred, in good faith, but erred nonethe less. Ritchie, you might need to get off the soapbox about editing. I know it well, I've climbed on it myself and others here have their own soapboxes here, but it isn't helpful. There is too much posturing here. It is over, there was haste all around, I hope Ritchie will take this advice to heart. I hope Berean Hunter will accept my opinion in the best of faith as well. Every person involved in this (including Phil) could maybe have handled it better. Rather than point fingers, maybe we need to move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I wish you would stop advocating, "hey I got private emails, no need to talk to the blocking admin" unblocks. It didn't work for a notable case a few months ago and it's going to cause more drama in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think I'm "advocating". I'm trying to dampen the drama and stick to the merits by providing factual information. And I haven't talked to the blocking admin about it, I'm talking to the unblocking admin, telling him to step down from a soapbox and be less quick to unblock. My interest is preventing premature unblocks, not bludgeoning him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, you have said a couple times that you received emails from Phil and would've unblocked her on the basis of those emails. You have never mentioned that you would have talked to the blocking admin first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that is relevant. I can't think of a time I have unblocked someone without trying to contact the blocking admin. Berean Hunter and I have drank beer and barbecued ribs more than once, so we actually know each other. That didn't bias me in his favor here and I in fact said he was a little hasty. He will say the same to me if I am, and has. I'm not sure what you are implying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you think if Ritchie had talked to Berean Hunter first, all this drama would have happened? That's the takeaway here. A quick unblock can happen if the blocking editor has been consulted first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I already said Ritchie acted too hastily Neil, and in fact went further and talked about the soapboxing. You seem to be chewing my ass for agreeing with you, but for doing so in a peaceful way that reduces drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

With the amount of unhappy editors in the AN thread I am surprised there was no desysop discussion. This is for Ritchie, now that the dust is settling I hope you realize how many editors took issue with what you did. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Berean Hunter is one of the good guys on the project, sure, and I did have some off-wiki correspondence with SagPhil that I don't really want to bring up here (WP:OUTING and all that) that convinced me this was nothing more than User:Beeblebrox/fuck off and wasn't going to happen again in the cold light of the morning. I will say that a great many article's I've taken to GA this year had her input behind the scenes and she has been very helpful. Regarding improving content, I have seen some blunt comments like "haven't you got an article to write" thrown about, which aren't helpful (and I have seen that from some people), but I genuinely do want people to give it a go - because it's great. You did it with Sunbeam Tiger, didn't you and now you're best friends with Eric (okay, exaggerated a bit). Obviously people have got to want to do it, however. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes. It is good (but people are not going to be attacked into it). At any rate, on the administrative side, just so you don't go away, without hearing the full range of thought on this, which may lead to future error - yes, you abused the tools. Should you want to discuss it sometime later perhaps, drop by my page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would personally define an abuse of the tools closer to undeleting an article describing planned ISIS attacks that had already been speedy deleted via CSD G10 or unblocking somebody community or Arbcom banned (Russavia?) I certainly think we use the block button too regularly and it creates a lot of drama and upset, so is best avoided where possible. I think you all have to realise that I am generally suspicious of people in high levels of authority and always supportive of people on the lower ranks - both here and in real life, and that's a combination of personal views and what life has dealt me. This means I will always give the time of day to newcomers and people who genuinely want help, but I will ignore or belittle admins coming here and trying to pick a fight (for the record, Alan, I don't see you or Dennis doing that). I don't tell people to fuck off like I did in my 20s, but Eric's persona doesn't seem to be too different from my own except I self-censor a lot more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

After reading these comments, Ritchie, I doubt you would have unblocked a different editor who behaved in this way who you didn't have such a positive opinion of. I think if you are personally close to an editor, positively or negatively, you should let another admin take action (as Dennis has said he would). I would have preferred if you had discussed this unblock first with Berean Hunter before you acted, as that is common practice when unblocking an editor, rather than relying on private email appeals.

As for the original comments, you have more faith than I that they won't be repeated. But since this has been going on for some months, I'm just grateful that other editors are aware of the situation. I still don't know what I did to trigger this animosity and I've tried to make peace but to no avail. But Wikipedia is a big, big place, we work in different areas and I can be pleasant should we cross paths in the future. I hope future blocks will be unnecessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz, Some people around here want to throw around their content creation as some kind of weapon, or alternatively defense. But one thing that is odd about it (apart from it often being irrelevant to the discussion), is it is as if they do not know what a wiki is. If you write and publish on a wiki, you will have to deal with all the other people and in a manner all those other people find roughly acceptable. There are other places to write and publish, where you do not have to do that, but not on a wiki. All I can counsel, Liz, is do not fall for the attack-back (as you did not here), it helps no one.

Ritchie, I do not understand what your personality revelation really means, here, nor how it is relevant but I am sure if it needs to be discussed further, it can be. At any rate, about this particular tool use, just know that other people disagree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, many people around here don't seem to understand what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. It remains an open question as to whether the wiki model is appropriate for that endeavour, but the evidence seems to suggest not. Eric Corbett 20:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, if one determines that the enterprise of writing an encyclopedia on a wiki is not for them, than it is not for them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's to miss the point Alan. The unanswered question is whether it's actually possible to build an encyclopedia using a wiki. I'd suggest that the evidence to date strongly suggests that it isn't. Eric Corbett 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a theoretical discussion on the proper form and process to create an online encyclopedia. This is about an editor who lobbed insults at me including stating that I was the epitome of all that is wrong with Wikipedia, I was dirt on her shoes, I was pathetic and that I was not competent.

Ritchie, I would have liked to have seen an unblock request where Phil said publicly that she would cease with the insults and that she regretted deriding me. It's no comfort for me that you say she expressed this to you in a private email. The insults she made were public and were repeated several times on AN. It would be nice if Phil had made her apology pubic as well. If I was the admin looking over this case, I'd want to see that happen before unblocking an editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd have been wrong to do so - we don't make people apologize, either publicly or privately, as a condition of unblocking. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No we don't. However we do require that the "appellant acknowledges the conduct that led to their block and requests a second chance" (from WP:AAB), which also says, by the way, that "in all cases, unblock requests should be submitted on your [appellant's] user talk page". In fact the (un)blocking policy states that a common reason for unblocking is that "a commitment to change is given", which could be in form of an apology or 'yes I know it was wrong because...'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. Unblock not so cool but harmless and any calls for an Arbcom case are more than ludicrous. Desysoping is for admins who persistently demonstrate patterns blatant abuse of tools, incivility, and general poor behaviour, POV, COI, and other infringements of general rules.If anything, this issue demonstrates vividly that content providers should clearly not be exempt from sanctions for incivility and PA.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Liz: - I can fully appreciate it was not nice to be on the receiving end of SagPhil's comments - not at all. However, I don't think she was specifically having a go at you, rather she was expressing exasperation at editors who make a lot of noise but don't seem to contribute much content, which has been discussed at length elsewhere. I don't personally class you in that category, as I saw you pick up some writing during your RfA, and it's what made me switch to support. As the attacks haven't continued yesterday, it would seem to reinforce my view that the disruption fixed by the block had gone stale. I get the impression from above from others that the only way to counteract personal attacks or incivility is to smack people with a banhammer. A more compassionate approach is harder, but ultimately more rewarding. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"I don't think she was specifically having a go at you" Of course, she was. Your proffered attempt at excuse is wrong: 'she attacked you because she was frustrated at something ' makes the personal attack out to be disingenuous and cruel. Blocking for such disruption protects the victim, now, and it is hoped into the future. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't share your views, you don't share mine, accept they are different and move on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)