User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 43
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
John Earle wiki page
Hi Ritchie333 , just a quick note to say I found the John Earle wiki entry which i believe you set up and wanted to thank you. The subject was my Father and i've been trying to get a wiki page for him off the ground for some time. If you dont mind i would like to contribute more to this page as I know of events / sources that can be referenced as I've been collecting material towards committing his life to print. If you have any problems or questions I'll be happy to talk further. Keep up the good work ! Regards Ibe1972 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC) ibe1972
- @Ibe1972: By strange coincidence, I have been listening to Live and Dangerous this afternoon which features John Earle on sax, one of my favourite live albums of all time and easily Thin Lizzy's best album by a wide margin (quick wave to Bretonbanquet). I met Brian Robertson once doing a pub gig in Essex some years back, and his opening line was "this wee bastard amp inn'ae loud enough". One of the problem on working with an article like Earl's is that he was a sidesman to various bands, rather than a frontman or leader, and that means he didn't get as much column inches in the NME, Melody Maker or Sounds, which makes it harder to write an article about him. In any case, I have done a little copyediting and formatting to the article so it's a little better presented. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Fenchurch Street railway station
The article Fenchurch Street railway station you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Fenchurch Street railway station 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Evans
G'day from Oz; I have no opinion of the situation that MartinEvans123 currently finds himself in, I have spent the last 10-20 minutes reading a bit about it. I recall him in a vague way as a good editor, and he is definitely not on my mental list of Wikipedia fuck-knuckles. Anyway, I just wanted to draw your attention to this, which is what prompted my recent interest. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Lipsquid: Martinevans123 is not banned, although if he has now retired I wouldn't be surprised. Please could you strike that comment? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Martin responded nicely to blessings and flowers and Kafka (his talk, "the story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader"), why should he retire? I didn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I will modify it. Mr. Evans was caught red-handed, admitted his error and apologized. It is nothing like an innocent man who was wrongly prosecuted. He wrote good prose, but was pompous and non-collaborative to the point of being disruptive. Lipsquid (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Whom are you telling your point of view? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Whom owns this talk page? I was asked to respond here. No wonder you got along with Martin... I changed the post on flight 370 from banned to blocked. That was my error, I did not intentionally mislead. Lipsquid (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- FFS: To whom are you- or Who owns- this talkpage. Presumably, the WMF :p Muffled Pocketed 15:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Heh, Touche! Lipsquid (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry if I was unclear. The indenting told me it was a reply to me, but I couldn't relate to it, so asked if it was perhaps for someone else. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Heh, Touche! Lipsquid (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- FFS: To whom are you- or Who owns- this talkpage. Presumably, the WMF :p Muffled Pocketed 15:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Whom owns this talk page? I was asked to respond here. No wonder you got along with Martin... I changed the post on flight 370 from banned to blocked. That was my error, I did not intentionally mislead. Lipsquid (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Whom are you telling your point of view? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I will modify it. Mr. Evans was caught red-handed, admitted his error and apologized. It is nothing like an innocent man who was wrongly prosecuted. He wrote good prose, but was pompous and non-collaborative to the point of being disruptive. Lipsquid (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Martin responded nicely to blessings and flowers and Kafka (his talk, "the story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader"), why should he retire? I didn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fine. - EEng, thank you for the image, - would you find one for "Gerda and her infobox flash mob" (as mentioned in an edit summary on the talk of Gustav Holst) also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- (we can only be thankful nobody asked EEng to dish up an image of a "fuck-knuckle"....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- ... or Talk:Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators, for that matter. EEng 08:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- (we can only be thankful nobody asked EEng to dish up an image of a "fuck-knuckle"....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fine. - EEng, thank you for the image, - would you find one for "Gerda and her infobox flash mob" (as mentioned in an edit summary on the talk of Gustav Holst) also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK Hook help needed. I'd like to use the headline of this review, which is in German. First problem is the translation. It's short for (in the article) "Wie wuchtig diese junge, irische Braut, auf dem Wege nach Cornwall, um dort von Tristan an König Marke ausgeliefert zu werden, ihre Verzweiflung herausschleudert!" which Google renders as "How important these young Syrian Bride, on the way to Cornwall to be there shipped from Tristan to King Marke, their desperation flings!" How they get from Irish to Syrian is some mystery to me (irisch vs. syrisch shouldn't be too much of a problem). Why, with bride a singular, they use plural pronouns, another. I learned "extradite" as probably the closest to "ausgeliefert" here. Problem key words: "wuchtig", which is something at the same time with weight and with force, and "herausschleudern", a sportive word used as a metapher. I said (so far) "powerful" and "catapulted", - improvements welcome, also a potential hook here. EEng, am I right that you would use "ejaculated"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- To do a good translation, you need to parse the whole sentence, then work back from there. I would go for something like "How lonely is this young Irish bride, being taken to Cornwall by Tristan to King Mark , her desperation cries out". This is talking about the alleged affair between Tristan and Princess Iseult. "Lonely" here can be used in English in reference to a spinster approaching middle-age and wanting marriage. Yngvadottir might be able to do better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't clear, I don't need the full sentence translated, just the header (excerpt). The bride is clearly the subject, and "crying out" here desperation is good, but is it close enough to "herausschleudern", with its implied vigour, that is a question. I don't know where you get lonely from. "wuchtig" can also be "massive", "bulky" and "shattering", derived from "Wucht": force, impact, weight, power ... - She is on a boat, traveling to her future husband, accompanied by his friend (and the matchmaker) who had killed her beloved. Desperation is understandable. - The second header in the article is somewhat easier to translate: kisses and bites are close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps "filled with passion" is a better translation of "wuchtig". Picture the scene in a modern context; you're on a ferry from Dublin to Holyhead to get engaged to some chap with lots of money, but you absolutely fancy the pants off the bloke who's come to get you, and after a few drinks the weight of doing what is morally correct is too much and ..... I'll leave the rest of that as an exercise for the reader. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nice OR. You (and I) agree with Katharina Wagner (the stage director), that passion was already there and didn't need a love potion. Can't use it for a hook, - wuchtig can mean a lot, but not "filled with passion". "Passionately" would also be too ambiguous". But thanks for trying, - try harder ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps "filled with passion" is a better translation of "wuchtig". Picture the scene in a modern context; you're on a ferry from Dublin to Holyhead to get engaged to some chap with lots of money, but you absolutely fancy the pants off the bloke who's come to get you, and after a few drinks the weight of doing what is morally correct is too much and ..... I'll leave the rest of that as an exercise for the reader. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't clear, I don't need the full sentence translated, just the header (excerpt). The bride is clearly the subject, and "crying out" here desperation is good, but is it close enough to "herausschleudern", with its implied vigour, that is a question. I don't know where you get lonely from. "wuchtig" can also be "massive", "bulky" and "shattering", derived from "Wucht": force, impact, weight, power ... - She is on a boat, traveling to her future husband, accompanied by his friend (and the matchmaker) who had killed her beloved. Desperation is understandable. - The second header in the article is somewhat easier to translate: kisses and bites are close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- (I also agree with Katherina Wagner—it's there in the text somewhere.) A close translation of the bit in the headline would be "How heftily this young bride flings out her despair", but that is multiply problematic in English. And please, please don't use "ejaculate". I'm assuming you want to say something in the hook like "DYK that according to a critic, in this year's Bayreuth Festival, Isolde 'heftily ... fl[ung] out her despair'?" A better translation might be: "How forcefully this young bride gives voice to her despair!" or "With what force the young bride here [i.e., in this production, or Petra Lang in particular] launches her despair at us!"—maybe you can adapt one of those? Or maybe another lurking translator can do better. ("Despair" is the standard translation of Verzweiflung, but it always gives me pause because the etymological connection to "doubt" isn't there. Sometimes "desperation" is a better rendition; consider that as an alternative here depending on your reading of the emotional drama.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, I like "forcefully" and "heftily", and liked "desperation" even before your comment, feel supported. - Which leaves "herausschleudern" open, "give voice" is too harmless, "fling" too sporty. - Needless to say, the assumed EEng way was a joke. Compare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can't imagine why everyone turns to me when they want a winking, off-color hook [2]. EEng 16:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think I found a word expressing a bit of "herausschleudern": "express". - I didn't ping your for a hook, only a word ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry I misunderstood. For the record, I definitely wouldn't say "ejaculated her despair". EEng 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have something more expressive than "express"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Proclaim. EEng 20:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you really want to keep the throwing metaphor, try "hurls at the audience". (You need "at the audience" because that verb really requires an "at" and because without one, in US slang it means "vomit".) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good ideas, but in this case I think both proclaim and hurl doesn't work well. I believe the expression of Isolde's feelings comes out of her ("heraus", almost "vomited"), audience or not. Please check article and nom for my latest changes. Open for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have something more expressive than "express"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry I misunderstood. For the record, I definitely wouldn't say "ejaculated her despair". EEng 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think I found a word expressing a bit of "herausschleudern": "express". - I didn't ping your for a hook, only a word ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can't imagine why everyone turns to me when they want a winking, off-color hook [2]. EEng 16:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, I like "forcefully" and "heftily", and liked "desperation" even before your comment, feel supported. - Which leaves "herausschleudern" open, "give voice" is too harmless, "fling" too sporty. - Needless to say, the assumed EEng way was a joke. Compare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- (I also agree with Katherina Wagner—it's there in the text somewhere.) A close translation of the bit in the headline would be "How heftily this young bride flings out her despair", but that is multiply problematic in English. And please, please don't use "ejaculate". I'm assuming you want to say something in the hook like "DYK that according to a critic, in this year's Bayreuth Festival, Isolde 'heftily ... fl[ung] out her despair'?" A better translation might be: "How forcefully this young bride gives voice to her despair!" or "With what force the young bride here [i.e., in this production, or Petra Lang in particular] launches her despair at us!"—maybe you can adapt one of those? Or maybe another lurking translator can do better. ("Despair" is the standard translation of Verzweiflung, but it always gives me pause because the etymological connection to "doubt" isn't there. Sometimes "desperation" is a better rendition; consider that as an alternative here depending on your reading of the emotional drama.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
For comparison, same piece, same author whose article Dr. Blofeld started today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Your close has a red link which should go here, - the next request would be III. Did you see who wrote "Is all this grief and drama necessary?"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's sad to see everyone tear each other's heads off. I've noticed the conversation about infoboxes has got uglier from some quarters recently. If somebody wants to raise "Revenge of the Infoboxes III - this time it's personal" then they can do that, while I carry on with making a former redlink River Yarty blue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- What do you think about everybody restricted to 2 comments per discussion, and 1RR for the infoboxes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would rather not think about sanctions. Arbs can deal with this mess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't say sanctions, I mean voluntary self-restriction, - dreaming ;) - What are we doing to our readers if they see the little box, initiated by the article creator, come and go four times? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, Allendale! Let Mary make it all better. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 17
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.
- A30 road
- added links pointing to Popham and M3 motorway
- River Yarty
- added a link pointing to River Axe
- Saltash Ferry
- added a link pointing to Floating bridge
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
question
Is it okay to restore everything through the section titled "Proponents" in the text EEng removed while we discuss that section? LavaBaron (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- If EEng is okay with it and there are no other objections, then yes. If not, then no. I saw the section removed and personally I think Trump is perfectly capable of digging his own grave and losing the election without requiring any outside assistance. As mainstream broadsheet outlets random example have not touched on this conspiracy theory, I don't think it has a place in the article at this time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Ritchie333 - just to be clear, this is the content I'm talking about (it's currently duplicated in a second article as I'd like to merge this over). I generally consider the Huff Post, CBS News, the WaPo, Snopes, CNN, etc. valid as RS but definitely understand if there's a reason you think we should not rely on those as RS. Also, I don't think we should be trying to dig any candidate's graves. (In the last 48 hours I've been accused of being both a Clinton and a Trump shill. I'm actually just trying to add content to the encyclopedia.) Also, would you mind archiving the 3RR thread? In the interest of keeping everything civil I think it might be best if it's not left open as I know it got a little heated between myself and EEng at the end. Thanks much - LavaBaron (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Saying "'x' is a reliable source" is misleading and doesn't make sense. You need to be thinking "'x' is a reliable source for this claim". Normally, we'd consider BBC News to be a good source for most current events, but you wouldn't use this as a reliable for source for saying "spaghetti grows on trees and is harvested". Still, if we've got Flat Earth and we've got Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories, I suppose we can have Trump plant theory in a separate article, which does correspond with what WP:NPOV and WP:DUE says. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Ritchie333 - just to be clear, this is the content I'm talking about (it's currently duplicated in a second article as I'd like to merge this over). I generally consider the Huff Post, CBS News, the WaPo, Snopes, CNN, etc. valid as RS but definitely understand if there's a reason you think we should not rely on those as RS. Also, I don't think we should be trying to dig any candidate's graves. (In the last 48 hours I've been accused of being both a Clinton and a Trump shill. I'm actually just trying to add content to the encyclopedia.) Also, would you mind archiving the 3RR thread? In the interest of keeping everything civil I think it might be best if it's not left open as I know it got a little heated between myself and EEng at the end. Thanks much - LavaBaron (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I understand Processed Food News is RS for content about processed food but not about particle physics. But I think most people consider Huff Post, CBS News, the WaPo, Snopes, CNN, etc. RS for information about American politics. I've not yet seen many examples on WP of these being ruled non-RS for American politics? I'm not sure what sources are acceptable if these aren't. I'll check at the RS noticeboard, though, to see if anyone can recommend any others that are reliable. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. 09:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- While the sources mentioned cover the topic, the important thing I see when I read them is that none of them are taking this seriously and describing it as some silly crackpot theory. If you want to write an article about a silly crackpot theory that multiple independent sources have covered as a silly crackpot theory, that's fine, but you must make sure you describe it as such. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - actually the second sentence says "The Tampa Bay Times described the idea as "outlandish" while Mother Jones jocularly declared it the "best conspiracy story ever" and Gawker opined it as "extremely delicious". I thought that adequately identified it as a silly crackpot theory, but maybe there is other verbiage I can use? LavaBaron (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've linked to conspiracy theory right at the top of the lead, as that's what it is. I think that'll do for now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - actually the second sentence says "The Tampa Bay Times described the idea as "outlandish" while Mother Jones jocularly declared it the "best conspiracy story ever" and Gawker opined it as "extremely delicious". I thought that adequately identified it as a silly crackpot theory, but maybe there is other verbiage I can use? LavaBaron (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- While the sources mentioned cover the topic, the important thing I see when I read them is that none of them are taking this seriously and describing it as some silly crackpot theory. If you want to write an article about a silly crackpot theory that multiple independent sources have covered as a silly crackpot theory, that's fine, but you must make sure you describe it as such. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I understand Processed Food News is RS for content about processed food but not about particle physics. But I think most people consider Huff Post, CBS News, the WaPo, Snopes, CNN, etc. RS for information about American politics. I've not yet seen many examples on WP of these being ruled non-RS for American politics? I'm not sure what sources are acceptable if these aren't. I'll check at the RS noticeboard, though, to see if anyone can recommend any others that are reliable. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. 09:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK for L.A. Woman
On 17 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article L.A. Woman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jim Morrison recorded some vocals for the Doors' L.A. Woman in the bathroom doorway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/L.A. Woman. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, L.A. Woman), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not the window, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Kelly's of Cornwall
On 18 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kelly's of Cornwall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kelly's of Cornwall produced the first advertisement shown on national British television to feature the Cornish language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kelly's of Cornwall. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kelly's of Cornwall), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
_pic._bb8.jpg)
By an ice creamy coincidence, that appears to have been my 99th DYK. Yum... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- So contrived you make User:EEng look "spontaneous". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
apologies
I thought we had a pleasant discussion above, and I'm sorry if I said something to make it seem like I was WP:DEADHORSEing. I won't post on your Talk page further, but I did want to take a quick moment to express my regret if my conversation was unwelcome. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- It was more the DYK that was getting heated. Here, I think it was just an observation that you carry on a discussion more than most on this talk page. I don't have a problem with you posting on this page (I don't have a problem with anyone, I can take my kids saying I'm "nasty" or "horrible" for not giving them what they want all the time, everything else is easy), but I think you just need to stop talking to and about Fram everywhere. Like, right now. If Fram says your article is not up to snuff and explains why (and they usually do), blank whatever personal feelings you've got and go and have a look at the specific complaints. If they have merit, fix the article. If they don't, ignore it. Simples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Understood, I will stop responding to Fram in the AN thread effective immediately and let it run its course. Also I forgot to thank you for restoring my original verbiage "conspiracy theory" into the Trump plant theory [3] - I was afraid to do it myself and I appreciate you making that revert. Goodnight. LavaBaron (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry again, as per above I have not posted again in the AN thread, however, an editor has requested involvement of an "uninvolved admin" specifically because I haven't responded. The last time I was advised not to offer an explanation for an allegation I got a 30-day block [4]; I immediately then did offer an explanation and it was pulled as a bad block. I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place - if I don't jump back into the thread I'm going to get another bad block, if I jump back in and start shotgunning diffs I have violated my stated commitment here not to reply. I was quite proud of my clean block log and it was upsetting to have it destroyed due to an erroneous block; I would like to avoid any further damage, if possible. (He has also asked I be blocked for canvassing on the basis of only pinging "support" !voters in a DYK thread. However, not mentioned is that the only people who !voted in that thread were people who voted "support". I literally pinged everyone who !voted without regard to !vote, as per my understanding of WP:NOTIFY, it just happens everyone !voted "support". I feel like I need to clarify that point.) LavaBaron (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Understood, I will stop responding to Fram in the AN thread effective immediately and let it run its course. Also I forgot to thank you for restoring my original verbiage "conspiracy theory" into the Trump plant theory [3] - I was afraid to do it myself and I appreciate you making that revert. Goodnight. LavaBaron (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Moving page
Hey Ritchie, can you move Untitled tenth Metallica studio album to Hardwired... to Self-Destruct, since Metallica recently announced the title. Thanks.--Retrohead (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Retrohead: Looks like somebody's already done it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Damn, they moved it seconds after I asked you... but they got the title wrongly spelled. Per WP:BANDNAME, prepositions shorter than five letters (such as to) are in small letters.--Retrohead (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also if you can protect it from IPs, I see they went crazy with the genres and the songs length already.--Retrohead (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can't keep up. Somebody reverted the move (though as you say I'm certain "to" should be in lower case). I don't think there's quite enough disruption to warrant protection just yet, but it'll be worth keeping an eye on. Also, is Lars Ulrich turning into Bill Bailey? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also if you can protect it from IPs, I see they went crazy with the genres and the songs length already.--Retrohead (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Damn, they moved it seconds after I asked you... but they got the title wrongly spelled. Per WP:BANDNAME, prepositions shorter than five letters (such as to) are in small letters.--Retrohead (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, I requested a formal protection. Things around that article might get messy in the upcoming days. If you're thinking of Ulrich's haircut, yes, they seem alike. And that image with the lyrics from "Cherry Pie" is pure genius.--Retrohead (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Sigh ...
LazyFox980 is a new user and has created Japoodle; I PROD'd it as not notable (see, I was trying to be nice by not saying: "Huh, another 'breed' someone just made up"). The edit summary when the PROD was removed says s/he is doing a class course. My inclination is to take it straight to AfD ('cos I'm narky like that) but what do you think? The three refs used at present are: only about Poodles; a forum; and a Mail article that is actually castigating 'designer dogs' with no mention of a "Japoodle". On a quick search I am finding absolutely zilch except "breeders" trying to sell pups ... ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japoodle. (sorry, mention of the Mail makes steam come out of my ears) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ritchie. I wonder why their teacher didn't explain what would be required? SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Next question: an article was deleted back in 2013, recreated in June 2016, has just had a copyvio from one
crapuser generated source (that is usually removed on sight) deleted and I've just removed anothercrappoor source. Does one passing mention in a book on bear baiting make it notable? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I bet you wish you'd never responded to the previous question as it now makes you the "go to" guy ... ;-)
- I've speedy deleted it per WP:CSD#G4 as it is basically a subset of the article that was deleted. If I get a complaint, I will restore it to draft, as I generally do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ritchie. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've speedy deleted it per WP:CSD#G4 as it is basically a subset of the article that was deleted. If I get a complaint, I will restore it to draft, as I generally do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry for the accidental rollback of things on your talkpage. Was on my phone, and accidentally clicked on rollback. Joseph2302 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, I was having a nice bowl of Kellogg's Crunchy Nut at the time so I didn't notice :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you contribute to music articles so if you've got time and interest, please consider leaving comments for PR of Ms Swift regarding its prose which I don't feel is under a very good condition. FrB.TG (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't know Ms Swift personally, let enough to give a reliable opinion on what "condition" her condition is in ... on a serious note I will take a look if I get a mo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you! (Apology)
|
Your IP experiment makes me more conscious and careful of what should I do when reverting edits! Please accept my apology for giving you these tasty fresh strawberries. Thank you! NgYShung huh? 08:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC) |
- Maybe also hang fire when proposing articles for CSD ...20 minutes after creation...? Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 09:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, "Professor of Department of Internal Medicine & Dean of faculty of Medicine" is a claim to meet WP:PROF and hence should not be tagged CSD A7. As it was unsourced, you could have tagged it as a blp prod, but I'd recommend you search for sources yourself and add them to the article - which is what Shirt58 did. If in doubt, search the flippin' web. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for ping, Ritchie333. If I specialise in anything at all as admin, it would appear I am Mister Speedy Deletely Pants: "Pages deleted 9399". I prefer my record of rescuing pages tagged for speedy deletion. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed - in 15 months of service with the mop and bucket I have deleted over 2,200 pages, none of which I have any recollection of whatsoever (except maybe Guerilla Cricket), but I much prefer my rescue list. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Awww, c'mon guys, poor User:NgYShung. As if anyone doesn't like a lovely cute strawberry. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed - in 15 months of service with the mop and bucket I have deleted over 2,200 pages, none of which I have any recollection of whatsoever (except maybe Guerilla Cricket), but I much prefer my rescue list. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for ping, Ritchie333. If I specialise in anything at all as admin, it would appear I am Mister Speedy Deletely Pants: "Pages deleted 9399". I prefer my record of rescuing pages tagged for speedy deletion. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, "Professor of Department of Internal Medicine & Dean of faculty of Medicine" is a claim to meet WP:PROF and hence should not be tagged CSD A7. As it was unsourced, you could have tagged it as a blp prod, but I'd recommend you search for sources yourself and add them to the article - which is what Shirt58 did. If in doubt, search the flippin' web. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Okay, will be hanging CSD fire from now on. Thank you. NgYShung huh? 14:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of 18Birdies article
Hi Ritchie333,
I am writing in regards to the deletion of the 18Birdies article. When it was originally flagged for speedy deletion yesterday, I pointed out to the editor that a similar competitor, GolfNow, was granted a page, so I wanted to know what the difference was. She let me know they were given a page because they received media coverage in mainstream outlets (Forbes, Business Insider) and advised to wait until 18Birdies received similar coverage. However, I want to let you know that within the golf industry, the biggest golf publication has under one million unique visitors a month. 18Birdies has been covered and interviewed by major publications such as The Examiner (2.5 million unique visitors a month), Dujour Magazine (47K+ unique visitors a month), GolfNewsNet (55k+ unique visitors a month), ESPN Radio, CBS Radio, Golf Channel Sirius FM and Golf Channel (video). These are major hits within the golf industry, but they aren't going to be covered by the Huffington Post/Forbes. The Huffington Post also mostly covers the professional game and lacks golf technology coverage.
Lastly, I wanted to mention that a majority of the coverage that GolfNow received from major publications (Forbes/GolfWeek - no longer active/Business Insider) was about either their competition with a slight mention to GolfNow or acquisition by Comcast. They have no coverage other than that in major publications. Their Forbes piece was focused on EZLinks and had some mentions of GolfNow being a competitor.
Comcast Buying GolfNow.com: http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/3/comcast-buying-golfnow-com Booking Golf Tee Times Gradually Shifting To Online Marketplace (focused on EZLinks): http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2013/06/15/booking-golf-tee-times-gradually-shifting-to-online-marketplace/#cbbf061646e1
I'm hoping to discuss this further, and I would be happy to jump on the phone and explain this further. Let me know if you need any further info.
Thanks Sbjumper21 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Sbjumper21: I had a look, and I think the original problem I thought was though the article has been covered in several FM radio stations and nationally prominent journals, it needed a rewrite from scratch. Having had a closer look, I don't actually think that's case and it might be possible to make a sustainable article out of this. (I seem to have a blind spot for sport journalism articles :-/)
- I have restored the article to Draft:18Birdies. Have a read through Your first article which gives you some ideas of what to include, and some common pitfalls; also it might be worth having a read through our article on the Masters Tournament, which has been assessed as a good article and should be an example of good writing and research. The draft can be left indefinitely as long as you are regularly editing it. When you think the article is as complete as you can get it, click on the blue "Submit your draft for review" and an independent reviewer will check it. If all is well, then the draft will be fully restored as an article. I hope that's of use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A303 road 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The article A303 road you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A303 road 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 Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. 
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think the best role I could take on this project is by doing some of the GA reviews. I know enough about the various people and films to be able to talk about the subject and have some idea of what's required, but not enough in-depth sources to write it myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's alright too. Just justify about why you included you name if and when you signup.
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's alright too. Just justify about why you included you name if and when you signup.
Edit conflict
We had an edit conflict at Bournemouth Winter Gardens. It was to prevent such an eventuality that I put the "inuse" tag on the article before I started on it. I have finished now if you want to work more on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I've gone through the diffs of the past two edits and merged everything together, so AFAIK all the facts should be present in the current revision. If not, feel free to serve seafood and restore them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Looking now at the history I see you started working on it yesterday. We can probably both claim points for it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Don't see why not - it's nice to work on stuff together as a team, isn't it? :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Looking now at the history I see you started working on it yesterday. We can probably both claim points for it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
A303 road.KML
I've had a play; seems to be working in Bing, but Google is pointing to the Gulf of Guinea. My method: extract coordinates from your XML file, order by longitude, plug them into a copy of Template:Attached KML/M4 motorway, save at Template:Attached KML/A303 road, wring out several dumb user errors. I'm not seeing what's tripping google right now. I'll look in again later. Feel free to play / delete my attempt as you like. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Google is all over the place, Bing more or less works (broadly construed) as does the drop down map. The main problem with doing the file as a simple graph is that it does something bizarre on roundabouts, which are actually loops (as you can theoretically drive round a roundabout indefinitely without reaching the "end"), so collapsing those loses information. Zoomed out it's not too noticeable, though. There is no possible way the KML spec will not allow for full graphs where a single vertex can have multiple edges and be part of multiple independent graphs; I'll just need to read the spec and figure it out. Once I've cracked it, it means we can sync every KML file in the world off OpenStreetMap via a bot, and expand it to railways (including closed ones if you trace off the National Library of Scotland's Ordnance Survey six-inch map tiles) and footpaths. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 25
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.
- River Wey, Dorset
- added a link pointing to Weymouth
- Sherborne House, Dorset
- added a link pointing to National Lottery
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Tamar Bridge
On 25 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tamar Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a group of people removed their boobs pending a walk over the Tamar Bridge to highlight breast cancer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tamar Bridge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tamar Bridge), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
NeilN and Oshwah
The post on RfA was critical of NeilN - that's why he reverted it. He didn't give a reason - just a cryptic comment between two asterisks. Whatever he's getting at, it might be an idea to look at the poster's previous edit, particularly paragraph 265 which discusses him. He doesn't want the voting to be fair - if he tampers with it again report him to the bureaucrats. 79.68.143.255 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with Oshwah - as I said in another thread I'm mulling over where to strike my oppose and go with neutral (or even support) instead based on the question I posed. He's civil and his track record at CSD is good. If you want to discuss NeilN, I'm afraid it'll have to go to email, I don't think discussing his behaviour in a public page will have any value. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've noticed that you can't oppose anybody at RFC without somebody commenting. It's like they're beyond desperate for admins.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well they hired me, so they must be :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've noticed that you can't oppose anybody at RFC without somebody commenting. It's like they're beyond desperate for admins.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 | |
| DYK Light music |
|---|
- Playing some light music for you, too, for that concise answer ;) - Get ready to close the RfC with 15 times "idiot" (one by me, I said I don't exclude myself from the group of "idots".) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't know why you entertain socks and banned users here. --NeilN talk to me 16:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ouch. I found this page very entertaining, I must say. Still do, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Neil, be nice to Martin please, he's got a sense of humour and he's not afraid to use it. Martin, this place wouldn't be the same without you - I wouldn't have been motivated to get the A4061 through DYK for one thing. Gerda, thankyou for the kind music; right now I feel like putting Live and Dangerous (don't all rush to do the GA review, will you) on full volume. (With headphones, of course :-D) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm? I wasn't replying to Martin. --NeilN talk to me 16:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Neil, be nice to Martin please, he's got a sense of humour and he's not afraid to use it. Martin, this place wouldn't be the same without you - I wouldn't have been motivated to get the A4061 through DYK for one thing. Gerda, thankyou for the kind music; right now I feel like putting Live and Dangerous (don't all rush to do the GA review, will you) on full volume. (With headphones, of course :-D) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ouch. I found this page very entertaining, I must say. Still do, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just Kiddin.... "I am a number not a sock!" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jeez, do I have to spell it out? Yes, I've edited logged out as an IP recently, as you can see a couple of threads above this one. Yes, sometimes people use different accounts because they don't want to be harassed or have their "reputation" get in the way of create content. It happens. Get over it. Meanwhile, here is some music...... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I find your replies bizarre. But hey, if you want to humor banned users on your talk page, I guess that's up to you. --NeilN talk to me 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think the IP was quite insightful and (after a little digging) it shows to me that you are a little confused on what WP:RD2 is supposed to be used for, and think blocking users is more important than writing articles. I recommend reading WP:DOLT and User:Gerda Arendt/User talk before you block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I recommend reading WP:DNFTT. If you believe I am using WP:RD2 inappropriately then please provide a few instances and explain why. We can all stand to improve in certain areas, yourself included. --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think the IP was quite insightful and (after a little digging) it shows to me that you are a little confused on what WP:RD2 is supposed to be used for, and think blocking users is more important than writing articles. I recommend reading WP:DOLT and User:Gerda Arendt/User talk before you block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I find your replies bizarre. But hey, if you want to humor banned users on your talk page, I guess that's up to you. --NeilN talk to me 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jeez, do I have to spell it out? Yes, I've edited logged out as an IP recently, as you can see a couple of threads above this one. Yes, sometimes people use different accounts because they don't want to be harassed or have their "reputation" get in the way of create content. It happens. Get over it. Meanwhile, here is some music...... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just Kiddin.... "I am a number not a sock!" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
- No don't rush to that review, rush to "mine", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- "The cantata comprises six movements" ... oooh, close to the knuckle there.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I argued with Ceoil about that, - doesn't sound like me, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- looks like made lasting impressions by your RfA question, - next time perhaps use a red link article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- "The cantata comprises six movements" ... oooh, close to the knuckle there.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- No don't rush to that review, rush to "mine", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Lydia Cornell
@NeilN: Okay, this is related to the complaint the IP raised on the RfA today. I backtracked and it seems a root cause was this edit (only admins can see this) marked as "serious BLP violations", which the policy says "includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statement". The content was cited to IMDB, which as you know is a problem, and it is correct per WP:BLP to remove the content, but it was information that is believable and as the edit also puts a happy ending on the negative event in the person's life, it could be suitable to be retained if there was a better source. A revdel of the edit also prevents non-admins from looking at the diff through the history to help try and search for the claim in better sources. Therefore this does not strike me as being a correct application of RD2.
Anyway, the new user, who we must assume does not know any policies or guidelines, asks quite reasonably why he can't cite IMDB if this other article over here cites it. At this point I would explain that IMDB allows anyone to say anything so we shouldn't use it as a source, but with 5 million articles we can't possibly be consistent everywhere. As the user was angry and upset, I would seek to calm them down and hope they could be a productive editor elsewhere. Instead, you blocked the user per NLT with no other comment and have tried to censor criticism of the block. But WP:NLT says "A legal complainant may be genuinely hurt or upset. Blocking admins should encourage the user to identify factual errors in any article at issue. The user should be shown how to communicate with Wikipedia to correct errors", and an angry user saying "I'm going to sue you" in the heat of the moment is not a credible legal threat. A genuine legal threat requiring an NLT block starts with an email to legal@wmf, in my view. The user also complained that a claim of a relationship in the infobox was inaccurate or out of date; as this claim was unsourced I have completely removed it per BLP.
Reading the UTRS, I see the user has given up on Wikipedia and has told his friends and colleagues they should never edit here as it is too cliquey and impossible to do anything as an outsider. This is an extremely damaging thing to have done; not only do we have a reduced workforce, we are working against more people who hate us. I am usually a nice guy and accommodating to anyone who wants to help, and if I ever shout or get aggressive with people, it is always established editors who are punching above their station seemingly without realising. Let me reiterate : your actions cost us 4-5 editors.
You mention "do not feed the troll" - and in my view that means you let their comments stand and ignore them without drawing attention to yourself. By reverting them and getting cross, you are feeding the troll and playing into their hands.
I'm sorry this is quite a long-winded message, but if I don't come out and explain my concerns right now, it's going to end up worse. Now, you have a choice. You can take in what I say and understand where I'm coming from. Or you can refute everything I've said (either with a few words or many, either is the same). It's up to you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have to shake my head
- Please explain how you backtracked a post from Vote (X) for Change and determined the root cause was my actions on Lydia Cornell
- Any "information that is believable" should stay unrevdelled? No. Think about how damaging the revdelled statement could be if it was a bio of a politician or religious figure or any other subject whose reputation was important. Another example: an implication of child abuse (not the statement here, non-admins) would be believable for Catholic priest biographies (but unfair, though). I'm going to revdel that every time.
- We block for clear legal threats because it affects our other productive editors. This was completely block-worthy.
- "have tried to censor criticism of the block" - where?
- "your actions cost us 4-5 editors" Come on. Surely you've seen posts like, "You won't let me say that evolution is 'just a theory' and I'm going to never edit here again and I'm going to tell all my friends and family never to edit here." Your assertion is just your unfounded speculation and is doubtful at best.
- "reverting them and getting cross" I'm not getting cross. I'm doing the same thing as I do with all banned editors - WP:RBI. I disagree with your characterizations of censorship, especially as you seem to be unfamiliar with Vote (X) for Change, but I've stopped reverting banned/blocked users on your talk page.
- --NeilN talk to me 21:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Stop trying to argue that everyone else is wrong and you are right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not saying everyone else is wrong. I'm saying I think most of what you wrote above is wrong or misguided. --NeilN talk to me 21:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are a named party at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. I believe I have until close of play tomorrow to submit evidence. Do not post on this talk page ever again. Also, please stop harassing John, one of the best contributors to the project and a strong supporter of ensuring our BLP policy is adhered to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) This may or may not be appreciated, but I hate to see two of my favorite admins angry at each other. EEng 21:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Ditto. Or failing that, could you at least don the dayglo leotards and pick up the obligatory pugil sticks? Johnanderson123 (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sheesh! It seems to be handbags at dawn all over the place at the moment. Is it the weather?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Der 100. Psalm
I remember the nice translation help for the Bayreuth Isolde, - here's another, from Der 100: Psalm.
- Reger wrote to the conductor of the premiere, on top of having 100000000000000000 rehearsals: „Die Hörer des Psalms müssen nachher als ‚Relief‘ an der Wand kleben; ich will, dass der Psalm eine niederschmetternde Wirkung bekommt! Also sei so gut und besorge das!“ (my humble approach: The listeners of the psalm must stick as a 'relief' to the wall; I want the psalm to make a smashing impression! So be good and care for that.)
- Review „Noch unter dem Eindruck des Gehörten, des Miterlebten stehend, ist es mir unsagbar schwer, all das Tiefempfundene, das Erhabene und Göttliche jener Stunde hier zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Man war tief erschüttert, als die gewaltige Doppelfuge verklungen war, hatte etwas Unvergessliches erlebt.“ (same: Still under the impression of what we heard and experienced, it is unspeakably difficult for me to express here all the heartfelt, the sublime and divine [impressions] of that hour. One was deeply shaken, when the gigantic double fugue ended, had experienced something unforgettable.")
The sooner the better, want to nominate nominated for GA while the German one enjoys mainpage attention ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As I didn't wait, please make improvements directly in the article, Der 100. Psalm. Yngvadottir, can I interest you again? Searching for a good way to say "verklungen", - "fade away" seems wrong for one of the grandest endings I know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Too Christian for me, I'm afraid, but for the Relief passage, let me tentatively suggest "The hearer must afterwards be flattened to the wall like a bas-relief", and for the review passage, "everything I have deeply experienced" and "died away". Yngvadottir (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- (I thought that the quotes have nothing Christian, don't think even "divine" was meant in a Christian sense.) Thank you! Bas-relief is great, also "deeply experienced", while "died away" also sounds (to me) as if the music comes to a soft stop, but no, it's very forceful, just stops to sound. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Deletion review for Kris Kross Amsterdam
User:XPanettaa has asked for a deletion review of Kris Kross Amsterdam. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 20:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Have you contacted Sarahj2107 who closed the AfD in March? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)