User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Barnstar!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For what it's worth, I thought this was an entirely appropriate close that prevented silliness from going on longer than it would otherwise have done. Ignoring rules to encourage stick-dropping is, I think, usually worthwhile. Nice work. Stalwart111 00:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 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.

Twyford Down (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to John Denham, Twyford, Traveller, John Davidson, Group 4 and Alresford
Microcosm (hypermedia system) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jakob Nielsen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

To a non-deletionist?

Hi, this isn't saving a notable subject from CSD, but restoring a notable old lengthy subarticle under Talk:Frère Jacques. Can you give any advice between the 2 processes mentioned for restoring? (I'm guessing you have more experience than me). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I have given my thoughts on the talk page, in an attempt to resolve the situation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Message

The likes to that Rupert J figure really annoy me. Why should volunteer Wikipedia editors do something for him, which he will then take credit for with his bosses? Farrtj (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I take a slightly more pragmatic view. For all you know, he might be faced with a choice between being paid for editing Wikipedia or losing his dole money by refusing to take a job. That said, going round editors and soliciting input from them that you then profit for is somewhat unethical, and possibly worth raising on the conflict of interest noticeboard. For now, the note on your talk page should suffice. If he solicits more editors, I'll mention it directly on his talk page, and if that fails, go further up the chain. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Wikipedia's vandal fighters enjoy getting tea and cakes for reverting pointless and idiotic remarks from bored adolescent males.

for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page - I don't know how I managed to not notice it! WaggersTALK 15:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • No problem. I await the turn of my page to be vandalised by this IP. :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Asexuality article

Ritchie, we may soon have a repeated problem at the Asexuality article. I recently reverted this editor, which you may have seen if you're still watching that article. But, seeing his or her contributions and talk page, he or she is a very disruptive edit warrior and will likely be back to re-add the material or make other problematic edits to the article. I've seen such returns too often when dealing with an edit warrior such as this, so I'm already prepared. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Flyer. I do have Asexuality on my watchlist, so I see the various back and forth that appears from time to time. Just follow the usual processes - if somebody adds an unsourced assertion, tag or remove it, if they do it again, tell them to use the talk page, and if they do it again, tell them they'll run the risk of going on WP:AN3 if they don't go to the talk page ASAP. But above all, be cool, calm and collected at all times and think of cute pictures of kittens. Don't get involved in too much reverting yourself - it's never about who's "right" and who's "wrong". Edit warrers usually supply ample amounts of rope without you having to do much. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ritchie. Yes, that's what I often do when edit warring such as that occurs. Except for thinking of cute pictures of kittens, LOL. Sometimes, I don't leave a message on the editor's talk page after the second time because they have stop adding the material after that second time. In this case, it's not so much that the material he or she added is unsourced, since there are other listings there that are also currently unsourced; it's more that it's a recently made-up, very obscure term (whether spelled as skoliosexual, skoliosexuality or skolioromantic) that is already covered by an established, more well known term (pansexuality). But the unsourced aspect does help boost my case on this, especially since the term cannot be reliably sourced. I've read that Tumblr came up with the term/definition.
I contacted you about this to make sure that I'd have your help at the article. I don't think too many others who watch that article care as much about what is added to it, or it's more that they aren't on Wikipedia as much. Sometimes...articles that have a lot watchers don't actually have a lot of watchers because so many of the watchers have stopped editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't keep up with all these new definitions of stuff, and in any case Wikipedia is not for this new term you and your best mate thought up on Tumblr. In any case, the article hasn't been touched since yesterday, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. There's worse stuff on WP:ANI that makes me despair on a regular basis. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
LOL, thanks for linking to that guideline. That's probably the one Wikipedia guideline that I haven't seen. If I have seen it, I don't remember. As for the editor not having come back to the article, it's likely that he or she hasn't seen the revert yet. I'm not as optimistic about things such as this when it involves an edit warrior like that. But all we can do about this at this point is see what happens. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333! Thank you for your comment. I’m not going to take much of Flyer22’s time. The point is that she was not very happy with my contributions after I had added old and non-English sources to some of the articles here. Having received her critique, I wanted to stress that I would take her critical remarks into account when editing a favourite article of hers (“Sexual arousal”). It’s not my aim to corrupt the English WP by means of adding old and doubtful sources (in Russian and Polish). My main problem is that I don’t always know English-language sources of equal quality and relevance. --SU ltd. (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think Flyer22, like a lot of regular Wikipedians, is passionate about certain articles, particularly Asexuality which she was a key player in taking to good article status. If it comes across as over-enthusiasm, then I think it's done with the best intentions. You can, as a compromise, always list your sources on the talk page if you're not sure about using them in the article, then someone can check them out and see if English translations exist - particularly if they clarify facts that aren't sourced too well, or contain new content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
SU ltd., I was critical regarding these sourcing issues and one that you added to the Asexuality article because of what I stated on those matters. It's nothing personal; if you were a different editor who'd done those things, I would have acted the same way. I know that you aren't here to corrupt Wikipedia, and I have no problem working with you. The Sexual arousal article is not one of my favorite articles, by the way, and I haven't contributed much to that article so far. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thousand pardons, I’ve only noticed these replies this moment. I thought there was no reply. But the point has already become clear. Some of your references (e.g., ‘You know what, this guy never has sex, and he seems happy enough — maybe if I’m having sex only three times a month then maybe I’m OK, too.’) clear up the situation, too. Thanks. --SU ltd. (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello! Many thanks for saving the article "Universal Boxing Federation". By the way can you please check all the pages I created for whether or not those pages meet the wikipedia policy. Regards, NickAang (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I have "saved" it only from being speedy deleted because it had two possibly reliable sources, and warranted a full discussion at Articles for deletion, which in my view gives a fairer outcome. CSD is a very low bar for articles, and just by clearing that, it doesn't mean you can clear the higher notability bar which is required for an article to exist in Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I understood. I need help from a neutral editor who can check my pages if they meet wikipedia policy or not. Please, check here. I've never admitted of getting paid for creating promotional articles or articles that do not meet the wikipedia policy. But the nominator is keep lying on every discussion page. Can you please guide me? I'll be highly obliged to you. Regards, NickAang (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry about it. Once articles are at Articles for deletion, the community then decides whether or not they should belong on Wikipedia. AfD is a discussion, and while it's not guaranteed an article will be kept, it's not guaranteed that it will be deleted either. It's impossible for one person to steamroll their opinion. That said, the more reliable sources you can find and add to these articles, the better chance they will stand of being kept. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the guidance. Could you please tell me is it wrong to accept a small tip of $4 USD for gathering sources and creating articles? Because if it is then I'll stop this from now. I've never intended to create promotional articles knowing that this doesn't meet the wikipedia policy. What do you recommend me from a neutral point? Best Regards, NickAang (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It depends on your definition of "wrong". The Wikipedia community has debated over paid editing a few times, and never reached a consensus on whether or not it's acceptable. That means while you won't get blocked for just getting paid to edit, you'll incur the wrath of some editors (as you've seen) because they consider it unacceptable. You need to be very sure of your understanding of Wikipedia policies, especially conflict of interest and neutral point of view. As for whether you should do it, well I created Bullets and Daffodils for a friend of a friend, and I dare say I could have got some reward out of it, but I know the policies well enough and I had the final say on content, refusing to add things where I believed the conflicted with WP policies. In short - I'd give it a miss. Just edit Wikipedia because you like to edit it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I deeply appreciate your suggestion and thanks once again for the advises! Regards, NickAang (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I would strongly advise you to forget about all the articles that are now sitting at Articles for deletion and completely refrain from arguing about any potential conflict of interest and alleged paid editing anywhere on Wikipedia as it is causing you more harm than good, and in future, use the Article Wizard, which allows new articles to be incubated before they're in a state to be moved into name space. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

MacWise

Ritchie333,

Thanks for taking the time with the MacWise article draft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MacWise At this point in time, I am afraid to attempt any additions to the draft myself since it would be considered a biased opinion (since I am the author of the MacWise software)


Here are a few links that might be helpful for the article.

Thanks, Rich

History... http://carnationsoftware.com/carnation/MacWise_History.html

Version History... http://www.macwise.com/MacWiseXVersions.html

Reviews... Mac Informer 4 out of 5 stars Version 12 review http://macwise.mac.informer.com

MacUser Five star rating out of 5 http://www.carnationsoftware.com/carnation/PDF/MacUser%20UK%20Review.pdf

Tucows 4 out of 5 rating http://www.carnationsoftware.com/carnation/PDF/Tucows.com.pdf


  • I've taken the Mac User source (since it seems to be a website of a commercially public magazine, it looks like a reliable source, and there's no negative mention of it on the reliable sources noticeboard). Coverage in three reliable sources is usually enough to get a bit of software of this size through AfC. I have put the article up for review, as if another editor agrees it's now verified as notable, it's likely to say. Regarding COI, all it means is just be careful - list the facts about the software, and don't make any claims about how great or even positive the features are. As long as you don't create an attack page about CoolTerm, you're probably okay! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A33 road, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Andrew Hunter and Road protest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

DJ Quintino AfC review

File:Impôt juste.JPG
Some loose change going for somebody doing odd jobs. Mowing the lawn? Great! Writing a slanted biography full of WP:PUFFERY and WP:POV? Not so good.....

Ritchie, I saw your archived remarks here about this charcater, as its come up again. Can you have a quick look mate? It seems greatly improved (well, more sources) but not too sure of their reliability. Advice = appreciated! Cheers. Basket Feudalist 13:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I read the first line "Quinten van den Berg (September 21st, 1985), recently named by Tiesto as one of the breakthrough artists for 2013", followed by "A life-changing break came in 2009" and" The single topped DMC’s Buzzchart, entered the top five of the Beatport Top 100 and hit the #1 position of the Dutch charts" and noticed no sources against any of them. The editor is adding sources, but not the right ones - we need actual articles about Quintino, and they need to be substantial - at least a few paragraphs. And adding a source to another Wikipedia article is just going in the wrong direction. I think you should probably fail the review again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Good points, cheers! Basket Feudalist 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Language too- very unencyclopaedic- his 'breakthrough', 'ascent' etc Basket Feudalist 15:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Classic. And love the illustration for all those hard-up afore-mentioned pimps!!! Basket Feudalist 16:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Solo 401(k) - revision

Thanks for the input. I just made the changes and hopefully it's enough. Do you review the changes you suggested, or does it go back to the original reviewer who had a different opinion? Thanks again Dsentell (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Your submission goes back into the queue, where it will get reviewed by whoever has a chance to look at it next. I could review it, but financial services isn't really my area of expertise, so I'd rather somebody who understands the topic to do the reviewing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

SFall34 and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Professional Loudspeakers

Hi Ritchie333. I notice that you declined this AfC. It looks like the user who wrote the page, contacted you on your user talk page, [1]. You did not reply to to this message, though you would have seen it since you did reply to another. This isn't a very good experience for new users, AfC is supposed to provide help, not a bar to pass (they could simply post the article themselves, if they wanted). This particular user was ignored by every reviewer that they asked for help, and that is definitely something that we want to avoid. Prodego talk 05:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a simple answer to this, having looked at the date. I was on vacation, and by the time I got back, MiszaBot (talk · contribs) had archived the thread, so I have never actually seen that message until now. Looking at it, and given similarities to things like Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lawo, it's probably an article I meant to source and fix up myself at some point, and then subsequently forgot about due to the August Bank Holiday. Sorry about that - I absolutely never snub new user's questions here deliberately. I can't speak for the other reviewers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I also notice you did not add a welcome template or notify the article's creator you had passed his article, so they may not even know that it had passed. I have done this for you, and assessed the article as "start class" on its talk page. Nor did you add to the recently created articles list, which is useful so other editors can do a last minute check, tidying up, copy editing etc. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I talked to the user off-wiki, in the -en-help IRC channel. They had come there to ask if they were doing something wrong, since they weren't getting responses from the reviewer after you. I noticed that you had replied to several other users, so I figured this was just an oversight, but I still wanted to point it out to you. Prodego talk 15:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Yes, absolutely was an oversight! I'm not really au fait with the help channel, though I know other AfC regulars like Demiurge1000 and Huon hang out in there a lot. I've checked through the article and it does have enough coverage in secondary sources to pass, plus there are a few other available sources online, so all looks well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm .... turns out I did reply to this user after all. I certainly recall there were messages I dropped on the floor, but that wasn't one of them. I suspect though that by the time the user had a look, the bot had archived the reply, so they didn't see it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, I guess they hadn't seen it (and I didn't see it either). How embarrassing. Prodego talk 00:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:IP edit warring on Ummagumma

Hello Ritchie. You're welcome. Should we leave an edit note in the article? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 23:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't personally, it only affects one or two people and the edit war is slower than the tempo of "Time" as performed at the Brighton Dome in January 1972. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie. Fair enough, nice ref there. :') Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 12:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Riot House Records

With the sources you added I agree that the article should not be speedily deleted. However, only two of the sources mention the label and they're trivial mentions in publications talking about the musician. I'll give the article a few days to find some reliable sources where its the subject of the publication but at present its a fairly good candidate for AfD under WP:CORP. Mkdwtalk 23:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  • What convinced me that it probably didn't warrant an A7 was that two notable musicians were signed to it, which is probably covered under some inherent notability rule in WP:NMUSIC. However, on closer inspection it seems that neither musician has actually commercially released anything on the label, let alone it charting, so I think you'd be well within your rights to take it to AfD. I've tagged the article with {{notability}} as it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Neo Naturists

Hi Richie, I'm new to Wikipedia and am finding navigating all these different pages difficult. So I think I should'nt be writing this her, but can't find where else to do it, so am doing it anyway!

So, I've updated the Neo Naturist Article with refernces from books, catalouges and websites. I did it on 26th Jan. I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not so am letting you know. I'm happy to wait in the Q for attention but didn't want it to get missed if I hadn't submitted it properly. I wonder if it's alright for publication now?

Thank You Sylvia C Tring (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  • The submission wasn't queued up for review - possibly it was meant to be but some other editors moved the article around a bit since you added your referenced. Anyway, it is now in the queue for articles to review, but bear in mind there is a significant backlog, so it may take up to a week to review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Cupcakes are my favorite but if you don't like then take it as an appreciation for sorting the Hindu Vidyapith. Thank you! NickAang (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wavetrain disambiguation

Dear Ritchie333 On 20 January you declined a suggestion I made for disambiguation of the term "wavetrain". I am new to wikipedia and replied to ask for advice; you helpfully suggested putting it up on the talk page for project disambiguation. I did this and there were a couple of comments which I responded to in detail: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#disambiguation_of_.22wavetrain.22 Now it seems to have gone dead. I am not sure how to proceed with this -- any suggestions? Thank you very much Jasherratt (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  • It seems that Wave packet and Periodic travelling wave both have a note at a top referring to the other article. There doesn't seem to be any consensus formed at the discussion you linked to, so I would probably leave the status quo as it is. You can clear up the redundant disambig page by adding {{db-self}} to the top of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's very useful and I will follow your advice. Thank you very much. Jasherratt (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr Hare

Thanks for the note. Will be more careful in future Gbawden (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Kudos

The Rock music Barnstar
Strong work in bringing Ian Gillan to Good Article status. J04n(talk page) 19:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks

for the barnstar! Dlohcierekim 02:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the feedback and for the help! I'll keep working on Aleksander Werner :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisafoster8 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for your user page

Perhaps a replacement for 13 though make it 14 if you want.

Cilit Reliable Source. Bang and the AfD is gone.

Just a suggestion.

While i'm here how long should a merge suggestion be up before a merge takes place (if 'Support' votes are the majority)? I was looking at this and wondered. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 20:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Good question. I think there are no hard and fast rules about consensus as people could game them for their own devices. If the article. Since a merge / redirect is not destructive, and nobody's commented one way or the other since 29th January, I would just be bold and do it. Regarding the Zen, I just prefer the Domestos adverts, though if we can find a free image of Barry Scott, I might change my mind. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nic potter

Hi Ritchie. The reference I deleted, which you reinstated, was in accurate.

I was there, I'm involved, it doesn't do nic's memory any credit.

Regards,

Peter h aka the singist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The singist (talk • contribs) 00:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not every day that we get constructive contributions, at dusty old Wikipedia, from one of the leading poets of the Progressive Rock era, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It does really enforce the point that we've got to take care with BLPs, as they affect real people. On a related note, I'm pretty sure HB has done a very small amount of WP editing on church organ technology in the past. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with all of your comments at Nic Potter. But it's all very encouraging. I'd send both of them a Wiki T-shirt at the earliest opportunity. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I would personally like to thank HB for making church organs "cool" and motivating me into playing one at my best friend's wedding last year. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 14:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

When fixing a user's AFC submission, remember to change the name on the box before declining it!... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The AfC templates are terribly complicated. I don't like to work there because of that. Btw, it looks that Frank van Emmerik (the creator of our AfC draft) works for the company. I just thought it should be noted... --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

barnstar

Thanks! Dlohcierekim 19:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  • No problem. All I want is for people to understand our deletion policies correctly, and work with editors using them, rather than using them with all the grace and subtlety of a lump hammer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

CSD's

Hey Ritchie, I saw you declined one of my CSD's at Brooks Health Centre where you also tasked me to "seriously, stop it." Well I haven't come here to vent or anything, I just wanted to tell you I had an epiphany. Besides that one article I probably tagged around 40+ articles with CSD's (all around the same quality) and around 90% of them were deleted. Afterwards I realized it wasn't necessarily the quality of the articles which mattered (besides right out terrible tags), but the admin carrying out the CSD. A user like you, obviously adamant about preserving articles (determined by your user page) is much different than a user like me. Comparable to peoples interpretation of the United States Constitution, you have a narrow interpretation of CSD's, while I have a broad one. I'm not going to ask you re-review the article, I don't even care you if respond to this post, I jut ask the next time you see a questionable CSD, instead of thinking "they're using it wrong" you think "I don't think they're using it right." Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 01:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hiya. Basically I think a CSD should be reserved for where it is beyond reasonable doubt that the article could not survive a discussion at WP:AfD, no matter how hard anyone tried. Even if a redirect is plausible, it's best to have the discussion. Some CSDs are more important than others - copyvios, attack pages and blatant spam should be wiped as soon as possible. I think as long the quality of your CSD tagging gets better, there's no issue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Indian Army Service Corps

Hello Ritchie, I deleted the page as a copyvio. The site is a part of the india.gov.in portal. Their Terms of Use say: "Material featured on this Portal may be reproduced free of charge after taking proper permission by sending a mail to us". I don't think it was met. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Had a feeling it was a copyvio, just couldn't work out where from exactly, and more specifically whether or not the entire article and all revisions were copyvio'd in their entirety, which WP:CSD#G12 requires. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was completely copied and pasted from the very beginning, from:
The later revisions did not modify the text. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I originally declined it at AfC, and then proposed for CSD when i realised how extensive the cv was. Unfortunately I can't find the links now (thought I'd saved hem to the SadBox but apparently not) but -"LOL"- one of the websites it plagarised was a US Army one, which was mildly bizarre! Basket Feudalist 16:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Timmion Records

Hey, cheers for the heads up on Timmion Records, you were right to remove the CSD tag. In the interest of full disclosure, I have sent it to AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timmion Records Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 14:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  • No problem, I would have AfDed it myself but I wanted to check to see if any reliable sources were hidden beneath a lot of self published and unreliable stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 09:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A discussion relevant to you

Please see here Since you have been involved in previous related discussions and editing in the past day or so. I have created this centralized discussion for further input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PizzaExpress Jazz Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Time Out (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Peacemaker

Nice try. Hope it works. :-) Deb (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've seen worse.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Clever vector

To me Clever vector looks like WP:TF and hidden promo. What do you think?-- Dewritech (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A quick google search for "Clever vector" does indeed reveal a ton of stuff about that company, unfortunately it also brings up a lot of false positives which have "clever" as an adjective. I know it's not suitable for an encyclopedia as it currently stands, unfortunately I'm not really sure what to do with it. I'll PROD it for the time being. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be the best for now. Thanks!-- Dewritech (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Ritchie333! You're receiving the Invisible Barnstar because you reviewed 66 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

YGM

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

GiantSnowman 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert biting?

Just wondering about your revert at Nickaang (talk · contribs) - is there something I don't know? He archives and deletes his talk page regularly. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This was due to two CSD notifications, both of which got declined and are now redundant, so I felt there was no point leaving them there anymore. I've done this on a fairly infrequent basis for new users when I have reasonable assumption they haven't read them yet, and Nickaang has felt a bit pressured from being overloaded with CSD and AfD tags in the past, so I took a bold step of taking redundant template notices out so he didn't have to see them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I can see why, I wonder what he'll think. It's a comment on the nominator I presume. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
It's more a comment on the notice itself. The nominator, after all, posted it in good faith for a legitimate reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

IMC Global

Thanks for your undo of the speedy deletion regarding IMC Global. It was a publicly-traded, international company prior to the merger with Cargill to form The Mosaic Company. I am hoping to add some more very soon onto the article to maybe help others see the justification for its existence. I figured starting it sooner might get some input from other sources as well (there are numerous allusions to it on other pages...in addition, they bought out alot of smaller chemical companies).

Emann15 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi. I think there were enough sources to make up a stub. In general, I would recommend getting as many high quality sources as possible, ideally from national newspapers or published books. Well sourced articles are generally left alone, let alone sent to deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simone Kliass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page São Paulo International Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've stumped me for once, DPL bot. I just wikilinked this to avert a CSD - I had no idea there were two São Paulo airports. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Talkback

Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at Andyjsmith's talk page.
Message added 14:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

andy (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Copify

I saw your attempt at salvaging the article, which was apparently created by one of the founders of the company. On balance, I felt that that the promotional slant outweighed your improvements. I'm also not clear why this 2010-founded company, with no business or financial data, is notable. Do you want me to userfy it for you to work on it further? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • No, I was thinking it probably wasn't notable for an article and I was thinking about voting "delete", but maybe if there was a criticism section of copy-writing elsewhere, I could put a sentence on there with reference to the Guardian reference and change the article to a redirect. I wouldn't worry about it - as with all articles with somebody of a conflict of interest created, if it really is notable, somebody will create a better article at some point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great

Thank you! Much appreciated, Ritchie
Sincerely,
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 09:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DesignInquiry

You took this to AfD, where it was deleted, but the closing admin declared it a WP:SOFTDELETE because of low participation. This is to let you know that I have restored it because undeletion was requested at WP:REFUND#DesignInquiry. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Okay, but giving the editor gave no reason for undeletion, it could still legitimately go back to AfD at any time. I'll give the article some grace, but if I still find it in a poorly sourced state in a few weeks, I'll probably re-AfD it, unless another editor gets there first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

RFA for Banaticus

You're actually worried that I might just go whole scale delete the citation templates? What, in the past eight years, would have given any sort of indication that I might do something like that? Even if I did do something like that, which I never would, the edit would just be reverted within minutes. Banaticus (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • No, you wouldn't obviously go and strip stuff out en masse, but there might be the odd template that needs to be merged or deleted, and from my experience at TfD, you can fall foul of somebody who will really forcefully argue about the template's inclusion, such as metadata issues you might not have appreciated. You need to be able to keep a cool head and deal with those sorts of people. Still, if you can sort all the templates out with a broad consensus, then hopefully you'll have a successful second run at RfA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, when you said just now that "you can all foul of somebody..." did you mean me in particular, or are you worried about some random person having that problem? I sort of took it personally because that's what it sounded like, but perhaps that's not what you meant. Banaticus (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I just meant anyone thinking about large scale templates might find themselves quickly encountering people who like the status quo and will try and put an argument. Just something to be wary of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Dog-gone Sauce

Hi Ritchie333, I need your help and opinion on my article where at 14:05, 19 February 2013 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Dog-gone Sauce to Dog-gone Sauce. The article I created and you approved was nominated for Speedy Deletion 2 weeks later and deleted the same day without discussion. I have requested unsuccessfully that it be restored because I think since it was approved through the AFC process and classified as a "Start Class" article it should have not been speedily deleted. It is my opinion that the statement under that class "No Start Class article should be in any danger of Speedy Deletion" should protect it from speedy deletion. My POV is that the classification starts out discribing it as "An Article that is developing...". That should mean you determined it qualifiies as an article and just needs time to improve. I understand that another Admin may have an opinion that the speedy deletion rules may apply to the article but, since an Admin approved it a short time before,this statement in those rules should have been applied... "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." and, "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved...". It's frustrating to work on something for over a month and it gets approved only to have it deleted without any discussion or attempt to improve it. It seems that there is not much effort put into improving articles as I've seen so many similar articles on food companies on wiki that I tried to follow. I would like to get the article restored so it has time to be improved and I appreciate your input. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Richie333, I appreciate your help. I've read the comments and I will refrain from adding at the moment because my opinion will be redundant. I only ask that the article be modified or restored to a previous version that is acceptable so I can continue to learn and contribute. The NEWT reference you made is a very accurate discription of how it feels to be a newbie so it does feel good to know that a group understands. Thanks The Hal Apeno (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
No problems, though there is an issue that sourcing for this article is weak. A favourite argument of mine is to dig out some good reliable sources and simply present those without comment. I can't do this here, because I can't find anything aside from the one source. So, anything else you can find regarding sourcing would be a great help. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333, I did a quick search and found these articles. I also found some press releases but I believe they are from the company and can't be used.

  • News-Press Newspaper

http://gulfcoast.metromix.com/restaurants/article/dining-notes-sauces-spice/2982421/content

  • Internet stories

http://oshawalaser.com/Blog/2012/07/26/dog-gone-bbq-sauce-review-and-they-help-our-four-legged-friends-too/ http://sarasotadog.com/tag/dog-gone-sauce/ http://peppersandmore.com/2011/11/16/humane-society-of-pinellas-grows-dog-gone-hot-sauce-samples-at-retail-store-ribbon-cutting/ http://www.bringfido.com/forum/discussion/61046/

  • Fox4 TV

http://www.fox4now.com/multimedia/videos/?bctid=1852847624001 http://www.fox4now.com/multimedia/videos/?bctid=1866338523001

Once again, I appreciate your help with my article The Hal Apeno (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ref: Ma! (He's Making Eyes At Me) (album)

Hi Ritchie333,

Thanks for moving and fixing the punctuation error in title Ma! (He's Making Eyes At Me) (album)

regards, Rob Robcamstone (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • No problem. Had no idea until I read her WP article just now what happened to her, let alone the rather sad story of the rest of her life. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
With complements! Mootros (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Kayley Potters

My bad Ritchie, I always forget that A7 does not apply to fictional characters. I think we should send it to AFD because, as far as I'm concerned, there is no fictional character named Kayley Potters and she is making the whole thing up. The character is based on a fanfiction or something. Please give me your advice. Thank you. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 13:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • It looks made up. PROD it first, come back in a few days, if it's contested but no sources added, AfD it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twyford Down, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campaign for Better Transport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hello. The edit summary that you left in declining a speedy was that it has a news source. Are you suggesting that it is proper to delete a speedy solely on the basis of there existing one ref in the article that mentions the subject?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • You should only nominate things for speedy deletion if there is absolutely no chance that anybody could save it at an AfD, and it would be pointless sending it there. In this case, the presence of one news source means that the article's subject could pass the notability guidelines if others exist. These sources might not necessarily be online, and could take some time to find. So, in that case, if you are still confident that the sources found do not establish notability, you should send it to AfD for a full community discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe I've missed it, in which case I appreciate the education. Where in our policy does it indicate that the presence of one news source is reason to decline a speedy? One news source ref, of course, is not by itself sufficient to make a subject notable. And all articles, whether they have one ref or zero refs, could pass the notability guidelines if sufficient sources exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
You are indeed correct, all articles could pass the notability guidelines if properly sourced, and AfD can be an excellent way to determine this one way or the other. In the case of Soutelphan, there is also this Allmusic source, and we've generally established that Allmusic is reliable. I suspect we'll find further sources in Arabic. It definitely doesn't, from my mile high view, look like the typical Vanispamcruftisement sourced only to itself and to irrelevant company check websites which do qualify for a db-corp tag.
Regarding policy, the key point I think that's worth mentioning here in WP:CSD#A7 is : "Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion." Also, User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes is an interesting essay to read, as is the old WP:NEWT project, and this discussion I had elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, your expanded rationale is all well and good. Your initial rationale IMHO was wanting. If it meets A7 it meets it -- whether it has one source or not -- unless you show that as you do here (but did not do before) credible claim of significance. "Maybe it could who knows perhaps be notable" is not enough.
As to A7, I think that rather than focus on an essay which may be a non-consensus view of one or a few editors, the key is found in A7 itself. It states: "A7. No indication of importance ... An article about a ... organization that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant ... This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." That "lower standard" is not met by an article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant -- even if it has one news source.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if you're absolutely sure there's only one reliable source, it's probably a thing notable for one event and could go an article somewhere, just not a standalone one. Usually if I undo a CSD nomination, it's because I intend to take the article to a notable standard, or provide some big clues for somebody else to do it if I don't have time. Other CSD candidates I take one look at, put my head in my hands and say "kill with fire". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused where you see an obligation on the editor requesting deletion or denying that request to explore whether there is more than the one indicated source. It's a matter of "burden." At times, as at AfD, we have a burden on the nom. At other times, as in the addition of un-sourced challenged material, the person is on the person seeking to retain the information, and not on the challenger. Here, it seems to me the burden is certainly not on the person seeking speedy deletion. And to deny speedy on an incorrect rationale is perhaps less than helpful. If you were to deny based on "x and y show it to be important or significant," I would understand. But one source by itself does not make an article ipso facto important or significant. That small point is my only tiny quibble. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this! You do talk a good, sound argument and I respect your views. Happy editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_7&oldid=1163195751"