User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 115

Archive 110

←

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

→

Archive 120

Help with untagling a user talk page move

Hi Ritchie333, yesterday ProRavan Official tried to change their user name to Official TusharSahu by moving their user page and talk page: see move log. If I read the logs correctly, this happened a few minutes after Official TusharSahu had been registered. There is no reason to believe that this is not the same person, since Official TusharSahu has only been editing Draft:Pyaar Ki Luka Chuppi which was created by ProRavan Official. ProRavan Official has been involved in some promotion of Indian actors and TV shows (in particular one actor whose paid agents have been spamming WP for years), and has a previous temporary block for socking (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProRavan Official/Archive). The "username change" looks like a genuine good-faith error, even if I suspect it may have been done partly to obscure the editing activities around Draft:Pyaar Ki Luka Chuppi, but ProRavan Official's talk page messages can't remain at User talk:Official TusharSahu. I can't move it back since there are two new notices on the talk page since it was moved. Could you do something with admin pixie dust to split the edit histories? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea, I'm slightly confused, but just to be perfectly clear, you want me to move User:Official TusharSahu back to User:ProRavan Official and do a history merge, right? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not very good at explaining things clearly. No, the user page at User:Official TusharSahu was created by that user. It is the user talk page at User talk:Official TusharSahu that is mostly content from User talk:ProRavan Official. I find that confusing, because the talk page notices notices don't correspond to any of the user's contributions. Isn't there some way to split the edit history to make the posts from after the move remain at User talk:Official TusharSahu while the earlier posts return to User talk:ProRavan Official? Or does this actually not matter? :-) --bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea, Right, I think I've merged all the history so all the contributions match up with the two accounts at the right times, although frankly I don't think either is really here to seriously contribute to an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

October

music today, - enchanting, said a critic about the Mendelssohn that I heard on 3 October, - this video is older, and the YT in the article comes with a Bach encore as she played for us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Music today is Van Halen :-D Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint at energetic music, and good to see the cat again! Today is the birthday of a friend whom I met in 1983, organist and choral conductor, and the first piece was Suscepit Israel, about mercy, and the oboe plays the Gregorian Magnificat to three upper voices (would have been boys in Bach's time), - one of the greatest inventions, ever. - Cutting it short (and the place is pictured on my talk today), she became member of the family. Very fitting that "the most beautiful organ of the Duchy" (1818 quote) is on DYK, unfortunately not pictured. Excellent (but long) video there! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

16 October memories --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a shame I can't find enough sources to make Donald Trump is a Wanker a fully-fledge article, as opposed to a mere redirect. It's quite a nice four part fugue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Le Grand Macabre on YouTube --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If Frank Zappa was still around, I would have easily believed that piece was composed and conducted by him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brewery Collectibles Club of America

Hi Richie, I'm very puzzled on the Keep of Brewery Collectibles Club of America. None of the sources met the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. I pointed that out at the AfD. Nobody rebutted either, hence the puzzlement. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@HighKing: Basically the opening rationale of "seems to be a private website for the organization" isn't actually an argument to delete anything (see WP:ATD), and your opinion that the sources found by the four editors requesting "keep" were insufficient were refuted by Porterhse and Toughpigs. Since your argument didn't really have the upper hand, and was refuted by multiple editors making equal arguments from the other side, I concluded the overall consensus was to keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I agree with the WP:ATD reasoning but you are wrong to say that my argument was "refuted by multiple editors". Toughpigs asked my opinion on three references, which I provided. Nobody disagreed. Porterhse asked me to review another source, which I did, again nobody disagreed. Unless I'm missing something but I don't think I am. Can you take another look please? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I had another look, and expanded the article a little bit, using some sources I found. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I assume that when you say you had another look, you didn't see any issues with your reasoning to close the AfD as a Keep or see any other issues? I looked at the sources you added to the article and I note none of those meet the criteria for establishing notability either. Can I suggest you relist the AfD for more discussion? It would at the very least provide an opportunity for the other editors to rebut my arguments. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

HighKing, Sure, I've relisted for another week. Having had a bit more of a closer look at the article, speaking personally it's one of those marginal cases in that it's probably able to get a good article out of, it's just going to take time and effort. One of the problems I see at AfD (and that I've commented on elsewhere) is that it really is something of a pyrrhic victory when people vote "keep" and the article doesn't end up in any better shape as to when the debate started. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Gilmour Racing deletion

So the recent updates and referencing did not count for anything? --Falcadore (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Falcadore This is a mistake of mine. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilmour Racing, only two people participated, neither of whom asked for the article to be kept. The debate should have been closed as soft delete and I have updated the discussion to reflect this. That means you can have the article restored if you wish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Falcadore, Okay, I have restored the article per the procedures for soft deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iowa Writers' Workshop people

Hey there, I read this discussion at most as a no consensus, as it was split evenly if you lumped "delete" with "incubate". Further, the nominator provided no reasoning, and the only two incubate supporters also presented arguments that substantially misstated policy, particularly Footlessmouse's completely incorrect definition of OR. Please reconsider. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Postdlf, The AfD saw quite a bit of back and forth disagreement. I think the best thing to do is to add a good lead to the article and submit through the Articles for creation process. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Bound Togther AfD

Bound Together Afd had three arguments (mine included) in favor towards not keeping was well articulated, but the one line keep argument did not make good argument. So in terms both vote and argument, I feel there was a consensus towards deletion. Graywalls (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I counted Czar's "mmm, not sure" as a fourth, and I thought the two !votes in the relist basically cancelled each other out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a vote count according to WP:DEFINECONSENSUS and when reading through both Czar and High King's comment, I think we have a consensus towards delete. "discussed in detail in more than one independent source" isn't much of an argument. High King made a rather compelling argument why the sources fail to establish notability to the level expected in guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest trying a merge to Haight-Ashbury as a first step. In an analogous way, we don't have articles for the individual shops on Denmark Street even though some have existed for decades, although certain ones such as the 12 Bar Club (which I had the good fortune to perform onstage once in 2014 before it shut down) and the Gioconda coffee bar do have individual articles. However, regarding Bound Together, the article does seem to have more sources than The Red Victorian, which is a standalone article. I'm a little surprised I can't find evidence you notified the article's creator Doncram who found the original sources and can probably advise how to proceed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again to Yngvadottir for sorting things out :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Confusion

If you practiced what you preached you wouldn't have been able to give me the advice to only contact someone unless I am already collaborating with that person. I assume that thus you will thus refrain from repying to this comment rather than jumping up and down. Hyacinth (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Maxim.il89

First edit back... starts with inserting the rejected content again. Showed some attempt to refactor content by mentioning it was founded by the former chairman of the club, but it's still got the same old promotional aspect to it. Koncorde (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, What I don't understand is why Maxim.il89 doesn't just improve the existing Foundation of Light article instead? (I notice I declined a CSD A7 on that article, so I might be considered involved for any admin action going forward). Some of the added content in the latest edit, such as the founding by Bob Murray and the £1.6m learning facility, both of which are cited to two separate pieces in the Sunderland Echo, are probably worth keeping.

I'm happy to say all of that on the talk page if everyone will take it as a suitable compromise. I took action against Maxim.il89 because his conduct was being disruptive, but I made no comment on his content, which is not particularly unreasonable when taken on its merits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem remains the process by which he gains consensus (or in his case, doesn't) and his thin end of the wedge approach. My very first edit on the foundation explicitly states that the relevance of Bob Murray is obvious, but his bad habit is to use primary sourcing, quote extensively from what is functionally promotional material, and then do OR from the sourcing. You can see the amount of work this then leaves someone like myself to go through to check the content. Koncorde (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, I know there have been problems in the past, but he's only made one edit, and it's not a straight revert of before. So I don't think there's anything to worry about just yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I am letting you know not because I want him banned. I am letting you know because he is not showing any signs of seeking consensus for changes that have already been largely rejected and he will not listen to me. If you want to recommend the compromise of what element you believe is relevant (Murray, and Stadium development) you won't find opposition from me, but when I have suggested any level of moderation in the past he has taken it as an attack and ended up at several forums shopping a ban for me.

He will only end up back there unless someone helps him control himself. Koncorde (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, I have had a go at fleshing out the paragraph on the Foundation of Light, using the sources Maxim supplied, but trimming it down to a couple of sentences. Hopefully that'll give us the balance we need; if Maxim.il89 feels the need to re-add the block quotes, then it'll have to go to the talk page. Anyway, by doing this I am very much taking my "admin" hat off and putting my "editor" hat on, so somebody else will need to manage any conduct issues going forward. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for your time. Hopefully he will listen. Koncorde (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Literally the first thing Maxim did after unblock was to edit war. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 01:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sunderland

		The Editor's Barnstar
		You defused a situation between other members while improving the section which the arguing was about, thank you. You demonstrated a real want of promoting compromise for the sake of improving Wikipedia. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Dilys Price

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Asking for help

Could I ask for your help. I had previously created 13 articles, almost all in mainspace , and was not expecting a problem when I went to create a 14th last night. Boy, was I wrong! I had always used Article Wizard but it seemed not to allow that anymore, only for Draft. So I set up my sandbox for the first time and read a piece on what you do when you are ready to move it out. But it did not seem to tally with what I saw and the display was not clear to me. I really fouled up. My Aineireland sandbox was redirected to Peter Collis (the intended name of the article) and Peter Collis was redirected to User page: Peter Collis. I managed to undo the first redirect by blanking it from my sandbox page but the 2nd redirect remains. Could you possibly remove it. I blanked out what content I had written and will start again from scratch.

I NOW KNOW how to move the page from the sandbox because I later watched a video tutorial of Ewan McAndrew, so it won't happen again. Aineireland (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Aineireland, Okay, I have removed the extraneous redirects, you should now find your draft is at Draft:Peter Collis, and if you look at the history, you will be able to see the prose you added earlier. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you , but how will I get it into mainspace or forwarded as a draft for review when I am finished? On three occasions I used Draft space but there were prompts about sending it on when you were ready. I see no facility here. Will I just keep improving it and wait for it to be reviewed and accepted? Aineireland (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Aineireland, Oh, I think I know what you mean. Okay, there should be one on there now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That seems to have sorted it. I am really grateful. Aineireland (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your time, advice and for helping me improve the Pottery Cottage murders article. Much appreciated. DSQ (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Estrella Falls

Hi! Not actually contesting the close as it can be revisited down the line, but curious how it's a no consensus with not a single person saying it should be kept. I don't even see the person who dropped the links as advocating for keep, but may have misread their comment. Thanks for any insight. StarM 17:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, TPH's comment is reasonable, DevokeWater should have given more information (already told him about that), MB's comment looked like a "keep" and challenged TPH to look at the sources. Then I relisted for further comments, and there were none for a week, which indicated nobody else was bothered. So it was a toss up between "delete" and "no consensus" - I went with the latter so I don't get people saying "hey, that article was there last month, where's it gone", and also it means anyone can easily file a fresh AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie, appreciate the overview/insight. I din't want it too look like I was badgering mB in replying. Given the lack of edits between 2012 and 2019 save for one Bot edit in 2016, I don't think anyone is going to be looking for that article anytime soon. If it doesn't open, I'll revisit it in 2032. LOL. StarM 19:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Offer of books on Audrey Hepburn from Wikimedia UK

Hello Ritchie333! I'm Daria working at Wikimedia UK. Some time ago we supported a UK editor with a volunteer grant, buying books for them about Audrey Hepburn so they can write some articles. They have now done everything they wanted to do with them, returned the books to us, and suggested that we pass them onto you. There are 6 of them. Is this something you would be interested in? We'd be happy to simply donate the books to you with no obligation to return. If you want to write articles based on them, and let us know about it, great - but no pressure. daria.cybulskawikimedia.org.uk Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Daria Cybulska (WMUK), Hi, I am aware of this, and I'm sorry I haven't given you an answer sooner. Basically, I want to just check I will be able to commit to the time to improve / rewrite the article as suggested, and not just getting free books to accumulate on the shelf (I have Phil Collins' autobiography sitting around that I haven't got round to reading yet). Can I give you a more definitive answer towards the end of the week? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, no rush at all, I understand. And I certainly wouldn't want to add pressure to your already busy editing schedule. Feel free to ping me one way or another some time. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Topic Created

Hello Ritchie333,

I am confused and also curious about the deletion request. Please Help me to improve the content of that page or how can I provide value to that content. Please help me to understand these policies better way so i can provide value to this platform in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swati097gupta (talk • contribs) 04:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Swati097gupta, You didn't mention which article you were referring to, but I assume this is CalmSage, which was deleted for blatant advertising. Simply put, prose such as "To meet their agenda of spreading billions of smiles every day, Calm Sage is currently operating on different platforms. This includes their website, Instagram, Facebook, youtube, and podcast channel. Their website is a pool of positivity and mental health awareness where you can find a range of content. From the list of best inspirational Netflix movies to overcoming grief in life, they have you all covered. Their content is well researched and curated in a way that you can easily relate to it, understand it, and bring important life changes through it." is not suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia. Have a look at Samaritans (charity) for an example of how to write an article on this sort of topic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, The editor has again re-created the WP:PROMOTIONAL article CalmSage and is supposed engaged in sockpuppeting. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swati097gupta ~ Amkgp 💬 07:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333,

I will surely put your suggestion to the article and then submit it. thanks for your support and helping to make better this community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swati097gupta (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

livelikemusic

Hi, are you able to assist please. 'livelikemusic' keeps deleting my edits, all of which are properly, correctly sourced. They are insinuating I am a sock puppet, which is untrue.Vovocava (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please visit the investigation, which has a myriad of evidence that does state otherwise. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have much interest in SPIs. In terms of the edit to Melanie C, AFAIK it's a reliable source to officialcharts.com, so in my view it should stay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

London Victoria station

Hello,

You revert this adding :

On 26 July 1939, two bombs exploded in the London Underground – one in the left-luggage area of King's Cross station and one in the left-luggage area of Victoria Station. In the King's Cross attack, one man was killed and two wounded. In the Victoria Station attack five were wounded.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=London_Victoria_station&oldid=prev&diff=975795255

You can find a french source here : https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6837428/f3.item.zoom I'm sure you can find this on british newspapers.

Sebdelprat (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a single source via a basic search, including "victoria station bomb" in the Times Digital Archive, and rather annoyingly my British Newspaper Archive subscription has expired. (For talk page stalkers, this conversation is about this edit, and I feel uncomfortable about a Good Article documenting the killing of civilians without a source, and without saying why the bombs were planted - IRA?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to stalk, but plenty of coverage and worth adding: [1] [2] [3] SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh sure, my comment was more bemoaning my own incompetence ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've put it back in via the source I was able to find. Trove is wonderful and free to all (and when I had British Newspaper Archive, I could never find a blasted thing in it, even things from the 1960s that I'd found in the Times printed index years before), and I figured out how to browse issues of the Sydney Morning Herald, but unfortunately even looking through both 27 and 28 July I wasn't able to find anything specific on the Victoria bomb other than a republication of a Financial Times article from 1973, but that does have it. Maybe someone else who has newspapers.com access can use that to narrow down the search in 1939 newspapers. Both bombings are already in S-Plan without a source; p. 1 of SMH for 28 July does attest to the speedy passage of the Prevention of Violence bill. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if this will help, but it's SMH page 12 on 28 July 1939 and page 13 of the Age. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Help?

As I said, I am doing an extensive review on a GA nomination. One of the links goes to Doreen Young Wickremasinghe, which has an ugly red copyvio template on it that I have never seen. At any rate, I went to Earwig, input the revision #30191468 from the article creation on 4 December 2005 and compared it to the link given that appeared in the Sunday Observer on 27 August 2006. Short of a few words and punctuation marks, the Observer article is a 98.4% copy of the Wikipedia article. Just for double checking I also input the revision #68476651 from the WP version on 8 August 2006. It also confirms that the Observer article copied 98.4% of the extant WP article. So, how does one get rid of that template? Clearly the Observer copied WP, not the other way around. SusunW (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie and SusunW, I had a look and if I were still an admin, I'd have provisionally removed the copyvio template (added by Jesuschristonacamel on 27 June 2018) and posted the following info on the article talk page, but I'm not and the situation is not entirely clear, so maybe it's as well I didn't. Yes, the initial version of the article on 5 December 2005 by IP 220.247.229.236 (which geolocates to Sri Lanka) predates the Sunday Observer article, whose URL includes a date of 27 August 2006. Both include comma errors and an excess space, but our article was created with wikilinks and with the title an article written by Ms Wickremasinghe italicised (erroneously, should be inverted commas). Those do suggest copying from our article, and the impression is strengthened by the fact that by the last edit before the date of the newspaper article, the only change that would show up in a copy is "Leftist" to "leftist", and the newspaper article does have lowercase "leftist". I note that another IP geolocating to Sri Lanka, 220.247.231.238, had created European Radicals in Sri Lanka on 4 November 2005; possibly the same person. However, with so many small errors in both texts, and with the newspaper article having no date apparent on the page itself and thus having possibly been moved and in the process acquired a URL with a later date, I wondered whether there might be a common source. I went searching on "In 1933 she wrote an article, The Battle of the Flowers which appeared in the Ceylon Daily News and exposed the absurdity of forcing Sri Lankan schoolchildren to purchase poppies to help British veterans at the expense of their own", and Google showed me a file-sharing forum with a hit on what appears to be ISBN 978-0313273094, a book edited by Douglas Allen titled Religion and Political Conflict in South Asia: India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka (attributed to Douglas Jones on the forum, so possibly the hit is on an article within, by Douglas Jones). This dates back to at least 1992, possibly earlier, since IIRC one of the two publishers, Greenwood Press, publishes reprints. I can't see the text without registering for the file-sharing site that was recommended on the forum, which I have no assurance is safe (and I'm not linking to either out of respect for copyright). Google may be up a gum tree, and/or the actual common source may have vanished in the last 14 years. On balance, I'd remove it as likely copying from us, but copyvio is a serious thing and I am not 100% sure. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Yngvadottir thanks for the review. I cannot access that book either from Mexico, so cannot add anything to what you found. Perhaps Ritchie can. SusunW (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Yngvadottir for your speedy response; I started looking into this and got stuck down the same rabbit hole. Unfortunately, I can't access the book either and don't get any option to search within it - all I can see is that it exists. Moneytrees may be able to give further advice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, Yngvadottir is right in that the date in url may just be the day it was archived, not when it was written, so I decided to check a bit further. I noticed that one of the only parts that wasn't similar to the source was "In this week when S. A. Wickremesighe is being remembered, we must remember Doreen Young Wickremasinghe as well"; I looked up that name, which lead me to S. A. Wickramasinghe, where I find http://archives.dailynews.lk/2006/08/24/fea01.asp as a source. I go there and see the first paragraph, which says "The 25th death anniversary of Dr. S. A. Wickramasinghe, Leader of the Communist Party of Sri Lanka falls on 25.8.2006." That matches up with the dates and confirms when the two articles were written, proving that they copied from us. As for the book, well... while academic reviews indicate it was published in 1992, it doesn't appear to be online in any capacity, the most I can find is a very limited search through this catalogue. I found that the name "Doreen" can be found in the book, so the possibility of copying still exists. I'll attempt to get it through inter-library loan and will update you with how that goes. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees Thanks for your help. It's so bloody complicated. I think we are all clear that the Observer copied WP, but whether our info was copied from another source is still up in the air. I really appreciate all of you weighing in and hope you can find the source. SusunW (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, I have the book now and the article wasn't copied from it. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 22:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees Yay! I don't know how we fix the article and remove that red glaring template now that we are sure, but I'm hoping someone with a technical wand can do that. I truly appreciate how well collaboration works. Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Help

How to delete my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProRavan Official (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ProRavan Official, User accounts cannot be deleted for attribution / licensing reasons. If you want to quit Wikipedia, just stop editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

advice

Sooo, now that I have multiple editors who think I'm out to get them, can I get some advice? Do I continue warning etc. them, or do I walk away and assume others will pick up the slack? I don't mind so much in areas where there are plenty of other watchers, but in areas where there are few I kinda feel bad abandoning the good-faith effort. TPS specifically invited in. —valereee (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Can you give me a bit more context. I can see a discussion at Talk:Emily W. Murphy and at Talk:Kamala Harris, but none of those seem particularly acrimonious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Kenneth Harris II

Hi. I wanted to hopefully reverse the decision to delete the page: Kenneth Harris II. I would like to make updates to the page rather than delete it entirely as I feel the decision to delete could have been resolved differently. Looking forward to speaking!96.231.50.13 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Harris II, and nobody at the debate objected to the deletion. I can restore to a user page, but I would prefer an actual account to put that in, as IP addresses can and do change on a whim. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. I would like to make some updates to the page. Will I need to resubmit to get the page published again? Thank you for your assistance, I truly appreciate it. EchoWalkerHollow (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

EchoWalkerHollow, I've restored the article to Draft:Kenneth Harris II. You should be able to follow instructions at the top of the page for reviewing, once you have made changes / improvements. If you have any other questions, let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your efforts with Wikipedia! Shameran81 (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

REVDEL request

Hi Ritchie, would it possible to REVDEL this edit and reason as gross/wholly indecent? Thanks Kingsif (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, Done; anyone who says things like that is sick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine but

Currently the end of the lead looks rather silly without transition, and 'commercial' seems rather ok for this:

. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Journey of the Sorcerer

On 17 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Journey of the Sorcerer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the theme tune to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is actually an Eagles song? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Journey of the Sorcerer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Journey of the Sorcerer), 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) 00:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Chandler's Ford

Hi Ritchie, hope you're keeping well! I was wondering if I could pester you for a semi-formal peer review or a GA review of Chandler's Ford shooting. I wrote it a while back and I'm pretty sure it's complete (though a new book on the history of the Flying Squad came out earlier this year, which I've just ordered; it might have some useful snippets) and I've toyed with the idea of taking it to FAC but I'd like some more eyes on it first. I used to hit Gavin up for this kind of thing. My main concern, besides just wanting fresh eyes, is that it only has three incoming links but I'm stumped for other places to link it from. Obviously, if you're looking for a reviewer for a road or a station I'd be happy to oblige, and if you don't have time or it's not your cup of tea then no worries. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, I'll have a read through it tonight if I get a chance, and the Hackintosh I've got sitting upstairs actually installs MacOS Catalina straight without throwing a total hissy fit like last night. (Yes, I should buy a Mac Mini). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Alas, the book I was waiting for turned out to be of almost no use for Chandler's Ford (although the book is sub-titled "100 years of history" and published this year, the author's knowledge runs out in the mid-90s) but it might be useful for another project I've been considering between war memorials. I might see if there's any background on the Flying Squad that might be useful but I think I've essentially exhausted the potential sources on Chandler's Ford. Whenever you get to it, I'd appreciate any thoughts, but no rush; work is keeping me plenty busy and I've already got an open FAC. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oxford Circus - reverted additional event - not news?

I added an event that the Oxford Circus tube signs at street level had all changed for a Sony PS5 Promotion which you undid. Your reason for undoing the addition was under WP: Not News with the additional line of "what does this have to do with Oxford Street?" Answer: Nothing. It's to do with a temporary change in street architecture in Oxford Circus where people passing thru might want to know why the change happened. I don't have pictures of the street level signs as the link I have is only for the manufacturers, so perhaps it wasn't clear that this was a change in street architecture and perhaps you thought it was only signs in the tube station itself... I'd say it shows the breadth and variety of "events" occurring in Oxford Circus, from Extinction Revolution to commercial promotions etc. So how about adding the event back? Perhaps it needs more photos of the actual signs at street level, but I did note that most of the events didn't have much in the way of pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrientalHero (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@OrientalHero: I see you haven't edited in a few years; welcome back! But you may be a bit rusty on encyclopedicity. I'm sure there have been a bazillion innovative advertising promotions at various locations in London, designed by many different firms, but unless they become the talk of the town (like in this instance if several press outlets had individually noted that commuters had difficulty finding the Tube station because of the replacement signs), it's just a blip in a sea of blips. It might be worth mentioning at the article on the PS5, but again only if it got significant press coverage, not just one article highlighting the design firm, and I suspect it would then belong in a sentence on the various promotional efforts by Sony in connection with the release. They presumably did stuff all over the world. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha, yes quite a while since the last edit. I think I was spurred by my first correction to the Guardian yesterday (which got them to update one of their references). It just so happened that I didn't find much online about the tube signage change and thought Wikipedia might have more info. But I think you're right about the encyclopaedia angle and the multiple promotions. I'll see if the PS5 has a marketing section where it might live in the form you suggested. Thanks for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrientalHero (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

As Ygnvadottir said, the problem is that unless an eye is kept on events, the section would spiral out of control and make the article worse. In this instance, the only news source I could find was the Daily Mail, which is deprecated - all the other events have been referenced in books or news sources after the event, and have had a significant impact on the circus. I don't think we can judge this event to be that at this time. Hence the reference to WP:NOTNEWS. A further consideration is Oxford Circus is a good article, which means certain criteria (in this 3b. "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail") have to be adhered to, and hence the quality level for all edits has to be higher. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Revdel

Hello Ritchie, for your attention: [4] for a possible revision delete (hiding the revision text). Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon, Done. I was thinking about blocking them for being not here to write an encyclopedia (but instead to push a nationalist POV), but I don't think they've made enough edits to warrant that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for undeletion?

Hi! Sorry to bother you about an old AFD, but I'm curious about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tartan Films releases.

Not being able to see the original article, I don't know if it was as well-kept or lengthy as List of Criterion Collection releases, but whether it did or not the WP:CATALOG argument would apply just as well to that list, and the claim about "notability" is somewhat confusing -- back in the 1990s and early 2000s Tartan releases were the primary way people in the UK and Ireland accessed Japanese cinema (and presumably the films of other countries, but I don't remember) and the main reason for creating a separate List of Tartan Films releases would be because the list had grown too long and was overwhelming our Palisades Tartan article not because the company itself is somehow notable but its products are not.

I wouldn't mind just merging it all into the company's article either (Masters of Cinema is essentially an article on Eureka Entertainment consisting primarily of an extended list of their DVDs), but I'd need to see it first.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88, The AfD was closed as soft delete so I can just restore to mainspace if you want. Do you wish to do this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. :-) (Sorry, I tend to assume that if an admin chose to soft-delete an article at AFD, it meant they looked at the page and decided against !voting keep instead, so I wanted to proactively "justify" requesting undeletion. I'll make the call whether to redirect/merge once I can see the page, anyway.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Drammen Spiral challenge

Hi. I just noticed your question from 2014 on my talk page, about the Drammen Spiral challenge. Not sure if you are still interested, but I found this link in Norwegian, which explains it. Held by the Royal Norwegian Automobile association (KNA), it seems to be a rally which bears the Spiralen name. Starting in Hokksund, 20 km west of Drammen, it is a 206 km rally. Don't know if I'm using correct translation terms, but the link says that it's a "challenge-race" consisting of stages with open time controls. Transport stages, "reliablity" stages and 4 "skill" stages. I can't find a map, but the page says that it is possible to refill gas after c. 100 km in Lampeland, which is about 50 km south-west of Drammen, so I'm guessing the rally only gets its name from Spiralen. --Cashewnøtt (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hiya: the course (and apparently the starting point) varies from year to year, in fact the map is only issued to competitors at the last moment, to increase the challenge for the navigator :-) It's organised by KNA Drammen as this year's rules sheet states, and I found a bit about it in this 2012 article, but if there's coverage of the race results I wasn't able to see it, so doesn't look like it can have an article, sadly. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Gerda's November corner

November

look! - ever so proud of the little article which is my DYK 1500 and relates to DYK 1 - by sheer coincidence! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Good show. I haven't been on much recently, because (as you might be aware) I have been busy celebrating a recent election result. Watch Kamala. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

look today for bright memories - thank you so much for advice to who put up the hated black banner! ... probably the shortest span between Precious and retired, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

One of these days I'd like to translate some of de:Spiel nicht mit den Schmuddelkindern, - would you help me with album-related terms I may not know? I began with the illustrator. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Look today more on BB music, a little crusade of mine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Help!

I'm going to hope that you or a page stalker can help me. I've written an article about women trying to abolish the poll tax in the US. Looking for photographs of the activists, I found this image and uploaded it, thinking that the fair use one currently on Mary Fair Burks article should be replaced. Problem is that I unknowingly named it the same name, so I cannot get the free one to appear in my article or on hers. When I tried to figure out how to fix it this article on renaming said to rename the one on the local WP, but apparently I cannot do that? and need an admin to help me. Since I trust your magic wand can work on this, can you make the fair use image go away so that the free-to-use commons one can be used? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SusunW: If I read the Commons:Commons:File renaming right, all you have to do is go to the Commons, change your Preferences to enable the "renamelink" gadget, then just "move" the file. The file will NOT actually be moved immediately, but your request will be brought to the attention of people who can move it on your behalf. Since the one on the Commons was uploaded very recently, you shouldn't get any "push back" if you make this request in the next few days. Disclaimer: I've never done this, let me know if it doesn't work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks davidwr I asked a couple of folks who help me in researching photos and they all say that the commons one should stay as it is. The "local" one needs to be renamed and deleted because it is not free and there is an image available to replace it. If/when that happens, the free one will automatically populate both articles. But, I totally admit technology stuff is beyond my ability to do or comprehend. SusunW (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it Yngvadottir SusunW (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't fix it, Yngvadottir did, citing this very discussion in the log entry: Uploader request: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=991022129&oldid=990899228 davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I see the file has been moved already, it is now at File:Mary Burks.jpg. Once you remove all uses of the other file, a bot will eventually mark the file as an "unused fair use image" and it will be deleted a week later.

This is what I was going to write before I noticed the file was moved:

I think you are looking for Template:Di-replaceable fair use. Put {{subst:rfu|[[:Commons:File:filename]] is a free image of the same person, so there is no need for this non-free image.}} on the image's description page.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas Ritchie333
	Hi Ritchie333, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)