This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
no problem just challenged u with my ideas abt Spectrum
suit urself n do what u wish abt those lines in the talk abt Spectrum pages :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.168.1.1 (talk)
NZ bios
I see you also noticed. Is that a sock of a some kind of anti-NZ banned editor? Bit unusual first edits, and all following one editors creations. This makes me wonder what I have wondered before whether 1000 edits should be a threshold before using that template. If such a limit is even technically possible. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's a sock of an editor who's been following Stuartyeates (talk·contribs) around and generally trying to delete stuff. I've asked Rschen7754 (talk·contribs), who closed the recent SPI case, to have a look. The trouble is, I can't hand on heart say he doesn't have a case at AfD right now without finding some more sources to support these bios, so I'm reluctant to just dismiss it as disruptive. I wouldn't put a hard limit on using the templates as I can see a legitmate use - say if a notable person stumbles across a badly sourced BLP of themselves and wants to argue they're non notable for a quiet life. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it was appropriate for you to close the AN/I discussion since you participated in it, but I'm glad you did. Haha. I think you should add to your closing comment so that it mentions that the editor also ignored numerous warnings on their talk page and bypassed proper protocol by going to AN/I (after his bad behavior) without ever attempting to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. I hope you'll add those things because the editor's edit-warring was only a part of their very inappropriate behavior; it was only one-third of the reason for the boomerang. Thanks. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Technically, it was a bit of ignoring all rules closing it, yeah - for which I give anyone full permission to reopen the thread if they so wish (that goes for any ANI conversation I happen to close, by the way). I don't think a giant list of what you think duffbeerforme did wrong is appropriate though - ANI is for stopping disputes that have got totally out of hand, and "naming and shaming" is not part of that. I had already subtly hinted at "take it to the talk page" earlier, and since the discussion had got the point where everyone was saying "we need to discuss this elsewhere" I felt it was time for a close. In future, if you see anyone edit warring on the article, use WP:AN3 or discuss on the talk page. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm just saying that if you're going to mention the boomerang, it should mention exactly why instead of just singling out one reason; not to shame the editor, but for accuracy for all editors who read why it was closed. And I've had no involvement in that article, so I would have no reason to ever take it to AN3 or the talk page. ;) And Duff didn't take it to AN3 because he obviously wasn't looking at it as an edit-warring issue, but ironically as an inappropriate-behavior issue. Haha. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I'd be surprised if anyone is interested in the thread now beyond those who have already participated, if I'm honest. It'll be archived soon, we'll all forget it about it, and we'll all move onto other things. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Matt from Tribunal Records
Not really sure what deems a record label "notable" but it seems you have something personal against me or else you would simply search this website and find all the bands I have worked with since 1999. The label has released 113 releases since 1999, I understand that is before internet took hold and most all coverage I had was in magazine form. Remember those? My reissue division has released 40 titles since 2008. So again, I suggest you do some research, even if only on this website to find out. But, regardless I have survived so much more in this industry over the years so whatever personal issue you have with me, enjoy it, because it's all you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.172.239 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've no idea what this is about. Could you provide some context? If you have magazine sources, providing they were commercially published and had wide circulation, they're pretty likely to be reliable sources, so can be used. Have a look at our instructions for how to cite sources, which shows you how to cite print material. Regarding research, the onus is generally on the person adding the content to have done this first, though I will try and cite things to a web source if I can easily come across one. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
UKRD
The law of the NE Ents say : "Cause no drama"....
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have closed the discussion as it is clear that you do not understand the GA/FA processes, and your comments were descending into personal attacks. However, you are welcome to bring any USRD or CRWP article to WP:FAR or WP:GAR if you believe that it does not meet the standard. --Rschen775421:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not engaging in further conversation, but there's something I want to make clear from the getgo: I've never been one to play civility cop, even as an admin. I don't agree with everything Malleus has said for example, but I don't waste my time trying to write him up at ANI and file the paperwork - I have articles to write. If you look through the blocks I've made, you will find very few blocks related to civility alone. --Rschen775404:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
about my article submission...
i thought that my "list of firsts in major human achievements" would be very useful for people to know what significant milestones mankind has achieved during its existence and when. consider from the point of view of an extraterrestrial civilization- WHAT HAVE THEY ACHIEVED SO FAR AND WHEN AND WHO WAS THE PIONEER DOING THAT?
wouldn't it be great to list out all first major events important for us which changed our world like say "FIRST PHONE CALL", "FIRST TV BROADCAST", "1ST HUMAN ON MOON"!
when Wikipedia has lists for some other game/ sport achievement/ records... isn't it more important than that?
The problem with your list being an article is that deciding what can go in and what should be left out is incredibly subjective, particularly where we need to take a worldwide view. I appreciate your list isn't complete, but I'm not sure it ever could be - where might you draw the line at what's important and what's not? Lists tend to be most useful when they convey a clear and unambiguous set of information, such as (to pick a random example) List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones. Notice also that article has several paragraphs explaining to the reader what the article is about.
Now, on the other hand, a category titled "Significant human achievements", or something similar, would be able to convey the same information, and fit into a more acceptable format. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Richie, I originally posted this to User:Drmies talk page but he said he wasn't too familiar with the AfC process. You had the unfortunate luck of being the first admin I recognised on the AfC talk page and now have been landed with this :)
I came across InSystems Corporation during NewPage patrol at Articles for creation/InSystems Corporation (in article space at that name). I moved it to the page it's at now but upon further inspection I'm not sure if it should perhaps be moved into AfC space. I can't find any evidence of it being in AfC space to begin with (looking at the authors contribs). I'm not quite sure what's happened but I suspect perhaps that the author has simply created the article and added the AfC tags to avoid it being deleted? I want to WP:AGF on this so I thought I'd ask an admin to take a looksee at it Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)15:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. The problem seems to have stemmed from this edit where it was moved to the wrong location. AfC submissions are stored in the Wikipedia talk namespace so that IP users can create them (since, post Siegenthaler, they can't create anything in main space). It seems Drmies and Mabdul have sorted this one out now. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Hello, i've been fairly busy and didn't notice that my article had been reviewed. You said my song was not notable but it is. Also you said that songs on wikipedia, with the exception of Beatles songs, should be notable like a chart-topper, yet the song is not a single or album so it cannot be on the charts. Also i'm sure not many people heard of the songs Maggie Mae or Sexie Sadie by the Beatles, so what you said is purly an opinion, even though i'm working on an history related article about the beatles, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The History of The Beatles, if you could check it out and give me feed back I would be much appreciated. Thank you, and please look back into my article!
JoshBlitz (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)JoshBlitz
Hi. The general consensus, as seen in our guidelines for music related articles, is that songs have to stand out specifically in their own right. In this case, you could take the content and add it to Long After Dark as suggested, and put a note on the Straight Into Darkness page to see that album's article instead. The Beatles' songs are very much the exception, as they have been documented in reliable sources extensively, not least Ian McDonald's "Revolution in the Head", my "go-to" source on Beatles articles. I also saw your Beatles' history article and commented about it on the help desk - as well as being a duplicate of articles we already have, it has too much bias towards the US. Bigger than Jesus gives a more balanced worldwide viewpoint, for example. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles for creation: High End Systems
Hi Ritchie,
My submission was declinced because you said the references are either self-published or don't appear to be about High End. One of the references is self-published but none of the others are. They are:
1. Performance Magazine, an industry publication
2. Reuter's, a well-known news agency
3. Projection, Lights and Staging News, an industry publication published by Timeless Communications
4. Mondo Magazine is an industry publication
6. Austin Business Journal is an Austin-based business newspaper
Also, you said the best references of all, "Automated Lighting: The Art and Science of Moving Light," and "Concert Lighting: Techniques, Art, and Business," both published by Focal Press, don't seem to even mention High End Systems. But Automated Lighting has a whole section about High End Systems starting on page 27 in the 1st edition and starting on page 28 in the 2nd edition. Also, Concert Lighting discusses High End Systems extensively starting on pages 184 and on 165.
Please let me know what we need to do to make this right. I appreciate your guidance.
Hi. Well, the good news is that if I say "the company certainly looks like it should be notable at first glance", then it's not far off passing, and it's simply a question of tidying up the references so it's unambiguous exactly where you're getting the information from. Have a look at our reference guidelines, particularly the section on book and magazine sources - you ideally need the ISBN number of the publication and specific pages. Incidentally, I've been away for the Easter break, so apologies for not getting back sooner - you can sometimes get a quicker response on the Articles for Creation Help Desk if somebody else knows the answer. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I spotted this yesterday on my phone. Having something I created on the front page means I must be doing something right around here and makes all the grief and hassle I've had over the past fortnight (don't ask!) seem less important. Cheers! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
More re Cedexis - I did NOT offer to do it for $$.
Sorry - I wasn't clear in my former message. SOMEONE ELSE offered to do a posting for $$$. I said I would try to do it for them for free. No money out of their pocket or into mine. I am a big supporter of Wikipedia and it's approach. As with most human beings I do things when there's a NEED for them - and my friends at Cedexis have a NEED.
Hi Ritchie, Do you know what this means: "They had not performed to the general public since early 1967, and had only given sporadic concerts since that time."? Ericoides (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Good work in improving Stones in the Park - it's looking better already. Well, another, more precise, and perhaps better way of putting it would be, "They had not performed a public concert since the 1967 European Tour, and in 1968 only performed at the NME Poll Winners Concert and at the Rolling Stones Rock 'n' Roll Circus" - which I think is factually correct, though I don't have my "go-to" source for that (Bill Wyman's Rolling With The Stones) to hand to back any of that up right this minute. Basic point is, by the standards of the 60s, they hadn't played in ages. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Ah, I see. That's much clearer; at first glance the original passage seemed contradictory. I hope you won't mind my pasting your amended passage into the article, even without a ref. Ericoides (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Good work on this to you, too. Harper: me too (many times, first in 1979... Delightful man.). A question: why does The Rolling Stones concert chronology appear above attendance in the infobox? It shouldn't but I can't seem to change it. Ericoides (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It strikes me with a bit more TLC, this could be Today's featured article on July 5th or 6th, which would be somewhat appropriate in my view. Last time I saw Harper would have been in about 2001-2002, I recall he was seriously sounding off about the Iraqi conflict between songs. Haven't a clue about the infobox - that seems to be way it's designed. I'm not sure who you can ask about that, I'm afraid. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking just the same about the FA. Would all of the Norman refs I've cited need to be given their individual page nos for FA status, rather than just the spans? Yes, he did a lot of patter when I saw him, and copious toking, but was a bit more mellow: first time was in some sports hall in Leatherhead of all places, the last in a Durham Miners' Hall in the late 80s. Folkjokeopus still my fave, although not heard it since then! Ericoides (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Before we go there, it probably wants to go through a GA review first - imho it's nearly there. Main facts I want to sort out now is a bit more on why the Stones stopped touring, Keef's tunings ("Life" has a bit more about this) and anything else about the other acts on the bill, which nobody seems to talk about. On the subject of the Norman refs, you can probably get away with the existing formatting for GA, but not for FA - you probably want to convert them to use {{sfn}} or {{sfnp}} - have a look at Keith Moon to see how it's done. I could do it myself but i don't have the source to work out the page numbers. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool. For the record, I won't be going to the 6th July show as I'm already booked to play at another, rather more low key, summer festival gig elsewhere. Done a few Hyde Park Calling gigs over the past decade, but I personally just prefer wandering around the park when nothing else is going on. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This Wiki page is part of a community flood risk project to create web resources for a village in Wales that was badly flooded in June 2012. Essentially, the page I created is a summarised version of a 53 page report that I wrote for Aberystwyth University (see ref 5 - S. Foulds is me). There was a lot of information in the original report that was too detailed for the general public so I cut the report down into a more useful document. Since submitting the page for review I attended a meeting with a local flood group to preview the page. They were excited about it and commented on how useful it will be as a teaching resource for local schools. Following from this I must disagree that the article is not neutral - it is merely a statement of scientific data throughout. I have added some useful Wiki refs detailing context about the floods and some YouTube video footage. I fail to see how the YouTube footage could be unreliable as it shows videos of the floods that took place on the 12 June 2012. There is no commentary. Also, surely saying that other Wiki pages are unreliable is a circular argument – you are saying that the resources that you help to create can’t be trusted? Furthermore, I must disagree with your comments about the references - they are far more reliable than most you will find on a Wiki page because they are peer reviewed scientific articles. The article is also written in an encyclopaedic manner with facts and tables etc.
Please could you revisit my page and let me know your decision.
Thanks for your input, Mdann52. When we mean "reliable sources", we mean that the source in question generally has a reputation for strong editorial control, and hence we can rely on it to report on notable subjects in a neutral point of view. Since anyone can create a YouTube video about anything, it is generally not considered reliable - the footage might show the floods happened, but it doesn't explain why they are notable. Regarding your comment of "saying that the resources that you help to create can’t be trusted?" - Yes, absolutely! After all, somebody once wrote on Wikipedia that John Siegenthaler murdered John F Kennedy without a shred of evidence - see Wikipedia biography controversy. However, you can re-use the sources cited in another article if they are reliable and appropriate. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Honest conversation
Going round in circles...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This situation is obviously untenable, and I know this is a lot of text, but please hear me out on this.
We're obviously in a content dispute right now. However, I think you're taking this dispute personally, making it more about "defeating Rschen7754" than doing what you think is best for the encyclopedia. To be frank, I get the impression that you want me topic banned from all roads articles, desysopped, and/or sitebanned. If that's not what you want, then you're coming off way too strong.
I just want to say again that I, and my colleagues in the US, only want to help the UK roads project. We care about road articles across all Wikimedia projects, regardless of their location in the world. Sure, several years ago we got a bit carried away, and got things started off on the wrong foot. I apologize for that. But going off and ranting about what happened in 2008-2010 doesn't get us anywhere now. We are not trying to destroy the UK roads project, delete all the articles, cripple the project so that it will never have GAs again, disrupt the UK roads project, etc. I wish that you would assume good faith and realize that we are trying to help you, rather than trying to smash UKRD into the ground.
That being said, if we are being critical of what the UK roads project is doing, it is because we're being honest about ways in which you as a project need to improve rather than sugarcoating things. Otherwise, yes we would be guilty of ignoring your project and not helping you out, like you accused us of doing earlier. As you know since you keep bringing this up, the US roads project spent our first few years fighting which led to two arbitration cases (2006, 2008). It then took us time after that to figure out standards and to figure out how GAN and FAC worked. We've figured stuff out and we're only trying to help the UK roads project so they don't have to waste 3 years of fighting and 1 year cleaning up from that. Do you have to take our advice? Quite frankly, no. But you're taking a risk if you don't, in my opinion; we're telling you where we screwed up so you don't have to make the same mistakes.
But regardless, you don't have to like my opinions, and you don't have to like the U.S. Roads WikiProject, and you don't even have to like me, but I do ask that on Wikipedia, you treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and that includes me. If you honestly believe that my behavior is disruptive, you are more than welcome to bring it up at the appropriate forums such as RFC/U, which I am sure you know of. Does that sound reasonable to you?
By the way, have you thought about joining us at #wikipedia-en-roads? It's a good way to collaborate and to ask questions. I'm dead serious on this one - Floydian, a user from Canada, used to hate us (if you go back in the archives), but then when he came on the channel he realized that all we're trying to do is help road editors around the world, and we learned to get along. And no, we won't ban you just because you're from the UK roads project - the channel is for all road editors, worldwide, and as the channel owner, I have been very firm about not banning people if at all possible, even if we don't necessarily like them. --Rschen775409:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I can categorically state I have absolutely no desire to see you desysopped and banned, and never have done. I can't think of a single action you've ever performed which has been the abuse of the tools - none whatsoever. I don't want to go to RFC / Arbcom as I hate drama and avoid it where possible (most of my contributions to ANI tend to try and get threads closed down and resolved). In fact, I don't want you topic banned from anything either - the precise wording I used was : "I fear that you may be topic banned", suggesting that I predicted it would happen anyway regardless of my input by someone else if you carried. I have no opinions on the US Roads Wikiproject as it's not a subject I know anything about, so I don't comment or contribute there.
The only thing I really want is for you to change your attitude a little bit and realise that some of your actions, even when made in good faith, have undesirable consequences. Very specifically, I want to consider, really consider, that sometimes you are wrong. Nobody's perfect and we all make mistakes. That's fine. Look at the recent ANI thread you created - you started with a general attitude of "Wondering55 is NOT HERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA GOD DAMMIT - stick his head on a plate now!" although you've now backed down from this, which is good. What really annoyed me recently is I explained all this to you in as polite and diplomatic a manner as I could, and you sent a curt reply about ten minutes later instantly leaping to your defence, which suggested to me you didn't really read what I said and take in the message I was trying to give to you.
You also seem to have a greater enthusiasm for following rules, regulations and policies, such as the many guidelines set out in MOS. I'm not sure that's a problem, just a different way of working. I tend to be a lot more pragmatic and look carefully at context. For me, provided information is factually correct, verifiable and written in good English, it's probably okay.
I also want you to stop using acronyms unless you are very sure of your audience. Don't say "Fred's National Enquirer Fansite is SPS and fails FAC", say "Fred's national Enquirer Fansite is a self-published source, containing numerous questionable facts with no evidence of editorial control. If you try and submit this article to the featured article process, which is supposed to be the best that we can offer, it will be rejected." My experience with working on the Articles for Creation Help Desk makes it abundantly clear that the majority of editors do not understand these shortcut acronyms, and consider them to be gobbledegook.
Part of the problem is that a lot of the negative feedback you've received isn't measured on Wikipedia itself (and, believe me, it's not pleasant to have to tell you that I know off-wiki people who, without any doubt, consider you to be a jerk. Sorry.) But remember anyone in the world with a web browser and an internet connection can generally read Wikipedia, and if they don't like what they read, they won't stay to contribute. I have no doubt that you had the best of intentions when you tried to explain processes to other editors, but the manner in which you said it came across as sanctimonious lecturing, I'm afraid. Remember, that the way in which you say things is as important as what is said. Because people deal with adversity by voting with their feet, you can't tell if there's a problem, as by definition it's not recorded on WP. I'd go as far as saying that I know a number of people who could contribute a lot on here to the roads articles, but deliberately choose not to for fear of being trampled on - Chris Marshall for instance. What he doesn't know about British roads probably isn't worth knowing about - seriously - but I don't think you'll ever get him contributing to Wikipedia - ever. It's not going to happen.
Incidentally, you talk about a "UK Roads Project", but in my view, no such project exists. There might be a page with that name on WP, but discussions on it tend to be one line comments that are universally ignored. I'm not sure anyone's actually listened to, let alone learned from, your comments on there. I learned about what's a GA and FA and why you should try writing one through other topics. I certainly don't see anyone else taking UK road articles to GA - nobody else cares. Look how my recent request for attempting to collaboratively get an article to GA have been received - complete silence, save for the predictable ranting of Marvin (who I'm not particularly happy with either). What do you suggest we do about that?
I'm not sure I'd really fit in with your IRC channel to be honest - my interest is more with transport history and the political background behind it, and I'd probably struggle to find topics to talk about. As you might have noticed, my main interest on here is more with musician / band articles - I'm still trying to improve Keith Moon to GA quality, it's taken six months and counting, and shows no sign of ending yet. That's where my real focus is.
It has just been seeming that every chance you get, you level some criticism at me - sure, once and in the appropriate forum, it might be more well-received. But right now, it's coming off as ax-grinding, to be blunt, and it's also come off as quite irritating because you're missing the context of some of the issues that you have brought up (DRN, the edit warring blocks in 2006, the arbitration cases in 2006 and 2008). Even if that's not your intended outcome, your comments alone affect other editors' opinions of me - and repeated loudly and frequently enough, could lead to my being sanctioned, because that's how the ANI pitchfork mob works.
Sure, Wondering55 could have been handled better, but I also have seen plenty of times where editors, when faced with a site ban, ArbCom case, or whatever, are suddenly willing to change their tune. I'm not saying that that necessarily happened here, but I'm also not saying that it didn't.
I'm aware of the negative feedback that some people have for me offwiki (I'm "Der Autobahnenfuhrër" on WR). What it boils down to usually is that writing a general-purpose encyclopedia is fundamentally different from writing a roadgeek site. There's plenty of people on aaroads.com (the main US roadgeek site) who have sworn off Wikipedia, and ultimately there's nothing that we can do about that. We want to welcome editors, but if they are ultimately unwilling to follow Wikipedia guidelines, then it isn't best for us or for them to continue the partnership because it's just not a good fit. We don't have articles on county-level roads or B roads in the UK, for example.
I understand your frustration with UKRD, or the lack thereof. Sometimes you've just gotta start by yourself, and others will follow. Evad37 started the Australian Roads Project last night; but it took several months of him working alone and figuring out how to write Australian road GAs. But we helped along the way and gave him some support, and I'm pretty encouraged by where that project's going - I think they'll be joining the US and Ontario as parts of the world that actually have road articles that are decent. And there's no reason why the UK can't be added to that list.
I have no idea what to do with Martinvl, or Andy who keeps inserting his coordinate stuff in there too, or with the DeFacto socker. Unfortunately it may take an ArbCom to sort out all that stuff.
We talk about a lot of things in the roads channel - some of the participants aren't even road editors at all but stick around because they like us. It's a good place to discuss article writing and to help other road editors out - I can say for a fact that the US and Ontario road articles would not be where they are without IRC. --Rschen775422:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I'll pop on if I have time, but I sincerely think that's not going to be in the next fortnight if I'm honest.
Regarding the ANI "torches and pitchforks mob", that is a problem, but it's one I think you can avoid if you just remember that sometimes it's better not to add to a discussion. You do have a tendency to always have the last reply in a discussion and always want to put your point of view in. Sometimes, I feel this causes more harm than good. If all you ever did was write lots of FA quality articles and never touched the noticeboards, there would be no problem. It's true that I've got a little aggressive recently, but as you said yourself, when stuff gets escalated up to ANI, RFC, it can prompt people to think "maybe something is wrong after all." It can happen to you, and me, just as much as Wondering55 or anyone else.
I feel people would be more willing to follow WP guidelines if they understood them, but my experience is people don't, and they need to be treated carefully, since this is a voluntary project. Even a revert on a good faith but unsourced and questionable edit can be interpreted as biting. I'm not sure what we can do about this - I think I've survived since I've been an admin / moderator elsewhere on the 'net for years, I've got used to people disagreeing vocally with me, whereas other people misinterpret it as an attack and act accordingly.
Part of the problem is my opinions on notability don't seem to match any of the other regular editors on road articles. I think most roads are non-notable, as they don't contain coverage in reliable secondary sources - maps are not secondary sources, and my gut feeling is that travel guides, bar esoteric cases such as A272 : an Ode to a Road, are only trivial mentions. Most motorways are okay. Other major roads, such as the A303 road are okay because they've had regular news coverage, such as the ongoing debate over improvements in Stonehenge and the Blackdown Hills. Beyond that, I feel most roads fail WP:GNG and should not have an article and I've I've taken the odd one to AfD (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2199 road) as proof of this. In the past, I've had counter arguments which to me seem to resemble the form "State roads are notable because we say they are." This is why I've focused on things like M11 link road protest - for whatever reason, anti-road protests seem to be more notable in the UK than the roads themselves.
Let's take a recent example - New York State Route 132. I read the lead and thought "so what?" Why is this road important or special enough to be worthy of note by the general population? I had a look through the sources - mostly maps, primary sources. I'm not convinced that the article could impart any information that I could not tell by getting hold of a current map and an old map, such as the many that the University of Texas in Austin's Perry-Castañeda map library provides. Do you think I'd be within my rights to quickfail this article at GAN right now?
Another issue I have, and I really can't stress this enough, is that, aside from time constraints elsewhere, I really don't see why you can't improve UK road articles yourself. As I made pains to point out in the "Group collaboration" thread, I have the necessary sources and can provide them. All other people need to do is take the sources, reword them, cite them correctly, and use good English. The skills you need to do this, are in my view, pretty universal. Shouting "UK road articles are crap compared to the US, Canada, Holland, Croatia, Antarctica, etc etc" isn't really helpful as it doesn't actually specify what people need to do to improve them. In my view, the best way to get your point across here would be to improve an article yourself, point to it as an example, and say "this is what you need to do". I did this when going through A1 road in London with SilkTork, and it worked well, I feel.
I don't work on UK road articles because I already have enough to do with US road articles. Believe me, if I had the time, I would work on the UK, and on Australia, and on Costa Rica, etc. But I don't, so I focus my time on the areas that I know the most about, where I can make the most impact. But if you have any questions about a specific article, I'm always willing to take a look.
Maps are not primary sources; there's plenty of discussions in the USRD and RSN archives about that. And the only thing that matters about a GA candidate is whether or not it meets the criteria. A brief glance tells me that it would. It would not pass FA, however, because the FA criteria include comprehensive, and you cannot get a comprehensive article off just looking at maps. In my editing philosophy, whenever I can, I just write to FA standards because it's the most time-efficient, in my opinion, but not everyone has that same philosophy.
I honestly haven't been involved in ANI in quite a while, to be honest. There's plenty of admins, and plenty of non-admins even, who go around stirring up much more drama than I do on that page, and who don't contribute to mainspace at all. The reason I do get involved in sitewide discussions sometimes, and why I've filed case requests and ANI threads entirely unrelated to the roads projects is because I do care about the overall health of this site, and of other Wikimedia sites. That's why I hold sysop on the English Wikivoyage, a site where the vast majority of road articles are deleted. That's why I have almost 600 edits on Meta. That's why I'm involved in SPI. But what concerns me is that it seems that you like to show up right after my posts, throwing more criticism my way. You can hold your own views about my participation in such meta issues, but I ask that you treat me with the courtesy that is expected of everyone, and if you don't have anything to say other than what comes off as an attack, then perhaps it's better to not say it at all. In your own words, you've been quite aggressive lately. Can you at least see why I'm concerned, and tone it down a few notches? --Rschen775417:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
My standard offer applies - please point out where I have insulted you in bad faith, and I will apologise and retract the comments.
I still don't really feel you've taken in what I said, but I'll spell it out in as clear a language as I possibly can. The purpose of Wikipedians is to write articles. Everything else is secondary. Okay, so you don't have time to write some articles. But you seem to find the time to post seemingly nonsensical bureaucratic posts on WT:UKRD as you did this morning. Who specifically were you aiming that post towards? How do you think your post will help people write articles?
About writing FAC quality articles - I would like to know how you do this. Taking on board Keith Moon, I was presented with an existing lengthy article, which had many parts unsourced, some parts sourced questionably, and some significant chunks missing. Six months after working on it, it's still nowhere near FAC quality - I would need at least two more sources, Richard Barnes' "Maximum R&B" and the more recent DVD documentary "Amazing Journey" to be sure of having the four best possible sources. It takes me about 6 weeks to write a GA quality article, and I think a FA quality one would take me about six months. I can't write 15 FA articles at that speed - I'm not sure I'm going to live that long!
We'll have to agree to disagree on the notability - I maintain that most roads are non-notable and don't really see any good counter arguments. And a brief glance just tells me that there are some people on Wikipedia who enjoy arguing more than writing articles, unfortunately. Such a shame. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's a productive exercise for me to point out the numerous times you have insulted me needlessly, and then have you defend those times, etc. (though they were generally when you referred to issues that happened years ago and which were completely irrelevant to the matter at hand). It's better to move on.
And that's where our Wikipedia philosophies differ. It takes everyone to write an encyclopedia. Content writing would be useless without people keeping the vandals away, people looking for grammar errors, people looking for formatting issues, people resolving disputes, etc. We shouldn't flat out dismiss all that as unproductive. I spent my first several years on this site building up USRD and its editors and did not do much article work. It sure paid off. There's a saying that goes "Give a man a fish, and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you will feed him for a lifetime." We've built a solid team of editors all across the United States who enjoy what they're doing and who could do much more work than I can do by myself, considering that we got 9 FAs in 2012, and over 200 GAs - no one human can do that, even if unemployed!
The ACR changes are more in the form of resource management - is our reviewer team using our time and labor most effectively? There were some articles sent to ACR that were nowhere near the standard, and our reviewers kept adding unnecessary reviews when enough feedback had already been given and the article was not going to make it to FAC. There it's best to just cut our losses and fail the article, giving it back to the nominator to fix and try again. Resource management is never a waste of time. By the way, those notices were sent to all the national projects as a courtesy; it only took 5 minutes to send them.
To write FAs, I go through my newspaper databases, and add everything that I can find about a road that is notable (so not "On Tuesday Fred got in an accident on this road.") I usually wind up with 100-200 articles per road. I do a Google search to make sure nothing else is missing, use maps to fill in any missing holes (if there are any), sort them out, write it all up, and send it to GAN, ACR, and FAC in succession. It takes about 2-3 days working straight through per FA, not counting answering the GA/ACR/FA reviews. It's slow, but this way I don't waste time writing something to the GA standard, then rewriting it so it meets FA standards. --Rschen775409:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I've hatted this, but I can't help comment about "I go through my newspaper databases." Good grief. FAs are supposed to be supported by the uttermost best sources. My articles I intend to take up to FAC are critically acclaimed and commercially successful books. I cannot believe you can get an article to FA without physically visiting a library - just impossible. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Irish Geocodes
As the one who approved this article can you please confirm that the majority of this article is written by Thirty-six dragons formerly known as Iantheteacher who is widely known to be the promoter of Openpostcode and therefore has a very obvious Conflict Of Interest. It will be noted that the detail about Openpostcode is substantial and the absence of detail and subtle negative comment about the other codes serves to undermine them.
Furthermore, user Rugxulo has suddenly became involved in editing this topic even though he has been inactive on Wikipedia for several years and showed no previous interest in Ireland, post or postcodes or geographic topics of any sort.
In the interest of fairness it is important that these matters are fully investigated.
For your contributions in bringing Keith Moon to Good Article status. One of the most rock'n'roll articles on wikipedia! Thanks, and keep up the good work! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you can always rely on Malleus' stalkers to get jobs done! I think that edit is making something factually incorrect regards the source. There wasn't an atrium in the original architecture - that's why they had to knock out a bunch of rooms to make one. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
OK--so the architects felt their own work was a detriment to the building? I'm just asking to make sure: it's odd, though not unimaginable. If the answer is yes, feel free to change it back if you get to it before me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah no, the new architects didn't like the design made by the original archtects 100 odd years previously. I'm away for the weekend and writing this on my phone, so I'm not really going to be in a position to properly look at it until Monday, but iirc the source is on Google books so it should be fairly straightforward for someone to look at this and fix the ambiguity. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)06:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kim McLagan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Malaya and Faces (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.
Started review, added a lower resolution non free pic, I think you can claim fair use. Will continue review once initial points have been addressed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld18:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the review. I'm not entirely sure your NFCC rationale will wash (and I tend to err on the side of "not suitable", which is why I didn't add an image myself). Theoretically, any one of the 250,000 - 500,000 attendees could have taken a photo, and sufficient of them would still be alive today to come forward and produce a free image. Media Copyright Questions may know more. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
London Wikimeet.
Historically, having several more fingers in pies than illustrated here can frequently lead to conflict of time and apologies for being unable to attend WikiMeets.
Thanks for your assistance. I wasn't sure it was quite A7, but had forgotten about PROD. I left the article creator a message suggesting he merge it into a full-decade list; I think single-year history lists can get really out of hand after a while. Let me see if he responds to that before I tag it for PROD. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Lists are always tricky. Some people like them, some people hate them. Because criteria for keeping or nuking them isn't as cut and dried as articles, I have seen some heated AfDs around them. Certainly, a list with one entry is worth merging, but for that I'd suggest a full AfD. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. Let's see how he reacts. His English isn't the best, so I responded in French. Maybe that will help him feel a little more at ease.
Aucune probleme, si vous preferiez lui repondre en Francais et il le peut comprendre. (Okay, my French is a little rusty and this keyboard doesn't have accents, but hey...) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
If you have a French dictionary/spell checker on your browser, just change languages. It will mark all your unaccented words as "wrong," and will let you fix them. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Oops
I didn't realize songs deletions were different from some others, where notability of the artist prevents it from speedy deletion. I probably would have realized if I'd read the text first! :) Anyways, thanks for the head's up. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, Ritchie333! You're receiving a Brownie because you reviewed 20 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) 12:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Stones in the Park
Hi, I passed this after giving it an edit. One last question on the review page though. Any chance you could return the favour and review Paco de Lucia for me? If you want to, can you reserve it and review in another week or so to allow me to improve it during the meantime? There's still some outstanding things I wanted to add. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld10:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for another productive GA review. I honestly can't see making a FA out of it at the moment, but we'll see if anyone else comes forward to help. Since Talk:Northern Songs/GA1 ground to a halt, I've got no outstanding GA reviews at the moment, so I'm happy to review Paco de Lucia. Seems only fair! I'll have a look through the article later today. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it does seem a tough choice for an FA. I just have a bit to add on his most recent albums that's all for Paco, I'll try to rid of some of the red links too but I've ransacked google books and used about what I can on him. He's not exactly biographical material. BTW listen to this before reviewing [1] to get an idea, especially 4:30 to the end!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld09:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I never listened to much classical music when I was younger, having had it beaten into me at school and piano lessons, but I've become more mellow and relaxed as I've got older, and have been listening to a lot of Classic FM recently (my other half likes listening to it while doing the housework), so I'll probably find this an enjoyable review. I'll keep you posted. As far as sources go, my gut feeling is you'll find a lot more in Spanish book sources that aren't online. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Even Jimbo got involved in the big Bieber debate.
Its funny that you, Ipigott and most people I think classify flamenco as classical music. Actually classical music and flamenco in Spain have always been at complete ends of the spectrum and forces which have greatly opposed each other. Andres Segovia and the Spanish elite frowned upon flamenco music which they considered dirty, the music of filthy gypsies and a disgusting tribute to Arabs who once dominated their land. When Paco was permitted to play in the royal theatre of Madrid in '75 it was considered a groundbreaking event in Spanish history, sort of like allowing a tramp to play an accordion in Buckingham Palace in terms of the opposition once held towards flamenco. Extremely few guitarists in the world today perform both classical music and flamenco. Some like Grisha Goryachev and Paco Peña play both and argue that more classical players should introduce flamenco music into their repertoire. Nuevo flamenco players like Paco are much more jazz than classical. That said, some of the real old traditional flamenco compositions sound more like classical music and both forms are played on nylon strings, although a classical guitar is built differently from a flamenco guitar. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld09:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'd consider "jazz", particularly that with a strong tie to popular and folk music, to be something more akin to Django Reinhardt and the Quintette du Hot Club de France. Although this shares a common trait with flamenco in that the music was designed for dancing and popular entertainment, which tends to annoy the establishment who like "serious" music for "serious" people. As time passes on, what was once shocking and vulgar becomes acceptable - for a possible contemporary British comparison, with Paco's Royal theatre performance, consider Brian May standing on top of - shock horror - Buckingham Palace playing - double, shock horror - an electric guitar! With distortion! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, of course, "jazz guitarist" is Django, Joe Pass, Barney Kessel, Tal Farlow, Wes Montgomery, Charle Christian etc. Paco began as a traditional flamenco player but John McLaughlin was a big influence on him from the late 70s onwards. I suppose old flamenco is "traditional Spanish music" played on a nylon guitar so is generally assumed to be classical music. That would have Segovia turning in his grave though!! Classic Spanish musicians viewed flamenco musicians much like most of us classic rock fans scoff at a lot of the rap and Bieber crap which dominates the world.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld10:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
BTW I was actually looking for some sources to write an article on the Bieber phenomenon, the tendency for YouTube users to say "545 people who disliked are Justin Bieber fans" in reference to those who dislike good music. It is definitely a notable internet thing, but I couldn't find anything on it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld10:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I refer the honourable gentleman to the "Zen and the art of Wikipedia Maintenance" list on my userpage, specifically item 3: "In any debate about the merits of a musical act, be it solo or band, as discussion continues, the probability of comparing the perceived quality of the act to Justin Bieber approaches 1". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've been absolutely snowed under with work and it looks like it's going to continue for the next week. To be specific, as well as my day job I'm arranging, scoring and generally MDing a film soundtrack of which recording has to be finished at the end of this month come hell or high water. Hopefully by the end of the week, I'll be able to get back onto other things like this and do the review. I can only apologise and suggest being patient or getting another reviewer. Sorry. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
