User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 139

Archive 135

←

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

→

Archive 144

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masini Situ-Kumbanga (2nd nomination)

I was surprised with your close here - I thought there was a clear consensus not to have a page at this location. Why did you come to a no consensus close? SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Simply put, I think "Redirect" would have been an ideal compromise that would have probably been okay, given there are serious concerns at the AfD over its verifiability and suitability of source material. However, there wasn't enough "pull" in that direction because of your suggestion to delete the article entirely, with other editors picked up on. In any case, there wasn't a firm decision towards deleting instead of redirecting or merging (or outright keeping, as suggested by the first week in the debate) so I had to conclude there was no consensus as how to proceed. I'll change the close result to "Views are split between keeping, deleting and redirecting" which reflects the participants a little better.

As I said at the AfD, my recommendation would be to try a selective merge of the content that is verifable and demonstrably true into the parent Zaire at the 1984 Summer Olympics article. Or, if nobody does anything to the article, file a new AfD (I realise this will be the third nomination, but that's okay from a NC close). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately I don't think this was correct - there was a clear consensus this shouldn't have been a stand-alone page as redirect and delete are both "not keep" - so I've decided to open a DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that was a bit premature. I see that Fortuna imperatrix mundi has picked up my suggestion at the AfD of doing a selective merge. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

There was no merge, though. It was just a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. Excellent close, by the way, nicely nuanced, and allows for alternatives to deletion. Insisting on deleting an African olympist when it could be otherwise dealt with is a rather sledgehammer approach. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of Chitty. (For context - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitty (cricketer)) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Frank Welker Filmography

Can you please explain why you deleted my reversion on Frank Welker filmography. Thank you. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think movieposters.ha.com and www.cinemaparadiso.co.uk are suitable sources for verifying that an established actor starred in an X rated film early in his career. As WP:BLPSOURCES states, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok so what about Mr. Welker's official website under his filmography (Click Here) under the year 1976 that would be a reliable source, this was also previously discussed with another Wikipedian who conceded that the current references were notable. Look forward to hearing back with your comments. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

That only cites the name of the film, the year of release and the character played. So I'm happy for those basic details to be added per the source, but that's it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

One more thing then I'll leave you alone :0) I see that you in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism you did block User:67.63.61.242 but there is still the similar report for User:67.63.61.245 which as I stated feel that it is an anonymizer service, so shouldn't that be blocked also since the edits are similar? Thanks again for your assistance and clarifications. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the first IP for being an obnoxious jerk; the second IP I assume is now stale and blocking won't have any effect. The revert per BLPSOURCES (and subsequent tidying up of the article and sourcing) is sort of incidental to that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from KorrinOfValla (09:06, 21 March 2025)

Hello! How do I add a source/reference? Apologies if this is a stupid question --KorrinOfValla (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The best place to start is Help:Referencing for beginners which gives you a comprehensive guide on what to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Possibility of downgrading Africa back to semi

So I saw that you ECP'd Jimmy Carter for a second, but then downgraded it back to semi because of "misread activity of sleeper socks, autoconfirmed suffices for now". Jimmy Carter and Africa were both targeted by America1257. Since the LTA sock got blocked ("misread activity of sleeper socks, autoconfirmed suffices for now"), do you think we should also downgrade to semi for Africa just like Jimmy Carter? 24.55.33.220 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm just an uninvolved admin trying to work out what consensus is on this. If you're happy we can grab these vandals with a block before they reach autoconfirmed status and start vandalising, great. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Landate

We are considering an unblock at UTRS appeal #101414 with a TBAN for Eastern Europe broadly construed. What thoughts do you have? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Per the userpage - "Admins, if you think an administrative action (including, but not limited to protecting or deleting a page, or blocking a user) is not an improvement, just undo it". As a completely uninvolved admin who just blocked in response to a report, I don't really have any strong views one way or the other on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to let you know. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always.

story · music · places

Missing RexxS (on my talk as on yours). Today is the birthday of Chopin and Ricardo Kanji, see my stories of today and yesterday, with dream music by the first and Bach played by the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Struggling to find the time to do lots of writing, but still doing bits and bobs around the place. Yes, I miss RexxS too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Good to know you around! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Today: Carmen turns 150, as the main page and my story tell you. I chose a 1962 concert of the Habanera, - enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Today: an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home High School, Rahara

Hi Ritchee. An article that was created by me titled Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home High School, Rahara was deleted by you today. I request it to be undeleted because it is a well-known school, far more notable than other articles on schools like Taki Ramakrishna Mission High School, Ramakrishna Mission Siksha Mandir, Sarisha. It has won the Best School Award from the Government of West Bengal in 2019, 2021 and 2024 respectively. Therefore, I strongly believe that the page should be undeleted, and kept as a stub, until it's updation. Indian English Literature (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not possible, as there was already a discussion to delete the article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home High School, Rahara), where Spartaz found consensus to delete it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 Can the deletion be contested? Indian English Literature (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You need to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and state your case there. I will state that the latest revision of the article, as deleted, only cited one source to a website apparently associated with the school. To ensure a successful challenge of a deletion, you would ideally need to supply as much appropriate source material as possible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Soho

I've poured cold water over the drive-by nomination for PR, but I wonder if you think two old London hands might perhaps bring the article up to FA level? Pray ponder. Tim riley talk 18:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, not had much success with FAC. The last one I tried, Marshlink line failed because half the books I'd got from the library to write the article pre-COVID had disappeared when I went back afterwards, making it impossible to quote from the source directly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tim riley talk 10:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Women in Green's May 2025 edit-a-thon

Hello Ritchie333: WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in May 2025!

Running from May 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a women's rights activist? Go for it. An Olympian gold medallist? Absolutely. A famous painting by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts. We hope to see you there!

(You are receiving this message as you are on the Women in Green mailing list. If you wish to opt out of receiving future messages, feel free to remove yourself from the list.) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from BencinasJ (09:58, 27 March 2025)

Hi Ritchie I’m having issues starting a Wikipedia page for my online podcast. I’ve tried editing a few posts, but the wizard seems too difficult ultimately. I appreciate your time.

Josie Encinas --BencinasJ (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The best advice is don't write articles about yourself or you own things. It's better for somebody else to write about them on Wikipedia, which if it attracts significant international attention, it will happen eventually. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Sarahfatima6

Hi Ritchie, just asking for advice about this user, who is persistently disrupting articles under the "In use" tag, ignoring warnings and refusing to engage. At what point should this go to ANI? Thanks, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Based on their contributions, I would say this is a classic case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and they're not likely to respond to messages. Given that, I've indefinitely blocked them from editing Kleinburg. This might sound like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but in this instance, since I've seen countless cases of editors that can't respond to a messages, unfortunately it means only a block will get their attention. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that. We'll see if they will respond. Cheers, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the same is happening at Jane and Finch. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

<sigh> Okay, they're now site-wide indeffed. I've spelled out that the block is to get them to discuss, and not a banhammer tool. What'll happen next is one of the following: a) disappears forever, b) creates a new account and gets completely hosed c) angrily protests the block as "cyber bullying" (which just gets appeals declined) or d) understands the issues, has a discussion and gets unblocked. I'm hoping for d).

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid response. I hope for (d), too. Cheers, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the user is editing with Visual Editor, not a mobile app, so they really don't have the excuse that's available to mobile app editors of not even being able to see the notifications. I'm sure the Visual Editor desktop experience makes new messages and notifications obvious, but I'm not 100% definitely aware of everything as I don't use it myself, nor do most longtime editors. The only highly experienced editor I know who uses Visual Editor all the time is Megalibrarygirl, maybe there's something on the VE desktop side I'm just not aware of. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand (I think!). Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply! Yes, in VE, you do see notifications right away. As soon as you log in, it's there on the top of the page. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from MohammadEasin123 on Template:Redirect category shell/sandbox (08:39, 29 March 2025)

I am a Content Creator My Payout Account Problem has been given limitations on my page and ID. I am completely concerned about the matter --MohammadEasin123 (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

This account has only one edit (to this talk page), so I'm afraid I don't understand what your request is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Close of WP:Articles for deletion/2024 Nepal Premier League (2nd nomination)

Hey Ritchie, I don't see how by strength of arguments or a straight headcount this can be closed as anything but "keep". We have four keep !votes from experienced editors analyzing sources, in contrast to three delete !votes based on vague waves at policy, rebutted claims about a lack of significant coverage, and even the copyright-violating suggestion that we delete the redirect after a merge is completed. Please reconsider this. Toadspike [Talk] 19:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, there had already been two relists, with the potential to close as "no consensus". Since that, and before, every !vote has been challenged and refuted by someone else. I've got this feeling that if I closed it as NC (or even "keep") then the editors who !voted delete would be objecting instead.

The only options, I think, are to a) change the outcome to "no consensus", b) relist for a final week with a caution to previous participants that bludgeoning the debate is unhelpful, or c) start a deletion review. How do you feel about any of those options? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Morning Ritchie, hope you're well. I have to say I'm in agreement with Toadspike here - the strength of argument seems to lie with those saying keep, strong sourced evidence was provided that this particular event has notability over and above the league as a whole and the counterargument that it was "routine" wasn't evidenced at all. At best this was a no consensus which defaults to keeping thr article, but if I were closing I would find consensus to keep I think, on the WP:NOTAVOTE principle as the keep arguments were much stronger.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I've switched the close to "no consensus". This defaults to keeping the article, so hopefully that's a result that all participants can live with. I do have to admit that for some time, I've been somewhat twitchy about doing NC closes on cricket articles. However, this debate had sat around waiting for a close, so somebody had to step up to the plate and do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from MoureauBelge75 (12:33, 31 March 2025)

Hello, just looking to edit an article on my grandfather "Joseph Moureau." (Belgian pilot from WW2). There are two things that I wish to add. The first is that he died of Covid in 2020 in Brussels - can I add this information being his grandson or do I need a reference from a source online? Second, his younger brother Xavier was recently honored at Flossenburg concentration camp for the upcoming 80th commemoration of its liberation (link is https://www.gedenkstaette-flossenbuerg.de/fr/news/lhistoire-de-xavier-moureau), the individual source in the video (Agnes Moureau) is the younger sister of both Joseph and Xavier. Is this legitimate to include as a mention on Joseph's page e.g. "Joseph's younger brother Xavier made the attempt to reach England in 1942 but was caught by the Gestapo in France and subsequently registered as a political prisoner and was imprisoned in various concentration camps including Dachau, Sachsenhausen, etc etc". Many thanks for your time and advice! --MoureauBelge75 (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You always need a reference for a death, and it stands to reason anyone worthy of note to have a Wikipedia article about them will have a source confirming the date of death, especially if it's in the last 15 years or so. I assume the Flossenbürg source is an official source that can be considered reliable for claims about itself; the best advice I can give is try adding it with that reference, and if it gets reverted, start a discussion about it on the article's talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Manolache

I had been considering looking into that discussion, but didn't get to it in time. Taking a look now, that seemed weak. 5k-3d and just about every !vote was very weak. Just because the !keep voters didn't point to the sources in the article (I'm assuming there were sources in the article, given the Spanish page is extensive with many refs) in the discussion doesn't mean they need to be all discounted, especially given the weakness of the !votes (on both sides - e.g. all the deletes were "This subject does not seem notable", "no evidence of notability", and "there is absolutely no reason having an entry of him in this encyclopedia", which don't address coverage at all - only one person does address coverage, and that is one keep). Taking a look myself, there seems to be extensive global coverage of his death, with e.g. the Romanian Digi Sport alone writing a dozen stories on him, while searching his name brings up pages and pages of articles on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a shame. The AfD had been sat since 16 March, being relisted twice, with two admins calling for sources to be analysed to show the article could be improved, but the only further comment was another view to delete the article. So consensus couldn't really go any other way. However, I can restore the article to your user space or draft space so you can carry on working on it and add additional sources. If that gets accepted as a draft, that'll be the answer. Do you want to do this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

A 5k-2d discussion being relisted with a request for analysis, followed by one extremely weak delete vote, does not require it to be deleted in any way. One can absolutely weigh the arguments, which, in this case, were so very weak I don't see how they were strong enough to override the several more keeps (even if those were weak too). I would accept having it restored to draftspace, although honestly I don't trust the AFC team all that much to make a good decision about it (I've actually published hundreds of AFC submissions that were wrongfully declined by others). Why not you restore it to draftspace, I improve it and return it to mainspace, and then maybe a second go-round at AFD if people still think he's non-notable? Alternatively, you could give it one more relist and I could provide a source analysis. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

A further relist would be against the recommendations in the deletion process. "repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice." Anyway, there is now a draft in Draft:Luca Manolache for further work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from 2025sapphire (00:33, 1 April 2025)

Hi, I was wondering if you could let me know if these articles are considered notable or not. I am writing an article and have used these references but I am getting a bit confused as to what is notable or not (pls see below). could you tell me what ones I need to take out and what I can keep in. if I take some references out than will that mean I need to take the information that's attributed to that link out of the article?

References

https://lowcarboneconomy.com.au/listing/larsen-jewellery/ https://www.bridesdiary.com.au/blogs/posts/407/larsen-jewellery https://hellomay.com.au/behind-the-scenes/larsen-jewellery-local-folk-jewellery-bridal-rings-wedding-engagement/ https://miss.com.au/fashion/1959-four-jewellery-trends-you-should-actually-invest-in https://www.afr.com/life-and-luxury/fashion-and-style/larsen-custom-jeweller-with-a-heart-of-gold-20170906-gybvsk https://www.easyweddings.com.au/WeddingJewellery/Melbourne/LarsenJewellery/ https://modernwedding.com.au/the-larsen-jewellery-wedding-ring-experience/ https://jewelleryworld.net.au/news/local-news/larson-jewellery-remains-the-only-jeweller-in-australia-to-achieve-carbon-neutral-status/ --2025sapphire (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

(For talk page stalkers, this is about Draft:Larsen Jewellery). Articles about companies are really difficult to successfully write on Wikipedia, and many seemingly well-known local businesses don't have an article. Compare and contrast with H. Samuel (where I bought my wedding ring). which has been running for nearly 150 years, has stores all over the UK, and has had up to about 17,200 employees. Also, searching for sources brings back multiple national news outlets such as this Guardian piece. You really need that sort of prominent mainstream national news coverage, sustained over many years, and I'm not sure Larsen is at that stage yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The European Destubathon

Not everybody likes Amazon

You are invited to participate in The European Destubathon in April. Almost $3000 in Amazon voucher prizes, including prizes for 5 different entities of the UK and Ireland, which can be used to buy books for content, though it can also be treated as an editathon if you're not interested in competing! Minimum content to be added to each article just to ensure that they're over a stub, though longer expansions also welcome. Entries at the end of the contest will be tipped into the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge and European Challenge/20,000 Challenge for UK and Ireland entries. Previous contests were really enjoyable and I'm hoping this one will be too! Sign up if interested. Thanks! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Would be great to have you on board working on English/London stubs Ritchie, you were fantastic in a few I ran. £400 main prize for most destubs. Would be good to do a London contest sometime don't you think? Perhaps WMUK would support it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Only thing I'll do with Amazon vouchers is burn them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

In light of your concerns and those of another editor that some people don't like wealthy American companies, I've decided to make it more more flexible. Whatever the prize preference the emphasis is on buying books to contribute to Wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

You can technically win the contest by just doing London/UK destubs if you wanted to! £400 top prize. If you don't want Amazon vouchers that's fine, whatever your preference. The idea though of course is that people use the prize to help buy books for more content. I much appreciated your participation in previous contests, you particularly made the West Coast contest worthwhile to run, and this is a good chance to get some things done and make it more enjoyable, but understand if you aren't feeling up to it or are too busy in RL in April. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you find anything more on Royal Lancaster Hotel? Cool that the Beatles held their Yellow Submarine party at the hotel! Can't believe it was missing! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I found a snippet that an executive of Capitol Records stayed there c. 1969 before the The Beatles' rooftop concert, but not much else at the mo. Looks like you've got the basics covered. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in the European Union (2nd nomination)

Given the quacking eventually resulted in a CU block, do you think this needs relisted since they were one of two bludgeoning? I don't feel strongly, just flagging in case you didn't see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Urabura Star Mississippi 02:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not really up to speed with sockpuppetry stuff. The only editor I can see who is now blocked is Chick Pea Corea (talk · contribs), and I think they were a relatively minor participant in the debate; indeed, most of the bludgeoning came from other editors. The AfD had already had two relists, so I think closing out with NC is the right answer here. Of course, a NC close implies any editor is free to start a new AfD later if they want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

All good. I didn't remember your thoughts on SPI, apologies.

I am well and good on our community obsession (in both directions) on superlatives, so definitely don't care enough to renom. Thanks for your input. Star Mississippi 13:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Syd Barrett

Syd Barrett has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syd Barrett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selmer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Society for Reproductive Investigation

Can you please help me with the Wikipedia page for this society. It is an international society for translational research in reproduction. The society has existed for close to 75 years with annual meetings and over 1000 members. The wikipedia site is needed advocacy that the society does. Many thanks!

Druberif (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I see that I deleted, with a view that it was unambigious advertising and needed to be completely rewritten from the ground up. The first thing I would like to see is some independent references that talk about the society, and its importance to obstetrics and genecology. Once I have those, I can then recommend how to move forward with writing the encyclopedia article. The best way to start is with a page in draft space that can be worked on in isolation, using the references that are found. I hope that all makes sense, and if you have any further questions, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The sock reported at AIV

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer says Clerk note: All cases fitting the stereotypical Jinnifer modus operandi should be reported to AIV or any available admin, rather than here. Requests for global blocks/locks can be made at m:SRG in lieu of or in addition to such requests for local action. There's not LTA page because they love having an LTA page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Just wondering ...

if you considered this? Not that I'm trying to change your views, just wondering if this might be more complex than at first appears. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I expected on that RfA to be in a minority of opposition, that might be commented on briefly then ignored as 100 other editors supported, at which point I'd accept the consensus and move on. I wasn't anticipating the resulting pile-on. As it is, I think pausing voting for a few days while general comments are given would have been a nicer way of doing things. I'd have still commented on the issues I raised, but they could be addressed in conversation then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree completely about the pausing... and to emphasise, I don't think you've done anything wrong (apologies if my comment came across that way), I'm just coming from a position of concern for the nominee. Perhaps requesting a pause should be raised at the bureaucrat noticeboard? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't think you thought I'd done anything wrong (if you get my drift). But this is a case where a user wandered into a minefield and suffered the consequences, even when everybody was acting in good faith. As my general RfA essay says, you can't fix RfA - a diversity of opinions and human nature stops it from being fixable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Dhavidh (11:06, 13 April 2025)

Hi, how do I begin a page? I would like to begin a page about a local human rights advocate. Thank you. --Dhavidh (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

What source material do you have about this person, and where was it published? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Amirahistory (06:24, 15 April 2025)

Hi there, I read the entry on AMIRA Global which is incorrect or missing information. I was the CEO from 1994 -2003. The correct original name was the Australian Mineral IndustrIES Research Association. The plural was considered important by the founders who were the heads of major mining, mineral and chemical companies not CSIRO. I changed the name to AMIRA International to encompass the more international nature of the program. I reviewed the history in the 1999 Annual Report and in an international forum convened to celebrate 40 years of technical innovation on its 40th anniversary. I am not clear on how to update the entry. Dick Davies --Amirahistory (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This is the only edit by this account, and the article AMIRA has no obvious edits by you (as an IP or another account), so I'm not sure what to look at exactly. Can you clarify this is the right article? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Hamer (2nd nomination))

Challenge a close. I would like to suggest that a "No consensus" close would have been the best here then given your closing comments. How do I go about challenging your closing opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Hamer (2nd nomination)? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Also isn't "U = Userfy/Draftify" the correct close given that you left it as draft? Even if the close is not challenged or appealed? "Delete" would appear to be the wrong closing code or language (or whatever we call that). Iljhgtn (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"No consensus" was the second choice, after "delete and concentrate on draft". I thought the views to delete, with that in mind were slightly better., and a NC close would have probably resulted in those wanting to delete the article raising a deletion review anyway. It's a hard life being an admin closing difficult AfDs!

Still, I'll change the close result to be a bit more detailed. If you want to improve the draft, then send it to review at AfC, that would allow the article to remain in mainspace, without being challenged for another AfD. Altogether, that seems the best option. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the close result. And most importantly I think it should reflect "U = Userfy/Draftify", which is in fact the close you opted for, as opposed to an outright "Delete". Iljhgtn (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This deletion decision was taken despite an obvious lack of consensus and against wikipedia guidelines on notability. The article clearly passes GNG. "I deleted it because I didn't want to deal with a deletion review" isn't a legitimate reason for a delete decision. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I fully would support an appeal. @Macktheknifeau I just am not really familiar with doing one. I think "No consensus" was the correct close here if I was closing it from a disinterested closer perspective. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar either but I'm looking into it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It definitely can be done. That much I know. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for Amelia Hamer

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amelia Hamer. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macktheknifeau (talk • contribs) 03:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Brokebutbrilliant (21:38, 15 April 2025)

hey I just uploaded my first article for review. anything that I missed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Presearch --Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've had to decline the Articles for creation submission, and have left a detailed note explaining why. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Reverts on Rhodes piano

"Tuning a Mellotron doesn't"

Hi, and thanks for asking. Addition of {{Wikiquote}} beside inserting meaningless captions and overly specific categorization of articles is a giveaway for Risto hot sir, a known LTA. I suggest reverting you revert. Best regards, A09|(talk) 12:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I improved Rhodes piano to WP:GA (albeit a long time ago) and so having a wikiquote link is a useful addition to the article alongside the Commons link template. Looking the article now, it seems to be okay, there are some cites to Lenhoff & Robertson 2019, which has now become my "go-to" source for musical instruments, having used it as a key source for several music GAs. Anyway, to summarise, concentrate on the content, not the authors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I've done a Wikiquote page for Mellotron, as I reckon that's far more quotable than a Rhodes. I'm sure there's load of stuff that can be ferreted out, such as the engineer for King Crimson's first album complaining about a "noise-to-signal ratio" on them, Paul McCartney talking about the flute pitch-bend, and various other tidbits. Mello-Martin, have you got any source material to use? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Am only here for the vibes, man. But will try and have a look. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't even problematise English Wikiquote at all and it wasn't my point; I just don't like LTAs :) A09|(talk) 14:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to them myself.

When reacting to a long-term abuse case, the foremost question you should ask is "what's the best way to improve the encyclopedia"? I've seen several heated discussions where people are arguing back and forth about whether it's okay to let edits by banned editors stand. A lot of the time, people just repeat entrenched views, and nobody brings forward any actual concrete examples. The most recent time it did (I forget where, now) it turned out the edits made a seriously slanted POV towards Indian politics (or something like that, I can't remember the details), so in that case it was a good idea to revert all of them because it improved the encyclopedia.

Now, compare and contrast that with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, where most of the time the edits were okay. (But not always - I recall them having a content dispute on West Pier while it was undergoing a GA review and also while I was running an RfA all at the same time!) So reverting those isn't necessarily productive.

All in all, it depends on what the editors was originally banned for. If they make greats edits but simply cannot get along with people who disagree with them, leading to a ban (quick wave to Eric Corbett) then it can be counter-productive to just do wholesale reverts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

RHS likes to go on projects for languages they don't speak and cause a ruckus. That's in addition to auditory issues on languages they do speak. And also they've created hundreds of socks, which isn't necessarily an insignificant use of community time. GMG^talk 15:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Totally second this! A09|(talk) 20:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Bad editor, good edit. Wikiquote there a little ray of sunshine, I feel: . Still searching for suitable additions. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Feinbecausewhynot (00:59, 17 April 2025)

Good night, I also don't understand how I can apply to be a translator in here, I wish to translate some English articles to Turkish yet can't find what to do as this UI isn't really that user friendly from what I can see --Feinbecausewhynot (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Lebedeva

Would you be willing to relist this for me? There was only one relist, and we've got two weak redirect !votes with three weak keep !votes, as well as a neutral. I don't see how that's a consensus for a redirect (or how that's something that would satisfy the majority of participants). I was thinking about doing an analysis of the sources / doing a search myself before I noticed the closure, and would do so within the next week if its relisted. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, it's now back up for another week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

"Trebles all round" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Trebles all round has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 17 § Trebles all round until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I refer the discussion to the response given in Arkell vs Pressdram Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

"... 'ere mate, I 'ad that Arkle in the back of me cab, last week. Sorry to say, 'e done a runner." Ev-Cabs-R-Us-123 (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I hope he wasn't having Ugandan discussions in the back of it, and if he was, best clean the back seat out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll get the brushes! E-Vans-R-Us-123 (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Bare minimums for new page

Hello, I'd like to know how to and what the bare minimums are to create a new page on Wikipedia. I'd like to add some stub pages for people with more time & experience to one day continue. Feinbecausewhynot (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The only real minimum is to ensure that an article has significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. The best guideline to give for creating a new page is, to ask yourself first - can the content I want to write (and its sources) be covered in an existing article? If it can, put the information there. Only create a new, spin-off article if you feel there's no better way of representing that information in an existing one, or if it would be too confusing to including it one place and not another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Veronica Sawyer

You asked me about Draft:Veronica Sawyer, a fictional character, and said that if I accepted the draft, it would likely go to another AFD. I think that I asked you what the first AFD had been, and I don't think that you answered me. Could you please provide me a link to any AFD that I can review, and possibly discuss with the submitter? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought there was a previous AfD where the consensus was "redirect". Must have got confused with something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, I will again tag the redirect for G6, and will accept the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Gavin O'Reilly page

Hi there, Gavin O'Reilly's Wikipedia page was changed this morning by a friend. It was a joke - but now we don't know how to bring the page back to normal. Some edits were so tiny that I'm afraid we would leave the page damaged forever. Please help me. C, 212.98.104.23 (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Uh, huh, my friend did it. IP blocked for six months. Better luck next time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your diligent attention to Syd Barrett. "Shine on", as they say in Grantchester, &etc ... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Pink Floyd not pictured

As you're probably aware, my favourite era of Pink Floyd is from the immediate post-Syd gigs in early 1968 through to the end of 1972, when they were a tight self-contained four-piece band, improvising all over the place and giving a different show all the time. But without Syd, they'd have never had the appeal to do that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Poor Roger Keith. A lost cause, it seems. Still a huge favourite with me. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. But the one guy I really miss is Rick, and I've noticed my enjoyment of certain eras of Pink Floyd is linearly aligned with how much Rick contributed to them. Some day I'll get to the Amphitheatre of Pompeii and blast out "Echoes" (even if it's just on a phone). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"Oooh, errrr, missus... Titter ye not!" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Went to see the reissued Pink Floyd at Pompeii last night - amazing restoration job, I didn't think it was possible to bring the film more "to life" but they did. Huge round of applause at the end. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wow. Am now tempted to go myself... (the local Odeon that is, not Italy)! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

April music

story · music · places

Tout est lumière --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Check out my talk: for a great woman's Johannes-Passion (listen!), our music in detail, and three people who recently died and are on the main page (where she isn't). My call for collaboration has the first "no", and the second - for the Easter Oratorio - seems inevitable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah good. I still haven't managed a (successful) FAC yet, not sure if I ever will to be honest. As mentioned in the below thread, I have been watching Pink Floyd at Pompeii .... again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Blackfriars Underground

Thank you for your reversion of my edit to the Blackfriars station article. If my rewrite didn't reflect the source, then that was the right thing to do according to our policies.

However, that sentence as it stands is ambiguous on two points. Since you have the source, it will be much easier for you to clear those points up than me! Perhaps that the sentence is clear to you because you have the context supplied by the source, but a reader of the Blackfriars article has a different context. So maybe I can contribute more helpfully by pointing out the ambiguities so that you can re-write the sentence to avoid them.

Firstly, the entities involved are ambiguous. Have a look at this example:

Tesco Sainsburys plc was created as a new company to complete the supermarket chain, which split the operations from Tesco and Sainsburys. 

The natural reading of that sentence is that Tesco and Sainsburys existed as two independent entities, and then Tesco Sainsburys was created as a new, third company. Likewise, the natural reading of the Blackfriars sentence that I edited is that "the District and Metropolitan Railways" existed as two independent entities and the the MDR was created as a new, third company. Is that what your source says? If not, then I think it would be helpful to re-write the sentence. I think you are using "the District" as an elegant variation for MDR, which is good English style. However, the reader of the Blackfriars article has already been introduced to "the District Railway" in the London, Chatham and Dover Railway section, without any hint that it's a synonym for the MDR, so in the context of the current article revision, the wording in the Underground section is unhelpful.

Secondly, it is not clear what "would split the budget from" refers to. What is the budget for: the MDR, the Circle line, or the completion of the Circle line? All of them are syntactically possible. And is it the budget for the completion of the Circle line or for its operation afterwards? In my re-write, I plumped for a reading that it was the budget for the completion of the Circle line and that that was identical (as far as Blackfriars station is concerned) with the construction of the MDR. If that is incorrect and your source has a different explanation, then it would be helpful if you could make that clear.

This has become a comically large amount of feedback for one sentence, but it looks like you made a major contribution to creating a Good Article about Blackfriars, so perhaps you can take heart that a small flaw looks much worse when it's in the middle of something beautiful! Matt's talk 14:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for you note. I've trimmed the text down and rewritten it to be a bit more unambiguous. The sentence isn't vitally important for the overall history of Blackfriars, so it can be trimmed down somewhat.

Because only one source (Day / Reed) is being cited, it may be worth consulting further sources. The District Line - an Illustrated History (M A C Horne, Capital Transport) is another one worth consulting, but I don't have a copy of that. Once we've had a look at multiple sources, things might be a bit clearer.

Blackfriars is also an interesting station to visit, not many trains call there, and you wouldn't normally stop there if you were coming from outside London, but to embark or disembark when you're standing above the middle of the Thames is quite an interesting experience.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. The new text completely removes both ambiguities, which is ideal. I agree that the information that was lost isn't vital for the Blackfriars article.

And yes, I also had the privilege of using the rebuilt Blackfriars and it was indeed a magnificent location. One of the few occasions when I was almost annoyed that my train left on time! Matt's talk 15:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)