User talk:Ritchie333#Not a bad idea

Hi, long time no see, I've been reading up on Led Zeppelin lately, and thought it might be time to bring some articles within that sphere to FAC. Much of the album GA work was done by you, so I wonder if you would be up for a collaboration or if you'd give your blessing for me to take them on? FunkMonk (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sure, I'd be up for it, and as I've never successfully got an article through FAC (for various reasons, some of which are directly my fault), it would maybe be better to work as a team.

:I think the first thing we need to do is review the sources. Most of the album articles I took to GA were a response to earlier revisions being full of copyvios, and primarily use Dave Lewis' books to fix that. I'm not sure what other quality books are available - there are certainly a few books I would avoid like the plague, but in order to meet FA criteria 1c. we'd need to make sure we've look at all of these in order to have "{{xt|a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature}}". In particular, we need to get hold of Jean-Michael Guesdon and Philippe Margotin's book; if it's as good as their Pink Floyd one (which has allowed me to write several GAs from it almost single-handedly), we'd need to mine it for all its worth.

:How's that as a starter for 10? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Only saw your reply now, but sounds nice! I have a good deal of experience with FAC, mainly with zoology articles as a nominator, but I've reviewed FAC articles in most fields. I'm currently reading The Dead Straight Guide to Led Zeppelin by Nigel Williamson, which seems to have a lot of detail about the creation of the music itself, if you have any opinion about that book. I also have a dedicated Led Zeppelin issue of Guitar World or something like that somewhere that might be useful, and I know how to get some other books. Which album do you think would be the best contender? I was also thinking about even doing the Led Zeppelin article itself, I reviewed the old FAC nomination and contacted the nominators recently, but no answer... FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::For whatever it may be worth, I recently watched Becoming Led Zeppelin, and found it fascinating, with extensive remembrances by the band members. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{small|They could actually remember stuff? I'm amazed (but sorry to have missed that one recently).}} Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::To the best of my limited recollection, three of them could. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{small|He wasn't called The Beast for nothing. Alas.}} Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oh, I really need to see that documentary, could be nice preparation for this. Perhaps Led Zeppelin (album) would make sense as a start, being the first album, and reviewed by me already? FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Im lost how do I install fix it a si it as shoes on Google wiki --Doodlethedog (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hallo! I have edited the Balochistan article today. It had nothing under the Post Colonial History. So I decided to add stuff which were real and also cited the sources which I have taken the information from. It looked legit. But later I found out that my edits even though accurate are removed. What am I expected to do about my edits? I'm not supposed to directly copy word by word but to write indirectly? Then how does it make it become of that source? Anyway what else should I learn if I want to add stuff to articles? Cheers --Ritesh 74418 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:The edits appear to have been removed because they plagiarised another website. You must write things in your own words on Wikipedia; as the edit box says, "content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios has further information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

trying to add footnote to article. trying to add https://www.attorneyatwork.com/ted-talk-like-chicago-hot-dog/ to Chicago Style Hot Dog. Can't find ref tag

Also, had to create a new account though I am the original author (TSnyder) of the Structured Sale article because can no longer access old email --SnyderAuthor (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:The simplest way to add a reference to a web page is to enclose the link with and tags. The referencing for beginners page has further information.

:If you have abandoned an old account because you can't remember the login credentials and are no longer using it, it's generally good practice to follow the clean start guidelines. It might be helpful to email the Arbitration committee by email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org to formally declare the connection between the two accounts, and that only one account is being used at one time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, quick question. Do you know if it is possible to copy and paste a conversation that I had in the Administrators' noticeboard into my own talk page? So that I can preserve it? Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think there's a problem with this ({{u|EEng}} had an "ANI Hall of Fame" page at one point, but I can't find it now). However, most conversations on an admin noticeboard are archived (the only ones removed are blatantly disruptive ones), and you can search the archives to find the original page. Is that an acceptable solution? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Ritchie333}} As you might imagine, the archives of the admin noticeboard are HUGE, so I would like to have this particular conversation in a more accessible place...

::"I don't think there's a problem", so I can just straight up copy and paste into my own talk page? Surely I have to make some sort of hatnote or something, right? Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you have a link to the existing conversation? If you go to WP:AN or WP:ANI and type the thread name, if it matches one in the archives, a widget will give you a link to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this article eligible for WP:SPEEDY? it seems to containing nothing that is not already in Zia Yusuf. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's now had a bit more stuff added. Although I'm still not sure it deserves its own article separate from Reform UK. Do non-governing UK parties usually get separate articles about their "departments"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's definitely not a speedy as there is a plausible redirect term. I'd also say a redirect is the right answer. If Zia Yusuf resigns - again - we can revisit a full page at that point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Now a redirect to Reform UK Department of Government Efficiency. Merge discussion still ongoing. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Ritchie333

Wishing you all the best. It will be truly appreciate if you help on this:

1. Could you please check and advice (if any) the draft Luis A. Martinez Alfaro before it goes published?

2. If there is not comments, where the draft can be published?

3. In case the article need to be renamed from Luis A. Martinez Alfaro to Luis Alfaro. How to do that?

Many thanks! --Sciencesustainability409 (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've mulled over this and I'm afraid to say that the draft in its current state is unsalvageable in my view, as it reads too much like a LinkedIn profile. The first thing to do is see what information is present in internationally published sources, and work forward from there. Biographies of living people are one of the most difficult things to write about on Wikipedia, and really aren't a good idea by relatively inexperienced editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I've told him that. I'd like to see him address concerns in a collegial manner and retain the bit. But he is stubborn. And wounded. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, I thought I'd send him a congenial message, pointing out there's a lot of support on that talk page, and he's not desysopped now so he's got a chance to turn it all around. Otherwise he's going to be permanently mentioned on Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause with the generic note "{{xt|These are administrators who were desysopped in response to concerns of misuse}}". I reverted it, because I don't think he's going to listen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Speaking from experience, I can tell you that there comes a point where, after having worked hard for years for a project that loses its appreciation for what you do, that there's no motivation to fight to keep adminship. From the looks of it, he feels much as I did in the end. I can also say from experience that after a short period of bitterness, he'll probably come to decide that he's better off. —Kww(talk) 22:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

hello --Meterk (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I am a scientist and I would like to make an article about a physicist I work with. He has done some important work over the years but I don't think he's won any rewards or had any articles written about him. Wikipedia's guidelines say that self-promotion does not count as good enough to be notable for a page. Would papers that he has published count as self-promotion or would they still qualify considering the scientific and professional nature of the content? --Scarlet Spring (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:The basic guidelines are on the page Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Unfortunately, our leading expert in notability guidelines for academics, {{u|DGG}} passed away from time ago, and I personally still miss asking him questions like this. The only other regular editor who I think knows something about these guidelines is {{u|MelanieN}}. In general, if your colleague only has published papers, it would be possible but difficult to have an article - it really depends how widespread and influential those papers are, and how frequently they are cited by other papers as an outstanding work that is an essential reference. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Per WP:INSTEAD, can you restore 2025 Eura mid-air collision (and its talk page Talk:2025 Eura mid-air collision) and redirect it to List of mid-air collisions#2025 Eura mid-air collision?
#REDIRECT [[List of mid-air collisions#2025 Eura mid-air collision]]
Thanks! 87.100.163.206 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sure, done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The arbitration amendment request that you filed has been closed and archived. The Arbitration Committee voted not to rescind the appealed restriction. For the Arbitration Committee, ~ Jenson ( SilverLocust 💬 ) 03:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm really better known as simply Stephen Holt. I'm one of the founders of the Off-Off Broadway and Gay Theater movements. And the gay television show which now can be seen on You Tube, featuring over 1000 interviews with A-list celebrities such Laura Linney, Emily Blunt, Keira Knightly, and Jonathan Groff.

I'm featured on Wikipedia under the biography of the late Helen Hanft. I'm editing in under the sentence "Additionally..." The Blonde

Leading the Blonde(1972) all by Stephen Holt"

I've been remiss about posting to you all these years. --Stephen James Holt (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what action you want me to take here; can you be more specific? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you’re doing well.

I would like to kindly ask for your help regarding an article that had been on Wikipedia for several years, but was recently deleted following a personal threat made via Instagram. I have addressed the previous issues that led to the deletion—particularly copyright concerns—and revised the article accordingly.

The article is about Ali Tajdari, a globally recognized actor, singer, and martial arts champion. There are numerous sources (possibly over a thousand news, sports, and entertainment websites) that cover him. He is a verified figure on platforms like Spotify, IMDb, and Instagram, and is considered an influential personality among Iranian communities. Naturally, this also means he has many detractors.

All I ask is that you, as an experienced and neutral Wikipedian, kindly take a look at the revised version of the article. If you find it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines, I’d appreciate your support in restoring it to the main article space.

Thank you very much for your time and attention. --Jijijef (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Given your significant experience in preserving and improving quality articles on this platform, I kindly ask you to review an article I recently edited.

:Notably, this article had been on Wikipedia for several years but was flagged for copyright violations. In response, I completely rewrote the article from scratch.

:Firstly, I ensured the content was entirely original.

:Secondly, I rewrote the article in a neutral tone.

:Thirdly, I removed dead or unreliable links and added several new citations from reputable news sources.

:Fourth, I corrected writing issues and improved the overall structure and style to meet a more professional and encyclopedic standard.

:The article concerns a notable and influential public figure whose coverage meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Therefore, I believe the article is worth preserving.

:If, upon your review, you find the article appropriate for restoration, I kindly request that you consider protecting it to prevent further vandalism or disruptive editing, by restricting general editing access.

:Thank you very much for your time and attention. Jijijef (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::It looks there is a related draft for this - :Draft:Ali Tajdari. That's currently awaiting review, so it might be worth waiting and seeing what the result of that review are. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Foxglove, Scheid, Ehrenbach.jpg

| image_upright = 0.8

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

too many died, see my story and listen to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hG8Zd0xLZg Comfort ye] (sung in German) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Gerda, I took a week off after being abused and lied to by some Arbcom members. I'll be opposing them if they ever run again. I'm glad Hannah Fry got recognition as a GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you always need info from a licensed website or can you use general knowledge? --TheRealEditor192 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:If you mean, "Do you need to cite information from a reliable source", the general answer is "yes", although some things have exceptions, such as plot summaries for fictional works. The best sources, in my view, are dedicated books on the subject, or a related subject. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't think I bludgeoned or made personal attacks in the Randy Cooper article. Cues for conversation were made, and I responded, and I gave constructive criticism, not a personal attack. I have taken that kind of criticism on Wikipedia, and it helped me learn. Anyway, even if I did, who you are punishing is Randy Cooper, who is not at all connected to me, and whom I have never talked to or met. I wrote the article because I saw a YouTube video I found interesting. I myself am no longer very active on Wikipedia since I am busy with other projects. Could you reconsider the deletion? We had three votes for keep, including Randy Kryn, who is one of the 20 most active Wikipedians of all time, versus several deletes from less experienced editors. Just a fact that matters to your decision, not a personal attack. Thank you for your patience. I appreciate your time. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:At the deletion discussion, I said "{{xt|The discussion has been derailed with bludgeoning and personal attacks}}" without making any mention of who made them. In fact, I saw incivility from both sides. However, I can say that "{{xt|many reviewers tend to have a deletionist bias and often don't even read the articles that they turn down}}" and "{{xt|How many articles have you written? 1? And you think you're ready to be involved in an AFD debate?}}" are not acceptable comments to make in an AfD. A deletion discussion is not a count of heads, but a summary of what the overall decision was; and consequently I gave your views less weight because they contained these slurs. Although {{u|Star Mississippi}} didn't directly say it, I felt the relisting they did last week implied there had been insufficient independent sources mentioned, and for a biography of a living person, these absolutely must be present in order to have an article here. That hasn't appeared to have happened, and therefore I conclude that there is a consensus to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Don't you think an editors experience has weight? That's not the same as a slur. There is a big difference. I have been given the same treatment on Wikipedia by more experienced editors and didn't accuse them of any slur. If I had attacked someone's intelligence, that would be a slur. I pointed out the fact that the editor had little experience. You can bludgeon by accusing someone of bludgeoning. It's gaslighting. You punished Randy Cooper, not me. A person who is notable. Anyway, I don't feel like taking the time to take this further. I appreciate your time. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::And the deletionist bias is a real issue. That's why we need administrators to supervise. There are page reviewers that are too hasty. They want to pad their stats instead of taking their time. I don't see how raising that issue is a slur. It's a valid criticism. Again, thank you for your time. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Back to the article. You don't think that the Evening independent and Fine Scale modeler are independent sources? How are they not independent sources? And isn't 2 articles enough to say that there have been multiple reliable independent articles? Could you please give me your opinion before we end this conversation? Orlando Davis (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have no opinion on the article, I simply assessed what others said during the debate.

:::::If you like, I can put the debate up for deletion review - would you like me to do this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes please. I would appreciate it. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Okay, that's up at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 23. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)