This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
With reinforcements and a sock farm to boot! StarM 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Sigh… Speaking of socks, any uninvolved Talk Page Stalkers (particularly admins) feel the urge to weigh in on this debate, btw? – iridescent 20:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
"Weigh in"... as in "give my opinion" or "swing banhammer indiscriminately"? :-) J.delanoygabsadds 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say the opposite; what it boils down to is, Canterberry and Lucy-marie were both Very Naughty a little over a year ago (see this and this). L-m was blocked for a short time, returned, and since then has been a perfectly good contributor (albeit with an uncanny knack for accidentally wandering into other peoples' flamewars); Canterberry was indefblocked, and when he returned under a sock account (months later, and non-disruptively) has all the "zOMG a sock!" brigade out, pitchforks in hand. Anyone uninvolved would probably be a great help, as I'm one of the few people actually on speaking terms with both so find it hard to judge (and also make no secret of believing that blocking non-disruptive socks is absolutely pointless, up to & including Kohs and his buddies). – iridescent 23:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Eek for a sec I thought you meant my sock farm went to AN. Sorry I wasn't online sooner. In the mean time, my puppeter has been digging a grave for himself by immediately returning to account 1 when 2 and 3 were blocked. StarM 04:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Question
Dear Iridescent,
I have a question. Is This Page breaking any rules? Can I create a list of vandalisers??
If I am allowed, Please add to the list if you have time!! Limideen 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC) 12:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
What Darkspots said. Also bear in mind that IPs change – in some cases such as myself every few hours – and stalking the contributions of an IP who's made a vandal edit will likely mean you actually stalking the contributions of the good-faith user who's the next person to whom that address is allocated; this is why we don't block IPs for more than a few days (except for a few cases such as schools where we know the IP won't change). – iridescent 15:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank You. Will it be okay if people just monitor the page though? It would just be somewhere known vandals would be monitored, checking the differences of their recent edits before rollbacking? (Sorry, I wrote this before logging in) Limideen 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC) 16:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK there's nothing in policy against it, but I'd strongly advise against it. For one thing it gives the appearance that you're pursuing some kind of vendetta against these users; for another, it creates a "high score table" for vandals. For serious abusive accounts we already have Wikipedia:Long term abuse; for minor offenders you neither want to give vandals the recognition, nor be hassling an account that may have multiple productive contributions in addition to the occasional vandal edit. If a user has recently been warned for vandalism, then Huggle will automatically flag any edits it makes as potential problem edits, in any case.
All that said, I don't do much vandal-fighting and I don't pretend to be any kind of expert in current policy & practice – you would probably be better off asking one of the regular vandalism patrollers (I'd suggest Persian Poet Gal or J.delanoy), who will likely know more about how things currently work. – iridescent 16:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more equally well-thought-out suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I have one suggestion, which frankly you ought not to need now that your RfA has passed. Don't feel obliged to work in those areas that you don't enjoy simply to appease anyone. If there's an article or two you want to write, then fine; if there isn't, that's also fine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd make a semi-counter suggestion – while Malleus is right in that you really shouldn't do things you don't like to "tick boxes" (I passed RFA without a single AIV report), I genuinely do believe that content is so central to virtually every significant dispute on Wikipedia, be very wary of involving yourself in content disputes (with your admin hat on). – iridescent 23:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the type to force myself to do anything I don't want to, so have no fears on that score, Malleus. Iridescent, I don't really foresee myself getting involved in content disputes, anyway. There are enough admins who are willing to step into those that I'm probably not needed. I'll stick to the parts of CAT:ADMINBACKLOG that probably won't drag me to the ArbCom.
Also, Iridescent, you'd expressed concern about my report of User:Fullyang to WP:UAA. I had actually created that account per an Account Creation request as part of my duties on the account creation team. I didn't notice until after I'd created it that the e-mail address was using the Fullyang.com domain name. Do you still think the UAA request was wrong? I'd like to hear your thoughts.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage 03:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
"be very wary of involving yourself in content disputes (with your admin hat on)" Ha. The problem with content disputes is not "putting your admin hat on". The problem is, it's impossible to take your admin hat off during a content dispute (or anything else for that matter). You'll either get one side using your opinion to prove that they are right (even if you very clearly state that it is your opinion, not absolute fact), or you'll get yelled at for being "unfair" or "uncivil". Hell, as an admin, you can't even accidentally revert one of the sides in a dispute while fighting vandalism without getting 3000 bytes of text smeared across your talk page. Like I know (or care) what our page about Bill O'Reilly's controversies says. As long as it's not blatant libel, I'm good. We are definitely not going to change anyone's opinion about him, good or bad. J.delanoygabsadds 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(to Aervanath) With that information, while I still think it was wrong – there was nothing to indicate that the account intended to work on an article about the company – it does put it in a different light, and it certainly makes reporting it justifiable (I suspect I'd be in a minority in not blocking it). My "needs content experience" oppose would still stand (although I hope you'll prove me wrong), but I certainly wouldn't have "escalated" it on the basis of that UAA report in light of this. – iridescent 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
One of your socks being blocked is "the Wikipedia equivalent of Kristallnacht"? – iridescent 03:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all it was not "one of my socks." At the time I had never edited under any other name. And the reference to "Kristallnacht" aptly refers to Toddst1's summary deletion of all content in my user space. —Moulton (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Noted, and my apologies; I've struck it through and added a hidden-text comment for Brad's benefit, although I'm sure he's aware of the circumstances. – iridescent 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
EliasAlucard
What's this about? [1] Is the user returning under a new name? ·:· Will Beback·:· 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I posted that at the request of GRBerry as it's a protected page and GRB is currently (voluntarily) desysopped, so I don't know the full details; you'd need to ask GRB about it. – iridescent 15:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ignore the above, just noticed your discussion on GRB's talk. – iridescent 15:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
User talk protection
Uhh, its not permitted to protect a user talk page? Yet others have it? O.o II MusLiM HyBRiD II Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Generally, no, although in extreme cases of mass multiple-account vandalism someone might make the occasonal WP:IARbrief semi-protection. (As per User:Abd, who is repeatedly harassed by the IP-hopping User:Fredrick day, for example). The whole point of talk pages is that they're for anyone to comment on. – iridescent 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone watching, there's currently a full debate on this issue taking place over at AN. – iridescent 16:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Canterberry
In view of the discussion on the UKT talk page, I've proposed that the issue be raised at WP:AN so that it can be fully debated and put to bed. Your comments appreciated on the UKT talk page. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Already there, but (as you've no doubt guessed) I agree with you. – iridescent 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Request for copy of deleted article
Hi: an Article on "American Dog Club" has been deleted: can you send me a copy? My email is EveryBlogHasItsDay@gmail.com . Thank you! Apologies if this isn't your preferred way to request this - I couldn't find an email address for you on your User page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EveryBlogHasItsDay (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done. Should you need to in future, to email any Wikipedia user just click on "email this user" (on the left of the page, a couple of inches below the search bar) while on their talk page or userpage. – iridescent 22:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
...for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage. BTW: how did you put your notice on the Editing user talk page? I would like to put one of my own in mine if possible... ~Beano~ (talk)(contribs) 20:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Iridescent,
I am sorry at how often I contact you however I know you are regulary logged in. The reason I put it here not on the Help Desk is because you must know how to do it as you have done it on your talk page. How do you add the:
If you post here, I'll reply here, so make sure you watch this page. Thanks.
If you have a question about something I've written/photographed/deleted/edited, or want advice on article writing, Wikipedia policy etc, I will answer as soon as I can. If you've come here asking me to take sides in whatever flamewar you're currently involved in and there's not a good reason for me to be involved, your post will go into the archive unanswered.
To your talk page? The help desk also has it:
This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia.
Please read the FAQ or search the Help desk archive before asking a question here.
For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk.
For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. We are unable to provide answers via email, post or phone and this page is highly visible across the Internet.
Pagename/Editnotice. Use them sparingly, and be aware that should you use editnotices in the mainspace or article talk pages without good reason there is a fairly high probability that you'll find a {{uw-create4im}} warning gracing your talkpage. – iridescent 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, mainspace edit notices can only be created by admins, since they have to be put in the MediaWiki namespace, e.g. MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Girlfriend. --AmaltheaTalk 02:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You learn something new every day… As you may have guessed, I look on the MediaWiki namespace with deep suspicion on WP:IDON'TUNDERSTANDIT grounds, and have a grand total of 1 edit to it (catching up fast on my astounding 4 edits to the Help: space). – iridescent 02:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit Notices
Dear Iridescent,
Thank You for replying. I will not use this on the mainspace, I was just going to use it on my Userpage and Talkpage.
From, Limideen (Rollbacker)(verify) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you a rollbacker by any chance? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Words of advice have already been given... – iridescent 18:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all! Wikipedia policies are confusing, and sometimes contradictory, and even very experienced users have trouble understanding all of them (see the thread below…) – nobody has any problem with you if you don't follow all of them right away. – iridescent 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Open question to TPSs about obscure copyright issue
Does anyone know if it's permitted to upload an image of a grave containing a copyrighted poem, on an article about the person who's buried in said grave? (She's most famous for her – quite extraordinary – grave, so the grave is the de facto subject of the article.) What would the fair use rationale be?
If not, is it permitted to reproduce the text of the inscription? The poem was written by her father about her death, so is directly relevant to the article. (On the "whole grave" image – see right – I've tweaked it so the inscription is in soft-focus and not legible, even at extreme zoom). The grave is in Argentina, and nobody seems entirely sure whether Freedom of panorama applies there. (Or, can someone whose Spanish is better than mine read through the relevant Argentine law – and see if that says anything?)
Should anyone care, the grave is that of Liliana Crociati de Szaszak; at some point over the next couple of days, that redlink should turn blue. – iridescent 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. Are you wanting to upload another image than the one here, or are you wanting to use that one in the article? It's a Commons image, so no rationale is necessary. As far as having the image with the poem in focus, I suppose the laws for Argentina could be different, but there is an image at the end of Elvis Presley which, at full resolution, clearly allows for the reading of the poem his father wrote for him, which is engraved on his tomb. لennavecia 23:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue concerns the copyright status of an image including the text of a potentially copyrighted poem (a derivative work by the wikiwonkers's standards). If that photo had been taken in a reasonably rational part of the world, or displayed on a reasonably rational Web site, then the answer would have been of course, what's the problem? As it is ... As an aside, what copyright deal did Liliana Crociati de Szaszak have with the copyright holder? --MalleusFatuorum 23:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
PS. It may just be the light, but she looks pretty scarey to me. --MalleusFatuorum 23:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Her father was the poet in question, so I somehow doubt the copyright issue came up at the time. I assume Argentine law derives from either Spanish, British or American law, but can't find anything specific anywhere. (The normally-comprehensive guide on Commons is mute on the subject.) You know and I know that even should it be a truly blatant copyvio the likelihood of Jimbo being extradited is minimal, but I have no desire to be in a Gurch-style permanent revert-war with the Fair Use Police and their Performing Bots. (Jenna - yes; I'm not worried about these images, but I'm wondering what the status of an image clearly showing the poem would be. I've not yet uploaded it as BC and his Magic Bot would no doubt pounce on it unless I have a watertight rationale.) – iridescent 23:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
PS - She looks scary to me too; I had no idea who she was prior to stumbling across this grave, but it's so weird it got me wondering about her. The "box" behind her with the gothic windows is the actual tomb, and has an even weirder 70s-style cell-shaded painting of her behind the glass. – iridescent 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Then do what I do, WP:IAR. BTW, I'm rather astonished that Jeneveccia doesn't understand that Commons images need to be justified in each article they're used in. It's not that I'm unaware of wikipedia's polices and guidelines, just that I don't pay them much heed. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum 00:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll slip it onto Commons and see if anyone complains. Malleus, what Lara's trying to say is that there's a WP presumption that if something's accepted by Commons, it automatically qualifies as free-use on Wikipedia so you don't need to justify uploading it. Incidentally, if you think my photo of her is scary, the existing one on Commons (right) looks like an outtake from Corpse Bride. – iridescent 00:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, that assumption just ain't true. My experience has been that Commons is much more rigorous than wikipedia so far as images are concerned. As a result, I never load images to wikipedia, only to Commons.
Was this woman a vampire? If she wasn't, then these pictures do her no credit at all.
The stray cat sitting on her feet and the empty eyesockets don't help, do they? (Zoom in on the face of the third image and it just gets creepier). – iridescent 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(rewording my previous answer) Commons is more rigourous – the way it works in practice is that, if Commons accepts an image as free-use and encyclopedic, you're automatically entitled to use it as free-use on Wikipedia as the presumption is that Commons are correct. Otherwise, such useful images as Pissing in a glass.jpg, Model in classic Hogtie.jpg or Fellatio-auto.jpg might not be available to the Sum Of All Human Knowledge. – iridescent 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You know how reluctant I am to disgree with any administrator, but that's just plain wrong. Fair use images, for instance, have to be justified for each article that they're used in. --MalleusFatuorum 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair use, yes – but (as I understand it, anyway) if it's on Commons it's automaticallyfree-use as far as Wikipedia is concerned (which is why Commons won't let you upload anything without a licence). – iridescent 00:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Not my understanding. But then, what do I know. --MalleusFatuorum 01:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I've already asked Giggy (who's a crat on Commons) to have a look at this, so hopefully he can settle the matter. Whichever it is, I'm not losing sleep over it. – iridescent 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Iridescent is right. All images on Commons are considered free to use anywhere (not necessarily just Wikipedia), and you don't need to justify their use anywhere. It's only the unfree images on English Wikipedia that need justifying. As for the grave issue, if the poem is still in copyright, then Commons would not accept such an image. You could possibly upload it here, claiming fair-use though. No idea whether it would stick though. – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You are completely and utterly wrong. Fair use images have to be justified for each article that they're used in. --MalleusFatuorum 01:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I am completely and utterly right. It's only the unfree images on English Wikipedia that need justifying. Please tell me where I said fair use images do not need to be justified for each article? – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You are of course entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to ignore it as the irrational ramblings of a child who has no real idea what they're talking about. --MalleusFatuorum 01:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The only child is the person above me refusing to believe someone who in fact knows the answer, and stubbornly insisting they are right, when they admit "But then, what do I know". Commons images are all free and don't need any justification anywhere. To suggest so is ridiculous because they are public domain, creative commons, GDFL images that do not require any rationale whatsoever. This is not my opinion, as much as you don't like to be told you are wrong. What's next, am I supposed to "justify" the use of the free image of Mark Speight on his article? You make no sense whatsoever. So much for trying to give some help, just to get attacked in the process. – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand why you believe that I might have even the slightest interest in your opinion on issues you clearly know nothing about. --MalleusFatuorum 02:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand why you believe you are right about an issue you quite clearly know nothing about. Guess we're both in the dark here. – How do you turn this on (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Whistle. Yellow card. Chill you two. Sheesh. You disagree, and don't care that the other one is right or wrong. We get it. Keeperǀ76 02:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I care. I hate to argue about this, or sound arrogant here, but I am right about this issue, and Malleus claiming it is just my opinion is incorrect. I also take offence to being called a "child", that what I say is "irrational ramblings" and that I apparently know "nothing" about this issue, none of the points backed up by anything whatsoever, so simply an attack. I'm simply trying to point out the facts here, and Malleus ridiculing them and attacking me doesn't help anything. – How do you turn this on (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah well. You have an opinion and I have an opinion. Just so happens they're different opinions. But no sweat, nobody dies just because you and I disagree. --MalleusFatuorum 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It's possible to disagree without launching into an attack on whoever you disagree with as you did with me. And again, this isn't about opinions. This is about the rules. If you want to live by your own rulebook on Wikipedia, that's none of my business, I'm just explaining how it works, according to policy. If you wish to dispute it because you don't like it, discuss on the relevant talk page. Don't attack me and call me names and ridicule me because you don't like what I'm saying. – How do you turn this on (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
← To return some kind of normality here, how likely is it, do you think, that this woman's father would make a copyright claim on the basis of this picture? What would he gain by doing so, even if he was so inclined? What the wikilawyers fail to realise is that copyright is worth spit unless it leads to a commercial and/or financial advantage ... ah, perhaps I now begin to see why the wiki imagepolice have recently been so active. --MalleusFatuorum 01:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Calm, both of you… Lest we forget, this is an article that will rank somewhere between Hypnodog and Hellingly Hospital Railway in the page view rankings, not George W. Bush. As I understand it, the issue the Copyright Police are concerned with isn't so much with Wikipedia's use of images (or copyvio text, for that matter), but that if images are incorrectly tagged as free-use they might be copied somewhere else (this does happen; one of my Broadwater Farm photos is gracing this book), and potentially make the WMF liable in the event that someone sues; in most of Europe putting something on permanent public display automatically puts it out of copyright, but I know that in some countries (notably the US) it doesn't. I personally agree that the risk of this on this article is minimal, but I can understand why the copyvio "hardliners" don't want to set a precedent. (I think I'll leave it out, unless someone from Commons can give a definitive ruling that it's allowed.) – iridescent 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you're comparing apples with pears. You uploaded your photo under a GF licence. That is not the same as fair use. --MalleusFatuorum 03:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In the recent FAC for Harvey Milk, I included an image of a bronze plaque covering Milk's ashes on the sidewalk in front of the store he owned. For FA, I had to remove the image because the plaque had a description of Milk that was long enough to mean the image was derivative. If the poem is still under copyright, the image would be derivative, and you would have to get permission by the author or the copyright holder. If the poem is in the public domain, I don't think you have a problem. This is FA standard, mind you. And Elcobbola was the one guiding me on images. --Moni3 (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The US has a rather restricted view of what's in the public domain compared to Europe, for instance. Heaven only knows what Argentinian law is likely to say though. --MalleusFatuorum 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
At the moment it's looking that way (Moni's) for this one, as I'm told Argentine law doesn't include any FoP proviso (eg, just because it's on display doesn't void the copyright); the text isn't significant enough to warrant fair-use. I think I'll go with the first image, which doesn't include any text. Technically it's possibly a copyvio of the scupltor, the family or the cemetery (who actually owns tombstones?), but I can't imagine anyone objecting (I'd imagine the sculptor and/or his family would welcome the publicity, as would the cemetery); it wouldn't be good enough for FA, but realistically this article will never be more than a three-paragraph borderline stub. If it's IfD'd, so be it, although I suspect if push came to shove I could make a convincing fair-use rationale for her – as I said somewhere near the top of this, she's far more famous for her grave than for anything else. (If anyone can work out why those Google results include a photo of Brad Pitt, do explain.) – iridescent 04:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Jesus. I go do article work for a couple hours and shit breaks loose. Something needs to be clarified for Malleus. There is a difference between fair use and free use. Fair use applies to copyrighted images. You must have a rationale to support your claim for fair use. Free use is just that, free to use. Commons, with few exceptions (OTRS), is free use and requires no rationales. You cannot upload fair use images to Commons. Also, Iridescent, Betacommand's bot has been blocked for a long, long time now. And Beta himself was placed on restrictions by Ryan, CBM and myself a few months ago; and his editing, last I checked, had since dwindled. The chances of this image getting tagged for issues is extremely slim, regardless of Argentinian law, however, this is not a recommendation to upload breaking copyright. Just pointing out that unless you take it to FAC, chances are high you won't encounter problems. لennavecia 05:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
tl;dr
I'd just go with the current image and quote the text of the poem in the article. Relatively safe option, doesn't seem to violate any rules (even if we don't take it to FAC it's probably better to try not not violate copyrights), and is a quick and easy response that doesn't require me to try and make sense of Argentinian law. Giggy (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that is more along the lines of the sort of answer I was looking for… – iridescent 00:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there's not a lot of difference between displaying an image of the poem and quoting the poem. Either way, you're violating the copyright. لennavecia 05:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Displaying a photo of the poem on the statue brings in new freedom of panorama issues and other such fun. Quoting portions of nonfree text is done regularly here under fair use—obviously quoting the entire poem would be a different case (as would be done with a photo of it), but as far as I can see that isn't being discussed. Giggy (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC) For the record; IANAL.
David Sirlin AfD
In reference to Articles for Deletion: David Sirlin, can you help us or at least lead us in the proper direction to make the article more suitable for Wikipedia? Thanks! --nothingxs (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You need to provide multiple, independent, non-trivial sources (newspapers, major independent trade magazines, etcetera), to demonstrate that he meets our guidelines for articles on creative professionals. Although it sometimes looks that way, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything and actually has very strict criteria for who/what warrants an article; for an article of this nature, you'd generally need to demonstrate that he's received a significant award; or that he's created a significant work - which at the moment the article doesn't demonstrate; or that a number of people who are themselves notable by Wikipedia standards cite him as an influence.
The AfD process doesn't automatically mean the article will be deleted; it will be listed for five days, and if after those five days there's not a consensus that the article should be deleted, it will be kept (our default position is always "keep"). You might want to post at WP:VG, whose members may be able to help further. – iridescent 23:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Does Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix not count as a significant work? The question here is what exactly significant entails, to me. I'd say that to a large amount of gamers, that game alone has made him notable enough, particularly to anyone following its development. What exactly constitutes an independent trade magazine? Would I be able to use EGM, for example? --nothingxs (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure which side of the "significant" line it falls on, as I don't know how much it's an original work and how much it's an updating-and-tweaking of the previous versions; someone else will clarify things on the AfD debate. Yes, EGM, C&VG etc are all fine as sources; the ones that aren't acceptable are the ones that are tied to the hardware/software companies (I personally wouldn't consider Xbox Magazine a reliable source for anything, for instance). – iridescent 23:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Troll's remorse
Looks like your admin's intuition may have been on to something on this one:[2]. the skomorokh 16:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm… ABF has a lot going for it. A shame, as that one was shaping up to be a reasonable article. I still don't think he'd meet the notability criteria even if he were simultaneously elected Pope and President of the United States, but I'm not bothered about articlesonnonnotablesubjects as long as they're accurate and reasonably well-written. – iridescent 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
For your help with the IRP issue. -Wakamusha (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I hope he takes it in; he's obviously not malicious, just using a tool that's too powerful for him to control. Watch this page for any length of time and you'll see that the fact that Gurch did too good a job in writing Huggle, and made something that's too deceptively easy to use, is something of a recurring theme. – iridescent 00:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Should I stop using Huggle? -- IRP☎ 00:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
And no, I'm not malicious. I don't like it when users assume I'm editing in bad faith. -- IRP☎ 00:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's assuming you're editing in bad faith; as I say above, you're using a program one of our most experienced users wrote for his own use and has agreed to share with others, but you don't have his years of experience in judging what is and isn't genuine vandalism. The analogy I generally use is that MediaWiki is a sniper rifle whereas Huggle is a machine-gun; one is a lot slower than the other, but it also causes a lot less collateral damage and is far easier to aim correctly.
Only you know whether you should carry on using it; what I would say is to check your edits before you make them, whichever program you're using. Also, I cannot emphasise enough not to trust the "possible problem editors" who are automatically bounced to the top of the Huggle queue; all it takes is one slip-of-the-finger accidental revert by someone, and all the account's edits jump to the top of the queue. There's at least one Huggler who's recently emerged with a very red face after reverting-and-warning a highly respected Wikipedia admin who happened to be editing from an IP. Wikipedia isn't a race and you won't get any prize for hitting 10,000/50,000/100,000 edits; it's a lot better to make one good edit and no bad ones than 10 good edits and two bad ones. – iridescent 01:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful information. -- IRP☎ 01:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Notice
You have 1 message that you did not reply to at User talk:IRP#Please slow down. Please note that the message is highlighted in orange. -- IRP☎ 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Stop. Now. I am a volunteer at this project, not your personal skivvy, and this is the second time you've hassled me because I didn't immediately answer one of your posts. Just in case it's escaped your attention, your post is the 91st post to this talkpage today. To answer your question, read the warning that pops up every time you use Huggle. It means what it says. A bad edit is a bad edit, whether it's a mistake or deliberate, and adding a block of unsourced libel is adding a block of unsourced libel, whether you do it using Huggle, Twinkle, AWB or Mediawiki. (And yes, that may well be "what the 'undo own edit' feature is for", as you say. Which would be perfectly valid had you used said feature.) – iridescent 21:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, based on the threat of a block, I'm assuming that you're treating me as a vandal on last warning. -- IRP☎ 22:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Meh.
Is there a big red hand on your talkpage? No.
Is there a threat to block you on your talkpage? No.
Is there a first, let alone a final, warning on your talkpage? No.
Is there the sentence 'I appreciate that most of your edits are valid, but if you can't take the time to preview your edits before you make them, I will remove your access to automated tools and/or block you as a last resort', which you yourself have admitted you haven't been doing (since a couple of paragraphs on, you say 'I have disabled "After reverting, move to next edit in the queue", which will allow me to see what I have reverted the next time I revert'? Yes.
By all means feel free to discuss things if you think I'm being unfair in threatening to take a tool away from you until you can show you know how to use it, but trying to stir up a non-existent drama from this is not going to impress anyone. If you really want to complain about this. ANI is that way. – iridescent 23:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I know that vandals are treated with more respect. They are told "please stop" rather than "stop now" (and "...or else", possibly read between the lines combined with possible exclamatory punctuation perceived to be intended). -- IRP☎ 23:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. – iridescent 23:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In other words, "Stop, now" may be interpreted as "Stop! Now!" or even "Stop! ! NOW!!! Or else!" -- IRP☎ 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Iridescent has been respectful to you, the big red template message just served as an annoyance. Also, stop was meant to get your attention, rather than being uncivil. IRP, I suggest you disengage (That's my two cents). RockManQ(talk) 23:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I've seen vandals in the past that were told "please stop". Avoiding the word "please" is often interpreted as a sign of disrespect. -- IRP☎ 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, if you take "avoiding the word please" (which FWIW was the first word of my original post!) as "a sign of disrespect", then Wikipedia talkpages are really not the place for you. Have a read through every other post on this page – or any other high-traffic talkpage – and you'll be able to count the use of the word on the fingers of one hand. While Wikipedia does have some (pointless, contradictory and arbitrary) supposed rules on civility, saying "please" at the start of every post is not and never has been part of the Wikipedia culture. – iridescent 23:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c. Practically the same thing, but anyways...) IRP, no offense, but considering how this talk page has been for the last 24 hours, you are getting a very mild response. Let me just say that that big red banner is, um, untactful. If I was in Iridescent's shoes, you would not be having an argument now about whether or not I was uncivil... J.delanoygabsadds 23:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Applying skull to surface of desk at high velocity....
Since you're a denizen of Keeperpedia, and thus one of the few admins I know reasonably well, might I persuade you to peek in on this surreal piece of WTFness? I am pretty much busting my gizzards trying to be unfailingly civil to this user, but the attitude explained in his/her last AN post just makes me all head-spinny. An application of clue would be appreciated....thanks!GJC 08:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Gwen and Risker are there – if he has any sense he'll quietly back away. He's got a two-year history, not a newcomer account, so (a) should know better and (b) won't get any leeway through the "I didn't know the rules" argument. – iridescent 17:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Michael Jackson
When you do come online please help monitor the article over the next few weeks. The recent civil trial (huge case of recentism btw, he's had hundreds of civil trials, why is this so important? Not even a verdict yet, clearly no notability) and The Sun's decision to call Jackson a Muslim has started a lot of crazy crap on the article. Some people are even changing the whole article because apparently he has changed his name (all bollocks btw). I've requested full protection at this stage but I can't protect the article from the masses alone. HELP! — Realist2 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Will watch it, although the "Muslim" thing at least warrants a mention. Whether or not it's true, the fact that it's been alleged is verifiable from reliable sources ([3], [4]). – iridescent 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think they warrant a mention, this story has been floating around for nearly 10 years and it has never amounted to anything. Jackson has never said he is a Muslim and his own publicist has said he is not a Muslim in the past. If the tabloids say he's a Muslim and Jackson say's he is not, it's a non-issue. The tabloids also say he ate the umbilical cord of his child. Sometimes editorial judgment is needed. It's a false story. — Realist2 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I gotta agree with Realist. It was a tabloid story, and now rs are reporting the claim. And considering this has been mentioned several times over the past decade, I don't think it deserves much of a mention, as it's never come to anything. لennavecia 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It's almost certainly not true, anyway – in my experience, religious converts are generally keen to tell anyone who'll listen all about their decision, and Jackson has (ahem!) not exactly been shy of publicity. Give it a couple of days and presumably he'll issue a statement either confirming or denying it. (If nothing else, if it were true I'd expect Jermaine Jackson to be shouting it from the rooftops.) – iridescent 17:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the intensity of the story increased when Jermaine converted yes. We could always start an article called Michael Jackson's relationship with the tabloid press for all these silly rumors. I don't want to see that brilliant biography turn into tabloid smut however. There is enough genuine criticism of Jackson in the world, we don't need the fake stuff too.
Is anyone in London soon, Jackson is meant to be in the UK for this civil case, please get some pictures of him if you can :-) If this case becomes notable for some reason it will see the light of day in the biography. Currently it is recentism breaking news. There is nothing to establish notability since civil trials are a regular occurrence for Jackson.
Also, I was wondering if we could argue for a fair use image of Neverland Ranch. Since Jackson has sold away at least some of his stake in the property, the likelihood that we would ever get a free image with it looking like a tourist attraction is near zero. — Realist2 18:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm in London, but don't know what my movements will be during MJ's visit. If he just flies in, goes to court, and flies out again, chances are nobody will be in a position to get a photo; for obvious reasons, the police tend to take a dim view of large crowds gathering around sensitive installations like courthouses and airports.
For obvious reasons, I don't really want to comment on fair-use right now. FWIW, I suspect you couldn't really make a case, as per Jimbo's Elvis argument; I don't believe that of all those thousands of kids who visited, not one thought to take a camera. But as has been made painfully clear above, image policy is a grey area. (Stupid question, but have you – or anyone – ever contacted his management or Sony/ATV? It might be that they'd be willing to release free-use images, if the alternative is "blurry 25-year-old photo" illustrating the most-read article on their biggest name.) – iridescent 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I could get someone to contact them maybe, I'm not sure I should contact them since I'm the main writer of the article, it might seem inappropriate for me to be in contact with his management and be writing a biography on him. Others would do it though I guess. — Realist2 18:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It would probably make more sense coming from you, as you'd be able to answer any "why is this in the article" questions they have. I can't imagine anyone would see writing to his management as a COI – it's not like they'd be putting you on the payroll, and anyway (despite what everyone thinks) Wikipedia has no policy forbidding COI. (As long as it adhered to an NPOV, MJ would be perfectly entitled to rewrite the article himself.) – iridescent 18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Note re above – if you do contact them and they agree to release anything, make sure you point them towards OTRS to make it official; and read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission first, so you know exactly what to ask them for. – iridescent 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, something tells me he won't ever edit or read his article, I think there are more pressing issues in his life. Still you never know, he might have corrected a spelling error or something. — Realist2 18:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I'd be very surprised if he hasn't read the article, given that it's the first hit on every search engine after his own website. And I'd be totally shocked if Sony-BMG don't watch it like hawks. – iridescent 18:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) MJK has stated in an interview that he's read at least the Tool article, and commented on how part of it was wrong, but didn't give the info we needed to make it right. IIRC, he made a joke instead. So to that, verifiability, not truth. Try explaining that to someone. I wonder if he's read his bio since it achieved FA. I emailed him. As expected, I got no response. :p لennavecia 15:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Every so often the subject of a BLP does pop up and either suggest a load of "improvements", or demand that it's taken down. It always leads to hours of argument, at least one ANI thread and a bunch of "helpful" comments from Brandt and his buddies. Check out this edit war for a pretty good example of the process in action. – iridescent 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
New Moon
I don't understand, why did you change what I wrote on the page for New Moon? As far as I know, everything I wrote was completely truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.153.167 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you a fan of Meyers or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.153.167 (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Shoo. There are 50,000,000,000 websites out there; if you insiston vandalising, go vandalise one of them instead. Consider this a final warning. – iridescent 20:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I will commit no further acts of vandalism, but this is a talk page, so I would like to respectfully ask you if you are a fan of the Twilight series. Hello?
I have never heard of either Mayers or the Twilight series. Enough. – iridescent 20:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You are very lucky, because it is one of the worst series that our species has ever suffered through. Have you heard of the Harry Potter series? Lord of the Rings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.153.167 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Go away. If you post again on this or any other page without something to say, you will be blocked for disruption. – iridescent 20:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Luxembourg's stable, high-income economy features moderate growth, low inflation, and low unemployment. The industrial sector, which was dominated until the 1960s by steel, has diversified to include chemicals, rubber, and other products. Why do you suppose that iron ore deposits are so plentiful in central Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.153.167 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Mr IP, don't play with fire, it burns. — Realist2 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Lol, I stumbled across this for the first time in ages. It's amazing how many MJ related articles we have. I think it would be funny, yet completely pointless to get this to GA. — Realist2 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
A little piece of Wikipedia died when Shamone was deleted. For some reason, Wikipedia goes a bit crazy when it comes to animals - I'll wager Britannica and Encarta don't have Category:Famous moose or Category:Famous rabbits (what, no Bugs?). – iridescent 20:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I redirected Shamone, but it does get a little mention in the MJ article. Even though he doesn't say it that often... — Realist2 20:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you semi protect my user page please, there is no need for IP's to be editing it and since my signature directs to my user page (unless you click on the 2), I think it might be confusing them. — Realist2 21:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done. – iridescent 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
MfD
Why did you nominate my proposed policy for deletion? -- IRP☎ 20:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you even read the MFD? Because half of it duplicates an existing policy, the exact wording of which is the result of years of discussion and Arbcom descisions, and the other half is an outright lie you've made up about how the MediaWiki software works. – iridescent 20:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it is proposed. It is a suggestion. You just tagged it, oblivious to the proposed tag. If it already exists, then you can redirect it to the section in WP:Signatures where it is already mentioned if that's the case. -- IRP☎ 20:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
And you are free to argue for precisely that in the MfD. Will you please stop coming to this page and pestering me every time I do something that isn't exactly what you wanted. (If you do try unilaterally adding your thing-made-up-in-school to WP:SIG, I will warn you now that it will be immediately reverted and the only thing you'll accomplish will be to annoy a lot of people who will be considerably less lenient towards you than I am.) – iridescent 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to let you know that I've redirected the page to the existing policy, which should be good enough. -- IRP☎ 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Will you stop posting those damn templates on my talkpage? See at the top of this page where it says "if I leave a message on your talkpage, I'm watching it"? It means what it says. – iridescent 21:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you still think it should be deleted after being redirected? -- IRP☎ 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Improper use of revert feature
Revert (also known as rollback) should be used only for reverting vandalism, not good faith edits (this excludes Twinkle's "Rollback (AGF)" option). Please use the undo feature instead. Here, you rolled back my edit as if it was vandalism. -- IRP☎ 23:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If you look at that edit summary you will notice that it wasn't done using rollback (the fact that an edit summary exists should have been a clue). Quit disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; I am very rapidly losing patience with you. – iridescent 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Altering quotations
Dear Iridescent,
For heavens' sake, please do not use a bot to alter the words of a quotation! The author of the quotation wrote it the way he wrote it, and we can't change it. If we do, we're being an inaccurate encyclopedia.
If this is something you've done before, I hope you will take the trouble to go over your earlier work and revert yourself. Errors of this kind very hard to spot, so it's really only you that can undo the damage. Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops, if I did (although I'm certainly not a bot) – let me know what it was and I'll revert it if you haven't already. (I assume it was an "oftentimes" → "often" replacement – I've been search-and-replacing the use of it from scientific articles etc where the colloquialism isn't appropriate, and while I tried to be careful not to remove it from quotations and places where the colloquial tone was appropriate, it's entirely possible that one slipped through. – iridescent 23:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
(adding) Yes, can see it was – apologies for that. – iridescent 23:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Following up, I checked your user contributions page, and the case I found is not the only one; Isaac S. Struble also was made inaccurate by the same change. It's possible, then, that there are many more such cases, so I urge you again to go back and check them one by one (it's not really fair to ask me to do it, right?) Yours very sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Will double check them – may not be done until tomorrow. – iridescent 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Iridescent. Opus33 (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sanity check
Am I out of line here? My first response, I didn't know I was dealing with a legit sock of an admin. When he replied that someone should do an "indef block", I went to the unfamiliar user's page to explain why it wouldn't be appropriate in this situation, only to find out that the guy/gal could've done the block him/her damn self. Why is it someone else's problem? I'm really peeved by this for some reason. Can you read what I wrote and let me know why I shouldn't just block what is now, in my perception, an admitted and disruptive sock account? Keeperǀ76 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Keeper—are you aware of this discussion? You very easily could be, just wanted to make sure you had seen it. I don't know what to make of this myself, FWIW. Darkspots (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I was not aware of that, I've mostly been on break. I saw the thread pop up, did a quick check of the "offender's" contribs, and saw nothing really actionable for the ANI forum (it's a content issue). Forestpig is not a user I was at all familiar with. Today, I check the thread for followup to see that forestpig recommended an indef block and said it "wouldn't be excessive". I went to FP's talkpage to explain to this presumably newer user exactly why that would be excessive only to find out that the account is an adminsock. I'm dumbfounded. I've read RyanP's thread now, and I'm very curious where "reporting other users for indef blocks to be carried out by other admins and not me" falls under forestpigs stated purposes for hiding his admin account: To quote from that thread: Just to clarify, the reasons I cite for the use of this account are: Avoid linking alternate locations I edit from, in light of security concerns. Avoid linking the PI associated with my main account with my work on psychology/sexology/race articles and other articles that may be used to maliciously and unreasonably infer conclusions about my personality. Why, again, isn't this sock blocked yet? Keeperǀ76 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you came to talk to the wikiguru, not me, so I can keep my beak out of it, but this is crap. If there is a legitimate need/desire to run an alternate account with no disclosure to the community at large who the main account is, don't post on ANI asking for admin action, with the vague claim that you're an admin yourself on your user page. It's just confusing. Darkspots (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
What the crap? Why doesn't he just do it himself if hes got a admin account? Uggh, RockManQ is confused (A certified TPS butting in...) RockManQ(talk) 03:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree. As someone who operates (occasionally) a legitimate undeclared sock on a couple of articles where I'd display specialist knowledge that together with the information about me I've disclosed here would identify me, you can't have it both ways; either you declare the sock (or "out" it when necessary, as when Keeper outed his IP account when it got challenged), or you leave it undeclared and don't try to "claim" any "I'm a long term contributor/admin, don't argue with me" privileges. Very strange. The moral of this story is "the pedophilia articles are a cesspool, leave them well alone". – iridescent 13:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Pre-vet me?
Iridescent,
Now that I've qualified for a WP:CROWN, I'm considering an RfA, mostly so I don't need to bug other people to block vandals, but also to help out with the housekeeping. Since I hear your vote is a great predictor of RfA success, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my potential candidacy--In other words, I'm inviting you to be a one-person pre-RfA and save me and Wikipedia the effort of a failed RfA if you don't think I have what it takes. Interested? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Reply (long version)
I personally wouldn't see any problems with you, although I rarely comment at RFA (no, really). If you have any skeletons in your closet (flamewars, anything that a single non-nuts person could perceive as rudeness, arguing in favour of a really bad cause…) make sure you declare them at the time you accept your RFA nom; they will be uncovered, and if you haven't mentioned them it looks like you're hiding something.
If you're planning to run an RFA, now is probably the time to do it. The aftermath of DHM's RFA has (still) temporarily driven off the serial-opposers and the "dig for trouble" brigade. (DON'T self-nominate, though!) I think you'd probably pass, assuming there are no skeletons in your closet, but RFAs are very hard to judge.
You know better than me if you're likely to pass an RFA. Ideally you should have at least one substantial article under your belt that you're able to point to unequivocally and say "I did that" (otherwise, you'll fall apart on the "what are your best contributions" question). Huggle use will gain you some opposes; as long as you make it clear you don't rely on it - and haven't made any mistakes with it - it shouldn't derail an RFA, though. If you have any skeletons in your closet (arguments, blocks etc), declare them; they will be found out, and looking like you're trying to hide something will derail you.
As a content writer you'll avoid a lot of automatic and semi-automatic opposes and as an AIV regular you'll avoid more. I believe that you were involved in the Sarah Palin Wars, so you'll pick up a few opposes from that, but AFAIK there's nothing else problematic, and two years service with no particular screwups should mean even sworn enemies who come to your RFA set on finding an excuse for opposing (RFA shouldn't work that way, but as Malleus can tell you it does) will find it hard to find a reason.
(The "waiting for a chance to oppose" RFA-watchers are one of the less appealing aspects of the already unappealing RFA setup; expect a batch of "Oppose, don't agree with his userboxes" opposes or similar silliness within minutes of it going live. While the crats discount these, it's disheartening watching the Oppose column shoot up in the early stages of an RFA, as the opposers tend to say their piece at the start while the supporters generally drift through over five days.)
And (although it sounds obvious, you'd be surprised how many even very experienced people don't) make sure you're familiar with core policy, particularly WP:FIVE, WP:AFD, WP:CSD and WP:AGF - and make sure you understand what isn't policy (notably WP:ATA in all its many names), as someone always decides to pull people up on any perceived departure from Wiki-orthodoxy. You don't have to agree with the cabal broad consensus, but you need to justify deviations from it.
While the "content creation is the most important factor" group (among which I'd include myself) seems to currently be in the ascendancy, there is a strong and extremely vocal opposing camp. Some of them might read this and comment here; in the meantime, familiarise yourself with RFAs like Karanacs's and Moni3's to get a feel for the sort of opposes a nomination based on a content-contribution history is likely to get in the current climate.
As I know you know, but it warrants repeating, while WP:DEAL is no longer accurate, adminship is really unimpressive - nobody treats you with any more respect, you have to be politer when dealing with people, you don't get any kind of special status, your talkpage will become a general dumping ground for any crackpot with a complaint, you'll find what personal details can be unearthed about you spread across a variety of dubious websites, and you'll use your new buttons a lot less than you thought (see my old block log — while it's now skewed from testing Huggle block functions in assorted permutations and at assorted settings, in the six months leading up to that I performed maybe a dozen blocks). Plenty of the most influential people on Wikipedia (Giano, SandyGeorgia, Gurch, Malleus, Giggy…) aren't admins.
If you want a nomination, I'm more than happy to write you one, but it might be better coming from someone you've done more work with, and possibly someone with a less divisive reputation than me at RFA. I see Balloonman on your talkpage, who has a pretty good track record at judging RFA nominees (with a few - ahem - unusual calls); Keeper76 has semi-retired but can usually be winkled out of his burrow if you use a long enough stick, and as one of the leading lights of the "content creation isn't important" school of thought would counterbalance a "hey, look at all my articles!" candidate; J.delanoy might also be quite a good nominator for similar reasons.
Thank you for a thorough bit of advice. So, here's my self-appraisal per your criteria:
I've had a couple of fundamentally mutually antagonistic relationships with two editors who have both sinde departed: Hrafn, who consistently tried to suppress Unification Church articles as NN, and Tautologist, who was part of the Sarah Palin wars. After some rather contentious interactions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Kaufmann, I voluntarily quit interacting with Hrafn or those sets of articles, and he later retired. I interacted with Tautologist, who started as EricDiesel, only in the context of the religion-related articles surrounding the Palin wars, most notably Thomas Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God. He later vanished after I got him blocked for Sockpuppetry. Those are really the only two substantially antagonistic relationships I've had, although I have had occasional nominators take exception to me pointing out WP:BEFORE at AfD. Oh, and Shii has a hate-on for everything related to Babylon 5, but I keep responding by adding sources, so I'm not sure that any of the anti-fiction faction really have any good reason to oppose me.
My interactions in the Sarah Palin wars were pretty limited--when AfD's for tangentially connected religious institutions and figures proved unsuccessful, I sat on them and tried to keep them coatrack and non-RS free. After Tautologist's departure, the remaining editors on each article have worked substantially collaboratively, and both Thomas Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God are GA candidates.
My work affiliation can be uncovered in a thorough review, and I'm 100% COI free.
I've been reported (without basis) for 3RR once, by Tautologist, but never been blocked or formally warned for anything. I've made a ton of goofs, inlcuding initially with Huggle, but never had a problem admitting and reverting a screwup when one was pointed out to me.
Other than that, I think my track record generally shows me learning--I've made about every newbie mistake once. If you recall, my first interaction with you stemmed from my not understanding CSD and your decline.
At any rate, I'll hit up Keeper and Balloonman and point them here, per your advice. Thanks again for the detailed and conscientious response. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
More than welcome… I don't think anyone's going to hold any mistake against you unless it's very recent (although someone no doubt will), provided you realise it's a mistake. (IIRC my first interaction with you was a truly arcane discussion of whether Myspace could ever be treated as a reliable source; if that's the worst of your mistakes, even the most diehard oppose-anyone brigade will be hard pressed to find anything.) Something I forgot to say which wouldn't hurt, is to have a look at your analyses on Wikichecker and Wannabekate, to identify your most edited pages (on Wikichecker scroll down to "frequently edited pages" to see them) – which often aren't what you think – and review your histories on said pages, as those will be the ones the RFA crowd are likely to look at most closely. – iridescent 22:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If Iridescent thinks your up to the job then that's a support off me from the outset. ;=) — Realist2 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
(To Jclemens) So that's what happened to EricDiesel! I did wonder why he vanished from this talkpage as quickly as he appeared…
Yeah, EricDiesel renamed and picked up again on the Palin/Religion articles almost immediately, and did not disclose his name change. Keeper's prediction came true, despite everyone's efforts to get Eric/Tautologist clued in to how to work collaboratively, he seems to have given up. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I should feel sorry, but I'm not really. Although it's blasphemy against our core principles – and I personally never had any particular problem with him – I think sometimes it's better for all concerned when editors who don't "get it" about how Wikipedia works leave the project in disgust; it saves them wasting time writing things that will just be reverted, and saves us time cleaning up the mess. Yes, everyone has a deleted article in their early history – when you pass that RFA you can marvel at the dismalness that was mine – but some people just don't seem to pick up on the wikipedia dialectic. – iridescent 01:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
(to Realist2) Hmmm… Don't take anything I say at RFA as gospel! While I can and do defend every oppose I've made (see previous threads ad nauseam), I've certainly supported some characters whom I've later regretted supporting, including at least one for whom I'd instantly support a WP:DESYSOP request were the process ever to become enforceable. To harp on a well-worn theme, part of the reason I tend towards "if you're not sure, say no" at RFA is the all-or-nothing character – in the entire history of Wikipedia, there have been a grand total of 46 admins desysopped involuntarily (plus some who resigned voluntarily). Yes, I know we have the current system because nobody can think of a better alternative, but "least worst" doesn't mean "good". – iridescent 00:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Iri, you said that I have some ahem - unusual calls. Besides the DHM debacle, I love my unusual calls. I like atypical candidates (who aren't vandal fighters.) But besides that, thanks for the vote of confidence... Jclemens' RfA should be an interesting one. I believe he should pass, the question is how do people view his activities RE our favorite POV pusher EricDiesel. This is an RfA that I really don't know how it will go---which is also what I thought about Aeveranth's RfA.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 19:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you know which "unusual call" I'm referring to… As I say above, I'll be surprised if this doesn't pass unless there's a major skeleton in his closet which neither of us have noticed – as you can presumably tell from the length of my original reply above, I did look the history over fairly thoroughly, and it looks like you have as well. – iridescent 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Reply (short version)
Unless you've a spectacular skeleton in your closet, I don't see any reason why you'd fail. – iridescent 20:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I'm being boxed as one of the leading lights of the "content creation isn't important" school of thought. Seriously? I've been more than clear that I support, encourage, and greatly respect, article writers, and their RFAs (if they are brave/silly/naive/smart enough to try them). Seriously. Leading light of content creation isn't important? Ouch. I suppose you (the "serial opposer") aren't the only one with an unearned, inexplicable reputation. My only argument related to content builders vs non content builders is that there is no correlative data that suggests that one (or the other) will be a more fair, more direct, and/or more empathetic admin, in any dispute (content or otherwise) needing admin assistance. Some "content admins" are freeking insane to work with. Some "non-content" admins are ridiculously wiki-lawyered up to their ass in policy wonkery and holier-than-thou-ness, yep. I argue the character card, not the content card. Because I support those that are perceived (and it really is only a perception, not a reality) as "non-content" candidates, that means I'm against content candidates? pfft. Keeperǀ76 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for my sloppy wording, as I do realise on reflection that it makes you sound like some kind of Wikipedia Review cliche of a policy-drone Wikipedian. "Content creation isn't important" is my sloppy wording and isn't what I intended it to mean; "Content creation isn't essential" would be a more accurate way of describing it, I think. I may be horribly wrong, but I'd say the broad-church that takes in you, Ryan, Balloonman, Useight etc see "understanding policy, why our policies are what they are and when they should and shouldn't be applied" as the primary criterion with "experience creating articles and/or images, defending their preferred versions at reviews/XfDs/content disputes" as useful but not necessary, whereas the group that contains myself, Lara, East718, Realist2 etc have the positions essentially reversed.
It's an artificial engineers-vs-designers divide – the people I'd characterise as "pure-policy" admins like J.delanoy still have at least some mainspace work (in some cases like Gwen Gale or Newyorkbrad, huge amounts) and the "content-driven" admins like Karanacs or Bish/onen/zilla/apod still have large amounts of RBI gruntwork (well, except for Carcharoth, but C is unique), while the incident that gave me the "serial opposer" reputation (Shalom's RFA and the fallout from it) was based exclusively on policy-compliance concerns – but just because the boundaries between the groups are blurred doesn't mean the groups don't exist. (The reason I cite Moni3 and Karanacs's RFAs so often in conversations is because there were no other major issues to obscure the boundaries, so this split is very visible; Aervanath's is another good example.)
I wasn't trying to say you (plural) were against content creators – I can't imagine anyone is, and don't forget, the first time I ever came across you was as co-nom on possibly the purest credible "content ahead of policy compliance" candidate there's ever been at RFA – but that as people who are both familiar with Jc's behaviour, and familiar with the arguments likely to be used against him, both you and Balloonman are better placed than me to give honest opinions as to whether Jc is likely to pass, to anticipate what the arguments that will be raised against him will be, and also would have more credibility than me as nominators (given that you're not only different characters to him, but were all involved in the Palin disputes so have seen him at his best and worst). – iridescent 03:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I see myself as a mediator between the engineers and the designers. One of the last things I did here before !disappearing, and one of the more frustrating things about this place is the factionalism. Fuck the factions. Designers lose their jobs if no one builds their designs, engineers lose their jobs if no one designs them something to build. I knew what you meant, just had to put you on the spot about the wording - keep you honest. Keeperǀ76 03:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, those particular factions are dying out as they blur together, as the Kurt v Everyone war moves on to fresh woods and pastures new, and as the 2006/07 "pre-Huggle" group gradually drift away. The next Big Issues at RFA will be a revival of the ageism debate and Jimbo-loyalists vs "the voice of the people cannot be denied" wannabe-revolutionaries. (For anyone wanting a preview, head on over to Jimbo's talkpage. Take peanuts.) – iridescent 03:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a proponent of blurring the lines. It's the difference between the very archaic "melting pot" mentality vs more acceptable "co-exist" mentality. The lines blurring simply means that it is exactly that much more difficult to pass RFA, because you have to be all things to all people. You can't be a designer and have the respect of the engineer, and VV. You have to be a designer that also is proficient in engineering. That is precisely my frustration. I'm not anti-designer. Or anti-engineer. Both (can) make damn fine admins (and damn lousy ones too). Opposing one skillset because it hasn't blurred into some jack-of-all-trades hoopjumper is most dangerous. I fight just as belligerently at RFA when a content writer is opposed for not sucking face at AIV and NPP. If I see evidence of someone doing what they like to do here, and doing it well, they can have some extra tabs on their browser to do it even better and with more efficiency. With their volunteer time. On a free website. It still amazes me that anyone would actually want to be an admin. Does that make sense? Keeperǀ76 04:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Although I always argued against it I'm starting to come round to the idea of splitting the tools. Maybe not splitting delete/block/protect – I can't imagine someone I'd trust with one but not the other – but splitting the mainspace itself into sections, so you (for example) would have full admin powers in sport but no powers over transportation, while I'd be the opposite, and nobody would be allowed to choose more than (say) four admin areas. That would not only limit the damage anyone going nuts could cause, and so reduce the "can't be trusted" argument, but shut up the bandwagon-hoppers who jump on anything controversial and make ANI the joy it is to read. I'm sure there's a good argument against this but I can't think of one off the top of my head (aside from the fact that some specialised areas would get very clique-y – but that's already the case). – iridescent 04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
"The only problem among several..." (my grandpa used to say that) isreally that it is entirely unreasonable to believe that the admins already in power would be willing to limit themselves in any way, shape, or form. Also, who would get to edit Zamboni? Or racecar? Both for sport, both for transportation. Are we going to have a new requests section called Wikipedia:Requests to change admin areas? Wikipedia:Requests for comment to remove someone from an admin area that they are clueless about or ineffective in? Can you see the ridiculous problems that would arise if I decided on the content areas of: biographies, living organisms, technology, and religion? I could probably fit 98% of all content into my 4 areas. (The other two percent being Pokemon related). The existing admins, being human and powertrippy, would clamor for the biggies and ignore the dusty corners. I'm not sure how any of this would reduce ANI threads. I am a proponent of splitting the tools though. I can think of several prime examples of someone that really could use the admin function of moving over a redirect, for example, or be able to see deleted edits. There is absolutely no sane reason why I can delete something and some of our best article writers can't. There is also no sane reason that any of them should be forced to go through the clique-factory to be able to do it, at the risk of losing one of our best editors because of the stupidity of the process. If rollback works, and is splittable, so are the others, with parameters, with reason, and with the ability to remove if misused/abused. Wouldn't even be that hard from a community standpoint (we already have the permission system in place, would simply need more eyes on it instead of the handful that regularly do rollback grantings. Keeperǀ76 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone somewhere (can't remember who or where) suggested splitting them by time – so you'd have a broad tier of "generally trusted" (or maybe even autoconfirmed) users who can delete pages with under foo revisions or block accounts with less than bar edits, and a second level who can block the established users, delete longstanding pages, make long-term protections. I'm sure it would have problems, but it would be a step in the right direction, and would give something concrete on which to judge RFAs. Ain't gonna happen as long as the same faces remain at the top; 861 vested interests makes for a lot of inertia. – iridescent 04:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I really like the idea of slowly easing people into the tools. It would unquestionably make RFA less brutal, and it would really cut down on backlogs at CAT:CSD and WP:AIV. And I have to agree that it will not be implemented within a few centuries.... Oh, well. J.delanoygabsadds 05:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Not with that attitude! --Closedmouth (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary break: rant about the general malaise of Wikipedia
← The fact is, there are too many people with a vested interest in opposing change – plus people who genuinely don't believe in the need for change – and together they can block almost anything. The fact that WP:PEREN even exists is a symptom of Wikipedia's current problems; in what other system of government or management would "it got suggested before and at that time people didn't support it" be grounds to permanently reject ideas for change? The supporters of the current setup like to use the "constitutional monarchy" analogy, but (as I've said many times before) the current "ruling groups made up of representatives of interest groups; rules which are sometimes enforced ruthlessly and sometimes totally ignored; effectively self-appointing governing class with dissent as the primary grounds for demotion/refusal to promote" setup has far more in common with Bolshevism or Juche – or indeed with a fundamentalist theocracy – then with a western parliamentary republic or constitutional monarchy, and with all the same problems. What works fine for a small group of pioneers is inappropriate in the context of a mass-movement, as you're left with either a weak central committee at the mercy of special interests, or arbitrary management by personal whim alienating large groups of people and driving them to leave altogether. Any of this sound familiar? – iridescent 00:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to embrace the new.
But there is no real security in what is no longer meaningful.
There is more security in the adventurous and exciting,
for in movement there is life, and in change there is power.
— Alan Cohen
I completely agree with everything you've just said, Iri. لennavecia 19:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
(well, if we're on a theme…)
Here comes the future and you can't run from it If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it. If no-one out there understands Start your own revolution and cut out the middleman.
Or if you prefer something with a little more dramah:
Tremble, tyrants and traitors The shame of all good men Tremble! Your plans against your brothers Will receive their just reward Against you we are all soldiers If they fall, our young heroes The world will bear new ones Ready to join the fight against you.
</awbrey mode> – iridescent 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Although if you want a Serious Thought for a moment (and coming right back to Bolshevism), "Philosophers have only sought to understand the world; the point, however, is to change it". The defenders of Jimbocracy and the current setup rightly say that nobody can ever agree on a change. (This is why "real" revolutions, from Oliver Cromwell to the Taliban by way of George Washington and Adolf Hitler, always boil down to a small group grabbing control and then persuading everyone else to stick with their ideas.) – iridescent 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this user page acceptable? It's a little shocking I find. — Realist2 03:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Look's offensive to me. I am not a Christan fundamentalist, but this line...Religion — in particular fundamentalist religion — makes you stupid...is an attack on religion. RockManQ(talk) 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, it appears to be a quote by an author of some sort. RockManQ(talk) 03:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There is that, I was more concerned about the guy being tortured though...— Realist2 03:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Those too, but I'm not sure it violates any policies, although I find a lot of the stuff on that page to be offensive. RockManQ(talk) 03:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The images are certainly offensive, though. RockManQ(talk) 03:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The very word "offensive" is a subjective word, not an objective word. What you may take offense to, others may not. I'm saying this without even once clicking on the userpage in question; I don't know what the images are of. I am, however, extremely protective of users' userpages and what they put on them (within reason). Hell, Iridescent has left some lovelies on my usertalk several times. Keeperǀ76 04:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Interesting you would think so. Suitable for Commons, but not for a userpage? Perhaps the intent was to offend or inform? Being offended is one thing, but offending someone is not against any policy I can see. I find German-scat-porn a bit offensive, so I simply quit renting it. Lawshoot! 04:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Prepairs to take heavy flak* I'm not a 100# sure on this, but I raised the issue over whether it's offensive or not on his talk page. RockManQ(talk) 04:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Like I said though, I wasn't 100% sure about the images, hell, I'm probably wrong. If we have them in mainspace I guess why can't we have them in userspace. I probably should just grow a thicker shell, take some more don't give a fuckism pills, and move on. RockManQ(talk) 04:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
My talkpage has an offensively captioned picture of the Virgin Mary on it, and until recently my userpage had a 13th century image of the prophet Muhammad in hell. Nine users currently have the "This user identifies as a Fascist" userbox. This talkpage currently contains links to Pissing in a glass.jpg, Model in classic Hogtie.jpg & Fellatio-auto.jpg, as well as a lengthy personal attack by me on the God-king Jimbo. Seriously, as long as a user's actually contributing to the encyclopedia – which this one is – and not just using Wikipedia userspace as a free webhost without putting anything back, as far as I'm concerned people can have what they like on their userpage as long as it's not outright violating our core policies. Besides, if someone has a position you find totally offensive (and "George W Bush's foreign policy was fucked up" is hardly a lone-voice-in-the-wilderness view), wouldn't you rather find out now, instead of after their RFA? – iridescent 13:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything even vaguely offensive on that talk page. I find this prissy looking for offence everywhere to be objectionable; if you look for offence, then you will surely find it. --MalleusFatuorum 13:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Well this is why I asked Irid's opinion rather than starting an argument. Different cultures find different things offensive, if Londoners don't find images of a man, naked and bond, against his will offensive so be it. However contrary to popular believe this is actually an international encyclopedia, despite the fact that it's run nearly 70% by US and UK editors. I was not looking for images of a tortured human being, I just happened to bump into this editor while reading the Barack Obama talk page. I do not click on the category "User's with offensive userpages" and start examining their various delights. — Realist2 14:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what Londoners have to do with anything ... but what is offensive is that some people torture others, not that there exists a picture of someone being tortured on someone's user page to make the point that some nations (including the US) should stop torturing. --MalleusFatuorum 14:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Malleus on this one. Using news photos to illustrate commentary on the piece of news in question isn't an issue. And I don't see what "being a US encyclopedia" has to do with it, since this user's opinions on the US do not seem exactly favourable. Seriously, let it go; there's a lot of farmoredubiousmaterial floating around Wikipedia, and that's before one even starts to look at Shankbone's contributions to the sum of all human knowledge over on Commons. – iridescent 16:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Point. Taken. — Realist2 16:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No worries at all, and we're not picking on you for being concerned; it's just that WP:NOT#CENSORED is there for a good reason. Precisely because, as you say, we're a global project and almost any content you can think of would offend someone, somewhere.
Obviously, this being English-language Wikipedia, it's disproportionately written by and aimed at English speaking countries, but it's not as US-centric as sometimes appears – aside from the US/UK/Canada/Australia axis, we have a very large and vocal Indian contingent, a number of very active far-eastern editors (particularly in Singapore and Hong Kong, for obvious reasons, but not exclusively), a reasonable number of Africans (not just the South Africans and Nigerians you'd expect, but users such as FayssalF in Morocco), and for some reason a disproportionate number of Germans. One of the real unappreciated benefits of the wiki model is that someone who doesn't speak the language all that well can still contribute articles and be reasonably confident that someone else will clean up their mistakes. The bunch who actually run the place (all of whom appear to have taken the instruction "look at the camera" way too literally) include a fairly credible (albeit very white) global spread.
I suspect (I have no proof for this) that a map of Wikipedia regular contributors plotted onto a map of the world would correlate far more closely with internet accessibility than with English-language distribution; North Americans, West Europeans and Australians just generally have easier access to high-speed connections and the time to use them. – iridescent 17:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm offended by the statistics regarding how stupid Americans are. ._______. لennavecia 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
If you mean that Monbiot quote, the really frightening thing is that all those statistics are true. Genuine conversation between an instructor and a USAF recruit at a briefing session on the history of East Anglia, for US military being TDY to a Certain Large Military Installation in Suffolk, England:
Instructor: …and the area was heavily Christianized during the later Roman period, but as it was so close to the east coast it was heavily colonized by the Saxons, and most of the Christians converted to the Old Religion or moved west.
Recruit: So who looked after the churches?
I: None of the churches were in use during this period, they were dismantled for building materials or used a village halls or longhouses.
R: So where did the Christians pray?
I: There were no Christians in the area during this period.
R: No Christians? Then why didn't the Lord smite them?
Really. I was there. – iridescent 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for participating in my RFA
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. Mizu onna sango15
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed,
all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced.
—Mizu onna sango15Hello!
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.
More than welcome – iridescent 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that has to be the best RfA thank you notice EVER! — Realist2 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there a collection of such thank you notices? Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Those are only the ones he's been sent himself. I managed to get a bunch of complaints regarding mine, which was apparently "disrespectful". – iridescent 21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Grey area; the text of the deleted article had nothing in common other than the name (this was the original text):
Text of previous article
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Princess Nisreen was born in 1969 in the State of Kuwait where she received her primary education.
Following in the steps of her ancestors and vowing to preserve the traditions of her family; not only Princess Dr. Nisreen dedicated herself to serving mankind, but also is an internationally recognized researcher and awards achiever in the fields of arts, literature, humanitarian affairs, and science.
Princess Nisreen is qualified in science and medicine, with a Bachelor of Biomedical Sciences, Master of Science, Medical Doctorate and a PhD in Human Genetics, and works closely with renowned scientists and International Organizations on poplarization of Science and transfer of technology to Arab States and Third World Countries.
She is also an artist, using Arabic coffee to paint. Proceedings of her paintings are dedicated to support Health & Education Charitable Programs directed to Third World Countries in general and her home country Iraq in particular.
Princess Nisreen published many scientific articles and books, and received many International Awards.
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.
Generally, WP:CSD#G4 only applies to reposting of the same article, not a different article on the same subject. However, I agree that the links in the current version don't actually mention her, so I'll do an IAR deletion of it this time as the same arguments stand. – iridescent 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Changing my mind; one of the links does in fact mention her, to the extent that the entire article is cut-and-pasted from this website. Speedy deleted as a copyright violation. – iridescent 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Fatal!ty
Hey, any reason why you reverted Fatal!ty's blanking of their talk? — neuro(talk) 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Current block notices aren't just for the user's benefit; they're for other admins' benefit, to help them decide whether to unblock. Since "Fatal!ty" isn't his real-life name, the arguments for courtesy blanking don't apply; this was clear talkpage abuse. – iridescent 23:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the swift reply. :) — neuro(talk) 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page, as he's now using socks to re-blank it. This will no doubt run and run. – iridescent 23:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
See also this thread at ANI for the background to this, if you're not familiar with it. – iridescent 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I was involved in the AN/I before this discussion, RFCU is open. — neuro(talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Re:November 2008
I dunno, but it seemes weird to me... YOWUZATalk 2 me! 19:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You are not the self-appointed censor of Wikipedia. You don't have the right to remove good-faith posts from other users' talkpages – you certainly don't have the right to call said user a "crazy Wikipedia hater" because you don't agree with his post. – iridescent 19:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I quit Wikipedia YOWUZATalk 2 me! 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Two minutes – is that a record? I obviously have this effect on people. – iridescent 19:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a general rule never to trust children with this crap on their userpage:
It just reeks of sanctimonious happy-clappy hypocrisy to me. Admittedly I could be in a minority of one in holding that view, but as usual I couldn't care less. When you're right, you're right. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This didn't come from nowhere, you know… – iridescent 20:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Longer than most…
Four days from "I quit Wikipedia" to returning. Three days longer than most "retirements", it has to be said. – iridescent 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Leaving Wikipedia is extremely difficult, and actively attempting to leave is even harder. Still, four days is pretty impressive. I haven't had a day with no edits since June 20, and that's only because I went to an amusement park. J.delanoygabsadds 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
How did you do it?
Hey Iridescent, how did you get the message to appear on the screen when people respond to you that:
If you post here, I'll reply here, so make sure you watch this page. Thanks.
If you have a question about something I've written/photographed/deleted/edited, or want advice on article writing, Wikipedia policy etc, I will answer as soon as I can. If you've come here asking me to take sides in whatever flamewar you're currently involved in and there's not a good reason for me to be involved, your post will go into the archive unanswered.
I want to add that to my screen, I love it!---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 06:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit, that is really cool. Of course, this may well go unanswered, I see that I have failed to respond to your post on my page. Oops, gotta do that now! ;-) Risker (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
It better not go unanswered... if it does, I'll hung Iridescent down... and I don't know... force the secret out!---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 06:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Iri needs to add the instructions to her edit notice. This is thread #3 so far. :p لennavecia 06:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it's a compliment of sorts that so many people edit this page and so notice the notice (so to speak). Now Keeper's retired I think this talkpage is keeping Miszabot in business single-handed. – iridescent 23:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow I love it! I created one of my own - great to remove unnecessary text from the edit window... – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
RE: My talkpage
Hello Iredescent, you may remember when I had problems with User:81.134.13.35. Recently, this has started again with the user stalking my edits, however, some other IPs have also been doing the same as the original user (these being User talk:83.104.109.117 and User talk:80.177.190.147) On uniforms and equipment of the British police, they accused me of deleting a fact tag. And now they keep reverting me deleting trolling on my usertalk. Is there any chance you could please protect my talkpage? And possibly delete the things that the original user has said about me on the users talkpage, due to the talkpage not being a place to air comments about other users, or a forum. Thanks in advance. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺ 15:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, is it possible to establish if all the IPs belong to one person? Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺ 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
They all belong to Epsom College, but what have I done to upset people going to Epsom College? I dont even know anyone who lives in Epsom, Surrey, or go to the college. I really dont understand. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺ 15:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
So does User talk:83.105.121.220, the only one that does not is the original IP, but I'm sure its all the same person. Can you throw any light on this? Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺ 15:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding talk page protection: Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.
As far as the desire to determine if they're the same person: WP:RFCU.
Now, having looked through your edits, just some things to point out.
A few days later, one of the above IPs posted to your talk page. You reverted, they restored, and you told them that it's your talk page and you'll delete what you like. While inappropriate (and unfortunately spelled considering it supposedly comes from a college student), it was an accurate example of hypocrisy.
You revert edits to their own talk page, calling a personal attack (see argument above regarding your view of what personal attacks are), and then revertedtwice more on their talk page.
And today, you made a bad report to AIV regarding the IP. I think you've had enough reports rejected by this point that you should know the policy. Apparently not, so before reporting or requesting any other users be blocked, check out the blocking policy, and maybe hit up the protection policy as well.
The above IPs should be warned appropriately for their continued vandalism to the article space. The minor disruption to your talk page is not sufficient for protection, and the edits made in reference to you on yours and their talk pages does not warrant any action, in my opinion. You need to seriously look inward in these situations and consider what others are saying and why they are saying it. Something so simple as you making a mistake without realizing it, then refusing to accept that perhaps someone isn't lying when they point it out. The same user who you claim hates it when he gets something wrong is the user who pointed out when you got it wrong, yet it is again bad faith on their part. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Why are you reviewing my edits? I only deleted the fact tag because I placed a reference instead. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺ 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw your request here, and I went to help you with it, as Iri usually isn't on for a few more hours. In looking over the situation, your edits popped out as being problematic, so I did some further digging. As far as the fact tag, why you removed it is irrelevant. That fact is that you removed it, denied it, stated it wasn't proven, which doesn't even begin to make any sense, then called ABF on the other editor in a spectacular show of hypocrisy rivaling the finale in a 4th of July fireworks show. And you're showing now that you are not capable of self-reflection, instead choosing to focus on other's actions, which is a big part of the problems above. لennavecia 17:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, PMJ, listen to what Jennavecia's telling you. As you may recall, my first dealing with you was over your harassment of an editor who didn't agree with you, and I know you've been warned about it by others; you also have a tendency to put material into law enforcement articles that's just plain wrong. Don't assume that every IP is a vandal, or that just because you haven't heard of something means it's untrue; policing and intelligence is a secretive field, and remember that by the "weird shift pattern" nature of the jobs, Wikipedia has a disproportionate number of military, intelligence and law-enforcement personnel amongst its editors, and occasional editors tend to work on what they know; some of those IPs are genuine experts on the matter – CENTCOM[5], London's Met Police's Information Room[6] and the Air Force Space Command[7] are three that spring to mind. I myself have reverted enough incorrect additions from you from assorted articles where you've clearly added material in good faith, but where it's obvious to anyone with specialist knowledge that you're wrong, to know that this is a problem with you.
This is not to say you should give up contributing to Wikipedia, but you do need to give up your habit of treating "I Was A Police Chief/Spy/Special Forces Operative/etc" autobiographies and true-crime books as reliable sources, as they're generally not (as I told you at the time, "What is written is based on a book published by an ex Met, Chief Super. So it cant be wrong" made me cringe, as well as convince me you've never dealt with a real police chief, Base Commander etc); what constitutes a reliable source to us in this context is news coverage in major, respectable newspapers; official press releases; proceedings of government committees and so forth. While it's a deeply dull read, contains a number of stylistic errors (it was my first long article) and has a lot of missing material where particular information is still classified or unverifiable, I'd point you towards my Central Communications Command article as a fairly good example of how to write a sourced article about a body that doesn't want information about its practices and activities in the public domain. – iridescent 20:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
RE: Yoenis
That guy has received warnings in the past. I don't know how to nominate for a ban, but he sure looks like he deserves one.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Already indefblocked. He certainly doesn't warrant a full ban, though. – iridescent 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
dear mr know it all,
could you please enlighten me as to why you removed my wim jansen edit. THANKS IN ANTICIPATION—Preceding unsigned comment added by HafShado (talk • contribs)
Because one of our core principles is that we adhere to a neutral point of view, and there is no possibility that this qualifies. Incidentally, I've blocked you as being too similar to the existing User:HalfShadow; if you want to appeal this, post {{unblock|your reason here}} on your talkpage, which you are still able to edit. – iridescent 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Irid, I think you win the award for most amusing new section titles on a talk page. Some of these are timeless classics. — Realist2 23:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I win the award for most new sections, period. I could do without this honor. When Shell Kinney, of all people, is saying she's never seen such a busy talkpage, something is seriously wrong somewhere. – iridescent 23:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
198.236.188.253
Can you please block this guy? They have a level 4 already. Jonathan321 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, AIV is that way. I don't mean to be rude (and apologise if it looks that way), but while I don't mind carrying out investigations at the request of people I know or in relation to articles that concern me, I am not generally going to spend the time it takes to investigate a user's history and decide what action (if any) is appropriate because someone with whom AFAIK I have never had any dealings comes to my talkpage and requests it. (On this occasion I have taken said time, and see no reason whatsoever to block. It's a shared IP and clearly labelled as such, and while they do indeed have a level 4 warning, said warning was three weeks old.) – iridescent 22:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Good. I only spotted them coming in from two IPs so was content to play whack-a-mole rollback, but it didn't look like the clue was going to sink in. – iridescent 23:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah that was me , I had thought I had done something wrong because the links disappeared so quicky , it wasnt my intent to spam. The site I linked was a non comerical site , not for profit. I had once upon a time added information to a wiki page on conference calls so though after I made my little site of information I could add the link , I guess I choose poorly in choosing a blog as an information site. I am smart enough to know no links on wiki help with SeO ( it wasnt my intent posting my link ) I only posted it because the site I made had nothing but information , no adds , no selling of products and the fact Ive worked in that industry for years.
Its been awhile since I used wiki and I did not see the message bar at the top , as soon as I did so I contacted GraemeL trust me had I saw that I would have realized what was going on ( I am not web savy ) and stoped. The fact I am even bothering to apologize should be proof enough of that intent.
I just realized I spammed and I hate spam. Sorry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.5.105 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 November 2008
Not a problem, but if you're going to add content to Wikipedia, please read our policies on reliable sources and external links. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means we only publish information that's already been mentioned in multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. (So, a website run by a major trade publisher on telephone networking, for example, would be verifiable, whereas information on a blog can't be verified so isn't appropriate.) We generally discourage all but essential external links; there are plenty of other sites that serve as linkfarms, and we try to only include material necessary to the understanding of the article. Wikipedia policies are confusing, but there is a logic to them – it all comes back to our core policies of neutrality and verifiability for everything we publish. – iridescent 00:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes I am understanding this now. As you can ( I Hope see ) I wasnt posting for search engine gain or monetary gain ( I dont even serve ads). I'd like to still contribute information here even if I cant site the small sites I make as a refrence I can site other refences. ( I have posted info before which is still on here ). I honestly didnt know. I do not want to be known as a spammer :( Please let me edit out my site name in this post I do not want to be known as something I hate a spammer. id like to undo this mess. Thanks for the kind reply and the information you provided ( alot of the pages explaining information you'd have to be maybe a lawyer to understand lol )
I feel like total crap now truely.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.5.105 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2008
Don't worry… The rules you need to know are all linked at WP:FIVE. Everything else here is just a matter of opinion and consensus. Basically, our policies boil down to "always be neutral", "always be verifiable" and "don't be disruptive". – iridescent 00:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I've replaced the warnings on the anons talk page with a welcome message since he now understands why he got them. No need to rub it in too much --GraemeL(talk) 01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Can I stop being known as a spammer now ? :( The different IP were to bypass a block network that ghost websurfing thingy... long boring story. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.5.105 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Advice From Talk Page
Dear Iridescent,
How's this signature (By the way, can you delete User:Limideen/My Signature?). I Have taken in all the comments. Limideen 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Remember that if you use non-standard fonts, it may display in all kinds of weird fonts for users using different operating systems to you. – iridescent 19:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It surely won't be hard to spot yourself on a crowded talk page. That's ensured. لennavecia 04:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Green on red is one of the worst for colour blindness, I can see there is red in that green but I struggle to read it. Plus its a bit short, might some people miss it? ϢereSpielChequers 02:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Concerning your removal of links to Square Enix Music Online
I apologise for mass-posting external links to Square Enix Music Online. It wasn't a shameless attempt to advertise my own site, but rather a response to a removal of the links before by someone with a vendetta against the site. I would have been fine if the links were initially removed by an administrator or registered user of Wikipedia. However, the person who removed the links is the user Jeriaska hidden under the IP address 67.117.91.115 which he is registered to on Square Enix Music Online Forums. As I document here and here SEMO and at least three other websites have been having major problems with this user. Wikipedia is just the latest vector he has used in a long campaign that he refuses to end.
The links Jeriaska removed were on Wikipedia for about a year earlier and there has never been problems with them being there before. Square Enix Music Online has a good reputation for its composer information and, as you can probably see, its original biographies, discographies, and game information are more comprehensive, thoroughly researched, and accurate than other websites out there. I know that people wanting to learn more about the composers covered have found the external links useful. I also know that several Wikipedia editors have used the information on this site to improve Wikipedia's information. Unfortunately most of Wikipedia's game music composer pages are stubs or littered with errors or omissions so I think editors and users alike would benefit from links to more comprehensive profiles.
All this sounds probably sounds petty. However, I don't think it is fair that a troll pretending to be a regular user can sabotage all links to a reputable site, especially without any prior discussion. There are mass links on Wikipedia game music composer pages to sites that do not meet your criteria such as OC Remix or MusicBrainz. These have not been sabotaged by a unregistered or hidden user so remain present here while a superior resource does not. If policy is enforced fairly and consistently such that you feel links to Square Enix Music Online, I accept that. Nevertheless, I don't feel the circumstances where they were initially removed by Jeriaska are acceptable. I should have contacted someone before rather than adding back the links, but I didn't know who to contact and whether anyone would care. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.34.158 (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the topic to judge whether there's a legitimate case for re-adding the links. I'd suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and asking if people there would find re-adding the links useful, as they're the people most likely to be using (and working on) the articles in question. – iridescent 15:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you check...
Is it possible to check this guys delete "contributions" and ensure he hasn't successfully managed to get a single by Michael Jackson deleted. An admin who hasn't had enough sleep might have let some through. How he didn't get a talk page warning for that is beyond me. — Realist2 15:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope, no successful deletions of any kind. And he now has a nice shiny {{welcomevandal}} on his talkpage. – iridescent 15:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, lol, I've nominated some of those articles for GA and he nominates them for deletion. Guess somebody didn't like my writing style *shrug* :-( — Realist2 15:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Advise on images
Hi Irid, take a look at Image:Circusbspearsdeluxe.jpg. Its a special edition cover of the Circus album by Britney Spears. It's near identical to the standard image. Now we discussed this many moons ago, even Giggy got involved and he clearly stated that these near identical images were not allowed under fair use. So I've been tagging them using Twinkle. I've been tagging them under "di", relative speedy deletion, "disputed fair use". They do get deleted as well. The only problem is, the image isn't deleted until 5 days after the tagging. Is there a way to speed things up do you think? I mean, seeming as these images are 98% identical, would it be possible to tag them under CSD, "redundant image"? This way they would be deleted quicker and there would be no need to wait this 5 days+. Can you think of any other methods or arguments to speed up deletion? Sorry, I have recently started to take a lot of interest in image policy. — Realist2 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
You could request adminship, then delete them yourself. Or get Iridescent to do it :-) – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... :-) — Realist2 21:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to excuse myself from this one. As previously mentioned, I don't know much about Wikipedia's spectacularly arcane image copyright policies. Giggy or Betacommand would probably be able to advise, or a TPS might know the answer. As regards HDYTTO's answer, IMO you (R2) have the experience and temperament to pass an RFA (bear in mind that I have often been spectacularly wrong in making this claim). – iridescent 15:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
That's no problem, I'm more than happy to continue tagging them under disputed fair use. Talking of images, have you seen the new image on the MJ article (the bad era Jacket and belt). Hopefully more images will be coming soon...— Realist2 18:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Just stopped by to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving! When you're eating your turkey, think of the little fellow to the left! User:Juliancolton/Faces – RockManQ(talk) 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Er… you do know that this has no meaning to 95.5% of the world's population, right? – iridescent 16:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; feel free to remove the message from your talk. – iridescent 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I was confused by that message myself, and looked closely to see if Limideen was an administrator.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 17:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Limideen could have made it a bit clearer that he was the messenger and not the originator of the message, but I am suprised that you jumped on him Iridescent (previous issues regarding his signature noted). That was a pretty long stretch to "impersonating an admin" to be fair. Pedro : Chat 21:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow . . .
I must say that reading your talk page is exhausting, and I don't know why your head has not yet exploded.
I was wondering if you could recommend to me the names of experienced editors that might consider doing an editor review for me. I came here with the intention of asking you since you granted me rollback, but it looks like you have a lot on your plate.
Thank you in advance for your response, even if no one comes to mind; should you be interested in seeing what J.Delanoy said in his review of me, the link is in my signature.
From the .5% of the world that celebrates Thanksgiving, I hope you have a happy day whether or not you do so yourself.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Balloonman or Useight are usually the best ones to ask regarding editor reviews. If they aren't able to do it themselves, they should be able to suggest someone who can. I don't generally do ERs (aside from a few "specialised" ones such as this), as I don't really agree with the whole ER/coaching setup – in my opinion, "consensus" is something that can't be taught, while you are generally better placed to judge your own problems and issues than any external observer. (If you make a lot of edits, and don't have any warnings on your talkpage, chances are you're doing it right.) Besides, I disagree with (and ignore) large chunks of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, whereas ER is about "doing things by the book".
My talkpage is always like this. Between myself and Keeper, we keep Miszabot in business. – iridescent 17:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. I find your maverick style works well for you! And so far your wisdom has paid off for me so I'll talk to those two.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 17:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
"All available men were away fighting in the Great War". This is clearly incorrect. 6.2 million British men participated in WW1 at some point; the 1911 census shows a male population for the UK of ≈23 million, and that's ignoring the rest of the Empire (which at this point included a quarter of the world's population, lest we forget). There is no possibility that "all available men" were in the military. As Jenna and I have told you, please stop assuming that every IP is a vandal. – iridescent 17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It says all "all availabe men were away fighting" not "all men", so I clearly did not think that. Anyone who was fit, healthy and in the age range allowed to fight could, along with conscripts. Where have I shown that I think all IPs are vandals? I did not even state that I thought the user on the MPS page was a vandal, or vandalised the page. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺ 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
"Could fight"≠"did fight". Aside from a very few situations such as the Volkssturm or the Viet Minh, there has never been a situation remotely approaching full-conscription in any modern war. In any event, not only was "all available men" is a clear distortion of the facts, but you're misunderstanding the difference between expediency and causality. Yes, women in wartime are sometimes recruited into traditionally male professions, but (especially in immigration-driven economies such as the UK and US) this was not predetermined; to fill recruitment shortfalls the government could just have easily have encouraged immigration and recruitment from Ireland, India, the Caribbean etc instead of recruiting women (as of course happened after WW2 in Western Europe).
Please listen to what myself, Jennavecia and Balloonman so far (to my knowledge) have told you. You need to stop editwarring with IPs; stop WP:OWNing articles, especially on subjects where you're not an expert; check any edit you revert to make sure you're not removing valid content; and most importantly, re-read and make sure you understand our policies on reliable sourcing, verifiability, and original research. Nobody wants to stop you editing Wikipedia, but you are starting to be a disruptive presence on some sensitive and high-profile articles, as well as your long-term pattern (for which you've been repeatedly warned) of harassing valid new contributors who, on seeing their valid additions reverted, may understandably decide not to come back. – iridescent 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not, and have never claimed to be an expert. I'm 15, I dont have the years behind me to be an expert. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺ 19:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
That's what Jenna and I are trying to say - despite our sometimes-deserved reputation for inaccuracy, much of Wikipedia's content is written by people who are experts on the subject in question. That's certainly not to say you shouldn't work on things you're not an expert in, but if you do you need to be willing to admit that the other editor may sometimes be right while you're wrong. (As I said to you further up this page, on policing, intelligence and military articles you need to be particularly careful with this, as a lot of experts in these fields choose not to create accounts.) – iridescent 19:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, true. I class myself as knowing more than the average of my age about the police, I did not mean to come across as someone who thinks I'm right all the time, and understand that I can be wrong. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺ 19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a new one
The "userpage vandalized" userbox doesn't really cover this, does it? Oh those crazy kids . . . --otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 19:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response over on Delanoy's page, but I am a bit confused as to your answer. Which is technically correct, the hyphen or the n-dash? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The official party line is "When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span. However, editors should provide a redirect page to such an article, using a hyphen in place of the en dash (e.g., Eye-hand span), to allow the name to be typed easily when searching Wikipedia". You can read the insanely detailed idiotic agglomeration of five years of prejudices eminently sensible Wikipedia policy on dashes and hyphenation here. Have a stiff drink first, and whatever you do with dashes be prepared for a 12-year-old Defender Of The Wiki to give you a patronising lecture about how you've done it incorrectly. – iridescent 01:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
(Just in case your eyes glazed over there, the correct answer was "unspaced en-dash".) – iridescent 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, sorry, I dozed off there... can you repeat all that? No, on second thought, don't repeat it. I'll just leave things as they are, thanks. God knows, I am not in need of any lectures from 12-year-olds. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Photo
Is the picture at the top of the page you? Who is the other girl? 62.200.52.25 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Is Iridescent the mother of God? I can't be certain of course, but on balance, I'd guess no. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say that's probably not likely, considering that 2000 years is an awfully long time to live... J.delanoygabsadds 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Nor is Iridescent the young Christina Rossetti, the Archangel Gabriel, or "professional models, Maitland, Lambert, and White". In the no doubt certain event that this is a serious question and not a piece of trolling (since your recent edit history consists mostly of edits to Mariolatry-related articles and art history, I'm fairly sure you know exactly what the significance of the image is both in religious terms and in terms of the introduction of realism to religious iconography) you can find out more than you're likely to want to know about that picture here.
J.d, don't even go there – every so often "does BLP apply to Jesus" raises its head, and there is still an ongoing debate fillingfivelargetalkarchives over whether Santa Claus is real – and of course the burningpun intended issue of whether Santa smokes has yet to be resolved. – iridescent 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
"Does BLP apply to Jesus" Are you serious? I was joking. If he is alive, then I would assume that as God, he could not only change his article, but also make the people who edit it think and write whatever he wants them to. J.delanoygabsadds 17:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to think that he has more on his plate than monitoring a poor-quality chatroom with an inaccurate encyclopedia attached. Although the work he's put into judging longrunning disputes might qualify him for RFA (although the article on which he's done the most work is subject to a long-running content dispute, and his self-confessed use of his bad-hand User:The Holy Ghost sockpuppet might cause problems). – iridescent 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, having just looked at a Bible (New International), the footnotes come before the punctuation. Changing to strong oppose. – iridescent 17:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I've occasionally looked at a Bible too. Can't remember the last time I actually opened one though ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the things I keep meaning to do is read the thing – I always think that given its impact, I really ought to know what it actually says. I invariably get about thirty pages into it before giving up. – iridescent 18:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't waste your time. Its impact isn't in what it says, but in what people believe it says. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that the MOS? – iridescent 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Similar, although closer to wikipedia's guidelines and policies I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a hilarious thread. You all's going to hell now though, tis a shame. Keeperǀ76 03:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Some trolls are well worth feeding. – iridescent 16:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This thread now dovetails rather neatly with this, doesn't it? There's a theme here. – iridescent 15:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Jclemens RfA
Jclemens' RfA Thankspam
JClemens' RfA Thanks
Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Welcome to hell. – iridescent 13:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Muahahahaha... Now I can do more thankless work! ;-) Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Constant Speedy Deletion Reverts by User:Yaneleksklus
The user: Yaneleksklus continues to revert the page Wonky (music) whenever I put a speed deletion notice on it since it is not a notable article, and I am wondering if you can put a stop to this John Collier (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
They're right & you're wrong. The article survived AfD less than two weeks ago; not only that, but you are the one being disruptive by re-adding a {{prod}} notice to the article after it's (legitimately) been removed. Our deletion processes aren't shoot-till-you-win, and I count four speedy taggings and two prod taggings from you today. In any event, your speedy tag is clearly incorrect; WP:CSD#A9 is for recordings (it was brought in to fill the gap whereby a band could be speedy-deleted while their albums had to go through AFD/prod), and this is about a genre of music. You could try AfDing it again if you want it deleted, but unless something's radically changed in two weeks I can't see it being deleted. – iridescent 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Vanessa Vicera
Thanks for your comment. Just so you know, I was careful. I looked at the award and found it was given to her by her school. I nice accomplishment; however, I would question its importance. BTW - the entire school population is less than 2500 students. There was little to indicate the true requirements of the award. From the website, "The Prize will be awarded to the student whose substantial work promotes understanding of different philosophies and cultures, and instills respect for people, their work, the environment, and the advancement of global harmony."
To avoid speedy deletion the subject doesn't have to be notable, the article has to contain an assertion of notability. Basically, if you have to do any digging to decide whether or not it's a speedy candidate, it isn't. The article contained multiple assertions of notability ("She was the founder and head of the "Back to our Filipino Roots Project", which send medicines and used medical equipment to poverty-stricken hospitals in the Philippines", "She was awarded the 2004 ACS International Peace Prize"). Articles like this are the reason we have the proposed deletion process. – iridescent 03:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...ttonyb1 (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
In fact, further to the above, you're completely misreading the award; although it's awarded by a foundation associated with a school, students from the school are barred from entry. (The fact that the school is in southern England and the subject lives in Florida is a clue…) – iridescent 03:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yup, you are right about that, but I still have questions about the importance of the award. Thanks again...ttonyb1 (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry about it! As I say, this is what AFD is for – to get a broader consensus on just how notable it is. – iridescent 03:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
wonky
fair enough, i can't really fault you on that decision. i really should have weighed in on the initial AfD but i was otherwise occupied. yanelekslus is an editor who wants to contribute, but he's either unable or unwilling to collaborate. that being said, perhaps you might offer an opinion on User:Z19AK3JH... seems a bit socky to me? --Kaini (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm… Created right after this block and goes on to edit the same template. Probably enough there for an SSP, although I'm not sure how contentious the editing actually is – if nobody has a problem with the new account's contributions it might be easier for all involved to turn a blind eye. – iridescent 03:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
well, you're a sysop (my condolences :P), and i'm telling you that the edit style/content of this account are very similar to yaneleksklus' - and this is an issue that caused a serious headache for other editors before. i have no direct involvement in most of the recent edits (as opposed to a similar revert-war this editor had before) but if this user is a sock, then (s)he shouldn't be allowed to edit, as it sets bad precedent. so possibly worth taking a look at. --Kaini (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If you think there's a case, go to WP:SSP and follow the instructions there – WP sysops have no checkuser powers so your word will be as good as mine, and you're familiar with the articles so are probably better placed to explain why they're similar. I'm about to go to sleep (it's 0345 here) so don't have time to do it myself, but if you need a hand ask any active admin to help out. (Useful tip; you can identify which admins are currently awake by watching the block log and deletion log.) Alternatively, if you post a general "please help me" notice on this page someone will almost certainly fix it for you before too long; as you may have noticed, this page is one of Wikipedia's highest-traffic talkpages. User:J.delanoy will probably be awake and willing to file the report for you at the moment, if need be. – iridescent 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
i did notice! your page sees a lot of traffic. and it's the same GMT here :). tell you what, i'll sleep on it too - if people have an objection, then knowing this editor i'll wake up to an edit-war :) --Kaini (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
OK that's the last time I try to view your talk page in the computer lab... just realized I hardly ever use edit summaries :( *runs away* -- Gurch (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
And I was so careful to make sure that picture wasn't actually porny, too… If it's any consolation, you only have a 1 in 25 chance of seeing her. – iridescent 14:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it's a risk worth taking (awww... you used an edit summary *hides rope*) -- Gurch (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Waaah waaah waaah you reverted my vandalism
Recently you have removed my perfectly suitable post and issued a warning to me even though it is you that is vandalising the page by removing content without good reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.69.225 (talk)
You're absolutely right, I can't see how this could possibly be anything other than constructive. What was I thinking? – iridescent 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thinking logically, of course :D I love it when they do this... Icy // ♫ 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Why do people always write a book for their unblock reason? I wonder what they would do if I declined with the reason "tl;dr". J.delanoygabsadds 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A clear breach of his Human Rights if ever I've seen one...— Realist2 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Iri, how possibly have you avoided desysopping with this reckless use of your admin tools? Shameful. لennavecia 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Your delightful poem...
Poet's corner
I'm touched. (In the head, perhaps, but touched nonetheless.) Now, can you compose a sonnet incorporating the words "humorless", "beating a dead horse", "not important to at least 75% of Wikipedians", "seriously, go write an article or something," and "you're not going to paint anyone into that corner"? He's trying to get someone to say that attack pages in general are okay; nobody's going to jump off that bridge. And of course, if we go by the policy-based answer--no, they're not okay--then he's going to demand that one be deleted. Tiresome. GJC 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL, this is more entertaining than last nights episode of X Factor with Britney Spears. — Realist2 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That was a clear stitch-up on Saturday night
Ruth was fantastic and Diana was shite. – iridescent 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I only watched the results section to see if Britney Spears could provide a coherent performance. I wasn't particularly impressed and I generally give the girl the benefit of the doubt. I watched the episodes paying tribute to Michael Jackson and Mariah Carey but I've been to busy with Wiki and Uni for television. — Realist2 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Britney on The X Factor was the least convincing mime
That I've seen on TV for a very long time
And while I appreciate she's only just back on the agenda
Her new single sounds like a rook trapped in a blender. – iridescent 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That is good, yes, Much better than those big black "Retired" boxes that children put on thir user pages for an hour or two every time someone upsets them. --MalleusFatuorum 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom elections
Ha ha, very good. Have you been voting in this arb com thing? I'm no sure I'm going to bother voting in this arb com thing myself. I think I will just observe. — Realist2 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's worth voting in Arbcom elections; because it wields so much clout, and so few people bother to participate, a vote cast in an Arbcom election is far more likely to affect your life than a vote cast in a real-world election. (If a dozen more people had bothered to vote last year, Giano would have made it onto Arbcom and the whole content-creators vs policy-wonks split on Wikipedia – and consequently, the entire future direction of the World's Eighth Most Powerful Website™ – would look very different today.) To save anyone digging through the histories – I have no intention of creating one of those "how I voted" tables – my supports (in alphabetical order) were Carcharoth, Casliber, Fish and karate, Gwen Gale, Jayvdb (weakly), Lifebaka, Risker, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back and Wizardman. If I had to pick one from that list, it would be Risker, with Gwen and Neil (Fish and karate) both running a close second. (Sorry, but I can't really find a metric to put any of the above in verse). – iridescent 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, for anyone wanting to know how it's going, Gurch has written one of his magic scripts that automatically gives running analysis of the results. To see who's ahead, click the little box next to "Net" to sort them; the top seven net votes are the winners (subject to Jimbo's arbitrary IDONTLIKEYOU veto, but let's not go there). – iridescent 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I voted. Only once. My reasons for support are along the lines of WTHN aka good interaction of other areas of the Wiki. Probably not good reasons to support for arb comm. My oppose won't matter, but it needed to be said. *shrug* StarM 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(to ☆M) Am I the only person on Wikipedia who hasn't had a problem with her? I've always found her one of the most polite and helpful people here. – iridescent 03:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oooh I'm a fancy symbol, how did you do that? I haven't had a 'problem' with her, per se, but I find her unwillingness to listen a bit frustrating especially when it comes to speedies. It has nothing to do with who's right but just a 'would it kill to see things other ways?' at times. I don't think a "this is what I said, go read this page" is a good mentality for an arb comm candidate. It's not even about who's right: once the article was restored and not challenged again, once it went to AfD and was deleted. It's more about the willingness to not see things in black and white. I don't follow every arb comm case, in fact, I try not to other than rulings, but I think the world is grey and I don't think she sees that. Not putting diffs here either, I really wish renames changed sigs. StarM 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Changing your old sigs is easy enough, although it won't affect the actual diffs. To add fancy symbols you can either fiddle about keying in Unicode, or cheat and just cut-and-paste them from the relevant Unicode plane. – iridescent 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PC Only, I think? I'll have to look into it though. The diffs change, I think. My contribs show as StarM, but the sig link is my old name. StarM 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It runs on my Mac, but you need to boot into Windows via Boot Camp to use it. It might be worth asking one of the semiautomation regulars like Gurch or Werdna whether there's any issue it would raise (I can't think what); otherwise it's just a case of importing Special:WhatLinksHere/OldUsername into AWB, setting it to "replace all", and robotically clicking "yes" for half an hour. (The original diffs won't change – it takes oversight powers to change the actually text of the diffs. However, they all show as being made under your "new" name. See here for an example of a signature diff from a renamed account.) – iridescent 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oooh I'll look into that tomorrow. It's about bedtime for this crazy person. It's not so much the diffs that I care but rather I can't point to a situation, especially one related to the person bent on outing me (see deleted revs) without outing myself. It's just irritating that everything else changes over - including a page's history. Odd. StarM 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I wish I'd submitted this question But I was inhabiting my usual fogs; "Potential ARBCOMmians, what would you do About Lists of Fictional Dogs?" GJC 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For all of your hard work reverting vandalism. Keep it up! Ashbey…whisper… 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Are we ever going to rename that damn thing? RickK is indefblocked for God's sake. – iridescent 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Eh maybe you should suggest it. I can't understand why a barnstar needs to be named after someone anyway... what's wrong with Anti-Vandalism Barnstar? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It was named after "legendary vandal fighter" User:RickK. It later was alleged that RickK was in fact running a bad-hand account and reverting his own edits. Either way, RickK hasn't edited for three years, is indefblocked in any case, and I have no idea why we have a barnstar named after someone with fewer reverts in his entire career than a Huggler can rack up in a week when none of the others are named. – iridescent 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Woah what? I've never heard about him using a bad-hand sock, although I've heard plenty of other things. Do you have any more details? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[8] The source is Kelly Martin, who does have a very large chip on her shoulder (which is why I have to emphasise the "allegedly") - however, the time RickK was active was the time she was on Arbcom, and while I rarely agree with Kelly M I've never known her to lie. (NYB says something similar on the WR thread linked) – iridescent 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone write a script to figure out who has done the most vandal reverts and rename it after them -- Gurch (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think it necessary to name it after someone. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
HDYTTO, please withdraw that TFD - all it will do is cause drama. – iridescent 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my talk page. We won't be seeing that account anymore. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I dare say we'll see him in ten minutes under another name, though... – iridescent 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The aim is to make a redirect of template:EU regulation to template:Infobox EU legislation, with one added parameter "regulation=1", to make Infobox EU legislation switch to a Regulation template. [Template:EU directive]] will be a redir to template:Infobox EU legislation, with added parameter "directive=1", which makes Infobox EU legislation a Directive template. That works perfectly fine, but somehow I don't know how to include the original parameters that are used when calling template:EU regulation in the redirect. Do you know how I should do that?
I don't know, but if you check back in about half an hour someone watching this page will almost certainly give you the answer. – iridescent 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
{{Infobox EU legislation|regulation=1|param1={{{param1|}}}|param2={{{param2|}}}}}
and so forth, replacing "param1", "param2" etc. with the names of the parameters that have to be passed through -- Gurch (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes you amaze me
other times, not so much. But those times you do, it's cathartic. Lawshoot! 12:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Anything in particular bring that on? – iridescent 15:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I was going to buy a lightbulb. THe gentlemen asked me if it was going to be Iridescent. I had no idea. He said it was 'green.' Apparently I was going to save the world. I don't care about trivial notion, but I was on the Internet tonight, and met a girl names Iridescent. Well, we are together now. The $300/hr doesn't cloud my judgment. She is cool. I think I love her. Lawshoot! 12:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Somebody's drunk. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, he hasn't realised I'm a sockpuppet of Runcorn yet. – iridescent 13:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
It's understandable, you seem to be missing the obligatory stolen image of a cute girl on your user page. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yfixed. – iridescent 13:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and you're getting mixed up – lightbulbs are incandescent, not iridescent.</pedant> – iridescent 14:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, seriously? She looks like a plastic mannequin. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
←I'm more interested in what the weird thing on her left hand is. OK, do you prefer any of these unique interpretations of the word "copyright"? – iridescent 15:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
All very lovely girls, no doubt (apart from the weather balloons; people honestly find that attractive?), but you certainly couldn't pretend to be any of them. That was the sick genius of Poetlister. She was the girl next door. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You do know that most of the "girls" in PoetTaxCorn's photos were – er – fitted with plugs rather than sockets, right? Incidentally, one of our Arbcom candidates would disagree with you about the weather balloons. – iridescent 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Haha, it wouldn't surprise me, considering the shenanigans he got up to. I only ever saw the one posted on Wikisource (Image:Poetlister_cant_enjoy_her_sandwich.jpg@ED <- her I think, though it's a different picture), so I don't feel compelled to run to the shower and scrub myself clean à la Ace Ventura. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
NMale. Sorry if I've shattered an illusion here. – iridescent 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I now finally understand the concept of too much knowledge. I need Dr. Mierzwiak to erase all knowledge of PoetTaxCorn from my brain --Closedmouth (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the only talk page to which I've thrown a beat. Brilliant. Lawshoot! 12:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
AWB
Your step #4 in your response here made me laugh. Thanks. ;) Rockfang (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That reminds me, I was actually incorrect in my advice (runs over to fix it) – iridescent 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
a Question
Some really strange and (to me at least) unexpected articles seem to be targets for repeated and long-term vandalism. Some time ago I did a review of Spanish Armada, and it has stayed on my watchlist since then. I can understand that articles about football teams, politicians and so on are targets, but a failed 16th-century military operation? Do you have any theories about what attracts vandals to certain article/types of articles? --MalleusFatuorum 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
With something like that, my guess would be that this is the month in the National Curriculum that they study Elizabethan England so there are lots of bored kids reading it. Something very strange happened in May as well, I wonder if it was on the Main Page (although there's no notice on the talkpage). – iridescent 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
July 29 in rail transport
I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix(talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Iridescent! I'm Прон from Bulgarian Wikipedia. Please help me how pronounce the town name Yate and Yateley. 90.154.191.214 (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"Yate" would be pronounced "ee-ayt", rhyming with "Eight", "Weight" or "Fate"; "Yateley" "ee-ayt-lee" rhyming with "Greatly" (they would be written "Еит" and "Еитлий" in Russian, if that's any use). – iridescent 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure that's entirely correct; the "Y" is pronounced as in "you". So it's more like "y-ayt-lee". At least that's how a friend of mine who lives in Yateley pronounces it anyway. --MalleusFatuorum 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. I think my Cyrillic transliterations are correct, though. "Think" being the important word, as I was last in Russia when it was still the USSR. – iridescent 20:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You spies do get about, don't you. ;-) I'm just about to set off for Watford, about the most exotic busines trip I get these days. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Damn, my secret identity is out. I'm the secret CIA agent sent to infiltrate Wikipedia. (Note: we really did have one of those, back in the old days.) – iridescent 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand. This IPA pronounce is near? "Jɛjt" for Yate and "Jɛjtliː" for Yatley. For town Yeadon, West Yorkshire IPA "Jɛjdən" is near? 90.154.191.214 (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe so. Could someone who knows IPA better than me confirm that? – iridescent 15:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, very thanks for the help! (Прон)90.154.191.214 (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: "I am familiar with this editor and I trust their judgement" - there are editors which nobody gets to know because they are so quiet, yet they are prolific. There are others who are prolific but for some reason are overlooked, like the recently-approved User:Dravecky. I see nothing wrong with going down lists of prolific editors, screening out those who aren't good candidates, studying those who look good, and if they still look good after study, nominating them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
If they're prolific, by definition someone will have heard of them since they'll regularly come up at GAN, FAC or AFD if they're content-driven or on the flameboards if they're a policy-wonk. Someone who hasn't come to any kind of notice is someone with no relevant experience and any RFA from them will either be snow-closed, or they'll post a good faith RFA, be ripped to shreds, and leave the project in disgust.
Editcounts may have had some meaning in the old days, but I'm not sure you appreciate just how powerful Huggle is; the traditional editcount benchmark of 5000 edits can be reached from a standing start in a single day (If you think that's hyperbole, here's 1000 edits in two hours) and that's not including the deletions, blocks etc. Seriously, treating WBE as some kind of high-score table is exactly what it shouldn't be used for; if you dig into the history of anyone with a high edit count who isn't an admin, chances are you'll find a very good reason why they're not. The only reason the page even exists is because there are enough people who do treat Wikipedia as an MMORPG that the MFD's close as "no consensus".
Also, prolific quite often equals "disruptive"; have a look at the talkpages of any of those "high scorers" and count the warnings. Their block logs are often an eye-opener, as well. – iridescent 21:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Except in California of course, the spiritual home of the bizarre and inconsistently applied WP:CIVILITY. --MalleusFatuorum 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you (Malleus) already know my views on civility; but of the non-admins with high edit counts (particularly if they reached that point pre-Huggle – this is probably the last version that isn't distorted by Huggle), if you look at the history the issues generally aren't civility; it's either people who've been the subject of major controversy and know they have 100 people lined up to oppose them, people who don't want to run, former admins who've been desysopped or people who had such foul-tempered RFAs that they don't want to go through it again. WBE is a tree from which the low-hanging fruit has already been picked; we now need people with more common sense and less ability to spout the correct policy at every opportunity without quite understanding it. (Of the regulars on this page, you and R2 are probably the highest scorers in that regard, in that whether or not I agree with you on something, you're always able to justify it – which IMO counts far more than more admin-coached policy drones who can explain all the wording of WP:CIV without understanding why that wording is used and when it's appropriate to ignore it. Useight and Balloonman will no doubt turn up at some point to give the opposing point of view.) – iridescent 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ow, thanx for the compo Irid, I can't believe Useight it running for RfB, he kept that quiet, I only found out after stalking your edit history. I supported obviously. Unfortunately, I've managed to somehow, over time, watchlist all the new articles to do with Britney Spears and my watchlist is going crazy. It's quite amazing how many new editors are naming themselves after our dear Spears. — Realist2 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I've turned up to give my opposing point of view. I still think coaching is good if done correctly. The trick is doing it correctly, and I'm still trying to figure that out. I see no problem with helping someone learn policies. Sure, I can't teach them clue or common sense, but some things can be taught, and since all I want to do is help, I'm going to do what I can. Also, I didn't give anyone advance notice of my RFB, so don't feel bad, Realist2, that you didn't have any warning. Thanks, though, for your support, both of you. Useight (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering what this one was thinking. – iridescent 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently she eats a lot of fast food. Rumor has it she also breaths air and sleeps at night, but this is still unconfirmed....— Realist2 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, I'll show up ;-) Actually, if you look at my coachee pages, you'll see that I encourage my coachees to express their opinion/position. (Spinnspark, one of my current coachees, has a very different view on User Names than me... but was able to defend it using policy, which is all I ask for.) Coaching ain't bad---when done right. Coaching is bad, when done with the apparent goal of passing RfA's---and I've opposed my share of coached candidates on that basis. If somebody wants a shortcut, it isn't going through *me* as a coach.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm psychic, I tell you… As I said somewhere (can't remember where) my personal view would be to give limited admin rights (delete articles less than a week old with under 10 revisions but without the ability to undelete, block accounts with less than 10 edits for a maximum of an hour, perhaps) automatically to anyone meeting some fairly basic criteria – probably 1000 edits and no block in the last three months plus a minimum of one GA/FA, to force people to get some experience in article-writing – these accounts would then automatically go to RFA after six months. This would take away the whole per nom/prima facie/not enough edits/"mommy that man was rude to me" arguing, and give something concrete to judge; e.g., "they've had these tools, did they use them and did they use them right". But what do I know?
I have a copy of Balloon Man (CD) sitting on my shelf; I can turn that redlink blue if you'd like. – iridescent 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note to disgruntled Hugglers/authors of Huggle
The above isn't meant as any kind of attack on Huggle which is a vital and necessary etc etc etc, but just an observation that it's possible to be totally proficient using it and totally clueless everywhere else. – iridescent 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Re. non-admins with high edit counts, that really goes back long before Huggle and the situation in that revision you post is little different from now. Vandalism got reverted back then too (and spellings got corrected, and minor formatting changes got made)... don't forget autowikibrowser has been around for nearly three years -- Gurch (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and 5000 edits in a day is probably stretching it a bit, despite me having more edits than sense I never managed more than 2000, and that took eight hours (interestingly it seems that account was still 290th in the list at the time of the version you linked, despite only 3 months of activity over a year previously, further proof that editcount is completely meaningless). BTW out of curiosity what's the "very good reason" I'm not an admin? :/ -- Gurch (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
5000 edits/day is unquestionably possible. According to Wikichecker, I made 3452 edits on 8 October (3341 are left, now). And that was a school day, so I was at college a good portion of it. J.delanoygabsadds 04:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
show-off --Gurch (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
5000 edits a day is definitely possible – that's why I posted the diff in the thread above to my making 1000 edits in two hours. I could easily imagine some of our more - er - singleminded editors spending 8-9-10 hours on Huggle. Unless you give yourself a bot flag or bypass the restrictions (which is a Bad Bad Thing and don't do it), even the most mindless AWB search-and-replace doesn't get above about 1000 edits per day since it runs quite slowly. (BHG made 100,000 AWB edits splitting Category:Politicians, but she was either dedicated or nuts.) I agree the list was always distorted by AWB, Twinkle, people running bots on their main account etc, but Huggle took "editcount as a measure of value" from "distorted" over the line into "meaningless", unless you really believe I've made a more significant contribution than Cla68, Malleus, Giano and Hurricanehink combined. (Amusingly, on the latest update of WBE, Jimbo and Larry are both below the "significant number of edits" threshold.) – iridescent 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Well let's be honest, neither of them have contributed much in any form recently -- Gurch (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Which was speedy deleted shortly after creation (thought sadly did not stay that way) -- Gurch (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The truly ironic thing, of course, is that the article doesn't mention the only reason anyone living more than a mile away has ever heard of the place. Must be a coincidence, since Wikipedia is not censored. – iridescent 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
does that mean we can delete the founder group now? -- Gurch (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite your bot to give double votes to all the anti-Jimbo candidates. Lets face it, no-one is actually counting the votes themselves – look at the blind panic The Wikipedia Community went into when you dared to turn your bot off for a while. – iridescent 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... if I started now, I could establish enough socks by next year's election to vote five copies of myself into ArbCom. That would be fun -- Gurch (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
And I didn't turn the bot off. My internet turned itself off. And I was asleep -- Gurch (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo started several other articles but most were either stubs or fresh-start-stubs. He did start M16 rifle in 2001. It wasn't a stub but it wasn't sourced. He also started the unreferenced Urban heat island in 2001. It would be a stub by today's standards. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it's not so long ago that thesewereFeaturedArticles. Everyone who harps on about how much we've "degenerated" might like to bear that in mind. – iridescent 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Set it to put Kurt in the top five for a while. See how long it takes for anyone to notice. – iridescent 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
HIStory campaign
I'm still progressing with my HIStory campaign. Got "Stranger in Moscow" to GA today, my favorite song BTW. At a push I would like to get it to a GA topic by January. Must take into account the huge GAN backlog however. — Realist2 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, everyone involved in GA assessment is currently self-destructing Polish parliament style. I may be oversimplifying. – iridescent 23:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to review a few myself soon, help out a little bit, that backlog is fast approaching 300. — Realist2 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there's some truth in that. I can't even remember the last time I reviewed a GAN, so good on ya Realist2. --MalleusFatuorum 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Cheers Malleus :-) Also, Irid, an IP left a message atop your talk page, just incase you missed in in the recent activity. — Realist2 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - that one slipped through. Don't know if it's a school holiday or something, but the IPs are restless tonight. – iridescent 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I only ever did one GA review that didn't turn into a "how dare you say my article wasn't perfect!?!" spat (Sheerness, should you care); I tend to stay away from it now. I don't see how a green dot or yellow star makes the slightest difference to a single person actually reading the article, other than providing an unofficial flagged revision point. What being listed as GA/FA does achieve, is drawing every wannabe-copyeditor-but-doesn't-know-how, "helpful" bot, and Defender Of The Wiki MOS Enforcer to said article like moths to a flame. – iridescent 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
We've worked on a few GAs iridescent, and I like to think the end result was an improvement over the starting point. I have to ask though, which of your categories am I in? Wannabe-copyeditor-but-doesn't-know-how, "helpful" bot, or Defender Of The Wiki MOS Enforcer? :-) --MalleusFatuorum 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
None; with the articles you've worked on, it hasn't made a difference to you whether they have a GA/FA star or not (although you might have been trying to get them there). I'm referring to the motley crowd who periodically go through the FAs and GAs after they're promoted making minor edits; I don't know if it's to try to get themselves noticed, to try to get some kind of "this user has worked on x FAs kudos, or that they're the Wikipedia equivalent of groupies. (I'm not referring to people like Tony or Epbr who go through the candidate articles making minor edits, which is a potentially useful service, but the people who seem to think that despite having passed through the FAC crucible, the articles will nonetheless be "improved" by their meatheaded attempts at restructuring the layout, or the loving touch of their buggy link-formatting bot. Watchlist a bunch of articles that appear next to each other in WP:FA, and see how often you see one editor edit all of them, despite them being on totally unrelated topics. – iridescent 21:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Right. BTW, it's only fair to warn you that I've just made an edit to Broadwater Farm. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum 21:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, that isn't a GA or FA. There was some sort of minor dispute, I seem to recall… (I still maintain that every image there is MOS-compliant, even on the strictest reading). – iridescent 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree wih you about the images. The guidelines are quite clear, although hardly anyones seems to have read them. A bit like the blocking guidelines for administrators. --MalleusFatuorum 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
record
I added new info(record) and fixed the descriptions of the box to look the same as other pages. Let me know what was vandalized.Sea888 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Please accept my sincere apologies for that – I don't know quite what happened there. – iridescent 20:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Not work safe
You do realize that your image at the top of your talk page makes your talk page "not work safe."---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Which one? If you're talking about Edit Summary Girl, I was very careful to choose an image that wasn't pornographic. (You only have a 1 in 27 chance of seeing her; if you don't want her, just purge the page.) – iridescent 20:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the one... you might not see it as problematic, but I can see some employers responding negatively towards it if they saw it on an employees desktop...---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Balloonman, Image:Model in classic Hogtie.jpg may be cute but it can be dangerous for viewers in certain environments. Can you imagine the tempest-in-a-teapot this would cause if a local newspaper was doing a story on how elementary school students use Wikipedia for research and to collaborate with other editors, and they happened to be there when some kid hit the (un)-lucky lotto? Wikipedia is not censored, but.... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
While true, statistically speaking they are far more likely to see it on Hogtie bondage (~18000 views last month) than on this page (~3500 views per month, only 1/27 of which would show the picture) -- Gurch (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Balloonman I can see the point from, although I disagree with it; while I'm not going to remove her on the basis of one user's request, if other regular users of this page see a problem I'll remove her. I somehow can't imagine the number of people likely to be reading my talkpage, from their place of work, often enough to produce her in the rotation, is going to be exactly huge – nor imagine what kind of workplace would care – but I can see the point, and I appreciate that American culture is more prudish than most of the world and that this is a US-hosted project.
Davidwr's point, if you'll forgive me, is just plain ridiculous.
This is my user talk page, not History of Europe, it generally gets less than 50 hits per day, and is not linked from anywhere said "elementary school student" is likely to reach it, unless the school project in question concerns derelict railway lines of south-east England, the usefulness vs drawbacks of semiautomated editing tools, or the validity of the spaced em-dash;
any visitor to this page only has a 3% chance of seeing her, but has a 100% chance of seeing an offensively captioned image of the Virgin Mary, which to date has not generated a single complaint;
For almost a year my user page featured a painting of the Prophet Muhammed in hell, which was replaced by an video loop of two cats having sex, neither of which generated a single complaint;
User talk:Keeper76, which traditionally has ten times the traffic of my talk and often overtakes Jimbo's talk for hits, regularly included some extremely choice samples from Wikipedia's inexhaustible library of home-made porn, none of which ever generated a single complaint;
Typing pretty much any "bad word" one chooses to name into the search bar will bring up articles including images from the Bad Image List (of which not a one of the images on this page is a member);
Any putative school project, on any topic one cares to name, is vanishingly unlikely to stumble on this talkpage. It is, however, virtually certain to stumble onto Commons and their unique contributions to the sum of all human knowledge. In the seven years of Wikipedia's existence, the scenario you describe has yet to happen, despite the best efforts of the Wikipedia Review.
And with all due respect to the Wide Community Of Wikipedia's Users, the prudishness of the recipients of repeat-vandalism warnings – the only elementary school students likely to ever wind up on this page – is not among my top priorities. – iridescent 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't have said anything if it wasn't for the fact that it was front and center. If it hits the lotto, it is the first and most glaring thing a person sees on the website. My boss won't notice that it is wikipedia, nor will they care. If it were on History of Europe, then you could explain it as being an image of the article, but it is harder to rationalize on a "friends talk page." The reason it caught my attention was because I will often click on pages on multiple tabs, and while they are loading click back to work or do soemthing else. Then, when I need a break or I'm waiting for code to run, I come back to a page only to discover that it has loaded to an image I would be aghast if my boss saw. If I happen to see something on Keeper's talk page or another page, I will leave the page in a condition where the image isn't visible when I click back to the page. Similarly, when it is on Keeper's page, it is generally there temporarily, as part of your header, there is the indication that it will be there indefinitely.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Plus, I think I'm the lucky one, I get it a lot more frequently than 1 in 27 times... I'd say 2 out of 3 times!---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 22:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT2: In other words, if the image were to appear at the bottom of your header, *I* probably wouldn't have a problem with it... it would depend on the actual appearance, but it is the fact that it shows up when I load the page.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Removed from the rotation as that's a valid reason and there's no point causing potential harm with something that doesn't do a corresponding good. I still stand by every point in my reply to the "zomg think of the children!" argument. – iridescent 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
So, if Iridescent was an RfA candidate, would you have voted oppose on the basis of that image, and told him/her to come back in three months? just asking. --MalleusFatuorum 22:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
If I were an RFA candidate now, I wouldn't have a hope in hell of passing, and neither would all but the most "be nice to everyone" conflict-avoiders. While IMO I've never performed a "wrong" action - and I think the only admin action of mine anyone could seriously even try to build a case against was my block of Abd, which I'd still contend was both desirable and correct (not the same thing on Wikipedia), 2500 deletions and 800 blocks makes for a lot of angry socks, not to mention the assorted toes I've stepped on down the years. A drawback of the Wikipedia environment is that it's a lot easier to make enemies than friends. I somehow suspect you have noticed this. – iridescent 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I had noticed that, yes. I've also noticed that enemies pay little attention to the truth, whereas friends try to be more even-handed, which makes for a pretty distorted environment in the absence of any other checks and balances. --MalleusFatuorum 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The "be nice to everyone" conflict-avoiders also fail due to lack of experience handling conflict. You can't win -- Gurch (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
No they don't. In fact they do rather well. I don't want to draw attention to any one recently promoted admnistrator, but just look through the list of recent promotions. --MalleusFatuorum 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm 99.999% certain I know who you are talking about... particularly considering that the two of you are still engaging in discourse all over creation!---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
And just to pre-empt anyone else pointing it out, I'm perfectly aware of the irony of a WP:CIV "oppose" coming from me, but in that particular instance I stand by it. FWIW, even Jimbo Wales poked his head out of the bunker toendorse the original comment which sparked off that particular shit-storm. – iridescent 17:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Most admins, myself included, would probably get an oppose from me if they ran again. But no, I would not have opposed her for that image. I might have brought it up and used her response to sway me one way or another...eg did she remove it when a reason was provided or not? Since she removed it, it might have moved me to "support" if I was on the bench ;-)---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
How to Pass RFA Without Really Trying (notebooks out, socks):
Create account; write a valid stub article with incorrect formatting (if it's correctly formatted, everyone will think you're a sock);
Go somewhere that will rack up your edit quickly. Twinkle is always good, but you run the risk of messing up; stub sorting or link disambiguation are slower but steadier;
Write a long article with sources. Find someone active at both GAC and RFA and ask them to help you with it. This gets you seen by those people who will vote (sorry, !vote); and give you a reputation as an article writer. Agree with every suggestion made by anyone who appears popular, and always agree with everyone female; remember that most RFA voters are 14 year old boys who automatically follow anything a Hot Chick says, in the hope that if they always agree with her she'll show them her boobies;
Repeat step 3;
Once you have the two long articles under your belt - and only then - request rollback and install Huggle;
Set Huggle to show you your reversions after you make them (you don't want a "rollback removed for misuse" sitting in your log), and rack your edit count to 10,000;
Repeat step 3;
Ask someone (preferably a Hot Chick) if they think you're ready for RFA, but only if you're sure they'll say yes;
Wait until a high-grade flamewar is raging (hint: watch Giano's and Sandy's talkpages) to distract the usual dramamongers and RFA trolls;
Transclude RFA. On one relatively trivial question give an answer that's against policy with a long explanation as to why you don't support policy - this will prove to the freethinkers that you're not a Cabalist. On everything else, spout the party line faithfully - this will prove to the Cabalists that you're one of them. As long as you haven't pissed people off, in a community that thrives on little-tin-gods and petty-empire-building, people see what they want to see in you.
You're welcome. – iridescent 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
just one clarification... do you count as a Hot Chick for the purposes of the above? -- Gurch (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Joking aside, I have often thought about abandoning "Malleus Fatuorum" and starting all over again. I'm quite certain that I could become an admin in six months or so under another name, and then I'd least be able to unblock Malleus ...after a few suitably sanctimonious comments, of course. --MalleusFatuorum 00:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The above method isn't even a joke; it's exactly the method Dereks1x/Archtransit uses. I'm totally certain that some of our regular admins are socks; I'd even go so far as to point fingers. Where I differ from policy is that I don't really see it as a problem as long as they behave themselves. – iridescent 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, judging by his edit rate, it would probably be rather difficult. Then again, I am fully aware of this user... – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Who's edit rate, Malleus's? D1x managed to operate 120 confirmed accounts plus lots we haven't caught, while writing one of our highest-traffic FAs. Socking really isn't hard; the main reason people don't do it more is that there's generally no reason to. – iridescent 00:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum obviously doesn't have much time left on this site, but I hope enough to leave on my own terms when and why I choose, rather that at the whim of some trigger-happy admin. In the meantime, I may or may not prove my point by becoming an administrator under another username. All I'll say for now is that if I do, I'll immediately own up and relinquish the bit. --MalleusFatuorum 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Most of us aren't actually trigger-happy, even when we appear to be. I'd challenge you to build a case for the defence regarding any of these characters (with the exception of Abd, where it's at least possible to make a case). There's a lot to be said for running a "clean" account side-by-side with your main account, and using one account for arguing, and another to carry out your actual work unhassled by all the assorted opponents you've managed to gather. There is a clear precedent for this and an overwhelming consensus that it's a legitimate use of an alternative account. – iridescent 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I haven't used huggle before, so you know I'm definitely not at point 6 yet. :-O — Realist2 00:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There are many phrases people could use to describe you, but ""be nice to everyone conflict-avoider" is unlikely to be one of them. You're on what might be called the Gwen Gale Path. – iridescent 00:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Battle scarce some might call them, still some good has come of it, I have stronger skin now and can deal with pressure and personal attacks that I couldn't deal with 4 months ago. Only today I was accused of being anti Muslim (check top of my talk page) over the Michael Jackson issue. Of course it's not nice but I can deal with it. If we were all "be nice to everyone conflict-avoiders" some things wouldn't get done around here. — Realist2 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Things get done around here? – iridescent 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we give ourselves too much grief, we have achieved so much here, I'm just gutted I wasn't around to see the early days. Wikipedia has it's faults yes, but if anything it's become a victim of it's own success, nothing to be upset about. My user page say's I'm proud to be a Wikipedian and I mean it. :-). — Realist2 01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You really didn't miss anything; it can't be overstated just how bad Wikipedia was until about 2005-06, when the Seigenthaler incident shook the Cabal out of their total grip on power. In a collection of links regular readers of this page may have seen before, since nothing so graphically demonstrates how bad things were, it's only four years since thesewereconsideredtobeourbestarticles (yes, they were all FAs in 2004). For those who look back to the golden age of Nupedia, this was what a peer-reviewed, expert-assessed etc Nupedia article looked like. – iridescent 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say we've come a long way, anyway I'm off to bed, early morning and a long day tomorrow. — Realist2 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Realist, you asked me for a review... I was going to do it this weekend, but if you haven't reached point 6 yet, then do I need to go further ;-) ---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 14:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the good work
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Good job reverting vandalism -- IRP☎ 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That was a bit of an in joke and there's no reason you should know Wikipedia internal politics. You may not be aware that not only am I an extremely vocal opponent of that particular barnstar, which was named by The Cabal after a rather obnoxious editor from Wikipedia's early days - I provided the link above for a reason - but that "my regulars" were among the driving forces behind the successful deletion of the Award Center (and most of the participants above were involved in a very foultempered discussion last week about the devaluation of barnstars). I appreciate the sentiment (and I mean that), but I'm probably not the best person to be giving barnstars to. – iridescent 00:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wait what? Why did you vote to keep it on the TFD if you are an extremely vocal opponent of it? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh... did you read the TFD? – iridescent 00:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you said "Strong keep". You did agree to a rename, but there's already a plain barnstar for vandal fighters in existence. We don't need two, one is redundant. And besides, strong keep, not just keep. I'm confused. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleting one of Wikipedia's most frequently used templates and back-door replacing it with a totally unused one is not an appropriate use of TFD. This is why we have talkpages. – iridescent 00:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. But I doubt many people look at the talk page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I doubt anyone does. But you have to go through the motions or the Consensus Zombies will eat your brains.
How to change Wikipedia policy the cynical way; start discussion on a talkpage that's undoubtedly appropriate; give it a month; when nobody's complained, you have one vote in favour and none against. This is a clear majority of 100%; you then change it unilaterally and see if anyone complains. – iridescent 00:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
(If a certain Retired Editor or one of his socks is still watching this page – and I'm sure you are – you will no doubt see the irony in my giving this advice. You will also, however, note that "your" versions are still in place.) – iridescent 00:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Deprod on Arthas: Rise of the Lich King
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Arthas: Rise of the Lich King, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Kanaru (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Iridescent (Talk | contribs) deleted "Roman Caholic Bishop of Gibraltar" (Speedy deleted per CSD G3, was a redirect created during cleanup of page move vandalism.)
I'm just wondering why you say this was vandalism? When I started the article Roman Catholic Bishop of Gibraltar I made a typographical error on the title so I moved it to the corrected title and tagged the redirect for deletion, that's all. Regards, --Gibmetal 77talk 18:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that it's just a typo; the appropriate speedy criteria for that is R3, rather than G3. Besides, it's not as if the deletion statement reflects poorly on you; nobody's going to think you're a vandal. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ // 18:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering why, incase I'd made a mistake with the deletion tag without realising or something... --Gibmetal 77talk 19:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
What EVula said – the combination of "page move", "3", and "lack of sleep" – because of a Certain Problem User I regularly deal with, G3 is my usual reason for deleting pagemove redirects. Don't worry, nobody's going to think you're a vandal because of it! – iridescent 15:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
No worries. ;o) --Gibmetal 77talk 00:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible...
Hi Irid, I know you've been interested in the past but I was wondering/hoping if the offer is still open. Would you still care to be involved in my RfA nomination? All the best, — Realist2 12:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done. This should be an interestingly bumpy ride. – iridescent 18:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Appreciated. As I already said to Balloonman, it won't be going live until Saturday. I have a shed load of work to hand in to Uni before X-mas and these Britney Spears articles are being editing incorrectly every three minutes. I can dedicate my full attention to it on the Weekend when my holidays finally begin. Thank you Irid. — Realist2 18:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
TPS
I am but a worthless well of ignorance. I'm sorry to make a whole topic of this, but what is TPS? And based on your understanding I don't know what that acronym is, also explain a few other acronyms you believe I would not understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bieser (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean you didn't put the new cover letter on your TPS report? Didn't you get the memo? Tan | 39 20:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not a dictionary, and we have (literally) thousands of abbreviations here. To find out what any of them mean, just enter them in the search box with "WP:" in front of them (e.g. WP:TPS, WP:RS, WP:FOOTYN). – iridescent 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
our upcoming nom
Wow, somebody wrote a longer statement than me!!!---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 21:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Something gives me the feeling this one's going to get a lot of long statements… – iridescent 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have my oppose ready for when this RfA gets transcluded, on the basis of [9]. I think everyone ought to know by now what a stickler I am for the strictest possible observance of WP:CIVIL. ;-) </joke> --MalleusFatuorum 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Realist, make sure you tell us 20 minutes before your RfA goes live, that way we can block MF for a week ;-) ---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd take it as a compliment to be ranked above the user below you in the "troll" ratings. Or at least, an achievement. – iridescent 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
My (admittedly small) army of sockpuppets is already on the alert, and at least one of them would be able to unblock me anyway. Am I kidding? Who knows. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum 21:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
These days I'm actually on reasonably friendly terms with all those people on the list. As you will see from the links on Balloonmans nomination of me, I've recently been helping Ynot4tony. I often find it's the people I have the strongest disagreements with that I go on to become friendly with. — Realist2 21:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems a bit unfair that you get things like this while I just get this. (If you're really friends with Jeanne, I wouldn't boast about it.) – iridescent 21:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Seemed like a well-reasoned pov to me. --MalleusFatuorum 21:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Which? Or both? – iridescent 21:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Neither actually, I was just being ironic. Or failing to be ironic. --MalleusFatuorum 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, just to say I wish Realist2 well in his (her?) upcoming RfA. To anyone who may have been inclined to take the the above discussion seriously I hardly ever bother voting in RfAs, and I certainly won't be voting in this one either – even though Realist2 did sink my last RfA, almost single-handedly.</another joke> I don't bear grudges, I just have a belief that what comes around goes around; some call it karma. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Kelly Martin's conduct
Oddly enough, I was on the other side of this point the other day at RfA. I fully agree that we should expect adminship candidates (and ArbCom candidates, too) to be able to tolerate and cope with incivil, personal attacks. Even though they can survive the experience, it doesn't mean that we should ignore or tolerate such conduct.
Kelly appears to be here – after a year of non-participation – to leave a nasty little 'fuck you all' for the community. The tenor of her remarks makes it clear that she's not interested in contributing to the Arb election process, nor that she wants the election to have a useful or productive outcome. While there are other votes at (for example) Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/White Cat which criticize the candidate (and I agree that a couple of those are shading into personal attacks), Kelly Martin's vote is certainly among the least constructive. Calling him a "nationalistic edit warrior" and suggesting that that uniquely qualifies him to be an Arbitrator is just wasting everyone's time. Other participants who leave negative remarks are at least interested in choosing candidates who (in their estimation) will serve competently and effectively.
I'm not going to comment further on Kelly's talk page, because it's obvious in retrospect that I'd just be feeding the trolls. However, if she decides to do anything else that's pointy, I'm going to block her until after the elections. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm no fan of Kelly's (to say the least) – although I do have a pithy quote from her on my userpage, and I do think that she makes the occasional good point amongst the chaff – and I do agree that bothering to comment on her talkpage just fans the flames. That said, I'd strongly disagree with any block, unless she gets really disruptive; quite aside from giving her and her buddies another martyr, she'll instantly retaliate, with some justification, by pointing out that none of the other abusive opposers are being blocked. (She's by no means even the most obnoxious "oppose" voter – that would have to be this blatant personal attack.) When all's said and done, she is a piece of Wikipedia history (and former Arb), and there are a lot more disruptive than her still freely editing away. – iridescent 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
That's the spirit, TOAT; bugger this new-fangled freedom of speech. --MalleusFatuorum 22:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Curious that you equate anarchy with free speech, although not entirely surprsing in an environment apparently designed and run by 10-year-old children. --MalleusFatuorum 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the plain language of
"Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia."
was sufficiently straightforward. Kelly's actions don't have anything to do with improving the encyclopedia; indeed they explicitly aim for the opposite. They're gratuitously insulting, to boot. Malleus, I don't know you from Adam, and as far as I know I never ran over your puppy dog — why are you trying so hard to get a rise out of me? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Kelly wasn't posting to the encyclopedia; she was making a comment at some daft election that hardly anyone cares about. If you find that hard to understand then you and I had better simply avoid each other in the future, because my tolerance for idiots is notoriously low. --MalleusFatuorum 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
All much more suitable places to carry on this debate. I now know how Keeper feels. We're electing a bunch of people to discuss the appropriate method of sourcing Franco-Mongol alliance and whether 24, 27 or 31 hours is the appropriate time for a vandal-block, not electing the Long Parliament. – iridescent 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
A quick request
Hey Iri. I was wondering if you'd mind giving me a quick editor review if you have the time, as I seem to see you around in several places where I hang out too. In particular, I'd be interested in hearing your views on how I act at RfAs, since I've heard that some people disagree with the way I've brought myself to the table there. No worries if you can't, just an idea :) Cheers! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Balloonman or Useight are usually the best ones to ask regarding editor reviews. If they aren't able to do it themselves, they should be able to suggest someone who can. I don't generally do ERs (aside from a few "specialised" situations such as this), as I don't really agree with the whole ER/coaching setup – in my opinion, "consensus" is something that can't be taught, while you are generally better placed to judge your own problems and issues than any external observer. (If you make a lot of edits, and don't have any warnings on your talkpage, chances are you're doing it right.) Besides, I disagree with (and ignore) large chunks of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, whereas ER is about "doing things by the book". – iridescent 23:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
(adding) Despite my reputation, I don't actually have that many dealings with RFA; my reputation there I think largely stems from my Very Long Opposes on John254, Elonka and Shalom Yechiel, and the consequent fallout from them. Someone like Balloonman, Useight or EVula is probably far better placed to advise on the "right" way to comment at RFA. – iridescent 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you got what I meant by what I was asking, but hey, you might have been, but I'll try to clarify. I'm not looking for a "right way" or anything like that, this isn't so I can go out and pass an RfA; instead, this is so I can help understand my behavior their better because I really don't want to come across as some mardy teenager. I was just wondering if you'd ever thought something I said there was out of line in particular, and if so, if you could raise it at my editor review page. No pressure, though! Going to bed so I'll reply in the morning. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
As I say, I don't believe in a "right way"; I think a number of our core policies, notably WP:CIV, WP:COI and WP:SOCK, are hopelessly unworkable and steadfastly ignore them. In my opinion, you should be able to say whatever you like at RFA up to and including a torrent of personal abuse, providing you can demonstrate that it's in some way relevant, and providing you don't then object to people then holding it against you. This is so far removed from "policy" – which in practice means "whatever the gaggle of 14-year-olds that constitute the Civility Police believe that particular week" – that I don't think it's appropriate for me to be giving advice on "correct" conduct at RFA. – iridescent 23:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Advice/Help?
I am largely not here due to being really busy (last year of university) but I still pop in occasionally. Anyway I was wondering if you (or any TPS) would look over this situation or provide advice as COI to this extent isn't my area of expertise, not sure if it's yours but I figure you have enough stalkers somebody will. Situation: user Gaitherws311 (talk·contribs) has a potential COI with William S. Gaither, a former president of Drexel U. I reverted once and posted on the COI noticeboard. After that he posted on his talk page saying that he talked with the creator of the article, DrexelArchives (talk·contribs) (COI there too possibly?), and a new version using the info he added will be posted on such date, blah blah blah. I can revert and warn ad nauseum but since this involves recruiting other people who I have dealt with/will possibly deal with for my senior year research thesis I'd rather not get involved and don't know what to do besides what I have already. Thank you muchly, --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 23:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion, thrashed out during the MyWikiBiz wars – which I know is not what policy says – is that WP:COI and WMF:Privacy policy are fundamentally incompatible, and that non-disruptive COI accounts like this are better off left in place as long as they don't actively start censoring articles. In my opinion, it's better for someone reading the history of the article to be aware that the author has a potential COI; all that blocking the accounts would do is cause the editor in question to return as User:BritneySpearsFan6325 or whatever, continue making the exact same edits, but this time without the unofficial "warning: possibly non-neutral" flag that a clearly identified role account gives.
Because of this (and also because I know nothing about Drexel U other than what's on the article, so can't judge what is and isn't valid) I'm going to recuse myself from this one; as you say, no doubt someone who does understand and agree with the COI policy (EVula and Balloonman, I'm looking at you…) will see this and give him a nudge in the right direction.
Incidentally, have you noticed that your favorite editor has reappeared? – iridescent 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Rather agree with your opinion. I probably jumped the gun on this honestly. Since part of the users rewrite was editing info about an alleged sexual harassment incident my brain jumped from COI to NPOV and CENSOR. Not the best thing ever, but it seems to be resolving itself with the help of another user (a TPS perhaps?). I did see that he's back. I wonder, how did I ever get so lucky? :P Since I don't feel like bashing my brains out against that brick wall and school I'm just leaving that whole thing alone. Honestly wouldn't !vote keep for the whole mess right now even if I had to.. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 18:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
If I'd come across that, I'd have speedied it as an attack page as well; without sources, it's unsourced defamation of a major corporation. Given that there's already an AFD running, we may as well let the discussion run its course; someone might be able to rescue it, and if not if gives a precedent for G4 deletion should they be reposted. – iridescent 16:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Question.
Hey I am a person who was accused of editing articles that I have never seen before. Recently I edited The Government of France just because I was accused of doing so before. I had never looked at that article before a few minutes ago. I would like to know why you or Wikipedia would accuse me of doing these things when I never have. The only changes I have made to article are the ones I made to Knitting and the article I mentioned before, but I have many warnings telling me to stop editing articles. Articles that I have never seen mostly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyisme (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
If this was you, then go find somewhere else to do your editing tests. If it wasn't, then create an account; when you edit without an account, you share your IP with sometimes thousands of other users so you're all blamed - and blocked if necessary - for anything anyone else using your IP does. – iridescent 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Viscape
Thanks for the invite early. I'm a little confused why the Viscape page is being flagged for deletion. It it very similar to the Travelocity and Hotwire pages. (I used these as a model.) This Web site has been mentioned by many credible magazines as the place to go for inauguration rentals. This site seems to be everywhere now, and I really enjoy using it. It's not already in Wikipedia, and the language is very formal, without a hint of self-promotion. Why would this page be deleted? Dcarlow (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)DCarlow
I've declined my own speedy-deletion request on this, and have started a procedural Articles for Deletion discussion, to get a broader consensus as to whether it warrants deletion. The most important thing missing is that you need to provide reliable sources to prove that it's notable by Wikipedia standards; e.g., computer magazines, significant independent websites etc saying that they think it's important. The decision is now out of my hands, so you should raise any points you want to make on the deletion debate. – iridescent 01:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you were quoting me as claiming the article had "no content" from. But, I nominated it under CSD A1 - "a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. "Which is what it is, a 1 line article which doesn't actually explain who the person is, or why he's notable. Tatarian (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Er… The claim to notability is in the title. Peer (pre 1998) → Member of the House of Lords → Member of a national legislature → automatically notable. – iridescent 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... Again, I nominated the article because it was a "short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article" - Directly meeting CSD A1 criteria, not because of a lack of notability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatarian (talk • contribs)
No it didn't. I could identify the subject of the article easily. It said 1) name 2) year of death 3) peerage, which is more than enough to identify it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
↑ What he said. There is no way this possibly fails our notability criteria, let alone met any speedy criteria. – iridescent 16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Your Sig on my Page
Just so you know, I had to come here to tell you off for having annoyingly garish signatures---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 15:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Note to any Myspacers watching; if you use a gif file as an actual signature, you're violating WP:SIG and can expect to be blocked until you change it back – iridescent 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello; regarding your comment in the above linked debate, could you provide a link to where the candidate claims credit for a GA? Thanks, Skomorokh 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry to bother you. Skomorokh 17:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Ahmet Maruf
In regards to Ahmet Maruf, an IP added in that name to the roster for that team. There is no Ahmet Maruf on the team as far as they are concerned. Here is the link to the "Under 18s" roster [10] -- moe.RONLet's talk | done 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
In which case it's {{prod}}dable as a hoax, but – given that it's not blatant misinformation – IMO doesn't fall under G3. (I agree that it almost certainly is a hoax; having looked on the WWFC website there's no mention of him.) – iridescent 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
mobiThinking
I wonder if you can email the mobiThinking page that was speedily deleted.
Thought this one had merit, actually.
Any advice gratefully received.
Doug Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwinnk (talk • contribs) 15:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Er – you don't have email enabled… – iridescent 17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Posting after candidate has withdrawn
Sorry. I had started writing my comment when the candidate had not yet withdrawn, and didn't notice that he had when I finished. -kotra (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no problem… Seeing the length of it, I assumed it was something along those lines. The whole thing came and went at blink-and-you'll-miss-it speed. – iridescent 18:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone needs to get blamed, and I'm as good a one as any. I don't know quite what happened there, and am not sure I want to know. Situations like this are where the current RFA model fails utterly. I believe you may have been in a similar situation once before... – iridescent 23:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This is only my third failed RfA candidate. The first one failed because of me... I failed the candidate, not the system. The second one failed because I overlooked some flaws and the candidate wasn't ready. This one failed... I'm not a hundred percent sure as to why. I suspect that there was some stuff on IRC---and by IRC, I am not sure if there was a concerted conspiracy, as was presented to me. I suspect that there is a lot of history on IRC that I am unaware of. In other words, I think Realist spends time there, and has a history there, and that history is what I do not know. I suspect that something happened there, because he did send me an email about how he was feeling good about the RfA, and then literally minutes later, he withdrew. Something happened... I don't know what... but something happened that scared/angered/discouraged him. I have been growing more and more disillusioned with how off wiki impacts wiki. (BTW, I do hope you saw the link that I was referencing when I blamed ya;-))---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 02:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I wish this "IRC killed Realist's RFA" meme would go away. AFAIK, Realist has never used IRC, at least I've never seen him. There was, I repeat, nothing said on IRC about him. If this was something to do with off-wiki, it wasn't IRC. Please stop speculating. Majorlytalk 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that he hasn't been there... I trust you that there was no conspiracy... thanks for your input.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 05:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I can confirm what Majorly's saying; there was nothing on wikipedia-en or en-admins about this, and I'm reliably informed there was nothing on -es, either. That's not to say an IRC conspiracy didn't happen – R2 has come under attack from ED etc in the past, and obviously we have no control (and not much knowledge) about what happens there, or what people say in private IRC conversations – but it didn't happen on any of the "official" channels.
I'd suggest it would be better for all concerned if we all let this drop unless R2 gives further background. We don't know all the details, and there's no point fanning flames between the pro and anti IRC groups. – iridescent 11:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me that it's notable. Any idea how I'd go about creating a new kit design for them? They have a rather distinct design, which certainly doesn't exist already. Stuartpgardner (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but if you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football there's almost certain to be be someone who'll know how. It would probably help if you went to the HTML colour picker and worked out the exact HTML codes (e.g., Arsenal red is #C40303) so they can just be dropped into the template. – iridescent 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated for pointing me in the right direction! Though I know all about HTML colour codes... *shudders* Stuartpgardner (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It occurs to me that if it's not possible to do it the "correct" way in the template, you could always just take the image for Spurs, draw the hoops onto it in Paint, and upload it as an image. – iridescent 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Iridescent - Why did you decide this page was notable and remove the deletion template? You put in your summary that clubs that play at Levels 1-10 in English football are notable, which is of course correct - however Royal Marines play at Level 11 and obviously have never played higher as this is their first season. This page should surely be deleted asap? Sarumio (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you're right – South West Peninsula League Division One East is at step 7 in the pyramid (tier 11); I was looking at the Premier Division at tier 10. That said, although that doesn't mean they're automatically notable, it doesn't mean they're automatically deletable either, and this is a sourced and referenced article on a viable topic (plentyofotherclubsinthisleaguehavetheirownarticles). It does no harm to keep it, is potentially useful (which, as I never tire of saying, is Wikipedia's primary purpose; not "sticking to arbitrary notability criteria"), and nothing would be gained by deleting it. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if you really insist, but I'll be arguing strongly in favour of keeping it; that "top 10 levels only" rule is mainly to stop us being flooded with one-line stubs on Sunday League and school teams, which this isn't. – iridescent 16:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes there are plenty of other clubs in the SWP League Divisions One East and One West who have articles but there's a good reason for this - those clubs who still have articles have played in FA Competitions (Cup or Vase in this instance). All clubs in these two divisions had articles until a while back, the ones deleted were in the same category as Royal Marines AFC - they had never played at step 6 or above and had never been involved in the FA Cup or Vase. I shall indeed be suggesting that Royal Marines AFC be deleted asap. Sarumio (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
(To Stuartpgardner and Sarumio) If you're not aware, its potential deletion is now being discussed here. – iridescent 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Banko-Stewart
? I don't see Young Artist Award as "a major award"; nor do I think of Pacific Palisades as "a major soap opera". Still, I will respect your judgment. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Produced by Aaron Spelling, starring Joan Collins and Kimberley Davies – it may have been a shitty show that got cancelled after one season, but it was certainly a significant one. Like I say, feel free to AFD it if you think it warrants it, but I don't see how that could possibly have been an A7. – iridescent 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've declined your {{prod}} on her as well. She's appeared in two major film franchises (Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre) as well as Pacific Palisades. Her roles were mostly pre-internet so she's not well documented online (although does get a respectable 12,700 ghits under her stage name), but there's a reasonable chance a horror-movie fan can source this one up to standard. (Article at Jennifer Banko-Stewart if any passing TPS wants to have a go – it should probably be moved to Jennifer Banko given that that's the name she's known under.) – iridescent 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
disney
In connection with the articles we've been de-speedying, you might want to take a look at the advice I have just given the author, User:Dlrpfan & see if you want to add or modify. I see some problems here, though he has very professionally avoided copyvio. DGG (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you've pretty much covered it; when it comes to this kind of thing, I generally defer to you. I suspect they won't survive an AFD debate - or retagging and one of our heavier-handed admins coming across it - but as far as I'm concerned, quite aside from the WP:BITE issues of deleting a newcomer's entire history, these seem to be perfectly valid articles. I'm particularly impressed with how closely the author has avoided copyright violation. – iridescent 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what happened and doubt you want people knowing, but sorry it went so awry.. I doubt even the most die-hard opposers hold anything against you under the circumstances. While I disagree with both of them about the remedy, I'm coming to agree with Majorly and Kurt that the way this site runs itself is suffering from a serious systemic failure, of which this is just another sign; the only place I really differ from the WR hardliners is that I believe we need the replacement framework in place before the revolution, not afterwards. (Call them Mensheviks and me a Bolshevik if you want an analogy – I'm sure Kurt in particular would be delighted by the comparison.) I know I sound like a broken record on the topic, but what was appropriate for a site with 1,000 editors, mostly highly-qualified technorati, and 50,000 articles does not scale up to a site with 8,519,289 editors, with a disproportionate number of children, not to mention carrying the dead weight of seven years of petty grudges. – iridescent 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone insulted your star
the nerve! Never mind the fact that WTF does non-proper name mean? Hope you have a good holiday, whichever one you may be celebrating StarM 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think they're trying to say "I have just found out at school that the Japanese call it a Shuriken, so am going to go round search-and-replacing every instance of Ninja Star until I run into someone like TonyTheTiger who actually is a genuine expert and will tell me to shut up". At a rough guess. – iridescent 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Dissecting the possible motives of an IP editor -- and your brain hasn't gone splodey. I'm impressed StarM 00:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Henry Edward Butler
Hi, can you supply details of why this article was speedily deleted and what can be done about it. It was not a new article and I intended adding to it, but received information only today of its imminent deletion and it was already gone when I checked. Thanks, Hohenloh + 21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the full text of the article. It was deleted under CSDA7 (biography with no assertion of notability); although he may well have had notable children and a notable father, unless he was himself a peer (and thus a member of the House of Lords) there's nothing to suggest that he himself was notable by Wikipedia's somewhat specific standards. If he was notable, feel free to recreate the article with references to demonstrate notability, but this was a correct deletion. ("Not a new article" was an argument in favour of deletion, incidentally; with new articles, we try to give the benefit of the doubt in the assumption that it's being worked on, but this hadn't been touched for a month.)
Deleted article
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Henry Edward Butler (3 December 1780 – 7 December 1856) was born in Kilkenny, Ireland, the second son of Henry Butler, 2nd Earl of Carrick and Sarah Taylor (daughter of Colonel Edward Taylor and Anne Maunsell).
Children
Captain Henry Thomas Butler, born 1812, 55th Regiment, died 5 November 1854 age 42. Served in China and the Crimean War, where he fell at Inkermann.[1]
Captain Charles George, born 1823, 86th Regiment, died of fever at Bombay 17 December 1854 age 31.[2]
The Reverend Pierce Butler, born 1826, Chaplain in the Crimean War, died 8 February 1868 age 42.[3]
Captain James Armar Butler, born 1827, Ceylon Rifle Regiment. Died of wounds received at the defence of Silistria, in the Crimean War 21 June 1854 age 27.[4]
Edward Arthur Butler, died 7 November 1829 in Naples.
Political career
He served in Egypt and in the Peninsular War. He died in Paris on 7 December 1856.
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.
Hope that helps! – iridescent 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Damn kids...
That'syou told. Now turn that music down, punk. لennavecia 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I like this guy, personally. "Horde faggot pansy ass blood elf faggot" goes above and beyond the usual "waah you deleted my band". – iridescent 03:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Man, I've been deleting crappy articles for a couple weeks solid now, and no one has bothered defacing my talk page. I feel left out! ;-) Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You just have to piss off the right sort of person. It doesn't have as much to do with what you do so much as who you do it to. For example, I got this gem back in March. I had been using Huggle for less than a month, and I had been fighting vandalism period for less than two. And (probably obviously) I was not even an admin. J.delanoygabsadds 04:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Stupid links I can't read. — Realist2 18:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I assure you they're very dull ;)Majorlytalk 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Rollbackers can see deleted pages now?
J.d, those are some jacked up messages, for real. I get some pretty colorful vandalism, but those pretty much take the cake. I stopped half way through the first one for fear I would be left stupiderer for having read it. لennavecia 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
U r prolly a virgin too. LOL I get laid 8 times a day.
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Hello J. Delanoy,
U suck. I could totally pwn u in my sleep. Come log on WoW like a real man and we will duel. My death knight rolak will destroy u. In f4ct, u r probably some horde faggot pansy ass blood elf faggot. I could prolly even 1 shot u cus u r a faggot ass pansy bitch whore. U r the biggest noob I have ever seen. LOL u prolly dont even have any ep3x. People like u make me sick. Ur mother is prolly horde too rofl i can prolly pwn u both at the same time. Lol u r prolly an orc to. I one shotted thrall, cus he is the king of the noobs. U prolly didnt even beat kara cus u suck. LOL u prolly dont even tier 9 yet cus u suck that much. My dk had some t8 in bc, ur such a noob that u prolly only had like dungeon tier 1 LOL!!. U r prolly a virgin too. LOL I get laid 8 times a day. Just ask ur mother. I also bang all of the cheerleaders for the football and basketball teams. Oh ya and baseball. I am also the starting qb for our football team. We won the state championship. I threw so many passes. Then I got laid. Yeah, u wish u were as good at life as me. But ur not, cus u suck. U just sit there all day, raiding kara with ur noob welfare ep4x wiping on the horseman LOL. We never wiped on him. U really need to get a life, I mean who doesnt have at least t7 yet srsly?? Add me and well duel and ill destroy ur noob welfare blood elf orc ass. U prolly cant even bring me down to 95% LOL cus u suck noob.
U rly suck srsly,
ROlak, King of da Death Knights.
P.S. MARZON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.
Senile SS Officer Wiki Nazi
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
After the Nazis gained power in 1933, Delanoy joined their forces and quickly rose in rank until the he was appointed to the SS as an officer. He then organized many Pogrom style raids upon Jewish settlements in Southern Poland.
After the War
With the end of the War, Delanoy and his peers were pardoned for their war crimes and were enlisted in the effort to rebuild western Germany. He left the fatherland seven years after the war and immigrated to the United States under McCarran-Walter Act in 1952.
Failed Assimilation
While initially his assimilation into American culture appeared to be successful, in 2006 the senile SS Officer began to begin another Holocaust directed against minority groups within the United States. Instead of Storm trooper, Delanoy and his followers began to call themselves Wiki Nazis.
Defeat and death
File:Goebbelscorpse.jpgThe partly burned corpse of Delanoy, photographed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in March 2008
But in the modern United States, such bigotry would not be allowed and Delanoy soon met a gruesome end at the hands of rogue editors.
References
Browning, Christopher (2004) The Origins of the Final Solution: The evolution of Nazi Jewish policyISBN0-434-01227-0
Gilbert, Martin (2006) Kristallnacht: the Prelude to DestructionISBN978-0-06-057083-5
With regard to the first one, "U r prolly a virgin too. LOL I get laid 8 times a day". My English skills must be deteriorating, I read it 4 times and still have no idea what that discussion was about. What ever happened to spell check, I use it all the time. — Realist2 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I am very good at playing World of Warcraft and I believe that were we mutually to engage in an online player-vs-player scenario, I would prove superior to you. Even were you and your mother to engage in a three-way tournament in said game, my skills are such that I would defeat you both. In fact, I believe you would be unable to complete even the simple tutorial scenarios the game offers. In addition, I believe that you are still a virgin, whereas I, despite spending all my waking hours playing a lame-ass MMORPG, invariably have sex eight times a day with a variety of women whom I meet whilst engaging in sporting activities; they are drawn to me because I am an award-winning football player. Despite our mutual hostility, I am nonetheless willing to engage you in a friendly game of World of Warcraft; however, I must warn you that I am likely to prove superior to you and as a consequence you may be somewhat frustrated were you to take me up on this offer.
”
Glad to be of service. If you are still having trouble picturing TIMBERFALLSFAN (talk·contribs), this (courtesy of Wikipedia Review) is roughly what you should imagine. – iridescent 19:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
OMG, you so should have warned me before pressing that link. Thanx for the translation...still very odd stuff. — Realist2 20:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Jennifer Banko-Stewart
You're the ridiculous one! Beside not being civil you are arrogant enough to think you can say those things just because someone finds out that an actress just with a few appearances isn't notable enough!... Who do you think you are? You don't speak like that to other editors! Beside that, you're an ignorant, Jaime Ann Allman's page had much more films and appearances and she was deleted because most of appearances were just one episode per show!... SavetheArchduke (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
First, go read CSD A7 and see what it actually says. Pay particular attention to the part where it says speedy deletion is not appropriate if there's an assertion of notability in the article. Then, stop edit-warring to re-add the {{db-bio}} tag; if you want it deleted, take it to AFD. I am getting fed up reverting your tag-team's edit-warring over this; if you continue disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, you will be blocked from editing. – iridescent 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
First, I don't know every detail about deletion, second I doubt that such a small article can be asserted as notable, it's chriteria is too abstract for my taste, and third I don't have to take your lack of civility and much less the threat of blocking, as if you as an editor could block or order someone to block. Who are you? What authority do you have for that? I could suggest your blocking too: your challenging of an obvious deletion reason is the real disruptive work. Why don't they block you? You're the warring one, allways deleting my deletion requests! If you think there is a war, do like everybody else and call for a third part!... SavetheArchduke (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Iridescent is an admin, and can block you. He can also delete things and decline speedies (which anybody can do, actually). That's probably why he's not blocked. Apart from the fact he hasn't broken any rules or anything. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Since I didn't see any mention on his personal page I assumed he was just another editor!... SavetheArchduke (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
not enough of a clue? Or the fact that there are links to my block, deletion, protection and rights-management logs at the top of this page in quarter-inch-high dayglo letters? Besides, whether someone's an admin or not doesn't give you the right to descend on their talkpage and start spouting abuse just because someone does something you don't agree with. – iridescent 17:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
WTF just happened?
Could you take a look at this?, I gave him a warning for systemically altering genres in the infobox of music articles. His reply shows that he has no clue when it comes to policy, that's not the concern, it's the link to Godhatesfag's.com that alarms me. — Realist2 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that he thought he was pasting a link to something else but accidentally hit ctrl-c on the wrong page and pasted the wrong link in (I've certainly done that in my time). My first thought when I saw that was {{voa}}, but a look over his history shows that he's generally making legitimate edits. See if he gives a legitimate explanation. – iridescent 17:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
His explanation thus far is I felt like adding a source, I just took the notion, and that was the first website I thought of. Really random, he doesn't have a history of being a troll as far as I can see. However it seems he did want to add the link and follows up with "god bless you". A really bad joke or something more sinister, who knows...We should give him more chance to expand upon his explanation though. — Realist2 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Either way, to Iridescent's reply, he still might have been surfing through the page, and as much as I doubt God is a Mac gamer, I doubt he hates fags. As a matter of fact, gay men and women have been found to have longer cerebellums, which actually make them think to be homosexual, and God made them that way. Not implying that I believe in Christian beliefs that God made every person before conception, just that if that were so, He would not hate 'fags'. Alex Bieser (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
There may be a suitable place for this. My talkpage is not it. – iridescent 23:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, my intention when bringing this to Irids talk page was not to start some religion/political/social debate. Please don't. — Realist2 00:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
An extremely boring and eminently deletable question & suggestion
Hi Iridescent. I was drawn here by your reduced-font-size metacomment on FACs within Tony's splendid let's-machine-gun-the-admins conspiracy page.
I too am dismayed on the (very rare) occasion when I receive a generic wikilurv template or similar. They make my flesh creep and I certainly can't bring myself either to respond as I presume is hoped or to pass on or spread the lurv. So I'd like to have a warning similar to that under which I am now typing my eminently boring and deletable etc. Pardon my iggernance, but how's it done? (Just give me the link to a page that explains.)
Secondly, your CSS or other hocus pocus results in any reply to any question posted here coming out in a typeface that (at least on the computer I happen to be using right now) is peculiarly unattractive and difficult to read. (More likely this computer is not rendering the intended face because it lacks it, and is substituting something horrible). Of course I could cavalierly override all your settings, but that seems a pity: I'd lose the going-livid-with-rage background color and the other delights of your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Neat-o. Thank you. And as for the irritation, I'm now using my main machine (set up two years ago as opposed to eight) and everything's in the same very legible typeface. -- Hoary (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
What font are you seeing? It should be displaying in Tahoma – which was deliberately chosen as (a) it's more "compact" than the variations of Arial/Helvetica/Univers that most browsers default to and (b) it's part of the basic font-set for all versions of Windows, all Apple products and is automatically installed with MS Word, so should display correctly on anything from Win 3.1 to an iPod; in the (unlikely) event you don't have Tahoma installed, it should just default to whatever your default proportional browser font is. Is anyone else having problems with this? If so, let me know – it's a matter of seconds to change it. – iridescent 15:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look later. That first machine is the only one I use that has Windows; it's Win2k, which refuses to die or even (probably because it's only connected to the net for short periods) to get infected with malware. The article here on Tahoma says that it comes with Win2k and even is the default sans-serif font; all I can say offhand is that it's not my setting for default s-s font within Firefox, which is my main browser on that machine. This (second, main) machine is running Kubuntu and I've never bothered to install Tahoma on it. I suppose you're doing this with CSS, and Tahoma as first choice and unspecified sans serif as last choice; if so, I fear that the problem (for my one machine) is Tahoma rather than its absence. -- Hoary (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I've experimentally changed it to Verdana, which is the most "generic" font family there is; what are you seeing now? I prefer keeping it as "Tahoma first choice, default font as second choice" – I think the Tahoma and Trebuchet families are the most legible for lengthy on-screen reading, but a lot of computers don't have Trebuchet installed. I'm wondering whether someone somewhere has a fiddly sig that's confusing your browser, if it's one of the old ones with a "maximum number of font changes per page" setup. – iridescent 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm now seeing text which is easy to read. Thank you! (I've never heard of a browser that gets tired of font changes, though some browsers of course have a limited tolerance for the tag soup that's pandemic in web pages.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts, let's take out the font altogether. That way people can specify what they want it to be. Hell, there might be someone who likes the MediaWiki defaults. – iridescent 16:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't argue with that! -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, since you participated in the AfD debate on this article, I'm contacting you in case you might like to comment on a move I've requested to Québécois (word). You can comment at Talk:Québécois#Requested move. Joeldl (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
That was two years ago!!!. No strong opinion, but whatever you propose be prepared to be shouted at by angry Canadians. – iridescent 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
RE: Rollback
I am fully aware already that this was an incorrect rollback.
Unfortunatly the grammer differences between alumni and alumnus through me off a little.
I have already apologised to the user who made the edit.
Also i do not belive that all ip edits are vandals. However i do find that most vandal edits are made by anonymous users. This however does not effect the way i treat edits. Kira Chinmoku (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem… As a rule, if you're not sure something is vandalism, don't revert it. If it's vandalism, someone else will spot it (particularly once Flagged revisions goes live). – iridescent 18:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Round 2
OK, the latest story is, Jackson has a rare lung condition, is near blind in one eye and on the verge of death. Again, one newspaper is reporting it and other sources are reporting on the primary sources claim. Jackson's people have not commented. This could be another nightmare in the waiting. — Realist2 17:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Is the newspaper reliable? If it's the New York Times, it probably at least warrants an "in December 2008, it was reported…"; if it's a supermarket tabloid, MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Michael Jackson may need to come out of retirement. – iridescent 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Aah, it's Rolling Stone, which might actually be an RS on music-related issues. Anyone watching this talkpage have an opinion on this? – iridescent 17:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it Rolling Stone or not, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It's coming from someone who used to work for Rolling Stone, but he's writing a book on Michael Jackson and is making these allegations which will appear in the upcoming book. I can hear the cash register now. — Realist2 17:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Ian Halperin is writing it, he looks like he has some good credentials behind him...but seems to have gone...down market in recent years. Anyone who has anything to do with Court TV should come under scrutiny, they made a lot of money out of portraying Jackson as a beast during the trial. — Realist2 17:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not sure about this one. A couple of threads up from this you have virtually the whole of WP:FAC, so one of them may be able to advise as to the reliability of sourcing on something like this, or Lara might be able to advise. My gut instinct is to fall back on WP:NOTNEWS and leave it for a couple of days; either he'll issue a press statement (or be photographed in hospital etc) or he won't, or an indisputably reliable source (by Wikipedia's standards; having watched one of their crews fabricate a story when nobody would speak to them, certainly not mine) like the BBC will pick it up. Unfortunately, the IPs are not always so patient. – iridescent 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
And neither are all of the reliable sources ;-)---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Having had the unfortunate experience of having the BLP-hell that is Mary Lou Lord on my watchlist, I'm inclined to discount anything coming from the author of a book called Love & Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain. (If anyone wants to take up watching MLL, do feel free; I've long ago washed my hands of that one.) – iridescent 18:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say... wait and see. If it's just ONE person saying this, it starts smelling of rumor mongering. If Rolling Stone or someone else had picked it up, you could do the "According to ..." route, but a single author, with no backup, calls for "wait and see". (See! Being talkpagemonitored by FAC is paying off!) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I have hesitation whenever someone tries to profit financially, which is almost always the case with Jackson. Hopefully he will issue a statement soon, he's usually upfront and open when it comes to his past health issues. Frankly I'm gutted if it is the truth. I've watched this guy overcome almost unimaginable person issues; child abuse, drug addition, vitiligo (yes there's photographic proof for the haters), certain depression, other mental health issues, weight problems, 2 allegations of child molestation, one trial played out before billions of people, 20 years of tabloid crap (for the most part). None of that got him! Yet some lung illness that he can't control might get him? Darn, it was fun watching him stick two fingers up to every obstacle. He makes Elvis's and Kurt Cobain's problems look insignificant (all due respect to them guys BTW). — Realist2 18:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think Elvis and Kurt Cobain would happily trade with him on the "not being dead" part… – iridescent 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, true. Oh well, we will soon find out. This could be a long Christmas and I'm hoping I get a PS3 for Christmas and won't want to be writing about this over the festive season. :-( — Realist2 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It would solve the BLP problem, though – iridescent 19:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I've always believed that most BLP issues should extend to dead people actually... — Realist2 19:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Dead people can't sue. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, there was a story in the paper today of his taking possession of his new house, which doesn't seem the action of someone at death's door. – iridescent 20:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was in the shops today and noticed a story about his new house in the sun. They called it "Thriller Villa" and said it was worth £25-ish. Not that I believe anything from that tabloid. Just glad he's OK, that would have put the breaks on a new record. — Realist2 22:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
OTRS
Wikipedia:OTRS says "The contents of e-mails handled by OTRS members are confidential." Unless you are actually privy to the information leading up to the agreements made ... One can certainly question, whether your recent posts are productive and/or professional. --Law Lord (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Shoo. Just because I disagree with Sheffield Steel's and Baseball Bugs's over-egging the drama doesn't mean I support your trolling. Take it to someone who'll listen. – iridescent 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This dif [11] means you are making a comment on something you have no knowledge of. Therefore, I think you do not quite act in a way befitting an administrator here. Obviously, you do not care for such feedback. Oh well. This, because you had already been made aware, when you posted, that the matter was handled by OTRS. Yet, you continued on a course for which you have no map. --Law Lord (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
That very well may be the case. Are you saying "Du er blevet blokeret i i al evighed på grund af." does not mean "you have been permanently banned from editing"? (Intertran rather more poetically translates it as "you have been utterly banned for the aeons"). If you want to complain, feel free to go to RFC, RFAR, RFC/U – I'm sure you're more than familiar with the way to all three. Hell, take it to AdminWatch and I can be their test case; Tony and Malleus are both probably watching this page anyway. "This user has been banned from editing" means "This user has been banned from editing", whether or not "the matter was handled by OTRS". – iridescent 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Your statement: "This user has been banned from editing" means "This user has been banned from editing", whether or not "the matter was handled by OTRS". is not correct. I am not going to explain your error to you. Posting here was a mistake, since I thought you would be able to fathom that some things are beyond your wiki-knowledge. My apologies. --Law Lord (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I just sent you an e-mail on this matter, or at least I tried to; we'll see if it works. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 23:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Replied. – iridescent 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
What in the world would persuade otherwise apparently sane editors to become administrators? Is the pay good? --MalleusFatuorum 23:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so you've found out about the secret stash of gold bullion they pay out when you reach 2000 blocks? Why, what did you think they were raising that $6million for? – iridescent 23:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Err, think I'd better pass on that one. --MalleusFatuorum 23:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, aside from the donation to the "Carolyn Bothwell Doran is innocent" appeal, obviously… – iridescent 00:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I enjoy getting things like this, this, this and, well, this on my talkpage. It makes me feel all warm inside. – iridescent 23:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion about the Law Lord on User talk:Seicer makes for some interesting reading, especially the embittered comments by the Danish administrator. The Law Lord states that he's a cynic and misanthrope, and accordingly he spreads joy wherever he goes. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 14:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that you are also apparently a bad admin. Happy Christmas anyway! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
And a merry Christmas to you. Aren't you glad that RFA passed? – iridescent 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, if you want to derail the holidays, nothing beats Lucille Ball singing (?) "We Need a Little Christmas" from the 1974 atrocity "Mame": [12]Ecoleetage (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You've just shown which side you're on in the great divide between those who've heard Santa Claus Has Got The Aids and those who haven't. – iridescent 01:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Hello Iridescent! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Again, merry Christmas! Ashbey 00:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
If you don't celebrate Christmas, then happy holidays!
My eyes! The goggles do nothing! --Closedmouth (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Iridescent! (I just hope you celebrate Christmas, :D) VX!~~~ 13:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from Promethean
O'Hai there Iridescent, Merry Christmas!
Iridescent, I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
timestamp for bot User:Prom3th3an 17:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy holidays
Toddst1 (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Merry Christmas to you, Iridescent! I hope you have a wonderful New Year! ScarianCall me Pat! 15:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which ones were which!
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm....incidentally, you wouldn't happen to be working on this at Christmas, would you? Risker (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't get anything so glamorous – I spent Christmas bored out of my skull watching the aforementioned colored dots move around assorted screens, occasionally interrupted by listening to a scratchy tape. Oh, the excitement. – iridescent 19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy Winter Holiday
Hope you have a wonderful winter holiday. — Realist2 16:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see you back. — Realist2 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You probably won't see much of me – my disillusionment with constant arguing with the Civility Police on one side, and dealing with Defenders Of The Wiki like this on the other, are very rapidly exhausting what little patience I had left.
This place lately seems to be being run by a gaggle of 12 year olds acting like bouncers in a suburban nightclub on ladies night; what really brought it home was the realisation that my last significant content contribution was at the beginning of October and since then I've done nothing but mediate in playground arguments, take abuse from complete strangers, and dole out and listen to patronising advice in equal measures.
My archive indexing, topping-and-tailing of discussions, etcetera are all part of a general "liquidation process", of putting my affairs in order to allow whoever comes after me to piece together anything that needs piecing together. I will probably still stay on Wikipedia, but the way things are going, probably not under this account. Writing articles was fun; taking incoherent abuse day after day and constantly cleaning up other people's messes is not. – iridescent 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
;-(, please don't change account. Why not just change your user name like Laralove. Stop using the tools (but keep them for when your ready) and write some articles for now. — Realist2 21:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Not as easy as that; renaming would still cause the problem of everything I say being taken to have some kind of exaggerated significance and either taken as proof of The Evil Cabal's Involvement in whatever topic is being discussed, or jumped on by every IP and 12 year old as "proof" that The Rulers Of Wikipedia agree with whatever point of view happens to be up for debate. Lara's talkpage is a case in point; you only have to look at the mess it degenerates into when she's not archiving it every day, or look at the months-old flamewars that periodically sputter back to life there. Renaming isn't (I believe) an option, as renaming an account with 100k+ edits would probably fry the servers; creating a new account is also not, apparently, an option, as any account created by me is apparently now groundsforblocking for "abuse of multiple accounts" despite the fact that not a single one of these accounts had made a single edit, let alone a single vandal edit, prior to the Wikipedia Police blocking them – and I can't imagine any of them wanting to come back after this "you're not on the guest list, you're not coming in" routine. Seeing something like that drives home that Kurt had a point; this kind of "Kill them all and let God sort them out" mentality is as perfect an example of "power hunger" – in the sense that Kurt meant it – as could be imagined. I didn't sign up to be part of an exclusive club run by psychopaths and schoolchildren. – iridescent 22:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well whatever you do, I hope you still edit Wiki in one form or another. — Realist2 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
ROTFLOL
Oh this is a hoot. Too true, too true. Not the part about BM being against consensus, but the rest. OK, maybe it's not literally true that people actually delete stuff for those reasons but you just know that people wish they could, and for that reason it's something that needs to be watched out for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, they really do believe it – "the subject of the article already has a website so doesn't need a Wikipedia page as well" was a genuine quote. Or look up to this thread (the article under discussion is Jennifer Banko-Stewart). – iridescent 02:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
/dev/null
Probably the oddest thing I've seen all week. So glad I have this page watchedlisted :O --Closedmouth (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
All I can think of is (a) my taking out the line breaks in the bot template somehow confused it (now reverted so we'll see if that makes a difference – although I can't see why it should) or (b) the very long "problems with the FA process" thread somehow confused the bot. We shall see – I've changed the archive period so as not to include the long thread on its next pass, to see if it successfully archives the "minnow" threads at the top of the page. – iridescent 15:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I just thought it was hilarious to imagine MiszaBot panicking when its instructions weren't entirely clear and deciding, oh the hell with it, I'll just chuck it all into the bin and hope nobody notices. Crazy bots. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand how it feels. – iridescent 15:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: I saw that
OK, I admit it, the peeking jimbo cracked me up. And don't read too much into my edit (though I am certain it is true), I've done the same thing to a lot of userpages -- Gurch (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Damn, I was hoping you wouldn't notice me slipping him in and spend ages working out where he'd appeared from… You'll have to forgive any odd behaviour today, I think reading some of the dubious sources found while sourcing Biscuit sex has warped my brain. – iridescent 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
OMG you actually wrote it. Awesome -- Gurch (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
That image is my current favourite piece of weird Commons stuff. I really don't know where they find them. – iridescent 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Commons has everything. From dead cats to lawn flamingos, truly the sum of human knowledge -- Gurch (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
"I'll have to call you back, I'm a bit tied up at the moment"
And mustn't forget Susan, Angela and their phone (see right). I have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation of what this could possibly have been uploaded to illustrate. – iridescent 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, what's the point of a model without a phone? Honestly, don't these people think? – iridescent 21:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
On a tangentially related note, I nominate File:Recovered JPEG Digital Camera 159.jpg (NSFW) as the Commons image with the most misleadingly innocent-sounding name -- Gurch (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear lord. At least with Shankbone he puts the clue in the name so you can't say you weren't warned. – iridescent 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
AGH MY EYES! GlassCobra 21:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
DYK nomination issue
Hello! Your submission of Biscuit sex at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Replied there. I don't think it's a BLP issue – it's extremely well sourced (I only included two cites as there's no point overciting, but there are literally hundreds of sources), is based on a direct quote from one of the parties concerned, has at no point been disputed by either party and was some time prior to their divorce, not "part of a post-divorce squabble" as you claim. "Should be avoided" isn't the same thing as "must be avoided"; provided a BLP is verifiable and sourced and the LP involved makes no claim to privacy and doesn't dispute the facts, I don't see the issue. – iridescent 20:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Your userpage
I checked out your userpage because I vaguely remember we interacted before, but I can't place it. Anyway, I could not help but to smile when I played the cat video of the Admin AGF editor. Nice page. Incidentally... I think those cats are mating. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Irridescent, I got your message, that "Editnotice" was for the Dwight Lauderdale talk page and it was to serve as a reminder only. I don't agree with the delete, but, it's not like the page absolutley has to have it or anything. :)
Thanks for the notice
— Kosh Jumpgate 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point – you can only create an editnotice for your own userpage or user talk page. What you did was create a mainspace article called "Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice". – iridescent 11:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Argh!!!
Bleeding el! I jumped out of my skin when Jimbo's face appeared...it's really creepy. — Realist2 02:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
.JPG)
You have 1 message that you did not reply to at User talk:IRP#Please slow down. Please note that the message is highlighted in orange. -- IRP ☎ 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Improper use of revert feature
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.
fixed. – iridescent 13:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
Male. Sorry if I've shattered an illusion here. – iridescent 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
--Closedmouth (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Set it to put Kurt in the top five for a while. See how long it takes for anyone to notice. – iridescent 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
– iridescent 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
19:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
There may be a suitable place for this. My talkpage is not it. – iridescent 23:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
_Model_Dani.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hello! Your submission of Biscuit sex at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)