User talk:Iridescent/Archive 9

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Hellingly Hospital Railway

The supports are starting to come in now, I really do begin to believe that you may have cracked it. I'm sure the job would have been easier if the hospital article had been more developed, but fingers crossed, looking good. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's doing better than I thought; I expected a bunch of "oppose, too short" comments and none of them have come in. If not for the fact that it's so boring, I'm half tempted to nominate it for TFA on March 10 or 25, which are the 50th anniversaries of the last service and official closure, respectively. (FWIW, my probable next expand-and-rewrite target, Noel Park, is even more boring than this one.) – iridescent 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that you and I have a common vision for this encyclopedia, that it's big enough to host articles that would never make it into a print encyclopedia. Where perhaps we may disagree slightly is around the definition of "boring". Was it the comedian Frank Carson who had the catch phrase "It's just how you tell 'em", or something like that anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I see Wikipedia's strongest point as being in those articles that Britannica wouldn't touch and in the bluelinks. While I could look on any number of sites to find out who Michael Jackson is, only on Wikipedia could I follow a link from there to find out who Rebbie Jackson is, and from there find out who her daughter is. That said, some things are doomed to Brigg railway station style lonely existences, since there really isn't anything to be said about them. (Oh, it's always possible to expand them – A215 road stemmed entirely from an AFD discussion in which someone said it was just a "completely unimportant bog standard suburban road" – but some topics are inherently boring. And some are just plain unexpandable.) – iridescent 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
If you ever find yourself unable to sleep, tossing and turning in your bed, just take a look at my incipient series on historic computers, beginning with the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Better than any sleeping pills. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't Colossus computer the first stored-program computer? Or am I misremembering? It still has some way to go before it beats The Mall (Wood Green) or Skipton railway station as a cure for insomnia. I doubt anything ever will. – iridescent 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Colossus had to be reconfigured for each run. There was no "program" in the modern sense, and nowhere to store it even if there had been. Feeling sleepy yet? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ZOOOMGGG. Looks like you have your first featured article. ;D — Realist2 00:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, new article created Moon Walk (autobiography). Hard to believe it wasn't started earlier. — Realist2 00:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
On the first post: it ain't over until the Yellow Star is there. As anyone who's ever watched an RFA knows, things on Wikipedia have a nasty habit of unravelling spectacularly. Don't make any assumptions yet… On the second post, Michael Jackson related content tends to lag behind other music content thanks to the make-up of Wikipedia's contributor base (Jackson, along with Johann Strauss and Glenn Miller, was actually one of the three examples Wikipedia's original FAQ cited as Wikipedia's weakest areas – in Jimbo & Larry's defence, those three articles at the time looked like this, this and this. Whereas the Bach article Larry cites as an example of Wikipedia at its best, looked like this. Everyone who says "Wikipedia isn't improving" might want to bear this in mind.) – iridescent 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right. Even I'm occasionally astonished at how much wikipedia has improved since I joined a couple of years ago. If only I'd joined sooner, how much further on would the project have been now? That's a rhetorical question btw, no need for any smart-alec replies. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you've seen my collection of 2004 FAs already, but the contrast between then and today never ceases to amaze me so one more time; it's only four years since these were considered to be our best articles. – iridescent 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Or if you want a more close-to-home example, can you imagine Central Communications Command passing at GAC today? – iridescent 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
In a word, no. That's just about one of the worst GA reviews I've ever seen. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That's how they worked way-back-when; they were just a tick-box exercise – and it did meet all six criteria. At some point it will get GAR'd and I certainly won't argue – because it's (still) a secret project, there are gaping holes where no sources exist, and what I'd consider in retrospect to be over-detail in other areas where the sources do exist. – iridescent 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I like your January 2007 signature... -- Gurch (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This one was the most annoying of them all. –  00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
That caused me physicial pain and my eyes are now watering...--Pattont/c 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the problem myself -- 19:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(ping)

I suppose this means I need a DYK now to complete the set. Thanks to everyone who helped on this one, particularly Malleus and Lamberhurst. – iridescent 16:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yay you. Well done. Neat article, got anymore in the pipeline? On an unrelated note, this will interest you. — R2 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
He doesn't give up, does he? I suspect he's a trolling sock of someone else, but there aren't grounds for checkuser at the moment. My (alleged) forthcoming articles are here, but don't hold your breath for some of them. – iridescent 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey. I really hope I do not sound offensive, however I'm a bit curious, Iridescent. Are users with 9 edits, none of them in the mainspace and no experience in reverting vandalism at all meant to be granted rollback? Regards, — Aitias // discussion 23:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a user from German Wikipedia, with 2000 edits. This is why editcountitis for something that should be no big deal is very bad. Majorly talk 23:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess there is zero difference between the German and the English Wikipedia, am I right? Also, Majorly, I can't recall asking you — unless you are Iridescent. Still I do not think one who has no experience with this project at all should be granted rollback. — Aitias // discussion 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no major difference really, other than the language. Obviously, I am not Iridescent, but I'm sure Iridescent doesn't mind me answering for her. Why don't you think that user should have rollback? Even if they were an administrator on multiple other projects would you oppose the idea of it? Majorly talk 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Even if one is an administrator on another project, there's no need for ignoring the general guidelines for giving out rollback completely. However, this user is not anyway. We still have some tools like WP:TWINKLE and WP:UNDO that are meant for gaining some experience. Granting rollback to an editor with no experience at all is not appropriate in my opinion. — Aitias // discussion 23:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't see why you're making an issue out of this, but that is of course your choice and you are free to do that :) My opinion differs completely of course. Rollback is easy to give, and easy to remove. Someone with a lot of experience on a sister project should be given leeway here. But that is my opinion. Feel free to disagree with it, as I disagree with yours :) Majorly talk 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. Any admin who joins a wmf project I'm an admin on, is given rollback. Its illogical to think they would have to bend over backwards to obtain such an easy feature. Synergy 00:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that this user is not an admin? — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that it shouldn't matter? FYI he's a "sighter" on de.wiki, which I think is something to do with flagged revisions - and has been since October. Are you suggesting this user is in any way untrustworthy? Majorly talk 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
My statement was made after I saw Even if one is an administrator on another project, there's no need for ignoring the general guidelines for giving out rollback completely. Thats just process wonkery, for the sake of process, etc. I have no opinion over the user in question. Synergy 00:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I know you are well aware, Majorly — my question was intended for Synergy as their comment reads like they are not aware. Also, I nowhere said it matters. Again, my point is that one with no experience here, simply, should not be granted rollback. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
So even if they demonstrated good use of it on de.wiki, you'd be opposed to them having it here? Majorly talk 00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Who is this Majorly dude anyway? Some guy from Meta, I think. Sounds dodgy, we shouldn't trust him -- Gurch (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We really need Jimbo to make a statement saying that rollback is no big deal, so that Aitias' elitism will be justifiable. I mean, that's how it worked out for RfA, right? Giggy (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Aitias, what point exactly are you trying to make? Yes, I think granting rollback is totally appropriate in this case. As you quite rightly say, all the functionality of rollback can be duplicated by checking a single tick-box in preferences; the only difference between admin-rollback and twinkle-rollback is that the former is faster and easier on the servers. The only reasons we don't give the function to all accounts – as we already do with the "undo" button – are that (a) it can make it easier to make mistakes for people unfamiliar with the quirks of the MediaWiki interface; (b) it makes certain forms of vandalism marginally easier and (c) it allows access to Huggle with all the potential for bulk-fuckups which that entails. Point (a) is not an issue for a user familiar with the interface through a long history on a sister project; (b) is only an issue if you're insinuating that this user is a vandal, in which case present some evidence; (c) is a gamble we take with all users, and if it becomes an issue then removing Huggle is just a case of going to User:TobiasKlaus/huggle.css and setting "enable=false".
I hope I don't sound offensive, but your attitude in the thread above represents the absolute worst of the Wikipedia hivemind mentality; process-for-the-sake-of-process with no reasoning behind it, and an apparent belief that an admin button somehow makes a user superior to ordinary mortals. (I hope you'll notice that of the five participants in the thread above, nobody aside from you – including the author of your precious Huggle – is an administrator). Either point out what you think the problem is (in your own words, without resorting to WP:ALLCAPS), or stop this thread right here. – iridescent 08:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Irid was perfectly justified in giving the Rollback. It's hardly a lethal weapon is it? In fact, more eye brows would have been raised if she/he refused the request. — R2 09:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right, Iridescent; it seems to be the best to stop this thread. If I see any kind of abuse/misuse I will remove rollback straight away. Finally, I'd like to clarify that (when I left this message here) I was not aware of this user being active on the German Wikipedia — if I had been aware, I most probably wouldn't have left a message here. — Aitias // discussion 14:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Of you weren't aware why didn't you just say "oh right kk" when you were told he was a major contributer on de wiki and leave it at that?--Pattont/c 17:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Because "kk" is one of the most stupid bits of IM lingo ever created. Giggy (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy forever!

So you say "this is not the place for personal attacks on named editors"? You consider it a personal attack just to put in a link explaining why a sentence was placed where it was, and at the linked discussion it explicitly says "I intend no offence" - this is a personal attack that must be removed from Wikipedia?

Yet on your own talk page, you write: "Your juvenile Wiki-lawyering [...] your obsessive fascination with "the letter of the law" over common sense and your apparent determination that anyone disagreeing with you must be part of some kind of conspiracy [...]" And saying to me that "your attacks on me on and off wiki have voided the usual limitations of WP:CIV" is in blatant violation of WP:CIV, to say nothing of basic honesty and decency.

So you really think you uphold such a high standard of civility that even linking to a statement in a way that clearly was not intended to insult an editor but may have done so unintentionally is a violation of WP:CIV, yet when you explicitly make a personal attack on a named editor (me) it's okay because "he started it" or whatever?

Iridescent, you are a hypocrite! BURN! Yechiel (Shalom) 04:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Shalom gets his hands on me and Majorly
Majorly – who is not exactly someone I'm in the habit of agreeing with – puts it better than I could. Although WP:WIKISPEAK is now in project and not userspace, it's still closely associated with Malleus, and there's no point in his getting blamed for a personal attack on a named editor by someone else on a page associated with him.
To equate that with your running multiple campaigns of harassment against multiple people (both Wikipedia editors and real life individuals), using a variety of sockpuppets, impersonation accounts, and a lame attempt to use Wikipedia as a google-bomb is just laughable. I agree with Majorly; while I often oppose RFAs, yours is probably the only one I'm actively thankful didn't pass. You were a disruptive whiny little troll last year, and you still are now. Now go away, take your sockpuppets with you, and all of you please keep away from me. – iridescent 15:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You were a liar last year and you are still a liar now, but that's all I say because I don't want to be blocked. Have no fear, I will be going RTV and will not be bothering you anymore. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, Shalom, I don't think Iri or I were much fearing you. I hope your life isn't as empty as your threats. PS Why don't you want to be blocked? You don't appear to have any use for this account anymore, and with every edit you make, you're looking more and more moronic. Majorly talk 20:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
No, my life is very good without Wikipedia, thank you very much. It was a lot emptier when I was active here. Make of that what you will.
I wrote something else here, but I've said enough. Not everything you write should be published. I'm scrambling the password after I make sure everything is in order; pity that when I did it in July 2007 I got it back through email. Oh, that reminds me; I gotta disable email too. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
"When I was active here" as far as I can see you're as active as ever, but have taken to annoying users you don't like. While you continue to do this you are liability to the project. Stop or leave.--Pattont/c 21:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) "Right to vanish" doesn't mean "right to have your talkpage deleted but still hang round my talkpage whining". Go away. There might conceivably be some part of Wikipedia where your ramblings are welcome, but it isn't here. – iridescent 22:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You

You probably have a two inch willy. Whether you're a boy or a girl. 212.44.61.190 (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See, Shalom, now that is what a personal attack ought to look like. Clear, succinct, to the point, and written in such a way that it's going to be offensive to whoever reads it, despite the writer not knowing a thing about me. None of this "BURN!" rubbish. If you're ever in Cambridge you should ask this IP to give you some lessons. – iridescent 15:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A bone to pick

I resent this statement. BURN! Giggy (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are you? -- Gurch (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It's Giggy (talk · contribs) Majorly talk 16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we be certain of that? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like these are going to be needed soon Pattont/c 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope. It's a suckputter. EyeSerenetalk 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
^ 3 more high-profile non-admins. unlike those you mentioned, none of them likely to pass RfA though :( -- Gurch (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Make that four :-( J.delanoygabsadds 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
+1 --->> Majorly talk 17:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
No, you were in the original 3. Though if you count me, I guess that makes 5 -- Gurch (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we not forgetting the skeleton at the feast here? – iridescent 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Jenna does not have to go through RFA though. Majorly talk 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You have to admit, that would make DHMO5 look like a cosy fireside chat if it happened. – iridescent 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG, why do I think we have a new saying here on Irr's talk page. Rush Limbaugh has "ditto", and Iridescent has BURN.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Balloonman, see what I did there?
You left out the exclamation mark. BURN! –  22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
DAMN YOU... BURN!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And I just saw your Balloon.... double BURN!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You and Keeper have a secret admirer, ← (warning! badsite link! click it and you'll probably die!) incidentally. Or at least, an anonymous one. – iridescent 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
How come I never have secret admirers :( there isn't even an ED page on me -- Gurch (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You must be heartbroken. If it's any consolation I don't think I do either. Although Shalom is no doubt beavering away on one as I write. – iridescent 23:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There's one on Huggle, but it's not very good -- Gurch (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Not much on ED is. – iridescent 23:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone decided I'm a dick because my talkpage is myspacey? I never claimed it to be otherwise. Love It. And, I'm pretty sure that 47.3% of the posts were yours Iridescent, so if I win the 2009 award (got my fingers crossed), I'll be sure to mention you in my acceptance speech.  :-) Keeper | 76 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
o_O Dude, the main poster in that link has been blocked since 2006. As in two thousand and six. As in 3 years ago. Does anyone else think that he has held this anti-WP grudge too long and should get on with RL? Holy cow... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you actually want a serious answer to that; no, I don't. Wikipedia Review isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica; while some of the WR crowd are disruptive assholes or inveterate whiners, there are many more – User:Herschelkrustofsky among them – who perform a valuable service in discussing and analysing flaws in our systems, in spotting the POV-pushers and sockpuppeteers before we do (it was WR, not ourselves, who spotted Mantanmoreland, Kristen Eriksen, Poetlister…) and in acting as a handbrake on some of our more over-eager admins' excesses. What we do here does affect people in real life, and sometimes I think our critics have a better sense of that than we do. Besides, having problems with specific actions or specific editors is most definitely not the same as "an anti-WP grudge"; the reason so many people (including much of Arbcom) post at WR is because the overzealous activity of the Civility Police makes it impossible to have conversations about problematic editors on-wiki without it degenerating into the sort of crackpottery you see a couple of threads up from here. Part of the reason RFA is such a flamepit is because AGF/CIV prevents (or at least, inhibits) anyone raising issues with problematic editors at an earlier stage.
FWIW, Herschelkrustofsky wasn't banned from Wikipedia for "poop" vandalism or pagemove trolling, but as part of an insanely convoluted Arbcom case regarding the interpretation of NPOV on Lyndon LaRouche, involving a veritable Who's Who of Wikipedia's drama-queens, from which nobody emerged with much if any credit. – iridescent 09:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(to Keeper) He specifically singles out users posting about baseball, though. Since IIRC my sole comment on the topic was "despite growing up two counties away from Cooperstown, I think baseball was invented in a patriotic effort to make a game even more boring and incomprehensible than cricket" (or words to that effect), I'm guessing I'm safe. – iridescent 12:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Narmer Palette

I see you edited this article, are you interested in it at all? Because if so, I'd appreciate it if you'd look at the talk page and recent edits. Rktect (talk · contribs) has great difficulty in understanding our OR policy and how to use talk pages. He has messed up so many articles I am considering an RfC or some such action. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this run of edits, I don't think he's being malicious, just overenthusiastic. Looking at his talkpage, it looks like he's having serious problems understanding the difference between facts and opinions.
Rather than get involved myself, I'm going to suggest you contact User:MacGyverMagic, who as well as being a WP administrator and consequently able to do any necessary cluestick-waving, is able to read hieroglyphs himself and consequently able to speak with more authority than any "well, I read it on this website…" input I'd be able to add. – iridescent 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think he is malicious, but as he has had several blocks over a few years for OR, I think it is going to be difficult to get him to change his ways. I'll take your suggestion. dougweller (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Advertising of CU/OS election proposal

Hi iridescent. If you have time, could you look at what I wrote here? I wrote that because I was concerned when I read your comment where you said: "I see a lot of the flameboards/high-traffic talk pages/policy-wonk discussions, and I only even found out this process existed through reading about it on Wikipedia Review." Did we advertise in the wrong place? We were trying to make sure everyone was aware of the proposal. If you have any idea why you missed it, please comment over there, as it will help us in future with advertising such things. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. I'm not trying to be disruptive-for-the-sake-of-being-disruptive, and I recognise you're in a lose-lose situation, but I do think you've drawn a self-selecting sample of policy-wonks and assumed that they somehow represent that mythical beast, "community consensus". – iridescent 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


hello again :P

its GENIUS. i just wanted to clarify something with yiou real quicklike. The only sockpuppets that i know of that are mine are: GENIUS(4th power), This one, Iamthe7DeadlySins, and another one that i cant remember the name right now but i will let you know later. Also, see my talk page for the list i am still working on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotide (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that a fact? Shoo. – iridescent 12:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian-Carthaginian Treaty proofread and expanded

Hello,
I have finished proofreading and expanding the article above—translated from its equivalent in Italian—to which you contributed in the past. If the topic still interests you, I invite you to visit the page and provide any feedback you may have on the article's talk page. Thanks!
Francesco Campelli (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can see is a standardization of the spelling of "Carthaginian", which I've corrected. It has the problem that all articles on Carthage have, in that it relies on Roman sources, but there's obviously no way round that. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have the full treaty text in the article, even in collapse boxes; general practice is to host the source documents on Wikisource so they can be used by other projects, and just include links in the article. I personally don't like this system even if it is policy; do any of my Talk Page Watchers have an opinion? Also (and I have no opinion either way on this) would it make more sense for it to be a subsection of Second Punic War instead of a stand-alone article? I can see arguments in favour both of merging and of keeping it separate. – iridescent 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet welcome

Well, I made the version with the "amusing" links for you User:No I'M Spartacus!, then thought I'd keep it somewhere that I could get hold of it again should I want to use it again. User:Bencherlite/sockpuppetwelcome seemed the obvious place for it, and I can always try to improve the jokes. Not sure how many Americans would get the Just a Minute reference hidden in the wikilink for "Again"...! BencherliteTalk 00:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replace {{welcome}} with it. Nobody ever clicks those links, anyway. – iridescent 00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps on 1 April... BencherliteTalk 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone (I think Gurch) once wrote the code to make a Wikipedia page appear formatted as a Facebook page. I would love to apply that to the main page on April 1 if anyone could persuade The Cabal to do it. – iridescent 01:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(Addendum) This was it. – iridescent 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that's impressive. Useight (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really, anyone who knows HTML and wikitext should be able to mock-up pretty much any website, minus things that rely on complex CSS or scripting and Ajax (which the current Facebook layout does far too much to be replicable) -- Gurch (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone actually started using a similar format for their userpage some months ago. I forgot which editor. A prolific one. Enigmamsg 22:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(re Gurch) Big difference between "theoretically could" and "actually could" though. I could, in the sense that I'd spend maybe a week playing about with chunks of html lifted from "view source" on Facebook and dropping them into Wikipedia by trial-and-error, but I sure as hell couldn't get anything better than a crude approximation. That particular page even won the dubious honour of being called "an impressive exercise in geekly coding" by the only user ever to complete the full-house of a ban on every single WMF project.
(Re Enigmaman) It was Swatjester, but he lifted it from Gurch. – iridescent 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It only took about 4 hours. I was bored beyond belief, though :| -- Gurch (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL...

This made me laugh. My prose stinks. Rewrite to your hearts content. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tavistock Abbey

I'm beating my head against a wall on this one, do you know if the ruins for this abbey are protected? Nothing I can come up with shows an "official" site, I checked English Heritage and National Trust, any ideas on how to find some official site for its ruins? It's not a huge deal, but I want to make sure that Ealdred didn't leave any building remains behind from his time as abbot there. Any help you can throw on this is greatly appreciated .. you're getting bugged because of your FA on architectural things in England (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's privately owned and in the stewardship of the Duke of Bedford, but don't quote me. I'll do some checking. – iridescent 20:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to cover all my bases before FAC, and one of the usual ones is "what ruins did he leave behind"...Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. Listed as an Ancient Monument; West Devon is the registering authority. – iridescent 20:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As regards specific ruins, as of 1822 "The refectory and abbot's hall of Tavistock abbey remain, but in an altered state, as mentioned in p. 474. The gate-house also remains, and a building with turrets and pinnacles, now converted into a mill. In the court, before the present abbey-house, is an arch, about nine feet high, and nearly 13 in width, supported by short slender pillars with rich foliated capitals, and within it several small trefoil-headed arches, in the style of the early Gothic of the thirteenth century.". I suspect matters haven't changed much. The closest thing to an official site I can find is this; the pertinent paragraph is "Nearby are most of the existing remains of the Abbey. All are scheduled as Ancient Monuments. The most picturesque is the Court Gate, an archway leading from Bedford Square to Guildhall Square. The archway houses the Museum and the “Subscription Library” -one of the oldest private libraries in Devon. The Arch stands on the site of the main entrance to the great courtyard of the Abbey." but it doesn't actually date the ruins. [1] appears to be a reliable (albeit dated) source, and if you can get hold of the "Archaeological investigations at Tavistock Abbey" mentioned here it should do the trick. We do have a WikiProject Devon who look fairly active, you might want to ask them if they have anything. – iridescent 20:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
A quick thought regarding ruins – as Tavistock was far enough from the Gloucestershire/Wiltshire war zone not be be directly threatened, but close enough to be in travelling distance, there's a very good chance that anything Saxon at the site would have been stripped down for the fortifications of Wareham, Bristol and Devizes during the Anarchy. An 11th century dismantling followed by a rebuilding under the Angevins would make sense of the inconsistency between all these "built in the 13th century" citations and the earlier pre-Conquest references. – iridescent 21:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, that arch I keep seeing pictured is definitely Gothic, so that section at least antedates Ealdred (who was abbot from 1027 to about 1046), it's more if there are other, less picturesque, parts that might remain. Johnbod didn't come up with anything from his art stuff about Ealdred and Tavistock, but you never know.. better to beat the bushes and make sure you've hit everything you can before FAC. I'll keep digging. And did you see that Pipe rolls made GA? It's still a long ways from FA, but it's on its way... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed Pipe rolls – I'm amazed there was so much to say about it. ("Influence on other records" surely ought to at least mention the Chancery rolls, though? Rolls aren't an intuitive way to store documents, and the thinking behind the series must have been the same.) Having just wasted a good chunk of the day making a special trip out in the snow (I love the way this country treats a six inch snowfall as a national catastrophe – and I'm really not exaggerating there) to take what may be the single most boring photo-series on Wikipedia, I'm currently feeling very uninclined to do any actual writing. I'm quite taken by this photo though, for managing to cram so many "England at its most godforsaken" elements into a single picture. (Bleak expanse of concrete?✓ Disused railway line?✓ Mangy council flats?✓ Decaying 1950s prefab housing?✓ Grimy Victorian terraces?✓ Dead trees?✓ Forests of satellite dishes?✓ Hideously ugly 1980s-modernist church?✓ Totally deserted streets?✓) If I ever succeed in my long term and almost-certainly-ain't-gonna-happen aim of getting "Geography of the Moselle valley" up to Featured Topic status, I think this should serve as the front-page image. At a forced width, just to be annoying. – iridescent 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, another thought on the abbey – ask Giano. Although it's outside the period he covers, there's a reasonable chance he'll have a set of Pevsner knocking around his house. – iridescent 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just returned from trudging out in the snow to chase the horses back into the barn so they could be fed. At least the Midwest of the US is much more used to snow, so we don't grind to a halt. (Although the horses seem to think we should wait on them hand and foot when it gets nasty...) We're not much more exciting here... dreary snow, dead grass, leafless trees and furry horses. Pretty much standard winter here! Pipe rolls will have to wait on a visit to the local university library, I THINK they have copies of some stuff I need. I hope they do, at least. I dropped a note on the Devon WP, we'll see what turns up. I let Malleus and David loose on Ealdred to copyedit it, so he's in good hands. Now I have to decide who to work on next... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Lots of nice shiny redlinks here… – iridescent 22:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not old enough. It's practically new! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If the late 14th century isn't too recent for you, you can always do something about Julian of Norwich, who has sat on my to-do list untouched since October 2007. (My to-do list is very much an aspiration, not a target. The BLPs on it, in particular, have been there untouched since I first joined.) – iridescent 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Further on Tavistock - found a Reliable Source for the refectory, at least, surviving until at least 1822:
Now if we just knew if Ealdred had built those buildings... (the refractory he built was at Beverley or Southwell...) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If you'll allow the venturing into OR, I suspect there wasn't a lot of building in the area in the period; there'd been no Viking raids to clean up after so earlier buildings were probably standing. Pure speculation, though. – iridescent 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Julian

Here's what I have in my library. I'll admit that I'm not really strong on intellectual history nor am I big on much past Edward I, so what I have is skimpy. User:Ealdgyth/Julian of Norwich Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling she'll still be on my to-do list when Jimbo gets bored and pulls the plug. She's almost impossible to write about as a person, as opposed to discussion of her one book, due to scarcity and bias of sources. A very interesting character, though. – iridescent 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(adding) Assuming you won't mind, I've added a link to your sources page to the public To Do List on my userpage, in case any stalker wants to have a stab at expanding her. I will get round to her at some point, but I want to get the "Buildings of the Moselle Valley" and "Geography of the Lea Valley" article sets up to at least a semi-coherent standard before I start forgetting material. – iridescent 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries at all. I really am not an "intellectual history" person, and I think that about exhausted my msyticism writing for a week or two. I much prefer the naughty but efficient bishops like Stigand or Ranulf Flambard. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Back to Ealdred – would it make sense to include the image of Ealdred from the Bayeux Tapestry? (Not on Commons for some reason, but it's this panel). It seems very odd not to include one, given that you've included one of Harold, and Ealdred is one of the few Saxon figures who is unambiguously labelled in the tapestry. – iridescent 23:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Duh. Of course it would, if I had remembered he was on the silly thing. I claim an entire semester spent listening to one fellow student drone on about his thesis on the BT, while I tried hard to stay awake. (The only one worse was the guy talking about Suger and Grossteste. I REALLY don't like intellectual history!). I can scan it from my book of the BT or we can swipe one, either way. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The only version I can see on a quick Google Image search on "Bayeux coronation -Harold" that's at a reasonable scale is the one I linked to, and that's very washed-out (I didn't look very hard, admittedly). Probably better to scan it in if you have a decent-size copy. – iridescent 23:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
One problem, that's panel's not on the tapestry. There is no scene of William being crowned (that's William they are showing being crowned, not Harold) and the Tapestry ends at the end of the battle, and does not show William crowned. I just looked through Musset's edition of the BT again, and no go on that scene. See also our article Bayeux Tapestry. Wonder what that image is from... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That is REALLY WEIRD. As in, really weird. Of course, you're absolutely right; the "coronation of William" section of the tapestry has been lost. So what the hell is this? If it's a fake, it's a damn impressive one; if it's another mediaeval work (certainly possible) it's not something I've ever heard of. That is really odd. – iridescent 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see anything that looked like that in Musset's book on the BT, so I'm guessing it's either another medieval piece, a modern "reconstruction" of what someone thinks the missing piece looked like, or someone is REALLY good with photoshop. I'd guess the middle, honestly. Let me dig a bit and see if the BT has an "official" site... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd guess "modern reconstruction" as well – the quality is too good to be a hoax. Our BT article mentions a reconstruction in Denmark, I wonder if that could be the source? Whoever it is, it's very convincing and I can take vague consolation that I'm not the only one fooled. – iridescent 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't see anything on either the Reading museum site or the BT museum site itself. Weird though. And people wonder why I don't trust a lot of online sources at FAC... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd rule out "other mediaeval work" as a possibility on reflection; some little touches (the details of the throne, for example; compare it to Edward at the very start) are too similar to details of the BT for it to be anything other than a deliberate pastiche (assuming it's not the genuine lost end section). Very, very odd. – iridescent 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I like to think we'd hear if they did discover that lost section... of course the media isn't always that good on "academic" stuff. If it doesn't involve sex or money.. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I like to think it would be mentioned somewhere… – by the Normandy tourist authorities, for a start. I'm actually going to be in (well, near) Reading later this week; I'll try to pop into the museum shop and see if there's a "reconstruction of the missing sections" book from which it's been lifted. (One day I'm sure I'll see a convincing explanation as to just why there's a complete reproduction of the Bayeux Tapestry in Reading town centre; for the benefit of baffled American TPSs, this is about as incongruous as finding a Viking-Saxon stave church in the middle of Indiana. Oh, hang on…) – iridescent 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Or London Bridge in Arizona? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

*hugs*

*hugs* --217.171.129.74 (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hugs back. Gurch, is that you? – iridescent 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for tagging the rest of those images by Eternity is within85. I was going to list the rest of them, but I'm too slow. :) Zagalejo^^^ 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I know AGF is A Good Thing, but if any of those images are legitimate… You'd think he could at least be slightly less blatant about it. – iridescent 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks also from me, I was no looking forward to tagging all of those images! (EhJJ)TALK 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Given the number of warnings (s)he's already been given, I think we can safely assume WP:AGF has reached its natural limit. I've issued a final warning; any more of this and I'll indefblock the account. Yes, there are plenty of valid contributions there but the sheer scale of copyright violation is unignorable. – iridescent 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, he's uploaded another one. [2]. Zagalejo^^^ 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Two, actually. These are pretty blatant. They're both from the first pages of results for those players at Google Images. Zagalejo^^^ 21:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Indefblocked and his IP hardblocked to prevent him creating a fresh account. I count sixty warnings about this which is 56 more than most editors get. – iridescent 22:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

List of unattached footballers

Why did you delete the list of unattached footballers? It is a brilliant referencing tool and I was very disheartened when I found it no longer existed. Can it be retrieved? E. (86.132.211.252 (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Because it was an uncontested proposed deletion and I wholeheartedly agree that it's a totally unmaintainable and indiscriminate list. Since you seem to think it is worthwhile, I've procedurally restored it; you can make any arguments you want in favour of its retention at this discussion. – iridescent 20:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Jimmy Wales ...

Did you notice that he recently blocked Giano for 24 hours, because of something said in an edit summary? It's been oversighted now, so heaven knows what was said, but that's fame indeed, being blocked by the man himself! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The "so terrible he needed to be blocked" edit summary was "This page is a disgrace - you make us look like a bunch of idiots." (anyone who wants to call for my head for zOMG posting deleted content!!11!1!, ANI is that way). It stemmed from this conversation; basically, the Sunday Times published a "Wikipedia is evil" article with the "case study" of Giles Hattersley, an article which has never existed (unless it's been oversighted so heavily that even mere admins can't track it, I can confirm that no article by this title has ever existed). Giano then decided to write an article on the topic, which Jimbo unilaterally deleted "pending further investigation", with all too predictable consequences. Neither Giano, Jimbo or Hattersley are currently emerging with much credit IMO. – iridescent 21:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo and Giano need to stay away from one another...if only it were that simple. — R2 21:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As four threads up from this one I fall victim to a blatant and easily checkable (albeit beautifully crafted) hoax, I can hardly be too against people who "make us look like idiots".
Of course, by deleting Giano's article, Jimbo now creates an instant conspiracy theory as anyone looking for this article will see a "this article was deleted by Jimbo Wales" message instead of the sourced and painfully bland bio that Giano wrote, and assume we had something to hide. Incidentally, a glance on the "lags Wikipedia by a week" Wikipedia-mirror at answers.com shows that we didn't have this article last week either, so it's not that Jimbo's oversighted a spectacularly libellous article off the servers altogether. – iridescent 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

While I don't usually see eye to eye with him on much, I think Jimbo's summary of his actions here is pretty much spot-on and I can understand his reasoning both for the block and the unblock, as well as Giano's reasoning both for creating the article and for getting frustrated. As I'm so fond of saying, we sometimes forget that what we do here affects people in the real world. – iridescent 22:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Having now seen something of the article that all this fuss is about, I'm frankly amazed.[3] --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I can see the rest of the article, and that's the only remotely contentious part Giano added; the rest boils down to "He currently works for the Sunday Times; he left the Sunday Times for Arena magazine but sales fell and he left and went back to the ST". I agree with Jimbo that writing it was a bad idea at this time; I also agree with Jimbo that the article could be viewed as an attack piece (it gave undue weight to his brief unsuccessful time at Arena instead of his successful career elsewhere); I agree that Giano's "I'm always perfect" posturing can get very irritating at times, even when he's in the right. However, I think the mountain that's being made of this molehill is ridiculous; it could have been solved with a quiet "look, Giano, I'm going to delete this for the moment until things have settled down" message. It'll be interesting to see the grovelling apology in next week's paper, though. – iridescent 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it probably wasn't the best idea Giano's ever had, creating that article so soon after the event. I certainly wouldn't have done it, but if I had, and Jimbo had come along and had a quiet word in my shellike as you suggest, I've have understood. But to hand out a 24-hour block ... --Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Giano's one of those who gets his every action scrutinised, and in many ways he only has himself to blame for that. But I really don't know what a block is supposed to achieve, especially given that (as I understand it) Giano actually did things by-the-book here, and went to an arbcom member (unnamed, but if it's not Risker I'll be surprised) to ask "look, this guy's the editor of Arena and really ought to have an article, would it make sense if I wrote it to avoid someone else creating an attack page in light of the Sunday Times article?" and only then went ahead and wrote it. Meanwhile, the Telegraph is having a field day at poor Hattersley's expense. (The "readers comments" section includes some prime examples of Greg Kohs – who I'll usually defend – at his most irritating). – iridescent 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA?

Hi, i noticed your name come up a few times at RfAs, and wanted to ask for some advice. I'll have been here a year soon, and have come up against a few challenges that make me think becoming an admin would be a stp forward. However, the articles i work on see very little controversy, hence very little contact with admins. I was wondering if you would mind checking my contribs to see what you thought. I think i have the obvious credentials (edit count, understanding of policy, participation in XfD, Good/featured content etc), but maybe there is something i'm missing.

If i have to self nom, then so be it, but i'd rather get a minimum of input first. I havn't asked any of the admins in the projects i'm busy in to avoid favouritism, so no worries if you are busy, i can ask them. My talk page has links for checking contribs etc. Thanks in advanceYobmod (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from user page to user talk page... BencherliteTalk 14:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, knowing the difference between a user page and a user talk page for a start…
Homosexuality, Sexism and Science fiction are uncontroversial topics? I'd hate to see what you think a controversial topic is…
First off; the "standard" points; why do you want admin buttons; what do you intend to do with them; do you understand what an admin does? Wikipedia isn't like other sites (or even other Wikimedia Foundation sites) and admins are not the equivalent of moderators elsewhere; while WP:NBD is years out of date it's still the case that adminship isn't "levelling up" or recognition-of service, won't make people take you any more seriously, and that the main change you'll notice is a stream of disgruntled editors coming to your talkpage with weird questions, and a stream of even more disgruntled sockpuppets shadowing your every step hurling abuse. If you don't have a use for it in mind or a specific reason for wanting it, it's probably not worth going through the dispiriting and foul-tempered (even if you pass) RFA process in which every mistake you ever made and every dispute you ever had will be remorselessly dissected.
On a quick (not a thorough) skim of your contributions, I can't see any particular reason to oppose you, but I can't see any particular reason to support you either. While "doesn't need the tools" is a lame reason to oppose an RFA, it's a perfectly good reason not to support; the active non-admin / active admin ratio on Wikipedia is currently roughly nine to one, so we don't have a desperate shortage of admins and can afford to be picky. If you do want and have a use for admin status, you need to write either a self-nom, or a detailed answer to RFA Question 1, answering the unasked-but-implicit question at RFA: "The main admin powers are blocking, deleting, protection and viewing deleted material; I need at least one of these because _____".
In your specific case, there's another issue which shouldn't matter in an ideal world but does; your history (see the collapse box) is going to be a red rag to the attack sites. It won't be an issue on Wikipedia itself, but you will come under a sustained attack from Encyclopedia Dramatica, Brandt, Kohs et al if you're in the high-profile position of admin; you need to ask yourself if you're prepared for, on the one hand, a gaggle of amateur detectives trying to dig out your any personal details they can find about you and plaster them across the wiki, and on the other hand the first Google hit on your username – and if they unearth it, your real name – to be an ED page consisting of assorted permutations of the words "faggot", "geek" and "furfag". Don't let it be a deciding factor in any decision you make, but you need to be prepared for it to happen.
Something you would need to clarify is your role in this minor firestorm, including some statements which look rather like you stating your personal prejudices and claiming them as fact ("It is morally wrong to imprison a man without trial or bail on the accusation of one witness. No matter the crime, it is always wrong." or "Animals have feelings too" for example). You'll certainly be pulled up on exactly what you meant by "AFAIK, IP users can participate in AfDs without predudice. Well, not official disrimination :-)" as well; have an answer prepared.
This page has the dubious honour of being one of the most high-traffic user talk pages on Wikipedia; chances are assorted TPSs will pop up offering their opinions on the matter. If they don't or you need more input, try asking some of the "RFA regulars" such as I'm Spartacus! or Useight. If you really want an "unofficial editor review" process, then Majorly will probably be willing to give the reasons why you should have admin status, and Malleus Fatuorum the reasons you shouldn't; if the two of them end up agreeing that you either should or shouldn't, you can pretty much take it as a foregone conclusion that that's what the result of any RFA from you would be. – iridescent 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Majorly will probably be willing to give the reasons why you should have admin status, and Malleus Fatuorum the reasons you shouldn't ----ROFLMAO!!!! If the two of them agree on that subject, then I think we need to have a check user performed on them ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There's actually a lot more consensus at RFA than seems apparent through the shouting. As I've often pointed out, Majorly and my RFA stats are very similar (I think I have 80 opposes, he has 60) – it's just that my opposes tend to come with long explanations which stick in people's minds, whereas what people remember about Majorly is the (er) "impassioned responses" to opposers he doesn't agree with. – iridescent 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, will do. I'm not too worried about those comments. I was (i think) arguing that a user was displaying a POV by showing the opposite POV. He wanted to remove cited information from the article because he disagreed with it, but i'm not the one who added the info (and the article never said anything about Human Rights anyway), so the article only reflected my POV that it all needed to be cited and attributed.
Many thanks for the pointers!Yobmod (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns

Per your concerns on I'm Spartacus' talk page, I have updated my userpage and my respective subpages (I hadn't changed them up in a while), so tell me what you think about my changes.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 22:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks fine (I personally would lose the editcounts, but I have an extreme dislike for them which I recognise is a minority view (the arguments both for and against editcountitis are summed up here). I do think you have a "no fault of your own" issue with your username, which sounds immature regardless of your actual maturity; nobody (I would hope) will turn round and oppose your RFA request/FAC nomination/AFD suggestion etc on the grounds of it, but it may make people on the borderline look more deeply than normal for reasons to disagree with you/oppose you.
This page is watched quite heavily; you may find a bunch of people now turn up here posting similar comments and making suggestions – if they do, don't take anything as a personal insult! You're obviously not a myspacer or "joke" account, and anyone criticising you will be doing so because they're trying to help you, even if it seems annoying at the time. – iridescent 23:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Changing username already see this.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, personally. And Balloonman can hardly argue at the moment. – iridescent 23:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Changing your username was a great step. No insults from me. :) Synergy 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
As predicted someone is turning up to make a drive by comment. I agree with iridescent, your current name is slightly immature, though your userpage is fine IMO. Personally i odn't like meus but that's just me.--Pattont/c 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Username changed.--Giants27 Talk to Me 03:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd recommend getting rid of the box that tells me you're still at school if you're thinking of ever putting yourself forward at RfA. There are some, myself included, who will automatically oppose on the basis of your youth. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with that. Quite aside from the fact that it's another "potentially makes people think you're immature" issue, it's never a good idea to put any stalker-bait like that online. While I only automatically oppose on age grounds for editors under 13 – the legal age of responsibility in an online context under the Florida law under which Wikipedia operates – I will be predisposed against anyone I know to be under 18-20. (This is not some kind of reactionary voice-in-the-wilderness bleating, but a position shared by, inter alia, Jimmy Wales himself.) – iridescent 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I think most people who are over the age of 25 or 30 will be reluctant to support somebody under the age of 18... it isn't an automotic oppose in my book, but it is a valid concern. Somebody who isn't an adult needs to show exception character and maturity, acts of immaturity are magnified the younger you get.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 16:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your assistance with this. — R2 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations – that was a real bricks-without-straw case. (Incidentally, while I appreciate the article's about the song and not the single, ought it to mention what the b-sides were? The kind of people likely to read this would potentially be interested.) – iridescent 00:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, could do. Off to bed now. Night night. — R2 00:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sun is talking shit again, you might want to watch list the article for a few days, has journalism really sunk this low? — R2 12:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a note on Talk:Michael Jackson giving a Dire Warning to anyone adding this to the article. The Sun article itself is so cagey and "it-is-alleged" that it's obvious that even they don't consider their sources reliable at this stage – if I were to speculate, my guess would be that they've found out another paper does have a reliable source for it and they ran this as a spoiler, as "50 year old man with a history of illness possibly has a relatively minor illness" is such a non-story that I can't see why it would be interested. – iridescent 14:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. — R2 18:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you responsible for deleting the uploaded image?

I have uploaded an image onto the Murder of Imette St. Guillen page and twice it has been deleted. I see that your name was on the page. Please understand that the image was sent by the St. Guillen's Attorney, Christopher Lang in Boston, to me, and is being used on the new "Spirit of Imette Foundation" webpage which the family has created. I've been given permission by Chris Lang to use the image on Wikipedia so please see that it's not deleted, thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your "are you responsible?" – I'm responsible in the sense that I was the admin doing duty at cleaning out Candidates for speedy deletion at the time, but I have no prejudice towards it or any of the other deleted content, and wasn't the one who tagged it for deletion as non-free content.
Copyright permissions are complicated; because Wikipedia is public domain, it is not possible for a copyright holder to license content for use on Wikipedia without releasing it irrevocably for anyone to use, modify and publish for personal use and financial gain. While the holder may be happy for it to be used, are they happy for it to potentially be used to illustrate (for example) fetish pornography? (See this discussion for a previous occasion of exactly this occurrence.)
If you think the copyright holder will be happy with this, go to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and follow the instructions there. The copyright holder will need to email permissions-en-at-wikimedia.org with a completed version of the Declaration of consent for all enquiries.
If you don't think the copyright holder will agree with this, but still feel the image is necessary to the understanding of the article, you can upload it as fair-use non-free content. The instructions for this are here, and the image must comply with every point.
Hope that helps! When we delete images, we're not doing it to be awkward; non-free images are a legal minefield, and are one of the few instances where we always err on the side of deletion on Wikipedia, due to the potential legal liabilities should we allow non-free images to be released into the public domain. – iridescent 18:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Advise needed

I placed a prod on Arran Fernandez because all of the information was available at another article (it's linked in my prod rational) and because the person was notable for this one thing (article can't expand much), further expansion would involve including personal details (we are dealing with a young person too). Should I send to AfD? — R2 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also interesting that an new ip found such an obscure article and removed the tag, since it's such a low traffic article. Anyway, I'm side tracking. — R2 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Clearly deletable as a textbook BLP1E; I'd go as far as to say that if anyone A7'd it I wouldn't argue (by definition, every qualification and award, in every country in the world, has a youngest ever winner). Yes, by all means AfD it – it's usually a good idea to anyway, as that way we can whack-a-mole speedy delete it when it's (inevitably) recreated. If you want me to set up the AFD I'm more than happy to. – iridescent 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't mind setting it up, I felt it fell under BLP1E too. Stay tuned. — R2 20:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting 5 articles which were deleted

I notice that you are listed on: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.

I am requesting 5 deleted articles to be userfied, pretty, pretty please :):


From: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15

You can move all 5 pages to a userspace, lets say user:ikip/Hannah Kane: Me and the Boys, with the history intact (I am interested in who created the article, and when).

I really appreciate it. You are probably wondering why I ask. Well, I have spent my weekend on a graph found here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day. I am interested in what type of user gets their page deleted, etc....November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user.

Thanks :) Ikip (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Keep the words of {{user recovery}} in mind; using the text to recreate any deleted article will automatically qualify them for speedy deletion, and copies of previously deleted content that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion as Wikipedia is not a free web host. If I see any of these in the mainspace – or any of these sitting in your userspace for any length of time without you working on them – they'll be deleted and (if necessary) salted. – iridescent 02:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh Iridesent, you speak gruffly, but your actions show you are a real teddy bear inside. Thanks for the help! I am aware of the strict rules, but thanks for reminding me of them. I need that. Ikip (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I aim to please. Occasionally, anyway. – iridescent 02:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Iridescent's Day!

Iridescent has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Iridescent's day!
For being one of our most well-reasoned users around,
enjoy being the Star of the day, Iridescent!

Cheers,
bibliomaniac15
01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Er… thanks, I guess. I've never had a day before. Any particular significance to today? – iridescent 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you're just jealous that even I had already had a day. Giggy (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It should really have been Sunday, which will be this account's birthday. (This account was created in a moment of extreme COI-suspicion-paranoia when I started working on Cathy Rogers, as she'd been involved in the band Heavenly years back, and I knew the Defenders Of The Wiki would see my old "Heavenly" name and start screeching "COI". Ironically, after that I never came back to do the actual rewrite, and she's still sitting on my to-do list three years on. – iridescent 13:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

←Hadn't actually looked at your list. Er… "unusual" mix of characters you've got there, Bibliomaniac – I don't know whether to take inclusion on that list as a compliment or an insult. – iridescent 23:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Helping Hand Barnstar
The Helping Hand Barnstar is to be awarded to users who frequently help new users.

This barnstar is awarded to Iridescent, for his terrific assistance in helping understand AfDs, which will greatly assist future new users. You are a benefit to the project. thank you. Ikip (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"his"? He's a she.--Pattont/c 18:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
They have never commented either way on the matter. Although it's fascinating seeing the roughly 50/50 breakdown in what people assume I am. I'm sure there's a moral of some kind here. – iridescent 18:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

I'd like more input on Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer)#Suggesting_immediate_removal_of_arrest_from_the_article_for_BLP_concerns, Talk:Rihanna#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#conerns_over_recent_domestic_violence_reports_between__Chris_Brown_and_Rihanna if you are interested. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wesley Dodds' comment here pretty much sums up my opinion, inasmuch as I have one. I'm no fan of BLPs at the best of times and personally think we should restrict ourselves to major figures – however, it's arguably the only reason the majority of people have heard of him. This differs from the assorted Michael Jackson allegations, in that (as far as I know) nobody's disputing the facts as stated. If we were to receive a request from the parties involved to remove the material that would be a different matter – neither is at the "George Bush" level where "need to know" trumps "do no harm" – but to the best of my knowledge that's not the case. – iridescent 23:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CFD

I've read this page several times; it appears to use circular reasoning, and I can't decipher how one puts a delete tag on a patent nonsense category. Do you know how to deal with this? [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If I am interpreting what you are asking correctly, you should tag it as G1. All of the G-XX tags are used for any namespace. If that is not what you were asking, feel free to slap me around for being condescending :/ J.delanoygabsadds 03:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! (I couldn't find that anywhere.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

I'm not sending spam to everyone who voted, but I felt I needed to address you personally as you were the one who raised concern about my UAA edits. Firstly, thanks for clearly annunciating which reports with which you found disconcerting. With the exception of Super Mangina (I understand it's a last name, but if I meet an S. Mangina I'll eat my hat), I completely agree. It's all well and good to promise to be good, but I'll be taking extra precautions if I'm reporting usernames - perhaps stop reporting completely if I prove to be completely terrible at it. Anyway, thanks for the feedback, the RfA was surprisingly bearable when I had rational opposers that managed to make even me consider my suitability. See you around the Wiki. :) • \ / (⁂) 07:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the RFA itself, don't take it as a community rejection or a "we all hate you". My oppose and I think most of the others weren't "oppose, I don't like you" but "I think you need to work out these problems". RFA can be a flamebath, but look on it as a failed driving test you can retake in a couple of months, rather than a community-blackballing. Some RFAs can get very nasty – either when a hard-core of opponents (generally the self-appointed Civility Police) start attacking the candidate en masse, or when a candidate who thought they were popular because most of their interactions have been with a small circle of friends, suddenly is confronted with the fact that most of the community sees them as a problem editor – but this really wasn't the case here. – iridescent 14:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't take any of the opposes personally. One or two I didn't quite agree with, but I guess I was lucky there was less flaming and more constructive criticism. Thanks again. • \ / (⁂) 20:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Feb metro!

Simply south not SS, sorry 14:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I like this one; I think the balance between facts and trivia is just about right. A little piece of the spirit of Wikipedia died when "Pimlico is the only station on the London Underground containing none of the letters of the word Badger" was deleted. – iridescent 17:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I can just imagine some clown demanding a citation for that, or claiming it to be original research. A bit like "Most human beings have five fingers on each hand ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[5]. – iridescent 18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My previous RfA

I couldn't help but notice the message you left on B-man's talk page, and I thought I should link you to my apology (I had it linked on my userpage for a while). I'm not put off by my past experiences at RfA - I was an asshole, I was a complete and utter elitist power hungry moron who was nothing short of the least suitable candidate for adminship which I have ever seen. I deserved the opposition, and I have learnt from it - I am not disillusioned with RfA because of my past feelings for it - they are all in the past, part of a persona which seems like it never belonged to me. I don't know why I was like I was, all I can hope is that the community can see that I have changed - in which case I agree, therefore, that I would like to feel prepared before I were to be put up for the community's consideration again. Thanks again. :) — neuro(talk) 17:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, if you think you want to give it another go. I just didn't want an overenthusiastic user creating an RFA or an "admin suitability review" for you without your explicit consent; you know more than anyone that any RFA on you is going to be vicious regardless of the result, and I didn't want someone creating something which is going to be less of an editor review and more of an inquisition without your consent. As Malleus, Giggy and whichever Shalom sockpuppet is currently watching this page can tell you, even when you think you're prepared for the criticism you can get at RFA the sudden blast of venom can take even the most "prepared" editors by surprise and send them into a nasty tailspin that not everyone recovers from (see my response to \ / above this), and you presumably know that you have quite a lot of stuff that, while some people will be willing to forgive-and-forget, some won't. – iridescent 17:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Amen to that. I went into my second (and last) RfA with no great hopes of success, and quite prepared (I thought) to "deal with those two imposters" of success and failure just the same. But a few days of being told what a shit you are can wear you down; I can't imagine anything that would induce me go through that again. So, please take heed of Iridescent's good advice, and don't go into it just because someone turns up wanting to nominate you. It's not them that'll get crucified, it's you. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to go through RfA just because someone says they think I would make a good administrator - I am more sensible than that. That said, if I were to go through and not get the tools/go through a shitstorm, it would honestly not matter too much to me either. I like it here, and even having one person thinking that I do an alright job is enough for me to continue. — neuro(talk) 22:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No way. I'd need at least two editors who think this much of me to stay. Synergy 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I raise you five! — neuro(talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Mmm. With five, the permutations jump to a higher degree. I prefer very few friends, and many more enemies (to bug them when I edit their talk pages ;p ). Synergy 22:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I only need the one, me. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
So you think you'd be a good admin? Synergy 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Smiles back… – iridescent 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Surrey Canal Road

Do you do history merges? If so, could you perform a history merge of Surrey Canal Road station and Surrey Canal Road railway station? Simplysouth is this a buffet? 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No need – the history] of Surrey Canal Road railway station shows that it never had any actual content, so there's nothing to merge. Merging the histories would just make things confusing, as it would look like someone kept changing it to a redirect and back again. – iridescent 20:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ther was content when i first edited it! It was first created then redirected then the new one created. Besides, the station needs to be railway station and not station. If not hist merge than move at least. Simplysouth is this a buffet? 20:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. I suppose at some point all the East London Line stations except Shoreditch need to be changed from "tube" to "railway", don't they? – iridescent 20:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Surrey Quays tube station. Simplysouth is this a buffet? 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah. And then presumably we then have to go through the whole thing again with Crossrail and the DLR extension. – iridescent 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There isn't any moving needed on any of the DLR extensions. Simply south is this a buffet? 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Noel Park

Updated DYK query On February 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noel Park, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
thx Victuallers (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
See that Malleus? If you can have one, so can I. – iridescent 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh bugger. Suppose I'll have to do another one now ... *mutter, mutter*. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Another two. (I don't normally do DYKs, but these actually seemed potentially interesting. Maybe.) – iridescent 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Showboating. I've got a really interesting one on the boil. Maybe. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Stanley Unwin? – iridescent 22:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Horse

Could you keep an eye on this article for me? User:God'sGirl94 has just removed (again) information about evolution from the lead, replacing it with "The horse was created on the 6th day with other land animals such as the lion and bear. This was also the same day that man was created." (which, I might add, is not exactly strictly true biblically even.. but whatever...). I left a note on the user's talk page, but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoo Ray. Yes, no problem – although last time this happened, I got my talkpage replaced with the entire text of Genesis. Repeatedly. Something which sometimes works with people with a POV to push or a product to sell is to point them in the direction of MyWikiBiz; Greg has a "as long as the page isn't already in use, you can post anything you want provided it isn't libellous" policy, so that way they get someone willing to host their material so hopefully stay there and leave us alone, while Greg gets an additional user so is usually happy with it. In this particular case, a gentle poke in the direction of Conservapedia might be in order, too. – iridescent 21:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Further to that, you might want to have a word with User:Police,Mad,Jack if he doesn't see it here (I don't know if he still has this page watchlisted). If he wants to adopt users, he can clean up behind them. – iridescent 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Kim's handling the Welcome Wagon duties (which I suck at, I'll admit) so hopefully things will work out. Eventually, we're going to begin the push to get Horse to FA... eventually... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with that one – I imagine keeping a high-traffic article like that clean must be like herding cats. There's a reason I only write about things nobody else cares about. (I'm always amazed that Realist manages to keep the BLP nightmare of Michael Jackson clean.) – iridescent 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Horse got semi'd a while back which helps a bunch. The absolute worst one on my watchlist is William I of England, although until Sparta got semi'd it was pretty scary... I have something like 70+ edits to Billy, almost all of them vandalism reverts. Horse gets a lot more "horses are pretty cool" type edits than anything else. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No chance at FA if you can't even agree amongst yourselves which day God created horses on. ;-) Only in America would such a pov be met with anything other than a confused mixture of blank disbelief and derision. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The BIBLE can't decide. (laughs) That's what always cracks me up about creationism. There are TWO stories of how the world was created in Genesis. How creationists manage to square THAT away is one of the more major miracles of the whole subject... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, one refers to the creation of the gentiles, and the other refers to the creation of the Jews after the Ice Age, which also explains where Cain got his wife and the origins of the Nephelim… Look up Pre-Adamite one day. "The Pre-Adamite in a Nutshell" by Stephen J Gould (in I Have Landed) is probably the best explanation of the attempts to reconcile the two.
Admittedly my mainspace stats are skewed because I tend to do (re) writing in userspace and cut-and-paste it across in large dollops, but at the time of writing three of my 25 most edited mainspace pages are high schools that have stumbled onto my watchlist for one reason or another. I'm a little surprised the current bane of my life Charlottetown Rural High School, from which it certainly feels like I've reverted "sucks" a million times, isn't on the list. – iridescent 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to this conversation Iredescent. I understand that God'sGirl's edits on "Horse are POV, but I cannot be held responsible for that. Mentoring does not entail "cleaning up" after your adoptee, and I cannot stop her making these edits. Even though I will be falling short of the "If he wants to adopt users, he can clean up behind them" point of view, I will of course try to explain on her user talk, if this has not been done already. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. By "clean up behind them", I don't mean "follow them round reverting their edits", but "be responsible for keeping them in line with policy". If she trusts you, she's far more likely to take advice from you, then to listen to what to her must look like a bunch of complete strangers ganging up on her to make it sound like she's not wanted. Contrary to what Andrew Schlafly might say, Wikipedia does have a place for religious views, but it needs to be made clear where the appropriate place for theories which aren't the mainstream interpretation of events goes, on any given article. – iridescent 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiding log entries

A little birdie told me you wanted a way to hide my old IP talk page deletions from Special:RecentChanges / Special:Log. Just import this script into your skin JS page. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're a star! – iridescent 00:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Korres Engineering

I was surprised that you removed the speedy request from Korres Engineering, not finding either a claim of notability or any external evidence of that. If you disagree with the conclusion (not that declining a speedy indicates that), please weigh in at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korres Engineering AfD discussion. Thanks, Bongomatic 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy because "relocated over 40 buildings in Greece including Byzantine and prehistoric structures" is unusual enough to seem to me to be a clear assertion of notability. Not speaking Greek, I have no ability to check the sources to see whether this is sourceable. – iridescent 01:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Babia 93

The tone of your edit summary "You have got to be kidding me. Prod declined, obviously" is inappropriate in response to a good faith edit and I urge you to set a better example. --Boston (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And what would you suggest the correct tone to use would be for a deletion tagging like this? If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia, and one click on Sajjad Ali would have shown you that this is a major album by a major figure in a major market, all of whose other works also have their own articles. Sorry, but I have no patience for sloppy deletion mis-taggings like this; it may not be as pernicious as speedy-tag misuse, but it still wastes the time of everyone involved. If you really want to complain, ANI is that way. – iridescent 11:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Gobsmacked

You probably already know about this. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't at all. I'd like to say it's a total shock, but on reflection it isn't; looking over his history in light of that, you can see the connections. Normally I take a very lax line on sockpuppets – as with COI, I think that the whole "zomg you used two accounts!" thing is hyped out of all proportion – but Dereks1x/Archtransit's good account/bad account routine was so disruptive (remember this little visit from him?) that I think Arbcom did the right thing here. – iridescent 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel a bit pissed because I helped Chergles with Boeing 777, when for some reason or another I had the impression (s)he was French. Ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
What is really annoying about Archtransit/Dereks1x is that the articles are generally quite good (Boeing 747 must have been a nightmare to write). If only (s)he could resist the urge to vandalise in their spare time. – iridescent 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Air On Demand

Greetings. I tagged this as db-spam, at which point the creator slapped a hangon tag and asked for an explanation on the talkpage. I let them know the usual about promotional tone, npov and so forth, and they removed some of the instances of spammy rhetoric I pointed to, showing a desire to conform to WP norms. I then removed the csd tag, and let the creator know that they needed to show coverage in RS's to prove notability, which they then attempted to do (somewhat poorly). Seeing as you have expressed a somewhat laissez-faire perspective towards speedy candidates with notability issues, and as there is an editor trying in good faith to bring the article up to scratch, I wonder if you might undelete and give the article a week or so to get up to scratch. Sincerely, Skomorokh 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They'd already recreated it. I've restored the full history in case anyone wants it. – iridescent 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Skomorokh 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Peridon (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I would add there's a significant COI problem with this article. The author refers to the subject as "our company". I really don't think he ought to have created it in the first place: creating and editing an article about your own company is strongly discouraged. If he thinks it merits an article, the thing to have done was to post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles and let a third party write it. The editor appears to have confused Wikipedia with the Yellow Pages. --Rrburke(talk) 23:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I deleted it. That said, while it almost certainly is a G11 candidate, I don't see how letting it sit in our space for a couple of days is doing any harm. I'll suggest he takes it to MyWikiBiz – I'm sure they'll be happy to have it, and if he has an alternative host for his article he won't feel offended if/when it gets deleted here. – iridescent 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Billie Jean

Looks like we are on the way to another GA! No, I'm not involved with this one, shock horror. Wikipedia has been giving me a headache recently, so I haven't been very chatty, just monitoring my watchlist. — R2 20:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know who Pyrrhus16 is but (s)he seems to be doing a very good job on it. I imagine that one's a real pain to source, as any web search would bring up so many fan sites and false positives, while the books I'd imagine don't cover it as much as Thriller and Bad. – iridescent 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Pyrrhus16 is a brilliant editor and is learning the ropes quickly. He has the potential to be an administrator if he sticks around long enough. Not that I would want his soul destroyed by that place. — R2 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That is one of the most eclectic mixes I have ever seen. I would love to see what SuggestBot would make of him. – iridescent 22:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Since when did 2009 in darts and (our favorite Jackson) La Toya ever mix well? — R2 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
About as well as Franciszek Gągor, Circus (Britney Spears album) and Association of Haitian Physicians Abroad, I'd guess. (That darts one is listed on his userpage as an achievement, so it's not like he just happened to make a bunch of minor edits to it.) – iridescent 22:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
O.o — R2 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Shalom

Do you think a community ban of said user would be over the top? Or should we just let him continue vandalising? Majorly talk 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be a highly disruptive, socking, troll. Does the community have any reason to keep or want him? No. So in other words, I agree with you Majorly. — R2 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
To be honest if it's just your userspace and mine his socks are vandalising, I'd say leave him to it. He obviously wants to be made a martyr to the Evil Conspiracy so he can go off and whine to whichever people will listen to him about how those mean big kids took away his toy when he hadn't finished playing with it. I think blocking/banning – especially if the suggestion came from either of us – would just create another Moulton or Awbrey, only without the wit and occasional valid points the latter two are capable of bringing. I'd hope that eventually either he'll get bored and go away, or become one of those cranks who sits on WR shouting at anyone who'll listen until Somey loses patience and bans him. Unfortunately, the trouble with "anyone can edit" is that "anyone" includes the nutcases. – iridescent 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Deep joy. Does nobody have anything more useful to do? 92.8.32.165 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tunnel Railway

Updated DYK query On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tunnel Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been a bad bad boy, I must be blocked!

Such a shame, my block log was been clean for so long. — R2 00:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, although it's a spurious report there's a grain of truth there. You do spend a lot of time reverting; it might be a worthwhile experiment leaving Michael Jackson untouched and allowing others to revert. You only have to look at the article talkpage to see that people are starting to see you as the Guardian Of The Article, and it's generally unhealthy when someone comes to be seen as the "owner" of a page – regardless of the rights-and-wrongs, it can make other users feel uncomfortable changing the article if they think you won't approve. Even the high-profile BLPs are surprisingly stable once they reach FA level, as so many people keep half an eye on them; Maynard James Keenan has survived Lara's exit in perfectly good shape, for example. – iridescent 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! SBHarris 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally say that only Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon warrant it. These are such core articles, we really don't want to prevent people from being able to edit. I agree that it's unlikely that anyone will have much to add to most of them – elements, after all, don't change – but most of them are only getting a couple of vandalisms a day, quickly reverted (these pages are all heavily watched), and protection leads to a slippery slope. (If we protect Silicon, why not Granite? and so on). – iridescent 14:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Castle

Have you considered taking the above article to GAC? It already reads well, and I like the structure, breaking it down into construction and its residents. I also like how popular opinion/theory is laid out, but in the interest of neutrality it's pointed out why it's unlikely or that there's no evidence. If it were to go to GAC, the lead would need expanding, and I do have some questions. Would it be better to bring together all the structural changes under the construction section? At the moment it ends in the 17th century, but the house was still changing (ornamental staircases and some demolition). Were there any royal visits or other such notable events at the castle that could be mentioned? Also, it's not explained how John Eardley Wilmot acquired the house from Thomas Smith. It's a nice article, and of a high standard, and as you're the one who added most of the content I thought you were the right person to ask. Nev1 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally disagree with bringing the structural amendments together in a single section; at present, the article is written in chronological order, which sets the changes in the context of their purpose. Were the architecture of the building to be confined to a single section at the start, the background to the near-doubling in size of the house following its conversion to a school would either have to be duplicated to provide a context for the amendment, or left unexplained until near the end of the article.
I've no idea how Wilmot acquired the house; I would assume it was a straightforward purchase, but have no source for that and n particular inclination to go digging through Land Registry records to find out. In the absence of a source, I don't think it's significant enough to warrant speculating about in the article.
Although I will very occasionally submit articles to GA – generally in order to set a de facto "last clean version" on articles likely to be heavily re-edited – I don't agree with the GA criteria or process as it stands (or any other article assessment process with the possible exception of FAC, which despite the hoop-jumping element at least generally leads to significant improvements to the article).
That said, were this article to be submitted to GAC/FAC as it stands I'd personally fail it as there are some glaring issues. It has large gaps in the architectural history, some of which are down to the lack of sources regarding the early history of the building, but not all; the circumstances of the remodelling that took it from this to this are barely touched on, and the section on the architecture of the building is made up mainly of unsourced educated-guesses by Giano based on the architectural stylings, rather than anything remotely resembling a reliable source. Additionally, more than 50% of the article is taken up by a laundry-list of residents which veers dangerously close to both a trivia section and an "in popular culture" in parts.
I suspect it would be quite hard to expand this further. Pegram is a seam I pretty much mined dry whilst writing it and to the best of my knowledge there are no other significant works on the topic. The only source left that's likely to be fruitful is Pevsner London 4 which has a couple of pages on the house, but which if I recall correctly isn't particularly informative.
It's been repeatedly poked and prodded by myself, Malleus and Giano, and to be honest if there's much more "potential cleanupability" left after being dissected by that trio I'd be surprised. If you do want to submit it to GAC/FAC, feel free; you might want to ask Malleus about it, as he's both familiar with the article, and far more familiar than I with how the GAC process operates nowadays and whether this article is likely to pass.
If there's anything I can help with regarding expanding it, I'll certainly try, but I'm not sure what else I can add to it. This was (re) written to fill a gap in my unofficial "Buildings of the Moselle valley" filling-a-large-gap-in-coverage series (currently The Mall Wood Green, Broadwater Farm, Bruce Castle, a forthcoming-in-a-few-days complete rewrite of Noel Park currently being fiddled with in userspace, and a fervent hope that someone else takes on White Hart Lane, all of which I want to have up to at least a respectable standard before I give the trainwreck-article that is Lordship Lane, Haringey the same treatment meted out to its equally sprawling and incoherent cousin) and not because I have any specialist knowledge of the topic. – iridescent 18:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, you're familiar with the subject so I'll defer to your judgement. It's not without issues such as a lot of weight being given to the residents, I can recognise that, but I think it has potential. In my opinion, people underestimate the value of GAC, I've had plenty of reviews which have made very good suggestions for improvement. Bruce Castle is not a subject I'm familiar with, and since I live at the wrong end of the country, I doubt there'll be anything in my local library about it. I see what you mean about limiting sources, a quick search of jstor didn't produce much, although British-history.ac.uk did throw up a few hits that I may look into, but I suspect the information is mostly tangential. I doubt I'll take it to GAC/FAC myself for those reasons, but if I do it won't be for a long time as I've already got several articles I'm working on myself. I'll keep Bruce Castle on my watchlist though, I might change my mind and take a punt anyway. As for Lordship Lane, I'd say it's more of a car crash than a train wreck, and you're braver than I am for taking it on. Thanks for your time and happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
My general feeling with Bruce Castle is that (ironically, given that it's a museum) it's unexpandable as – the invention of the postage stamp aside – nothing of any note ever happened there, so no-one ever bothered writing about it. Most coverage of it now is either coverage of the Hill School, or "fancy that, a castle next door to a sink estate!" writing.
Lordship Lane at some point is going to need to be culled, and whoever does it is going to feel awful. This is obviously someone's passion that they've put a hell of a lot of work into – and I know I'd be fuming if anyone did it to something I'd written – but it couldn't be more inappropriate if it tried. Applying WP:50k to Haringey gives a "reasonable number of road articles" of 5; A1 road, A10 road and Green Lanes take up three of those slots automatically as three of the most important streets in the country, leaving this batch of AfD-fodder to fill the vacant slots. (Turnpike Lane, The Roundway and Stroud Green Road should probably all be sent on their way altogether; Lordship Lane and Seven Sisters Road probably just about warrant stubs. None come close to this "every single house on my street" page, though.) – iridescent 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts…

…I'm going to do a backflip on this one; in looking through Pevsner London 4 whilst writing Noel Park, there seems to be enough here to expand the architecture section to a reasonable level. I might try getting this one up to GA/FA after all, but don't hold your breath; I think it'll need quite a bit of rewriting. – iridescent 14:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Consistency is much overrated…

I've changed my mind and decided you're right after all; I've completely restructured it, gutting the "construction" section to leave only the "unknown origins from before the dawn of time" speculations, while expanding and moving any parts of the history which are documented into their respective chronological sections. That way it forms a more coherent "story of the house" narrative, instead of the separate "story of the house" and "story of the inhabitants" sections. I've sent it to GAC, so lets see what comes of that. (If the GAC process doesn't throw up any major issues, I might even take it to FA as well; although there are gaps in the history, those are gaps where the sources do not exist, so everything that it's possible to cover, is covered.) – iridescent 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Park

Multiple Noel Park threads merged into subheads here to stop them taking over the page – no content changed – iridescent 14:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Things

First of all, a very brief over Noel Park. I don't think i really read these articles properly but do have a brieff look anyway. It looks as though the location could do with referencing, even if it is the same reference. A couple of other sections it seems like the refs are easy to miss. Also, why is there such a focus on the history and not so much on the modern things? Finally i would get rid of the population unless that can be backed e.g. by GLA or ONS.

And I'm sorry if i annoy you by replying on this talk page. It is just the way i do the conversations.

The trivia section i actually just transcluded from the portal. There is no new trivia at the mo unless that section can be restarted. I'll just fix that on the portal. Btw, if you are intereted, the trivia was saved a while back to one of my userpages User:Simply south/LU trivia (interesting). This could all do with updating. I also occaisionally watch feedback. I suppose I'm the new head now. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(Replying here as there are others watching Noel Park right now, so they'll see it too)
Agree regarding the location section – even though it's the same reference, I agree with the "at least one ref per paragraph" so have duplicated it. Elsewhere, I'm not sure how I can really move the references, as they're at the end of the sentences they cite.
Regarding the population, the figure comes from Haringey council's figures. I don't really want to have a reference in the infobox if I can avoid it – I'll see what the other people I've asked to look at it think. (The figure Haringey give is "5670", which seems ridiculously overexact, unless they amend their website every time a baby is born or someone dies or moves away – I've deliberately used the vague "5500-6000"). The discrepancy between the "2000 homes" in the article and the "3000 homes" on their website isn't an error, but due to the fact that they're including the 9-story housing block on top of Shopping City as it technically falls within their ward boundaries.
It focuses on the history mainly because there's more to say about the design and building of the estate than the estate as it is today. It's notable because it was one of the earliest garden suburbs and established the template for the later huge-scale council-built suburbs like Wythenshawe and Becontree, and for the complex symbiosis between the builders of the estate and the Great Eastern Railway; while I've tried to cover the modern estate as much as is possible (in the Amenities and Legacy sections especially), with (by definition) no changes since it was listed, and no notable residents (believe me, I checked!) it's hard to find much to say about it. I agree that the ending is weak, but I can't see a way around that – when the ending is "becomes a quiet residential suburb" it's hard to finish with a bang. Also Welch, which is the only book specifically about Noel Park as opposed to isolated chapters in books on either Victorian housing or the GER, effectively stops in the 1980s.
Regarding LT, I can still see the original Trivia page. To be honest, I can't argue with deletion, although (cynically) if you slipped it back into the mainspace under a title avoiding the dreaded T-word ("London transportation facts, figures and folklore"?) it might well survive. – iridescent 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would actually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground statistics. Although some of it has been incorporated into the infrastructure article.
It is okay to put references in Infoboxes. This is clearly demonstrated on all the usages on railway and tube stations. Or maybe there could be a mention in the article instead of just a random figure on which it seems to be (I know you've explained above but it would seem like this from someone else's POV). If you were wondering on the sections on missing refs, i just think a paragraph or two also in construction and the Piccadilly Line. Simply south not SS, sorry 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've split the reference in the Piccadilly Line section, and added the reference to the infobox. Regarding the fraud section in "Construction", which I assume you're referring to, I've split the single long paragraph into two, each with their own reference, which both fixes the "long stretch without a reference" issue and makes it IMO more readable. – iridescent 00:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
An interesting article. I've done a quick copy edit and made a couple of changes:
  • Highgate was never independently large enough to be called a town before it got swallowed by the urban expansion, and I think the same can be said for Tottenham, so I have reclassified them as villages.
  • references to the Municipal Borough of Wood Green were incorrect as the Borough itself did not come into existence until the 1930s. When the site was purchased it was part of the Tottenham Local Board and the 70th anniversary celebrated in 1958 was for the creation of the Wood Green Local Board.
  • The V in Reverend H V Le Bas was indeed Vincent as guessed by Welch - he was Henry Vincent Le Bas. I found a reference to him in the London Gazette here.
Great collection of images - I particular like the ones from the Builder.
There's probably enough here to start an article on the Artizan Company. Something more on Austin would be interesting too.
You would have thought that a name like Swindlehurst might have tipped them off to him being a crook. :)
--DavidCane (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. I agree, the combination of a sanitation system designed by Plumbe and a fraud case from Swindlehurst is too poetic.
Broadwater Farm, 1892
Broadwater Farm, 2007
Good catch on the Metropolitan Borough of Wood Green one – of course, you're absolutely right (slaps myself and says "doh!"). Obviously a village with a population of a couple of hundred wouldn't have been an independent local authority at the time, but it's sometimes hard to think in "when I were a lad, this was all fields" mode. To borrow my personal favourite Dramatic Illustration Of Urban Sprawl, taken around a mile up the road from Noel Park, these two photographs are of virtually the same location (albeit from opposite banks of the valley).
At some point I'll knock off at least short stubs on the Artizans Company and on Plumbe – they both certainly warrant coverage. Austin might be a bit trickier, as there doesn't seem to be a great deal on him as a person as opposed to the company. BHG has promised to fill in the other embarrassing ought-not-to-be-a-redlink, Ernest Noel. This article suffers from an identical issue as Hellingly Hospital Railway, in that many of the articles necessary to the background are of such poor quality that facts need to be explained on the "parent" article – but I have made a conscious effort to avoid diverging off into potted-biographies and company-histories. The sole exception to this, on the fortunes of the Artizans Company in later years, I think forms a useful enough commentary on the change in attitudes to housing to warrant keeping. Besides, the manner in which a British philanthropic society managed, with seamless continuity, to wind up as the property-speculation arm of a Canadian multinational is such an interesting story, and a story which is unusually relevant today. – iridescent 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
As I had a spare moment, I have created a stub article for Ernest Noel to get rid of the red link. I've used data from his Who Was Who entry, but I'm sure there is more that can be added.
Your pictures show such a contrast. I can't stand the gim-crack rubbish that was put up in the 1960s based on Le Corbusier's ideas, and the gloriously ill-named Broadwater Farm must be very high on the list of crap erected by the London Boroughs which still blights much of capital today. I used to live opposite another vermin-ridden one in Dalston which has, thankfully for its residents, now been demolished and replaced with regular housing. --DavidCane (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Was that Holly Lodge? If so, that's also one of the ones on my long-term to-do list, along with Northumberland Park, London to complete the "Council estates of the Moselle valley" trio, and possibly the sprawling estates surrounding Cambridge, Bath, Chester etc which have been totally written out of the official "beautiful and historic city" narratives. (Don't be too harsh on Broadwater Farm; a lot of its problems came from the problems of building on a flood plain and consequent need to have elevated rat-run walkways, rather than the boxy brutalist design per se. As estates go, it probably has no more problems than the low-rise Noel Park and Northumberland Park on either side of it. Plus, it has a name which is remembered for all the wrong reasons – I've always thought the council should consider renaming it.) – iridescent 14:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And just to make things seriously confusing…

As well as Ernest Noel and Noel Park, we also have Ernest Noel Park. The disambiguation pixies will have their work cut out with this lot. (I only noticed this from checking WhatLinksHere and wondering why on earth there were so many inbound links from Australia.) – iridescent 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Noel Park

Hi ya. Oh boy, oh, boy - you might want to look at :-

  • Tottenham: Growth after 1850, A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 5: Hendon, Kingsbury, Great Stanmore, Little Stanmore, Edmonton Enfield, Monken Hadley, South Mimms, Tottenham (1976), pp. 317-324.
  • Tottenham: Churches, A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 5: Hendon, Kingsbury, Great Stanmore, Little Stanmore, Edmonton Enfield, Monken Hadley, South Mimms, Tottenham (1976), pp. 348-355.
  • Tottenham: Manors, A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 5: Hendon, Kingsbury, Great Stanmore, Little Stanmore, Edmonton Enfield, Monken Hadley, South Mimms, Tottenham (1976), pp. 324-330.

You might want to consider the structure of the article - demoting

  1. 2 Early history
  2. 3 The Artizans, Labourers & General Dwellings Company
  3. 4 Selection of the site
  4. 5 Design
  5. 6 Construction
  6. 7 Opening
  7. 8 Financial difficulties
  8. 9 Amenities

into a 'History' section - with a separate overall section for:

  1. 10 Early 20th-century expansion
  2. 11 Piccadilly line
  3. 12 Postwar redevelopment
  4. 13 Transfer to local authority control

and then keep this as a toplevel section

  1. 14 Modern Noel Park

It just provides guidelines for the reader. I'd be tempted to put much of the more general information about "The Artizans, Labourers & General Dwellings Company", in a separate article. You can then link to it from the other localities mentioned. St Marks is listed, so again, I'd suggest a separate article. You'd probably do well to see how Noel Park links in with Category:History of Haringey - and the articles there. That's just a quick first few thoughts. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting back on this one!
The History of the County of Middlesex sources have already been strip-mined dry for this one, and I don't think there's anything they cover that's left to be added to the article (unless you can spot something).
I have created a separate Artizans, Labourers & General Dwellings Company article; however, I think the Noel Park article needs to include the potted history of the company as well, to give a context as to "why was this company building this particular estate, in this particular way, when there were so many more profitable things they could have been building?", "how did a minor housing estate in Haringey manage to get so many major figures involved in its development?" and "why did they suddenly get rid of it and give it to the local authority?".
I appreciate what you (and others in the thread above) are saying about the structure overemphasising the history, but I can't see an easy way to avoid it. Merging the history sections would result in a single huge top-level section containing more than 50% of the article; while it's not perfect, the current structure gives a roughly chronological narrative of the story of the estate. Much of the reason it concentrates on history is that, because Heseltine gave most of the area Article Four Direction in the early 1980s which has never been revoked, the story of the estate immediately freezes there as since then there was (by definition) no demolition, new construction or changes of use since that point, so it was spared/missed out on (delete as appropriate) the whole 80s and 90s redevelopment and restructuring story which characterises most other British places. With no notable residents AFAIK other than the much-travelled Charles Christopher Watts whom I don't think warrants mentioning (I looked pretty thoroughly), we lose the "pop stars, footballers and bit-part actors on Emmerdale" which generally provide a quick-and-dirty way to pad out the "recent history" sections of local-area articles (see neighbouring Crouch End, of which I long ago washed my hands, for an example of this taken to an extreme) so this also makes the "recent" section relatively shorter in comparison to similar articles. The only major postwar development other than the closure of the railway line was the construction of Shopping City; I've covered that as much as I think it warrants, but I don't want to go into great detail on something that, while physically within the Noel Park boundaries, isn't psychologically a part of it and has no particular relationship to the estate; besides, we already have a perfectly good Wood Green Shopping City article, despite the best efforts of the deletionists.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on the structure and whether splitting it into subheads would be the way to go? – iridescent 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Submitted to FAC; although I wasn't originally planning to, on reflection I think this one probably deserves it. Someone will no doubt be along soon enough to explain at length why it doesn't. – iridescent 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarysky

Hello, remember when you warned this user against lying and slandering in his edit summeries? Well, it looks like he doesn't believe you, and has done so again. I do believe a block is in order for lying about someone, claiming personal attacks when there are none, for doing what they are told: warning against vandalism with the appropriate warning.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're seriously considering blocking this user, note that I was accused of vandalism [6] right before being accused of "personal attacks". I'd block this user myself but because I am the object of his incivility, I'm not sure it's appropriate. Seriously tho, for someone who "does not want controversy", he certainly seems to know how to stir it up. There's my $.02. - eo (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just incase you don't remember, you warned the user against doing such here.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's blocking to be done, I had better not be the one to do it, since I'm "involved" (I'm a sockpuppet of Ericorbit apparently); I think you'll need to take this one to ANI, unless there's someone uninvolved reading this who can brandish the cluestick appropriately. – iridescent 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I would block him, if I were you. His claims against you being a sockpuppet are unfounded, and if he's able to push anyone away from him by getting them 'involved' by calling them a sockpuppet with no evidence,.. well, it just isn't right. Anyways, this user is actually causing vandalism, please take up that warning you posted oh so long agon, you aren't involved just because he accuses anyone that disagrees with him as being a sockpuppet.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I gave Tarysky a "final warning" about reverting cleanup and formatting corrections at Ledisi, and he immediately reverted again [7], therefor I believe a block here is justified. I'll even do it myself as it has nothing to do with his incivility, but rather his direct ignoring of a final warning for disruptive editing. - eo (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Indefblocked. Harsher than I'd have been but I can't disagree. I assume this is indefinite in the sense of "when you agree to stop being disruptive", not "forever". – iridescent 22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised he lasted this long. — R2 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I recall that in various edit summaries, he said nobody cares. Despite the fact that people obviously do care, it seems he doesn't care that he's been blocked. I mean, at the time of the block, he was online, and I still have yet to see an unblock notice.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
What would be the point of an unblock request? What is ever the point of an unblock request? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make such an accusation when you don't even know this user's history.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I say good riddance. If it wasn't for the hideous attitude and refusal to learn anything, it's kinda too bad.....some of his edits to articles were somewhat ok. None of it matters tho if he is unwilling to work with anyone or take direction for mistakes he makes. Anyhoo, I'd suggest we watchlist some of his frequent articles. I wouldn't be surprised if he resurfaced later with a new account or IP. - eo (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
What accusation? I merely made an observation, one that you apparently disagree with. Since when was that a crime? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
And please don't make assumptions about what I may or may not know. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Enough, both of you. Play nice. (An unblock request in this case would probably be granted; I'm assuming this wasn't indefinite in the sense of forever, but indefinite in the sense of "until you agree to stop wildly reverting everyone who dares to disagree with you". I have no problem with rudeness, but this user's mixture of copyright violations and wild reverting was actively disruptive. – iridescent 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not the first time I've seen similarly abusive behaviour from Daedalus. I find it astonishing that administrators feel comfortable issuing blocks for behavour they themselves are guilty of. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Daedalus didn't block; LessHeard vanU blocked, following warnings from everyone under the sun (including me) – and I don't think you could call either LHvU or myself exactly block-happy. (There's a link to my blocking log at the top of this page; with the arguable exception of Abd, I'd challenge you to find one where you'd have reacted differently). As I've said many times, there is admin abuse on Wikipedia but this wasn't it. – iridescent 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the block. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Abusive behavior? Please. You linked to a specific document:
  • A means by which a recently-blocked editor can request to have their block endorsed by an uninvolved administrator. Some unblock-request responses and their meanings are:
  • Decline; hasn't addressed reason for block. There's no way I'm reading that 30kB of prose and diffs you've produced. You look guilty.
  • Decline; endorse reason for block. I'm friends with the blocking admin.

Everything there assumes bad faith. You are right away assuming the admins are in the wrong here by posting that link. As to abusiveness and this user, nothing of the sort has ever happened, so unless you feel like you can back up what you say, stop with the accusations.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're only here to slander me, please leave.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say to you Daedalus, except this. I believe you to be one of the worst kind of administrators, and I think you know to what recent event I'm referring. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
For someone who claims to know what they're talking about, you sure don't. I'm not an admin, and again, if you plan on slandering me and calling me abusive, then back it up.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
People, there is no need for this on Irid's page. — R2 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - Iridescent, why was the user's first block 48 hours, and why was the second block indef? I just can't seem to see this. It doesn't follow the normal progression and seems to have people jumping all over rather quickly. What am I missing? Indef is very serious. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't make either block so I can't say; as I say near the top of this thread, indef is harsher than I'd have been in this case. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with indef-as-in-unspecified-rather-than-infinite blocking in cases like this, provided it's made clear to the use in question exactly what's going on ("You have been blocked until you agree to stop doing XXX"); blocking is supposed to be preventive and not Wikipedia's equivalent of a jail term, so there's no point blocking for foo hours if one thinks the problem will resume the moment the block expires. To be honest, I can't see anyone reviewing this user's contributions and not concluding this was a problem user, whilst repeated warnings and explanations on his talkpage were all blanked with "removing vandalism" summaries.
To Malleus; Daedalus isn't an admin. (So everyone's reading from the same hymn sheet, I assume this is the incident you're referring to). – iridescent 06:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(adding) The issue here isn't civility – as Malleus knows, as far as I'm concerned people can be as rude as they like providing it doesn't negatively impact other users, hound people off the project etc – but the disruption caused by his content-reversions, bulk upload of copyright violations, and refusal to listen to anyone telling him what he's doing wrong and why he needs to stop doing it.
I'm going to be insanely busy for the next few days so this will probably all be resolved by the time I next look at this page. Hopefully. – iridescent 07:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have to say that blocking until someone does something is punitive. By giving a demand, you are asking for a same of payment. This would make it clearly a punitive. My question above was to ask what happened with this user (since you were paying more attention) to warrant this? Now, from what I see, many of the people here telling him he is wrong are not necessarily right, and probably the last people who should play messenger. So, ignoring them in the instance would be justified. I think this was approached all wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Tarysky has been confirmed to have been operating two sockpuppets to evade his block.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Only two? I'm currently running five (think it's five anyway, I lose count) sockpuppets in an attempt to evade my arbitrary and vindictive exclusion from the administrator elite. ;-) If it's OK to be deceitful, then it's OK to be deceitful, you don't get to pick and choose. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Not following your own statements, or was this your version of deceit? The user was blocked indef for personal attacks, and came back using a sleeper attack to evade his block. In this case, it is not okay.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I would reread the CU. As determined, only two of the names were socks, and neither were used to attack you. The IP was not him. He was determined to be connected to a banned sock from last year. This was coincidental. His indef block for "personal attacks" was being challenged as being to extreme. Except for the coincidental finding out that he was a banned user from 8 months ago, he would have been back because his actions were not as wrong as you claim them to be. Please let this be a lesson for you to calm down, because your actions were not appropriate in all of this. We do not need cheerleaders of people's doom. You seem to fail at AGF and treating people with respect, both of which call you to do such even when others do not do the same to you. Now, drop the matter. It is done. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You said yourself you didn't know anything about this case, so I would suggest you throughly review all material present before you start judging people. This user was clearly disruptive, why should I assume good faith when he continously threw it back in my face? He reverted Manual of Style changes and labeled them as vandalism, he continued to throw lies, calling other edits vandalism and personal attack, even when warned against doing such. For someone that preaches good faith so much, you should try doing it yourself. I don't treat people with respect that treat other people like shit, which is what this user was doing. So, do tell me how it is not wrong to call others stupid, label every edit they make as vandalism, label their noting of this as personal attacks and harrassment.... Wait.. now I have to ask, is that what they were originally banned for? Personally attacking others and sockpuppeting? So, I guess you're wrong on two accounts then. The first is, yes, it is wrong that he was personally attacking users, and the second is, he was sockpuppeting to evade his community ban, to continue to do what he was banned for.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
From what I see of you, I would have blocked you for 24 hours. You are overly aggressive. You can be downright mean sometimes. Neither is appropriate according to CIVIL. You think his actions excuse your wrong doing. That goes against everything that we stand behind. You are responsible for your own behavior. You are responsible for treating people with respect. You are responsible for staying calm and treating this like an encyclopedia instead of a place for you to destroy others. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to hurl accusations then back it up.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Your own actions right now verify what I say. You are in an aggressive response cycle in which you feel you need to constantly stir up an issue that is already over. The person is blocked. As soon as that happened, you should have walked away because it no longer concerned you. Now, I will be doing what you haven't done yet and go back to other stuff. Bye. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm being uncivil because I was telling you to back up your accusations against me? Please. I was involved in this conflict because I was involved with this user. Now, seeing as this user has socked in order to evade his ban, I don't believe the issue to be entirely over, it never is with sockpuppets. They usually always find a way to come back. This user obviously has. Especially since you kept responding to me, and aiming questions at me. In fact, how in the hell can you expect me to walk away while aiming things at me? I've only responded because you came in and started accusing me of being uncivil, without even a single diff.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus get a sense of humour for cripe's sake! That wikispeak page had me gigling right the way through.--Pattont/c 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I wrote the part of WikiSpeak in question, as well, so I think you can blame me for any offence caused. 12.29.122.137 (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Is that you Malleus? I know I wished you well in leaving Wikipedia, but block eveading is completely unnaceptable. Please don't, or your block will lengthen, and your ips will be blocked.--Pattont/c 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Patton, before you accuse people look at this. Malleus is from Manchester -England-. Not New Jersey. Now, please strike your comment because it is completely inappropriate, especially right now when you didn't bother to look at the whois. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
So what if an IP has NJ on it? You can edit from anywhere in the world using a proxy. Majorly talk 01:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, lets see. If he uses a proxy, then a CU can't determine its him. Thus, there would be no way to verify your claim. You know this. Thus, you are making unverifiable claims about another user. Seems to contradict AGF and CIVIL. You've been going around throwing baseless accusations all day long Majorly. Perhaps an RfC should be drawn up. There is enough evidence just from today. Who knows what else people will want brought up from before. Take the hint and leave Malleus alone. You have gone too far already. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
As someone who was throwing around WP:POINT earlier with no evidence or meaning whatsoever, you're hardly one to talk. Just as with the comment "You've been going around throwing baseless accusations all day long", is utterly false as well. I haven't even been editing all day, let alone in these discussions! Do what you like, I couldn't care less. Or as Malleus might put it, "I couldn't give a shit". Majorly talk 04:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The evidence of the point was the very existence of a non-RfA RfA that was there instead of going to Jimbo directly. Claiming a lack of AGF about the declaration is throwing about baseless accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What the hell?

Ok, I'm going to temporarily decloak here; WHAT THE HELL is going on here and why is it going on on my talk page? I don't know the background to this or why everyone is shouting so much - nor do I have any intention of researching it on a cell phone screen in the middle of the damn desert - but whatever the problem is, then unless it's something to do with me then all of you take your fight somewhere else. (If you're after a neutral third party with enough clout to get decisions overturned/enforced as necessary, try Risker). My talkpage is not Wikipedia Watch. And for what it's worth, I'm fairly sure that particular part of Wikispeak was written by myself and Keeper, so blame us and not Malleus. Iridescent 2 (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Its what happens when you are accidentally logged out, while performing an edit. :) Synergy 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Um... that bit was me, actually. I'd hate to see the wrong head on the pike. EyeSerenetalk 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I leave for a week and come back to this?

Well, it looks like you've all been busy in my absence… While it's probably too late for anything I say to change anything – and I'm not sure exactly what's gone on here (it seems to be spread across about 15 different places) – a few observations, for what they're worth:

  1. I don't understand why I'm involved in this at all. At no point have I ever blocked (or unblocked) Tarysky; the sum-total of my posts on his talkpage are [8], [9], [10], [11]. Yes, this could indeed be read as the dreaded Civility Warning, but look at his contributions immediately prior to that to put it into context; this wasn't a case of someone making sarcastic comments on talk pages, but someone repeatedly uploading copyright violations and attacking anyone who tried to tag them or explain the issue to him.
  2. Ottava: I don't know quite why you seem to think I'm involved in this, and where you seem to have got the impression that I'm some kind of block-crazy rogue. Yes, I have 800 or so blocks, but almost all either short-term IP blocks of bulk-vandal IPs (mostly schools), and where there are indefblocks they're on clear vandal-only accounts with no valid contributions. (You're more than welcome to go through my block log and point out any that you disagree with).
  3. Malleus: I don't really understand what happened here. To recycle a message I originally sent to Greg Kohs long, long ago, but is just as valid now: Because you're often dealing with controversial areas and controversial people, it's possible to lose sight of the fact that the majority of Wikipedia is uncontroversial. In my areas there are so few people working and so little disputed material that I can't even remember the last time I had a serious dispute. The niche articles, not the flameboards or the high-traffic articles, are where Wikipedia's model really does work; nobody would be interested in publishing a 5000-word article on Noel Park, a Michael Jackson single that reached number 42 in the charts, or the Manchester University computer laboratories, for instance (oh, a local paper might pay a token fee for an article that would be read by a few hundred people at most) but precisely because there are so few other major sources, the Wikipedia articles are, I suspect, now the primary point of reference for anyone interested in the topic, while the open editing model allows others to proofread, add photographs etc. It's very easy to lose sight of the fact that most of the regulars at Wikipedia have nothing to do with the drama flare-ups and that most of the time the system works. (Although if "I do have grave doubts about the integrity of anyone with the power to make a difference who chooses instead to stand idly by watching the collapse and disintegration of a project that I once thought promised so much" was aimed at me, I'm less than impressed, it has to be said.)
  4. Majorly: We're never going to agree on issues like this, as we have fundamentally different ideas of what Wikipedia is. I see the accuracy, usefulness and quality (in that order) of the mainspace content as our sole purpose, and process solely as the means to get there; correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you see the process itself as the purpose of Wikipedia; the collaboration, discussion, and above all the inviolability of the "anyone can edit" holy grail. But "anyone can edit" taken to an extreme is incompatible with quality and efficiency; it's taken a long time to shake off the reputation for poor quality, and we do need to recognise that some people get angry at what they see as unnecessary pandering to "anyone can edit" at the expense of quality. But I will concede that, while I don't and probably never will agree with you, you're at least consistent in your view, unlike the have-you-cake-and-eat-it mentality of too many both within Wikipedia and sniping from outside, who are quick to jump on the "how dare they block this person from editing?!?" bandwagon, but are the first to complain when a user inserts an inaccuracy/hoax/BLP violation.
  5. Aitias: I gave my opinions of Aitias at some length almost a year ago, and they haven't changed. I said then that I thought he had far too strong a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later mentality, and, while I've not had many dealings with him since, on those occasions where our paths have crossed I've never seen anything to make me change my opinion. Ironically, given the source, I agree with pretty much everything Majorly said about him last month.
  6. Tiptoety: I don't know what to say here, really. As you know, I've known you since you very first started here, and I don't understand what's happened lately; it's almost as if your account has been compromised. All of a sudden, you seem to have become a "rules are there to be followed, not questioned" pedant; this is not only totally against the spirit of the project all of us joined, but totally unlike what you used to be.
  7. Apple isn't an ISP in its own right. Unless they geolocate to Cupertino, California (in which case they're Apple staff), then when IPs come back with an owner of apple.com, they're generally the in-store Macs that are always free-to-use in Apple stores (and much-used by students and travelers as a way of checking their webmail accounts). Detective work is useless with an IP like this other than "the person is in New Jersey" as it won't be their home IP account.

To everyone, and Daedalus in particular; regardless of the case, this was a case of how not to handle a block. Block discussions shouldn't be held on a third party talk page – particularly without notifying the subject that the discussion was taking place. Yes, ANI is a bloated beast, but this kind of situation is what it's supposed to be used for. – iridescent 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Snobby cunt"

Surely I'm justified in removing this from the lead of a BLP, only I was reverted by someone who seems to have some clue. — R2 23:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are entitled to remove it, but perhaps not for the same reasons that you do. I'd remove it because it's uncited, why did you remove it? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I also don't like bowdlerisms, so I'd want to be sure that the quote was really the rather twee "c**t" instead of its more earthy alternative. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, this person has been alive for how many years? According to that lead, his life boils down to someone calling him a cunt. Has such a professional touch to it, don't you think? — R2 23:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly a very poor article with or without the "c**t" quote, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused as how someone can argue "not censored" and then put in a four letter word that includes asterisks to censor it. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That was my point about the bowdlerisation of "c**t". OK if that's actually what the source, but even quality newspapers like The Times wouldn't have otherwise been so twee about using the word "cunt". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the text has been reinserted, If others could express their opinion on the article talk page it would be appreciated. — R2 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of him so won't weigh in on the talkpage. It's possibly valid if it's something he's well known for, but it seems unlikely (although not impossible) that someone would be most famous for the criticism they received as opposed to their actual work. I agree with Malleus that if the quote does stay, it should be in the form in which it was used, so the asterisks should only stay if they were in the original source. – iridescent 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This Is It

You going to the concerts? Seems like everyone else is. I got tickets. :) — R2 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I did put my name down for the presale lottery but I don't know if I'll actually go if I'm one of the Chosen Few; it's almost impossible for me to plan that far in advance due to work commitments. Besides, something tells me they'll get cancelled. – iridescent 17:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh you skeptic, I know I'm usually skeptic about new MJ projects, but I have a good feeling on this one. He just smashed Prince's record, and apparently he needs the money enough to work. — R2 17:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want a psychic prediction, expect a surprise announcement that the new album is to be given away for free a couple of weeks before the concerts start; that will in turn create a wave of hype, pushing black-market ticket prices sky-high and generating interest for the Vegas or Macau residency that follows. The marketers are obviously modelling this on the Prince comeback. Watch the Sun and or Mail suddenly do a backflip and pretend they always loved him. – iridescent 18:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's going to be really hard for the Daily Mail to flip back, following that press conference, they said British people (these fan's I presume) should be ashamed of themselves, for welcoming him into the country. Talk about objective journalism. — R2 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
My money would be on the News of the World; the potential News Corporation/Fox cross-promotion value would be huge, and it would be a huge boost to Star TV in the Far East if they could get exclusive rights. Plus, who co-owns the MGM Grand? Why, a joint venture between Murdoch and Sony. Now, who could they get to headline their currently-vacant 17000-capacity arena? – iridescent 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. Maybe. 30 dates is 700,000 seats in London. A week ago the media were laughing at the idea that Jackson, or anyone for that matter, could sell 1 million tickets in London. At this rate, he can certainly do it, or at least come close. He's certainly proved the media wrong, in terms of the level of public support for Jackson. What's worse, it really shows the media are out of touch with the public on this issue. — R2 20:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:Noel Park

My apologies for the bad edit; however, all I was doing was trying to be bold. I meant for the best; for example, "Noel Park in London, England, is a late..." has extra comma, which can be confusing (thus my adding "located"). In addition, "although the river was culverted soon afterwards and the land between the river and Lordship Lane developed." is actually slightly grammatically incorrect-I mistook the meaning of the phrase to be the land between the river and Lordship Land developed because of the river culvert. Again, I apologise. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 23:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I didn't mean to be rude by reverting you, but as I said some of your edits were making the prose clunkier for no gain, while the part about the river was flat-out inaccurate. As a general rule, "located" is a word that almost never needs to be used, especially in an article about a geographical area. Placename, county, country, definition – as was used here – is the standard way to describe the location of towns and districts ("Birchington-on-Sea is a village in northeast Kent, England, with a population of around 9,800").
To be honest, given that that article's been ripped apart and reassembled by both myself and Malleus, you're unlikely to find any stylistic issues that need correcting. If it fails the FAC (no reason why it should) it will be either because someone finds a flaw in the sourcing (they won't), or because (like most of my articles) it pays only the vaguest of lip-service to certain elements of the MOS, much of which I disagree with. – iridescent 00:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for the clarification! Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 00:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SMI

Sorry. Didn't know! :P Thanks. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 13:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem – iridescent 13:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I restored the original on my user page. I wish you would not have left the deletion summary to say it was vandalism, though. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 13:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW, could you salt the page you deleted? α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 13:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done, with a six-month expiry. Remember, this will also prevent you from editing it. – iridescent 14:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson filmography

Hi, could you do me a big favor and copy edit the prose of this article. It's not my nomination, but it needs a third party copy edit. I've asked around and haven't got a yes as of yet. Thanks. — R2 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking now… As you know this page gets a lot of watchers so don't be surprised if you see other names pop up there as well. Note that I know nothing about Michael Jackson's film appearances other than "Moonwalker was terrible" so I can't determine the accuracy of any statements. – iridescent 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I've read through it, accuracy is fine thus far, it just needs a third set of eyes. Have you thought of joining WP:MJJ btw? The project doesn't have a single admin, can you believe? — R2 19:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I've given it a skim through. It's a tricky one to clean up; the fact that a lot of it is one or two sentence items on things which need to be mentioned, but about which there's not much to be said, makes the prose necessarily very choppy. A few points that need to be cleaned up?
  • Is "Filmography" an appropriate title, since much of it concentrates on television coverage, rather than films?
  • Is Ghosts definitely listed as "the longest music video ever" in the Guinness Book of Records? I personally don't see how "film that includes a song" equates to "music video"; if it was just the one song, as with the Thriller video, I could see it, but AFAIK Ghosts included multiple songs, so is more or less directly equivalent to The Wall, which is more than twice the length.
  • I think the Scorsese and Spike Lee directed videos should be highlighted in the text; it seems perverse to mention the relatively obscure Rupert Wainwright and not two of the most famous directors currently working.
  • "Jackson was dedicated to the role, and watched videotapes of gazelles, cheetahs and panthers in order to learn graceful movements for his part" is such a bizarre statement that it really needs sourcing
  • "It was the first time an African American family had starred in a television series" is a bit vague. It's certainly not the first time an African American family were portrayed on TV – Sanford & Son springs to mind but I'm sure there were earlier examples. Was it the first documentary series about an African American family – if so, that's a far less impressive claim, since IIRC the only documentary series about any family prior to that point was An American Family.
To be honest I don't have enough interest in Jackson (or knowledge of him) to join the project; I liked some of the early Motown stuff and Dangerous, but don't particularly like the early-80s dance-pop on which his reputation is built. I tend to steer well clear of BLP material in general; if I were to work on music articles, I'd be better placed to write on early C86. (The fact that Amelia Fletcher is still on my to-do list after two years is an indication of how reluctant I am to get involved in music bios). – iridescent 20:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll point all this out to the nominator. Thanks again. — R2 21:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy-edit Iridescent. I agree that 'filmography' might not be the best title in this case, but I can't think of an alternative one. We could scrap the notable appearances section if needed. Ghosts is definitely listed as the longest music video ever in the 2002 edition of GWR, I've got the book. I've now added a mention of Scorcese and Lee in the prose. I've also added the reference attributed to the 'gazelle' comment at the end of the sentence. The exact quote about The Jacksons is from page 145 of The Magic and The Madness: "It was the first time a black family had ever starred in a television series" is the exact quote from the book. Pyrrhus16 21:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Our mutual friend

Shalom is back. Majorly talk 04:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Joy. I dare say you and I will have visits from him shortly. (Since I've not said anything about Aitias anywhere else that I wouldn't say (and haven't said) here, I'm not sure what point exactly he's trying to make; the only difference between that and what I said on RFAR is that on the latter I've moderated the language in deference to the Arbcom posting rules. As he's not actually vandalizing but just being generally annoying, I'm not sure what else is to be done at this stage. – iridescent 04:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin

Hello can I become an admin please? 79.66.36.152 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to have a registered account first. Followed by a few months experience. Then you should make an application at WP:RFA. — R2 22:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just checked your edit history, clearly this wasn't a good faith question, just a troll. — R2 14:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I dare say he'll be back once the brief semiprotect I put on this page to discourage him expires… – iridescent 14:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Quit trolling

My comment was in response to GTD's "does anyone really think an encyclopaedia with articles edited by kids is really an encyclopaedia of any worth?". Admittedly I was angry when I made the comment and it was overly confrontational, but GTD's post was completely against our founding principles. I#'d appreciate you reading the preceeding discussion before saying things liek that in future :-) thanks!--Pattont/c 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh-uh. "Does anyone really think an encyclopaedia with articles edited by kids is really an encyclopaedia of any worth?" is a legitimate question, regardless of what your answer is (read Criticism of Wikipedia, read Attainment of Formal Operational Thinking by High School Students, read Youth In Decision-Making – questioning the value of youth contributions is a perfectly legitimate position); it does not equate to "Saying someone's contributions are worthless and crappy because of their age" as you claimed. At any event, you (and GTD on the other side) were both obviously trying to flog more life into this dead-horse argument that has been going on since Nupedia days. As I said near the top of the debate you're claiming I haven't read, we have a foundation policy on youth, maturity and adminship, which is not going to change unless Jimmy Wales and Mike Godwin fall under buses, and it's carefully worded: "In general, most of our admins should be college students or graduates. Some gifted and profoundly gifted young people would be equally qualified." If you don't like it, take it up with the Wikimedia Foundation, not me. And try to resist the urge to start drama whenever you see the chance, as you appear to be doing lately as far as I can see – you have 10 posts to this talkpage [12], [13], [14],[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], all of them out of the blue (e.g., not in response to anything I've said to you), and seven of those 10 (eight if you include the post above) have been you trying either to start an argument, or throwing yourself into a dispute without being aware of the facts. Despite the numbers of people who appear to believe otherwise, my talk page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. – iridescent 03:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to start an argument, I here or there. On the RFA talk page I just happened to read a comment, felt it was rather unjust and said something about it, yes I was angry and shouldn't have. I have never been in contact with GTD before, nor have I been arguing for youth editors etc. I only posted here becuase you called me a troll. Anyway you seem in a bad mood. Cheer up :-)--Pattont/c 14:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet peer review

I say, old boy, are you available to take a gander at this article on a fight on the edge of London? Tis quite an interesting bash up; the Kingmaker met his maker on a mist-filled field, losing a battle partly thanks to a case of mistaken identities. If you have the time, I would appreciate your trouble to leave comments on the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1. Ta ta and thank you very much. I hope I did not murder the English language in trying to be humorous...Jappalang (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I will do when I get the chance. If you haven't already, you might want to see if Ealdgyth is willing to take part in the peer review; although it's out of the Bede-to-Black Death period she generally lurks in, I'll lay fairly high odds that if there are issues to be raised when it goes to FAC she'll be the one to raise them, so you may as well get the issues out of the way now. It would almost certainly be worth asking WikiProject Hertfordshire as well; I see you've already asked WP:LONDON, but Monken Hadley is only in London thanks to recent boundary changes and is culturally & historically part of Hertfordshire (well, technically it was an enclave of Middlesex surrounded by Hertfordshire, but let's not get too picky). – iridescent 02:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I had asked and she hath doth seen fine to revieweth the work (and whacked a few of the sources to boot). Middlesex, Hertforshire, London... I am as confused as your spiralling graphic on the top right now... Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Commented there; lots of points, but they're all minor. – iridescent 02:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

SPI may be required

Flarkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems that this user you recently blocked, has claimed that he is going to sockpuppet. What were the articles he was editing? I'll be on the watch.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Randomly going through images and adding deletion tags, so I don't see how you could watch for it. (Yes, I'm well aware of the irony in my issuing a civility block in this case, but as far as I'm concerned once they start getting racist they're over a line.) – iridescent 12:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • doesn't notice where this irony is*, besides that, could you indef-protect his talk page until it is deleted, or even delete and salt it?— Dædαlus Contribs 01:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I can but I won't – something I really loathe is the tendency among some of the Defender Of The Wiki admins to block talkpages. The "prevent from editing this talk page" feature was introduced solely for a few specific circumstances (most notably the tendency of /b/tards to add intentionally browser-crashingly large templates to {{unblock}} requests), and not to protect user pages from general ranting about the unfairness of Wikipedia. – iridescent 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My Nomination for Editorship

I have responded to your opposition at the page, but will also copy to here:

If you see here, [last vandalism warning], you will notice four separate editors came to the conclusion that someone else was using my account, as it says, and I quote "your past history doesn't seem to fit with this, has someoen either hacked your account or a logged-in session?" - as was the case. I had left my laptop open in my workplace and somebody felt the need to vandalise an article, as was the case with the second vandalism warning as well. The third post is not a vandalism warning - it's notification that a copyright was wrong. However, I was not responsible for the image itself - my contribution was to trim the edges of the image to remove the black border around it. South-East7™Talk/Contribs 17:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd still want clarification of what is going on with your nominator and Ashley West before I'll strike the oppose. – iridescent 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidove

α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Enjoy!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks for telling me about my editnotice. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 16:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Broadwater Farm

File:BWFE from Gloucester Road.JPG
File:Kenley and Northolt towers, BWFE.JPG

Hi, I made this article the showcase article for the London portal today - mainly because I took one of my own suggestions last time; and it was someone else's turn! If you can improve the article - particularly with a strong lead picture, please do. Please also look at the caption on the portal, and see if you can make any improvements. Hope all is well. Kbthompson (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the caption text is fine. Looking over Commons:Category:Broadwater Farm, the two images which I think would make the best lead images are File:BWFE from Gloucester Road.JPG or File:Kenley and Northolt towers, BWFE.JPG, depending on what message you want to send; the former illustrates the sheer sprawling-concrete-monstrosity scale of the estate, while the latter shows the mix of low and high rise buildings and introduces a touch of greenery. I've added File:BWFE from Gloucester Road.JPG to the infobox, as it's probably the most representative image of the estate; also, it's not currently used in the article.
If you want a "Haringey council estate" article for the portal, then (if I do say so myself) Noel Park might be a better choice than Broadwater Farm; it's longer, probably better written, and far more photogenic. The third major article in my Moselle Valley series, Bruce Castle, might also be quite a good one to use if the message you're trying to send is "there's more to London than the Westminster tourist attractions", while DavidCane's Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway is arguably the single best-written London article currently on Wikipedia. (On the subject of the Moselle Valley, do you have any thoughts about what can be done about this nightmare of an article, which appears to have been written by someone who has mistaken Wikipedia for Pevsner?) – iridescent 15:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, the last time I changed the portal, it hadn't been changed for over six months; and I chose one of my own FAs and an FP (I liked) with a London label on it. This time (after only six weeks and no other activity), I took both from the suggestions pile - which frankly hasn't been updated since Gog and Magog ruled the City. Add them to the suggestions pile, and in the absence of a vote I'll pick one - it would be a good way to celebrate Noel Park's promotion. I haven't been appointed to this position - it was just a job that needed to be done; so, I absolutely welcome the involvement of others - if it's left to me, they're all likely to be theatres! Any ideas on revitalising WPLondon, also welcome - if I didn't know most of them had gone on to greater things in real life; I'd worry that I'd driven them away ... 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Something that imediately springs to mind is that WP:LONDON should be collaborating a lot more closely with WP:LT; since it's (arguably) the communications hub of the world, in many ways the history of London is the history of transport (even seemingly unrelated things – taking the articles currently mentioned on this page the Battle of Barnet was explicitly about securing control of the Great North Road, Broadwater Farm was bypassed by the railway lines so was undeveloped and available for building when the LCC were looking for somewhere to build their new estate, Noel Park's rise, fall, rise and fall is entirely due to the coming and going of road and rail schemes, while Bruce Castle controls the historic land route to East Anglia as well as the River Lea). – iridescent 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I nominated that selection of articles for the 'showcase'. I hope you'll vote, because (of course) I blamed you! and hopefully we can get some others involved. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Have voted. I think it might be useful to spam the voting page more as it's virtually moribund – it might be an idea to add a message to the talkpage of every member of the project reminding them that it's there. It would probably be worth getting Simply south to mention it in The Metropolitan as well; although it only has a dozen or so subscribers, I imagine it gets read far more widely than that by people seeing it on other talkpages. (This talkpage alone gets ≈3000 hits per month, and I assume at least some of those are reading other posts besides their own). – iridescent 15:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Further comment: I've nominated a bunch more at Portal:London/Articles/Vote to keep the pot boiling; now all we need to do is get people voting. If you want images, there are lots here (I thought it was a bit too tacky to nominate a whole bunch of pictures I took myself) – although many were taken to illustrate particular features of particular articles, so aren't particularly attractive or interesting in a broader context. – iridescent 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Even a musical genius must edit Wikipedia now and again

:). — R2 23:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it might well be genuine; if he removes anything from his biography, be very careful about re-adding it. If it does turn out to be him, you might want to pester him to release some photos (he must have some!). – iridescent 15:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If people remove unsourced info, even in large chunks, I have no issue. If he removes sourced info, I'll examine the sources carefully. Maybe he has pictures of MJ? — R2 15:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If he is who he claims to be and not an impersonator (or a fan using the name as a tribute), then even if he removes sourced information be careful about double checking the source before you add it back. – iridescent 16:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rules of Basketball

I don't know how to send you a message, but I must tell you that I have no idea why you sent me a message saying my last change to Rules of Basketball was reverted because I never made any edits to that. Not sure why there is one listed for me though.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.33.237.115 (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI this is probably someone from a shared IP address.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Soberknight (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
My warning message was on 28 May 2008; I'm sure this IP address has long-since been reallocated. Don't worry about it. – iridescent 15:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward

Hello. If you have time, would comment/vote here?: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do, although I don't do much biographical stuff so might not have much to add. You may find assorted watchers of this page popping up on it as well. – iridescent 17:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It is so kind of you to take those pictures of the Noël Coward theatre. If I can ever return the favour in some way (I can't immediately think how) please don't hesitate. Tim riley (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent, for the excellent comments and the photo. I believe that we have responded to all the points you raised. If you are ready, kindly vote on the FAC. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And I might not. And quit canvassing every person you can think of who might support you when they're not even mentioned on the thread. – iridescent 22:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
seriously. All over my watchlist. I don't watch the drama boards, but some feel the need to bring the drama out. StarM 22:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Eilley Bowers

FYI, I moved the footnotes into a separate section from the references. However, one of the references became orphaned when I did so, the one named "SmithDispute". If you could put a page number for that reference, that would be great. Also, you could add references into the footnote text as well. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 04:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed; I've added the page number directly into the footnote, rather than nesting a reference-in-a-reference, which IMO makes things unreasonably complicated for the reader. – iridescent 14:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward

Noel Coward has been promoted to FA. Thank you for all your help. Your efforts have really helped us improve it, and I must add that it was a pleasure to work with you on the article! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant what I said at the FAC – I think that's an absolute model of what a WP biography should be like. (With Noel Coward and Noel Park simultaneously promoted, there's a theme here – anyone want to nominate Noel Edmonds?) – iridescent 20:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on today's front page

I thought it was one of yours when I saw the title ;) EyeSerenetalk 10:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Well done. --DavidCane (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm more impressed that we're seeing you at FAC!! I'm glad we haven't scared you off ;) (and good luck dealing with the random vandalism today) Karanacs (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Me, too ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well done! — R2 14:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all of you – Noel Park's promotion at FAC with Hellingly on the front page makes today a rather fortuitous bit of timing. (Karanacs, you might be seeing Bruce Castle at FAC at some point as well. And maybe even Eilley if some of the rough edges can be knocked off.) – iridescent 20:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Further replies – David, I haven't forgotten to review the GNPBR article, I just haven't had time to read it top to toe; and Realist2, speaking of front pages, even though it's still four months off you might want to start looking at what should go on the main page on July 8; with the sole exception of the presidential election, this may be the first day in Wikipedia's history where it's possible to predict in advance what the lead news story worldwide will be, and you may well break the hits-per-day record. – iridescent 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Cracking! Kbthompson (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I need a bot or tool...

Hey, over at Michael Jackson and Thriller (album), I want to make alterations to the formatting of references, which would take days to complete manually. I want to change the dates from the current format 11-11-05 to November 11, 2005. Can this be done using a tool of some description? Best. — R2 19:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if Citation bot could handle this; if not, I'd suggest asking at somewhere like WT:FAC (as both articles you're talking about are already FAs, you won't get a "how dare you step on our hallowed turf?" reaction) – someone there is bound to know.Iridescent 2 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Lightmouse's script can handle date format conversion. I haven't used it, but it's at User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js. Maralia (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. — R2 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Lightmouse's script is great, highly recommended, but it doesn't change the format of dates in citations, only in the article body. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for assistance at WT:FAC, per Irids advice. Malleus, a few questions, if I can. Do you know of any methods (other than manually) and what is your preference when it comes to dates in the references? In recent months I've come to prefer the November 11, 2005 style, you? Does the style even matter to featured articles (at the time of the FAC's there was never an issue raised). Best :) — R2 16:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction Malleus. Realist, when I need to change date formats in references myself, I use User:Dr pda/editrefs.js. It doesn't change date formats for you (which is why I didn't recommend this approach in the first place), but does let you edit only the references, which is much less painful than wading through the full text to get to refs. It's a handy tool for tweaking ref formats for any purpose. Maralia (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've always done it manually in the past, but it ought to be possible to use WP:AWB I'd have thought. I prefer either 11 November 2005 or November 11, 2005 to the ISO-style dates in citations, depending on the article's subject. At present FAC only demands that dates are formatted consistently in the article body and in the citations, but it does allow for the formatting to be different in both, mainly because the various citation templates have historically been pretty rubbish at handling dates. My strong preference is to have consistent date formatting throughout the entire article, and I've no doubt that'll become an FAC requirement in the future as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Gary King just created a specific tool and converted the dates for me, thanks all :) — R2 18:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to announce...

...that I love you all. Super srs. GlassCobra 13:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ding!

Yooou've got mail. J.delanoy :  Chat  15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied Iridescent :  Chat  15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Per request

User:Iridescent -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Drat, my secret is out. Iridescent :  Chat  15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
INDEFBLOCK, REMOVING WARNING MESSAGES, GET OUT YE OLDDE BANNEHAMMER!!!!! :) -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Mummy's FAC

Thanks for your support. We writers of insignificant little articles need to stick together. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, mine's longer than yours. So to speak. Anyway, she's longer than plenty of the hurricanes and bishops. I suspect if/when I get round to my "bridges" series, I'll provoke Sandy into reviving the "minimum length" rule – I'm deliberately leaving the low-hanging fruit of bridges that actually have some history for others to do (although I may make an exception to clean up this mess since it's such a high-importance article), and concentrating on the much-ignored Battersea Railway Bridge and Elizabeth Way Bridge type, where there really isn't much to say except "It's a bridge over river foo in the town of bar". If I get enough of them done for a particular town, I might see if I can get them to FT status. Don't hold your breath, though. Iridescent :  Chat  20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey now! Not ALL my bishops are short. I promise this is the last really short one for a bit. I just wanted to get this stupid FT done... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you can best Hanging Bridge though? A medieval bridge that was was built, buried, uncovered, covered over again, excavated again ... over a river/stream that everyone's long forgotten .., some articles just scream out for attention. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hemming (monk). Top that! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
So much to do, so little time. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I can always dust The Mall (Wood Green) off. Although half the sources seem to have broken in the last couple of years. – iridescent 00:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of Time

I saw your talk page comment. Did you have any broader comments on the FAC than comments on the term you discussed. Comments on the Fountain of Time FAC are welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any issues with it at all, but as it's on a subject about which I know absolutely nothing, I'll hold off on commenting on the FAC itself, unless it starts to look like it's going to be archived through lack of responses; I know so little about it that I can't judge the content side of things, while my relationship with the MOS is shaky to say the least. I generally avoid commenting at FAC unless it's either to raise very obvious issues (contradictory/untrue statements or glaring flaws), or on the early 20th century rail transport articles where I know enough about the subject to judge. (FWIW, I see no problem at all with linking "lagoon" and "canal" – I don't understand people who complain about overlinking, when the links do no harm and might be useful.) – iridescent 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I recently put Michael Jackson on peer review if you would like to make suggestions on prose issues etc. Major alterations are better discussed on the article talk page where consensus can be gauged and archived. Best. — R2 03:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look over, but I don't do much with biographies so may not be the best person to ask. It might be a good idea to ask someone who's never had any involvement with it but is more familiar than me with Wikipedia's biographical conventions to have a skim. Most of the "regular" readers of this page will probably choke on their coffee at these two suggestions, but Epbr123 and TonyTheTiger might actually be quite good ones to ask in this particular case. (Epbr is a nitpicker par excellence and nitpicking is what I assume you're looking for, plus he took Kate Bush through FAC so is familiar with the unique problems of music biographies; Tony is generally engaged in a permanent argument with SandyGeorgia but has churned out numerous BLPs, and although he usually only does Chicago-related articles Gary is only just over the border so might be close enough for him.)
One thing I've done is change the references to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} – this is one of those obscure bits of wiki-coding that comes in handy for very long articles, and means the references reformat themselves depending on screen width – so instead of the four-column references you had (which would be unreadably narrow on an iphone or palmtop, for example) the number of columns will be (screen width)/(25×em) – a fancy way of saying the number of columns adjusts itself according to your font settings and browser width. Try changing the size of your browser window to see what I mean. – iridescent 11:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go around asking people. :) — R2 13:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This is going to be epic when finished. — R2 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that is getting on the front page one way or the other. – iridescent 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've told him to get it on DYK when he set's it up in article space. He will then take to GA. Some of it is hilarious, particularly the part about Bubbles being the ring holder at Elizabeth Taylor's (17th surely) marriage. — R2 16:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

He's going to nominate it very soon, but he's concerned it's not expanded enough. This might be interesting. — R2 20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:BotKung

Hi Iridescent. Sorry about the latest problem with BotKung. I have tracked down to the specific problem that caused the bot to malfunction. It was caused by specific case with pages that needs to resolve redirection and it got the old revision id it pulled up earlier when loading the text of the redirected page. This problem is now fixed in the latest version of BotKung and this problem should not happen again. Please unblock it so it can continue to operate properly as it should be. Thanks! --Jutiphan | Talk - 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked; obviously, if it starts causing problems again it will have to be re-blocked. That's not a criticism of you, but purely a protective measure to stop it causing problems. – iridescent 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Please block and let me know if you notice any problems come up with the bot again. --Jutiphan | Talk - 13:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncontroversial mass deletions

Could i ask you to delete a load of pages at WP:MOTD (saves me having to tag them all)? How this works is that every day a new motto appears and after that day has finished, the motto has expired. At the end of every month, all the mottos are substed from the days to keep a record of the approved ones in the schedule.

Basically now all the pages that need to be deleted (per WP:CSD#G6) are in both February and March. So from Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 1, 2009 to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/February 28, 2009 and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/March 1, 2009 to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/March 31, 2009.

To see what i mean, look at the days in January for example or from previous years. Simply south (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did February, if I get ten minutes, I'll do March - tedious job. Any reason you can't just cycle through 31 pages, and reuse them? HTH Kbthompson (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There the one's for 2009 and the way the process has been set up (not by me, before i arrived at MOTD) they seem to be once only. Oh and don't do April as the mottos have not been substed yet and most have not expired either. Simply south (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Enter WP:TW/DOC#Batch deletion. I've deleted the rest of March. Cheers, Amalthea 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ... I had to take delivery of a garden shed! Kbthompson (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April Metro

Please also could you see my request above this.

Simply south (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your pic

Did some work on it yesterday, saved under a new name. Not sure if you saw the link at my user talk. Best, DurovaCharge! 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much – that's exactly what was needed! (If you haven't seen it already, this is the thread discussing the use of the image, while this is the FAC in question.) – iridescent 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

Jimbo deleted the section and Larry just added it again. Check the history. I will revert any edits that add the section unless Jimbo changes his mind. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you do it three times I will block you for edit warring. You are not the censor of Wikipedia, and Jimmy Wales is perfectly capable of removing a post himself if he objects to it. – iridescent 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in this note Griffinofwales left for David Shankbone. Majorly talk 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You keep making the same statement, but you should be blocking Sanger for 3RR, as Jimbo has removed the message twice. Making Jimbo dance is not the way we're going to do things; he's seen the message, removed it twice. It doesn't belong. You're not applying your supposed principles--including 3RR--evenly as Sanger would already be blocked. --David Shankbone 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
David, I see Jimbo removing the post once – his other "decline to participate" removal was the removal of a completely different thread posted by GTD. Do you really not realize that every revert your tag-team is making provides another round of ammunition for Wikipedia's critics? – iridescent 18:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
He's deleted two threads about the same topic. That's enough. He doesn't want it on his User Talk page. That's enough. Meanwhile Sanger has restored [22][23][24] with SPAs another two [25][26]. If you're going to go around threatening 3RR to people, you need to be a little more even-handed. --David Shankbone 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Larry posted once and restored it once. Quit lying. – iridescent 18:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Shankbone, pull it together. When the shit hits the media fan, it's going to be all the worse for your stupidity in this situation. لennavecia 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Help Request - Robert Sungenis

I was wondering if you could help me with the article for Robert Sungenis. An editor who has previously been reprimanded and who is also an associate of Robert Sungenis (Mark Wyatt - WyattMJ) has put warning signs that the article may be up for speedy deletion and other warnings. Is this legitimate? And can he simply put up a warning like that on his own authority? (Or did someone give him permission?).

The article is the result of a lot of back and forth and careful research. Although there could be some things that are out of date or whatever. The last time he got involved it was as if Sungenis were writing the article himself. So I could use some direction and help if you would be so kind. I really don't want to see this article destroyed again - there have been Sungenis supporters who come in from time to time and basically vandalize it.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Patrick (talk • contribs) 07:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, complicated situation; because this falls under our rules on Biographies of Living People, the standards here are higher than for other articles, and we do take the subject of the article's wishes into account in situations like this. If the article is potentially defamatory (eg, contains claims which aren't reliably sourced and would be potentially detrimental to the subject), any user is correct to remove the material in question (and even repeated removals won't count as edit warring). Although this article does seem to be sources, I'm not sure how reliable the sources are, as it's a topic I'm not familiar with. I'd suggest contacting someone like User:Jennavecia who works more closely with contentious biographies of living people, to get a firmer opinion of whether this article is acceptable; alternately, you could set up a deletion discussion on the article to get a broader consensus one way or the other as to whether the article should be kept and if so, what needs to be cleaned up. (I can set up a deletion debate for you if you're having trouble with the rather convoluted process.) Hope that helps! – iridescent 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you are not familiar with the history, but the information on "blogs" that were cited has been published by well-known individuals, all of whom have worked for Sungenis. Sungenis has written multiple public articles in response to these individuals at the blog and website cited. Sungenis's own bishop responded to one of these individuals and his letter is posted in full there. In fact, that letter from the bishop - posted solely at the Sungenis and Jews blog - was referenced in the Washington Post and an article in Religion News Service. So, they seemed to find it credible enough. Also, the admins who have stepped in have even deleted the material cited from Sungenis' own articles. Apparently, Sungenis' own website isn't a credible source? Just seems too hard to figure out.....
Liam Patrick (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The subject's own website would be a reliable source for information on his opinions, but wouldn't be a reliable source for information on his biography. Likewise, blog postings would be reliable sources for the fact that someone said something on the blog, but not for broader facts.
I'm really not the best person to be asking about this; I work primarily in engineering and architecture, where BLP issues rarely come up. The best place to raise this would be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. – iridescent 22:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact, it's already being discussed there. – iridescent 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The "admin" vid=

Your vid clip 'An administrator "assuming good faith" with an editor with whom he has disagreed' cracked me up. Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I aim to please. It works best with the sound up high. – iridescent 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Smithfield, London

Hi Iridescent, thanks for the support and useful feedback on Smithfield's FAC discussion. As you may have seen, the nomination elicited a large number of comments, some of which include sensible suggestions on how to improve the article. Unfortunately at the moment I do not have much time to work on this. I was wondering if, as a passionate contributor on London history, you would be happy to help address the comments/criticisms and improve the weakest parts of the article. I am going to post an identical request to Kbthompson --DarTar (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go, but I'll warn you now that it's outside my usual area so I'm unlikely to have many sources I can turn to that you haven't already covered. Depending on how vaguely you draw the boundary of "Smithfield", you might want to strip-mine the relevant sections of A1 road (London), which inter alia includes a reliable source for the (tenuous) Shakespeare connection. (134 Aldersgate Street – the alleged site of Shakespeare's house – is now occupied by Barbican tube station.) – iridescent 11:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool spinny thing!

Hi Iridescent. Thanks for posting the first question at my nascent RfA! How exciting. Do you feel honored? I came here because you included the phrase "in your own words", and that made me laugh. I want to know whose words you thought I might use? I'm definitely not making fun, so I hope it won't be taken that way. The interweb is such a poor communication device really, even with all sorts of emoticons and what not. I also want to apologize for this inane posting, but I'm curious about what your response will be. Also, (since this is already an utterly absurd posting on my part), I noticed a reversion on Jimbo's page of the "co-" where he says he founded Wikipedia. I'm inspired to put "ChildofMidnight co-founded Wikipedia" on my user page, but humor is a dangerous game in this business so I'm wondering if it would be inappropriate. On the one hand I see that it's possible someone might misunderstand and take it seriously, or understand and think I'm making fun, but on the other hand the suggestion has been made that Jimbo can write his page how he wants so I'm wonder if I can write mine as I want to? Or is this just a case of "otherthingsexist" type justification. And I'm not really meaning to weigh into the politics involved one way or the other. My thinking is that as Wikipedia is said to be founded on and by all its contributors a defense could be made of the statement that I am a cofounder. But I don't want to be accused of Wikilawyering of course. Anyway, these are the type of trivialities I ponder and find interesting when I'm not editing. I look forward to answering your question when I'm fresher (whether or not my RfA goes forward) but I'm a bit pooped at the moment so I hope you'll be patient. How long have you been editing here? What are your favorite parts? Which of your contributions are your favorites? I suppose I should probably read your userpage first, maybe you've already answered... Anyway, sorry about the long posting. Perhaps it will serve to deter other editors from making inquiries (or is it enquiries? I can never keep them straight) at my RfA if they think they might get some kind of rambling posting like this. Okay, well, thanks for being you. I find the Wikiworld really quite fascinating. And you heavyhitters and whatever magic you do behind the curtain or on the IRC boards or wherever else the subtle mechanisms that keep this whole thing spinning happen are an interesting species that I little understand. Talk to you later. Feel free to remove this in its entirety at your discretion. I will not be offended in the least. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(When I posted that, the RFA was live; it was de-transcluded immediately after. I wasn't trying to jump the gun!) That question was worded in that "in your own words" phrasing for a reason; I don't know the ins-and-outs of the situation or have an opinion as to who is right, but I remembered seeing you on the flameboards recently and wanted your take as to what was actually going on there. "Recent conflict" doesn't automatically disqualify you, but how you handle it is possibly the single biggest factor in determining how you'd handle admin status (which means people posting complaints about your "abuse" all the time).
You can put pretty much anything you want on your userpage, within reason, but you might want to steer clear of the whole "co-founded" argument. Not because there would be anything wrong with it, but because two of Wikipedia's highest-profile figures squabbling like toddlers fighting over the last remaining Tootsie Roll in the bag is already a distinctly unedifying sight and you don't want to be associated with it, even by proxy; plus, Jimmy Wales has a very unpleasant habit of summarily blocking people he thinks are being rude about him.
I've been here as an IP since mid-2005 – this was pre-Siegenthaler when IP editing didn't carry a stigma. The "Iridescent" account was only used for editing the occasional semi-protected page. In late 2006 I started making all contributions under this account, both because the whole BLP issue had started to flare up and the IP=evil idea had started, and because I'd started to work on my first really long article (Central Communications Command) and it was easier to do it from a logged-on account.
Hard to say a "favourite part". Where Wikipedia is at its best is when there's a relatively obscure topic which Britannica wouldn't cover, but which a small group of experts has expanded into something where one can jump from link-to-link finding out stuff you never knew. WP:FT is usually a good place to start in finding these walled gardens.
My personal favorite contributions are my Moselle Valley series (Noel Park, Bruce Castle, Broadwater Farm, The Mall (Wood Green), with more following occasionally), both because they form a coherent set, and because they're genuinely useful to the reader and provide information on obscure-but-notable topics. While it has serious stylistic problems and isn't going to be bothering FAC any time soon, I'm also very fond of A1 road, which (if I do say so myself) takes an inherently deeply boring topic and does a good job of explaining to the general reader why they should care about it. I'm also fond of some of the images I've added, particularly the series of scenes of London riverbanks (see below – despite rural appearances, all of these were taken in central or west London).
I wouldn't call me a "heavy hitter" by any stretch, despite the attempts of some (waves in the general direction of the Wikipedia Review and the IRC kids) to paint me as an Evil Member Of The Cabal. Aside from the occasional IP vandal and spammer I happen to stumble across, the last block I carried out was in November, and I have virtually no presence on the "sausage factory" acronym-boards (WP:AN WT:FAC, WP:VPT, WT:MOS, WP:BLPN…) where the actual work of grinding out Wikipedia policy goes on.
Good luck with the RFA if you do send it live again! – iridescent 11:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your response. I wasn't meaning to be snarky about the "honor" of posting the first comment at my RfA. It was a bad attempt at self-deprecating humor. I think it's cool that anyone would take the time to post a legit question and be interested in the response. But I also understand that my chances of a succesful RfA are slim to none, thus the honor joke was meant to be at my expense.
I very much enjoyed reading your response. I wonder if you'd consider putting it on your userpage, perhaps tucked at the bottom in case anyone wants to read about your article work and interests? In an ideal world I think that would be what our userpages would include, but at present they serve other purposes.
Those are some interesting articles, and I like the photos and the featured topic page you mentioned. I haven't had a chance to look at all of it yet. I went to work on one of the though, I hope you don't mind. I've always been fascinated with the rail lines and waterways that connect our cities. In New York, where I'm from, there are the Hudson and East rivers (as well as other waterways) and their banks and shorelines are almost completely blotted with industry, industrial sotrage and tranportation lines (roads and rail-lines). But the little fishing holes and the accesible "nature" along these arteries is very interesting stuff. Hopefully more areas can be reclaimed a bit and made accesible so more interaction between the humanoid and natural species living side by side, but in isolated environments from one another, can come into contact more.
I agree with your answer on the "co-founder" issue. Bottom line, I didn't really co-found Wikipedia, so it's probably not a good thing to put there and would amount to provocation for provocation sake. I do think it would be funny though.
Finally, and perhaps it's my way of answering your question, I'd like to know what you think a successful approach would be to fixing articles that need work when there are a few editors obstructing progress? Usually I move on, but what about in a case where you think the subject is worthwhile enough to follow through?
And as long as I've got you here :) (and you seem game to reply to enquiries) how do I get the project templates standardized? It seems rather a simple thing to resolve that all of them start with either WP, WikiProject, or leave that bit out entirely, instead of the present system where there is {{river}}{{WikiProject Food and Drink}} and {{WPBiography}}.{ I'd also like to know how I can get an article discussion board going. Certainly a place to seek outside input in a timely manner would be a good thing, right? And there are lots of notice boards and dispute resolution mechanisms, but the means for civilized discussion and the seeking of broader input seems rather restricted. Yes, I know the article discussion page is meant to be where the discussions take place, but I see no harm in getting wider input on a particular issue when it arises that would be an alternative to seeking RfCs and the other processes already in place. Wouldn't it be nice if you could post a question somewhere and get some additional opinions from the folks?
Thanks. That is all for now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a selection of articles I've significantly worked on on my userpage, which I'd have thought ought to be enough to give an idea of my interests when it comes to Wikipedia.
When it comes to "a few editors obstructing progress", it depends on what you mean. If someone's demonstrably inserting something you know and can prove is wrong, you're perfectly in your right to complain or challenge it. If a number of people keep reverting something you add/remove, on the other hand, there's a very good chance that they're right and you're wrong, particularly on longer articles; despite Wikipedia's reputation as being full of cranks, most people who write longer articles here are genuine experts on the subject, and most of our "core" articles are the result of years of discussion and consensus, and those involved can get very irritated at users who add well-intentioned "improvements" that potentially alter the meanings or balance of articles.
Regarding "discussions and means of seeking input", they already exist, aside from the article talk pages themselves. For queries about new articles you've written, try RFF; for "final cleanup" of issues on articles that are almost complete and ready to go through the FAC process, try PR; for general discussion of Wikipedia policy, software issues etc, go to WP:VP and its assorted sub-pages. From a skim over your history, there seems to be a lot of you charging into discussions with an "I'm always right" mentality and arguing with people who are genuine experts in their fields. – iridescent 17:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking the time to read my comments and reply. The RFF board is neat and I wasn't aware of it. Is there a particular example where you think I'm barging in? I thought being bold was encouraged. One person's bold is another person's rash I suppose.
With regard to the Frank issue, as an example and the one you cited in your RfA question, if you look into Barney Frank at all, you will see that the man is a Democratic politician who has been a prominent advocate for gay rights and other issues like medical marijuana (covered in the article extensively), and that he has had a long tenure as the leading Democrat on the financial services committee. Apart from personal opinions and the debates regarding the issues involved, I think it's reasonable to expect that the introduction to an article should include the key bits of his life's work and accomplishments.
Certainly there is a proper way to handle content disputes, and no one is going to accuse me of having a gentle touch, but at some point both sides have to be willing to come to the table with reasonable proposals that are consistent with guidelines. Maybe you've never encountered a situation where an editor or two purposefully engages in obstruction wholly apart from discussing the merits of the content involved (and rallies others to what then is made into a political cause).
At present the article's short introduction includes a very flattering assessment of Mr. Frank from Bill Clinton's speech writer, but doesn't mention his political party, that he is an advocate for gay rights, or say much about his notable role as a person with major political power and involvement in a critical function of government: oversight of the banking sector. These assertions are so basic, in fact, that there isn't really much to quibble about as far as whether they need to be included, and yet they have been objected to entirely. It's the equivalent of not wanting to include that Lance Armstrong is a cyclist in his introduction. Of course there are controversies and there is a discussion to be add on how to phrase things and what weight to give different aspects, being a cyclist isn't the only thing Lance Armstrong has done, but the situation currently is that none of what I mentioned is being allowed into the introduction (refactored as I was using introduction in the American sense to refer to the introductory paragraphs of an article) lead at all in any way shape or form, and the discussions regarding how to improve the article are consistently hijacked by various means. The only shred of an argument is that his life's work as an advocate for gay rights is appropriately covered by mentioning his work on "civil rights", but civil rights is very broad terminology that is also used to refer to gun rights, freedom of speech issues (including campaign finance issues), and freedom of association. I can assure you that Barney Frank is not an advocate for gun rights, unlimited campaign contributions/ advertising, or for eliminating racial preferences in academic admissions. So saying someone is a civil rights advocate is not especially encyclopedic or helpful in explicating a notable fact about the person without including some amplification and clarification. Not everyone agrees on what civil rights entail for example, as the debate over gun laws makes clear. Rewording to equal rights might be better, but being straightforward and accurate is certainly the gold standard. If in using a phrase we don't know whether someone is a pro-gun conservative Republican or a liberal who wants a greater role for government, it's not a very useful description. Furthermore, the other bit of the introduction describes him as being a bipartisan "bridge builder", when in fact he in one of the most partisan figures in U.S. government. So accuracy is a real concern, and yes there are lots of reliable sources that refer to him as liberal (this is not especially controversial, so resolving this dispute over issues that are clear cut is all the more important) and yes I've posted the sources on the talk page. This is why despite taking on an unpopular cause, these article problems that need fixing and the editor or two who don't want to play nice, even those who think I am some kind of raving right-wing lunatic have stepped in to agree that the other two editors acting inappropriately. Sometimes there are socks, vandals, or obstructionists that are a problem. I'm a problem solver, and I want a fix. And the problem is not limited to that article, so I think working out a solution is a worthwhile endeavor despite the negative light it will invariably cast on me as I seek to resolve and alleviate the bind. I understand this makes me a nail that sticks up and I will receive a good hammering, but sometimes it's important to step up to problems that are difficult and require work that is at times unpleasant. I'm committed to the encyclopedia and I think having accurate and appropriate content that is consistent with the community's guidelines is important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
They're right; you're wrong. The opening sentence should be an absolutely basic "who is this person?", not their life story. "Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States", "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen regnant of sixteen independent states known as the Commonwealth realms", "Stephen Roger "Steve" Bruce (born 31 December 1960) is an English football manager and former player" – the list could go on indefinitely. It's not a case of "obstruction", but in complying with our house style guide. Seriously, enough. – iridescent 17:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm using introduction to mean lead. Lead makes me think of of lead sentence. I think it's a linguistic difference that we have with you colonials. I guess I will have to adopt the word lead to mean introduction, but I think lead is already confusing enough with the tenses involved and its also meaning a heavy metal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again for your consideration and responses. Much appreciated. I enjoyed investigating the articles you mentioned and I found them quite interesting. I refrained from making any more changes... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about future images, something we should be prepared for

OK, so with the MJ concerts approaching it seems likely that the article could get some images, which would be amazing. However, I'm certain there will be a ban on taking photo's/recording, very much like the Prince concerts. According to Jackson's website, there will be a DVD released, AEG Live have big plans for Jackson it seems. That said, people will take photo's, even though they are breaking O2's rules in the process. So that raises the question, can we use peoples images if they were not permitted to take them? — R2 17:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know, I have absolutely no idea. I know we don't allow photos taken in tube tunnels/stations, but that's because there's a law against photography on tube trains and Jimbo doesn't want to be seen to be encouraging people to break it; in this case, we'd be encouraging people to break Anschutz's rules, but not an actual law. I know that Disneyland tickets have a "photographs taken in these theme parks are to be used for non-commercial purposes only" proviso in the small print on the tickets, which legally forbids us from accepting Disneyland photos as free-use, and O2 tickets might well include something similar. That said, we certainly already have a good number of concert photos, most of which were presumably taken under the same conditions.
The "Wikipedia party line" answer to this would be "post a request at WP:Media copyright questions", but those tend to go unanswered for weeks. To be honest, it would probably be best to ask someone who does more image work what the ins-and-outs are; I'd suggest Durova or Jappalang – they might not know the answer themselves, but someone watching their talkpage is bound to know.
One piece of advice I will give you is, upload the photos to Wikipedia itself (WP:Upload) and not to Commons. Commons is governed by the draconian European copyright laws, while en-Wikipedia is governed by the far laxer1 Florida law.
Of course, you could just sit outside his hotel and take a picture… – iridescent 17:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
1 With the sole exception of pictures of "works on permanent public display", which are automatically exempt from British copyright but not American - which is why we have so few pictures of American buildings and artworks.

Thanks, I've asked Durova, apparently he will be renting a haunted mansion, not hotels (you can thank the Daily Mail for that piece of important information). — R2 19:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Or the former Woolwich Building Society training building in Chislehurst if you want to be less melodramatic than the Mail – although "haunted mansion" sounds more dramatic than "large house near Catford". It was only built in 1875, so I don't know just how many ghosts it could accumulate in that time. (Quite how it squares with the "I want to arrive by boat" thing is another matter, since he'd have to drive past the O2 to get to a pier from Chislehurst). – iridescent 19:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
And apparently, the "arriving by elephant" proposal (seriously, even he isn't that much of a diva) isn't going ahead anymore. As you can imagine, I'm crushed, I was really looking forward to seeing him moonwalk on the back of an elephant, and rekindle his friendship with Bubbles too. These stories are so sad, the media know we don't believe it, and we know they know we don't believe it. It's all become a silly joke now, but the jokes ae getting boring, we need new ones. — R2 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The boat one I assume was originally true; in the past when he's been in London he's always stayed at the Renaissance Hotel on High Holborn (I know – there was always a camp of fans outside waiting for him to come in or out), and (assuming he doesn't want to travel on the Jubilee line) from there to Greenwich by boat would be quicker than driving & avoid the risk of nutjobs jumping in front of the car. Probably the plans were made when he was planning to only stay for a couple of weeks and it wouldn't have been worthwhile renting a house. – iridescent 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we can accept the images, which is a relief, I would have been disappointed if we couldn't. Maybe we can get a nice image to replace the lead, one that everyone can agree to that is... — R2 20:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
And start a whole new "we need a picture of him at his peak, not as he is now!" argument… – iridescent 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Lauri Dalla Valle deletion review

You've missed the point completely; although he fails the specific WP:ATHLETE guidelines, he passes the more general WP:N quite easily. GiantSnowman 18:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not missed the point, thank you. WP:N and WP:ATHLETE are both guidelines, not Wikipedia policy. In my opinion, for an article about a professional athlete WP:ATHLETE is clearly the more appropriate guideline to follow. – iridescent 18:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

re a certain editor

It appears you were moving toward acting in accordance with the above's request, when I - since I was feeling 'dead butch' - went ahead and did it. I apologise for possibly stepping upon your (doubtless perfectly formed and blossom scented) toes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, go right ahead. I was trying to find a "neutral" wording that both sides would accept, hence my suggestion of linking to the discussion and letting everyone make their own minds up; what really isn't needed is 200 annotations in the log as everyone involved tries to explain their side of the debate. – iridescent 11:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

MJ Auction

You might ejoy the pictures here, would love to get my hands on one of those Jackets! — R2 12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I read somewhere about Jackson's lawyers getting this cancelled? – iridescent 12:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
A judge allowed it to go ahead. *Shrug* — R2 12:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Things just got interesting. — R2 13:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant what I said above to CoM – I've genuinely never heard of him and have no inclination to dig through what looks like a long boring dispute. How he handles a dispute is far more important to me than who's right. – iridescent 13:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've had first hand experience with this editor, on numerous music BLP's, including Michael Jackson. This was before he moved to all things political. — R2 13:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, he was the "running a business doesn't make you a businessman" editwarrior, wasn't he? I remember now. – iridescent 13:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Despite overwhelming consensus that businessman was accurate, he first went to the FA directors talk page, asking him to delist/reassess the article. Sandy told him no, so he started a request for comment regarding the characterization. Basically he was applying extreme pressure to get me to change the wording, because consensus and fact were not in his favor. This behavior occurred on other music articles. His behavior here was terrible too. — R2 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I still don't think businessman is an appropriate description, particularly in the first sentence (what I would refer to as the lead). Businessman doesn't seem to be well sourced and isn't, in my opinion, covered in the article. I think investor is probably more accurate and seems to be what's indicated if his music catalog investments are worth noting up front in the article. Several good changes that were unrelated to the businessman issue were made to the article, so I'm happy about that. There were certainly some ownership issues involved, and I don't apologize for requesting an RfC, which I thought was a good faith why to get wider input. As far as FA, if an article has numerous problems it seems to me it shouldn't have that appelation, particularly if its FA status is going to be used as a cudgel to fight anyone seeking improvements. I probably could have been more delicate in my approach, but met with hostility from the start, so I failed to be as pleasant and endearing as I probably should have been. Other articles were also mentioned as examples in the discussions, and several of them were corrected in the process. So all in all the encyclopedia benefitted. I did learn an iomportant lesson, and where there is stiff resistance I usually move on now. It's best to focus on the areas of the encyclopedia where folks are interested in collaborating and don't treat newcomers with aggresion and hostility. Cheers.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Jackson was just able to stop the auction. — R2 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Translated: "Hopefully this stuff will be worth more after the new album comes out and raises my profile" </cynicism> – iridescent 22:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Alternative translation (similar theme): "Now that I've sold out 50 dates at the O2, I don't need the cash that much". — R2 23:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Could have sworn...

Could have sworn this was you... it did seem a little out of character for you though :) Majorly talk 23:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm… This user has been through four different usernames [27], [28], [29] so far. I assume they're a good faith user, but I'm surprised the crats allowed it; I guess whoever granted it missed out you should not use a username that could easily be confused with that of an active contributor. Unless there start to be problems, I won't cause a fuss; since there doesn't seem to be any crossover between us I assume people won't get too confused. – iridescent 23:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
If there are any problems or troubles because of this, now or in the future, please let me know. Kingturtle (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude…

'You are not the censor of Wikipedia. Jimbo is perfectly capable of deleting it himself if he objects'. [30].

Doesn't sound that civil? Computerjoe's talk 21:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And your point is? This is not a brand new user who doesn't know the talk page guidelines, and as far as I'm concerned Jimbo's talkpage has no special status just because of who he is. Give that he'd replied to the comment minutes before – and he's (ahem) not been shy lately about removing comments he doesn't like – it's safe to say he was happy for this one to remain. – iridescent 21:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Regardless you must follow WP:CIVIL. Computerjoe's talk 21:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
What are you saying is uncivil? I don't see how it would be better to glob a big cut-and-paste from WP:TPG on his userpage. Firstly, WP:NOT#CENSORED is a core principle; secondly, I really cannot imagine even the most hardline members of the Civility Police being offended by "You are not the censor of Wikipedia. Jimbo is perfectly capable of deleting it himself if he objects". – iridescent 21:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well do you see at all how that's personal? Bleugh. (walks away from argument) Computerjoe's talk 22:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not take / or feel that the comment was uncivil, to exist here and edit you do need not to be too sensitive Its true I am not a brand new user (over 4 months now) and I do know that talk pages are private . I did feel however that your chiding me for deleting from Jimmy's page was a bit overboard. I felt you used the wiki laws to get what you wanted when there is already a given and active policy on jimmy's page that deletes happen there by other users . I felt he had seen it and left it up to the community and you know the rest. I am however happy with the exchange. Thankyou (Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

What is this community of which you speak, the one that gives any more of a toss what's posted to Jimbo's talk page than to any other? I certainly don't want to be associated with any such arse-licking community. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What a laugh. The civility police have gone completely barking mad. That "personal remark" comment is so far wide of the mark it's in a different postcode. It's equally a personal comment to say "I think you're an awesome wikipedian", but I don't think I've ever seen anyone object to that. Every editor ought to refresh themselves, or the younger ones read for the first time, Rudyard Kipling's "If":

... If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools ...
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much ...
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

SR Leader Class

Dear Iridescent, I have written a reply to your queries regarding the locomotive above. I hope it explains the 'why' part for you... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Have replied on the FAC, so that anyone else with a similar point doesn't need to duplicate the conversation; basically, I think that because the radical design is what makes it significant, it ought to be as prominent as possible. As I say there, it's certainly not something I'd oppose over either way. – iridescent 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I've added a bit extra to the leader paragraphs, but (as I have also replied on the FAC), I would have thought that the word 'experimental' amongst the first few words would amply set the scene. Rather than say it's a radical departure, it is better to leave the reader make his/her own mind up as to whether it is. To do this they'll have to read the article in its entirity, rather than just read the summary. Because there is still impassioned debate surrounding this locomotive in railway enthusiast circles, I am trying to achieve a more impartial account of the development and subsequent demise of the Leader project. I personally don't like using the words 'unique' or 'revolutionary' often, as its usually the case that 'one man's revolution is another man's general election' (just made that up, but it works!). But still, thanks for your evident interest, and I hope you've discovered that Britain's railway history is more diverse than it sometimes seems. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Never doubted it (the diversity, I mean) – there's one of mine on an equally peculiar experimental scheme a little further down the FAC page as I write this. The traditional Rocket → Mallard → nationalisation → diesel → Beeching → electrification → Eurostar "unbroken progress" narrative means people sometimes forget just how many false starts, things that seemed like good ideas at the time and just plain crackpot schemes there were along the way. Good luck with the FAC; I'll go over the article properly top-to-bottom when I get the chance (either tomorrow or the next day). – iridescent 22:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I know! However, it is frequently forgotten that Richard Trevithick's 'Penydarren' locomotive was by far more pioneering than Stephenson's 'Rocket'. Whilst a lot of people seem to dismiss it as a traction engine on rails, the fact that it still hauled a load of iron ore on rails at 5MPH in 1804 was something truly unprecedented. What was even more outstanding was that he never took out a patent on his work, therefore allowing free development of the steam locomotive. The Stephensons (both George and Robert) took advantage of this, and were essentially the great 'tinkerers' of the early 19th century railway scene, taking designs and ideas that were already circulating, and making them more efficient (ie. tubes in the boiler; I don't know how long it must take to heat a boiler up otherwise!). One could say Bulleid was the last of this pioneering tradition, but I suppose there was a need to 'tone down' some of his most outlandish suggestions. But a lot of the problem with the Leader was not necessarily the actual mechanics of it, but the surrounding politics (locomotive engineers are a very conservative bunch!). The lack of support under British Railways effectively doomed the project to failure, which, despite the cost involved, is a shame, as surely much more money was wasted on the first generation diesel motive power BR rushed into in the 1960s, not to mention that flying saucer patent. But I digress! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thought; the Leader article doesn't at the moment have any kind of legacy section. Were any of the innovations used in future locomotives? Did the failure of the Leader project accelerate the decision to abandon steam power network-wide? Did those networks that continued using steam, such as India and China, ever introduce locomotives based on the design? (The peat-burning Irish locomotive should probably have its own link, even if it's currently a redlink, as that surely warrants an article of its own at some point!) Incidentally, I haven't forgotten the FAC; the Tunnel Railway FAC has suddenly grown to almost three times the size of the article itself, so I've been sidetracked fixing numerous glitches and tweaks there. – iridescent 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've put a couple of ideas regarding the Tunnel Railway FAC you may wish to consider. I could *start* an article on CC1, the CIE peat-burning loco, but I have a backlog of other articles that are demanding my attention (you may be interested, they are the Maunsell 'Moguls', the N, N1, U and U1 classes. The N and U classes are already GA, and I am looking at getting the N1 and U1 to the same level at some stage. Once they are done, I want to go over the Q, W and Z classes again, also getting the latter to GA. The W class requires an image (it's a bit lonely, now being the only Maunsell design not to have its own image!) before going to GA.

As for the 'End of the Project' section on the Leader article, I'll have a go when I have the time next week. The answers to your questions above are actually 'no, no, no and no!', especially as some of these networks had a stud of Garratts which could do the job forward and reverse, and were relatively easy to maintain. As regards to BR, I suppose the design was a step too far for the conservative locomotive designers still in the employ of the nationalised railways, to the extent that no part of the Leader was perpetuated for use on the new 'Standards' being designed by Riddles. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has now reached FA, so I want to thank you for your input in improving the article. I've added a bit more concerning the legacy of the locomotive, so hopefully it now satisfies the majority of your observations. Once again, thank you! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! Good luck with the Moguls… – iridescent 14:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Egg-jarping

Beat that if you can. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

She can't! Iridescent's talkpage troll (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked the above account as a username violation, however, please let me know if this is some sort of alternate account or whathaveyou. Best, TNXMan 19:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Not me, probably either Shalom or Wiki Brah, but as long as they're limiting themselves to posturing like this there's no point blocking them – another will just pop up next time the autoblock wears off. – iridescent 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, there was this article about biscuits, that… Oh, wait. Yeah. – iridescent 19:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll zap them if I come across them. Hopefully, they'll get bored and wander off. TNXMan 19:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
If it's Wiki brah, he's been at it since 2005 with no sign of stopping, so don't hold your breath. – iridescent 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." TNXMan 19:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Amelia Fletcher

I just saw your comments on Amelia's article's talk page, and would like to invite you to contribute to Indiepopedia. Although your comments were a couple of years old, I doubt that your tastes have changed sufficiently for this to be entirely irrelevant. Hopefully see you there - it's looking a bit neglected at the moment. -- Bobyllib (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do – with the proviso that you have a license that's compatiable with GFDL. As you can see from my to-do list, there are quite a lot of 80s-90s indie articles I want to clear up on Wikipedia, so anything I wrote, I'd want to be able to use (appropriately neutral-point-of-view-ified) on Wikipedia itself as well. Iridescent 2 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hm... good point. There is absolutely no legal/license stuff on the site at all. Shit... work to do, evidently... -- Bobyllib (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Think I've sorted it. Have a look round the Important stuff category and see whether you agree. If so, I look forward to your contributions. -- Bobyllib (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me (although I don't pretend to know about these things). I'll try to come over at some point and at the very least get something started on Television Personalities – it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia that we only have a tiny stub full of BLP violations on one of the most significant figures in the development of the 80s sound (with no TVPs there'd be no Oasis, no Jesus & Mary Chain, no C86, probably no rediscovery of the Raincoats in America and hence no Nirvana, no Pearl Jam, no Tool…). I might be delayed as I'm currently ploughing through a series of boring articles on the transport infrastructure of south-east England.
Speaking of The Raincoats, while WP:OUTING editors on Wikipedia is A Bad Thing and obviously I can't endorse it, you might want to ask Shirley O (talk · contribs) if she wants to get involved. – iridescent 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be very active, but it's worth an ask I suppose. Thanks, and I look forward to your contribs. FYI I'm going to unwatch this page now as it's the busiest thing on my list. You know where my talk is... -- Bobyllib (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

About your ideas of what consensus is

Truer words never spoken. Even I've fallen into that trap, though, although it's often pre-emptive when what I'm doing will have an onslaught of mostly baseless opposition. Sceptre (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Group of people who agree with you = "The community"/"Consensus"
Group of people who disagree with you = "A cabal"/"Blatant sockpuppets"
I've seen more pointless conversations on Wikipedia than that one, but not for a good long time. At least Giano usually manages to offend someone before the blocks-and-protects start going in. – iridescent 20:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. Every conversation is pointless. And frankly, I think the developers should technically disable the Giano block button. More problems than it solves. Sceptre (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the block button should be removed from about half of the active administrators, and all of the inactive ones. Blocking longstanding users just causes problems, it's a solution for nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

moggy vid

I take it the admin's the black one :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Look on it as a feline inkblot test and project onto it either way – depends if you'd rather be the one running around screeching while someone tries to force you to do something you clearly have no interest in taking part in, or the one biting a complete stranger and tormenting them until they lash out, at which point you chase them away. (Just noticed that the caption describes the admin as "he" – now fixed to help the ambiguity.) – iridescent 22:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]

"Warning! The Wikipedia Review advises that this user is 'incapable of ever telling the truth'".

How can I be sure that this is the truth? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It was the definitely-not-mad User:Shalom Yechiel who said that, so I'm sure no right-thinking person could possibly disagree. – iridescent 15:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Sorry about this; slight misclick. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem! – iridescent 19:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Teenly

I am appalled that you have blocked this account per "standard practice". Please demonstrate where this standard pratice comes from, and in the meantime reverse your block. Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock. Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Proposition of Protection. Although it didn't reach a clear consensus, standard practice has been to block in the circumstances (see every account listed at WP:Deceased Wikipedians); it's no criticism of the editor, but purely a protective measure to prevent the accounts being potentially abused. That said, given that you object to it I've unblocked in this case. – iridescent 21:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the unblock, but I disagree there is consensus to block Wikipedians who have died - c.f The discussion] regarding Jeff. I have no issue with your good faith block of the account but I feel you claiming "standard procedure" was a little "optimistic" to say the least. It is, however, time to get a standard procedure for this (sadly) because as the project matures we will inevitably see more of these situations. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's generally an accepted practice to fully protect the user page, and I've also noticed that it's not unusual for a kind admint to add a nice hat to the top of the page. — Ched :  ?  02:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I also left a note on Pedro's talk page about a proposal. — Ched :  ?  06:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Richmond Bridge

Re:Richmond Bridge

The problem's not with the actual refernce; rather, it's the way it's been referenced. Rather than simply giving the title and the page number, it would be a lot better with the author, publisher, publication date, et cetera. Cheers. I'mperator 23:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the problem is that I'm unfamiliar with Harvard refs, as I don't use them. I'll let someone else review the hook. Cheers. I'mperator 23:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Imperator, please tell me this is a joke. Harvard referencing is the preferred way of citing references on Wikipedia. Go on over to WP:FAC and look at how the references in the articles there are formatted. – iridescent 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Meh...it's a joke? But seriously, I really don't create FAs; I merely make GAs and DYKs :P Cheers. I'mperator 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Btw, those usually don't use the Harvard reference style. Cheers. I'mperator 00:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries… FWIW, the relevant bit of the MOS is WP:Citing sources#Shortened footnotes, should you care. – iridescent 00:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Cheers. I'mperator 01:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Break: Tontines

After having been through the article I've got two questions:

  • "The tollhouses were demolished, replaced by seating in 1868, and investment income was used for maintenance of the bridge." What investment income? Is this talking about the money held in the tontine when the last investor died, which was presumably taken over by the local councils when they took over responsibility for the bridge?
  • "The majority of the money for the construction of the bridge was raised from the sale of 250 tontines at £100 each." This doesn't sound right to me. Surely the bridge-bulding scheme was set up as a tontine, into which investors paid £100 each?

There are probably too many pictures, but I'm sure you knew that anyway. Good luck with the GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

£800 per annum from the tolls was divided among the tontine holders; the remainder went into a maintenance fund, both to maintain the bridge and to be invested for maintenance when the tontine scheme expired. I tried to explain it as briefly as I could, as the details of funding are presumably going to be of no interest to 99% of readers. (Bridge House Estates, which maintains the five bridges into the City (including London & Tower Bridges) still runs on the same setup; the compound interest from the tolls of centuries ago is more than enough to pay for maintenance.)
As I understand it, the individual shares in a tontine scheme are themselves called "tontines". Our tontine article (itself blatantly ripped off from closely following the wording of this chapter from The Story of Life Insurance – with its talk of "tontine holders", "it became increasingly common to buy tontines for young children" etc – seems to support this usage. If you can think of a way to word it to make it less confusing, please do; 18th century pyramid schemes are not exactly my core area.
There are too many pictures, but the only obvious candidate for the chop is File:Richmond Bridge and riverside.jpg, which I'm loath to do as I inherited it from the previous version of the article and people tend to get very tetchy about having "their" images removed, especially one like this that has been on the article for years (On second thoughts, I've removed it; it's used in two other articles so it won't hurt the uploader's feelings). Of the remaining photos, there aren't any obvious ones to remove – the lamp-post one could go, I suppose, as a lamppost is visible in the "site of the tollbooth" one, but the gaslamps are such a distinctive feature that I wanted to draw attention to it. Everything else is either to illustrate a particular point, or (in the case of the Rowlandson painting) to show that it was considered significant enough in the period to warrant all these Great British Artists painting it. (The Rowlandson painting serves an additional purpose in illustrating the slightly different shape of the bridge before it was widened, but the difference is so minimal that I didn't want to go into it).
Thanks very much for cleaning it up; what do you think of this as a general template for the remaining bridges? – iridescent 15:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It think it looks good and could be a good template for the rest. I've got a book of early frauds somewhere, I'll try and look it out later,, and see how it uses the word "tontine". --Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
PS, I think it's worth including a bit about the funding, I certainly wouldn't have expected the toll money collected all those years to still be sufficient to pay for the bridge's maintenance anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done a bit of tweaking to try to explain the funding a bit more clearly. Regarding the revenue, remember that money was worth a lot more in those days; assuming the 1810 figure of £1300 revenue is accurate, then minus the £800 for the tontine members leaves £500; multiply that by 83 years and you've £41,500, which equals £4.4 million at today's prices, quite aside from the fact that the surplus was (presumably) invested in property, and buying land in south-east England immediately prior to the industrial revolution was in retrospect one of the best long-term investment opportunities of all time. (Europe, and England in particular, has a surprising number of things which ultimately trace back to the revenue from 18th and 19th century infrastructure projects – aside from the £500 million Bridge House has stashed away, Scout Moor Wind Farm ultimately traces back to the tolls from the Manchester Ship Canal, large swathes of Kent are owned by Rochester Bridge, and of course our old friend Artizans Company, under its new Sun Life Properties name, has its finger in pies from Canadian skyscrapers to Heath Robinson's house). – iridescent 17:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Those, I think, are the fascinating snippets of history, but back to Richmond. I've done some checking, and a tontine is a kind of association that investors buy shares in. In the case of Richmond Bridge, the tontine's name was—wait for it—the Richmond-Bridge Tontine. I bet you'd never have guessed that, eh? I also found this frontispiece to the list of subscribers to the tontine, here. It seems to somewhat contradict what the article says, in that £20,000 was raised, not £25,000, from 200 investors, not 250. Which makes more sense, as the scheme was offering a return of 4% pa for each share, which is where the £800 comes from. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid going into detailed technical explanations of the tontine setup; £20000 was raised in the initial tontine for the construction of the bridge, to be paid by tolls after which the bridge would become free; a second tontine raised £5000 to finish it off when it ran over budget, but didn't affect when the bridge became toll-free. (See p320 of Richmond and its inhabitants from the olden time, my main source for information on the funding scheme). I thought the whole "technically there were two tontines, but the commissioners had committed to making the bridge toll-free after the expiry of the first even though the second one went on a bit longer" explanation would be too confusing, given that (as I said) most of those reading it will not care two hoots about the mechanisms of funding. Although I do realise that I forgot to add the £200 from the second tontine to the £800 payout. I've added all this in a footnote to try to stop the text becoming a general discussion of dubious fundraising schemes. – iridescent 22:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
No wonder tontines were the subject of so many detective novels. All you had to do to get rich was to find the other subscribers and kill them—not saying that's what happened in this case of course. Personally I think the funding is interesting, and I'd be inclined to include it, but it's your article. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I've slightly expanded it to explain why there were two tontines; I'm not sure how much more it can really be expanded before it gets confusing. Regarding tontines as a motive for murder, you obviously never saw this fine piece of "in popular culture" which will no doubt be gracing FAC at some point. – iridescent 23:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I've hacked about with that tontine bit again, and I'm happy with it now. Hopefully you are as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I've sent it off to GAC; we'll see what they have to say about it. (As a possible "Thames Bridges in London" FT, I want to rack up as many green and yellow dots as possible in the early stages to hopefully minimise the necessity of taking these monstrosities all the way to FA to make up the numbers.) – iridescent 00:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Richmond Bridge, London

No problem, its GA now.Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That was quick! Be warned that there will be either 32 or 21 more like it on the way (depending on whether I include the rail and foot bridges). (I'm totally shocked that eight years on, one of the London Thames crossings (albeit probably the most obscure) is still a redlink.) – iridescent 20:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
NB – you mention that the fact that it's listed ought to be referenced; it already is (currently ref 20); because Images of England is, despite the odd name, English Heritage's own database of listed buildings, it's accepted on Wikipedia that an IoE listing is verification of listing status (hence the existence of the {{IoE}} template). – iridescent 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, did not "see" that last sentence. Comment now struck out of GA/1.Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all. IoE is one of those sites like Revolutionary Players that, despite being a government site, looks so un-governmental that it's hard to believe it's an acceptable source unless you're familiar with the background to it. – iridescent 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Richmond Bridge, London

Updated DYK query On April 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richmond Bridge, London, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Shubinator (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

RTÉ News: Six One

Hi Iri
I just noticed MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-RTÉ News: Six One blink in and out of existance. Domas disabled the old per-article editnotices in article space (and some others) a while ago, so they now have to be loaded differently, and have to be placed (for your case) at Template:Editnotices/RTÉ News: Six One.
Just FYI, not sure if you still want it
Cheers, Amalthea 09:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, I realised after I'd created it that the old article-space editnotices had gone out of use. On reflection, I've decided to keep clear of that particular saga – because I was involved in the events leading up to this trainwreck I try to steer well clear of any editwar relating to Ireland. – iridescent 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Oo7565

Articles for deletion/Amy (1998 film)

He's done it yet again. And this time it is flagrant. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

SNOWed closed. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
He's not edited since that final warning, so hopefully it had an effect. As every title starts with "A", I get the feeling he's been going through Special:Allpages from the top nominating everything he's not heard of for deletion. (The warnings in his talk archive make frightening reading – he seems to have been warned about this repeatedly for two years straight, including an almost identical warning from some n00b called User:Iridescenti two years ago to the day. – iridescent 15:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Oo7565

Please see the two notes I have added to that page. The problems here are much more pervasive than just these PRODs, or even just deletion processes in general. This seems to include the creation of copyvio articles in response to requests at AfC. Is it time to take this to AN/I to warn others who may encounter him , and perhaps ask for a ban? Everything he ever did needs to be re-examined. DGG (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm gradually working through the deleted contributions, to check for anything else that's been deleted inappropriately, and opening procedural AFD discussions where the deletion is dubious – as the numbers of people able to view the deleted revisions is limited, I thought that seemed the most pressing. I completely agree; this kind of thing would be acceptable from a new user who doesn't quite understand the deletion processes, but from someone who's be on Wikipedia for more than two years there's no excuse. As mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul-Razzak Al-Adwani, the number of people blindly "delete per nom" voting – and the admins who are deleting the uncontested prods without checking – are just as concerning. The number of warnings in his talk archive about this behaviour is astounding.
On an unrelated note, if you're wondering why there are so many marginal London articles being sent to AFD by me, it's not that I've suddenly developed a grudge against {{London-stub}} as a category, but my trying to clear out Category:Unknown-importance London-related articles, which is currently on 2,600 articles and rising, and many of which are highly dubious. On the first pass, I'm only dealing with the potentially problematic ones – as opposed to the "dubious notability" and "unexpandable stub" articles – in an effort not to flood AFD. – iridescent 12:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


  1. It's the admins deleting those prods that worries me the most, also. We need a stronger statement that prods should not be deleted without actual checking. Myself, I delete only those ones I am competent to check. I try to patrol prods in advance of the closing, but I cannot do it properly & efficiently outside my own fields of interest, & do not examine the others. Changing to 7 days like AfD would help here.
  2. I hope the change to 7 days will help dilute the effect of AfD pile-ons. There's no solution to AfD except increased participation.
  3. I agree it's helpful to work on subject related groups at AfD, because the necessary research is often similar.
  4. Criminal bios here are in general a real problem area, because so many have been added by a few people using low quality sources and not bothering to look for better, even though in very many cases they are available. The place to work on them may not be AfD. DGG (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually only nominated four criminal biographies – it looks like more, because yesterday's AFD log is so swamped with my procedural nominations of the borderline-notability cases from Oo7565's prodding spree (e.g., those where there could have been a legitimate case for deletion, even though the prod reason was spurious). I can see where you're coming from regarding the Jamaican criminals – who may have been significant cases within their communities even if the offences seem relatively minor – but still think the Brindle family one is so problematic that deletion is the only option. While I generally tend towards the "keep unless there's a good reason to delete" view, I think that with the more problematic biographies (and criminals by definition fall into that group) "delete until you can recreate a valid version" can be the best option. – iridescent 19:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User Oo7565

I disagree with your "final warning" of that user for placing Prods. I have not had time to review all the articles, but the Prods on some are perfectly appropriate. Let's see how the AFDs turn out. Your warning also seemed way over the top and bordering on a personal attack. Edison (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Have already replied on your talk, but will crosspost here as well – the reason it's a "last warning" is because he's had more than two years worth of warnings about his behaviour already (including one from me exactly two years ago, I notice) – it's not the "sudden escalation without warning" that it looks like. Remember, the ones you're seeing at AFD are only the marginal cases that weren't either obvious keeps or obvious deletes. – iridescent 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


look i am sorry for being a pain but i am trying to help wikipedia does that mean that a bad editor no does that mean i gone crazy for prods and afd's latey/ over the past years yes admit i gone crazy and deserved to be yelled at me and warn about the actions i have done but i guess thats the only way i can learn id doing something at first then try to get better which i personally that i was improveing in this area but i guess i was gravely wrong in this area and i know this might be hard to do but i try anyway so i get on knees and bag to forgivess for the past actions i have done. i guess i need to start fresh and maybe start articles myself to help wikipedia and do so minor clean up on articles and work on articles. then in the far future when i fully understand the guidelines on wikipedia which i need to review again as i must be missing something then possably i may be able to go back to prod and afd but who knows if i get that far so again please forgive me. i ask you for this request because you have been on of the few editors who have truly been trying to help me out and i hope you can help me out in the future if you deside too but if you do not help me out in the future i totally understand that as well bye friend Oo7565 (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

as if you can give any advise on any other minor leagues i can work on on here besides i said about please tell me.Oo7565 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you claim his prods were unacceptabe on such additional articles as Aika (album). The article says it is an album, and not much more. Where are the multiple independent and reliable sources to show it is notable, or the references to show it was on the charts in some country? There are no refs for the album or the singer, despite it being tagged for a long time. Abdullah Nabeel Al Ahmad played on an "under 17" sport team. The article does not say he played in the highest level of amateur competition or on a pro team, so I have doubts the article would survive AFD. Why exactly is a Prod unacceptable? These article seem to fall under the applicable deletion criteria. Edison (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oo7565: I know this looks like ganging up on you, but it's not meant to be. I'd suggest you may be better off staying clear of the "process" side of Wikipedia unless you come across articles that obviously need to be deleted, and ask someone else for a second opinion when you come across an article that you think ought to be deleted. Wikipedia's notability criteria are very confusing and sometimes contradictory, and it's quite hard to understand all of them; quite often, even articles that seem totally useless will still meet our notability standards. While obviously I'm not going to dictate what you do, I'd suggest that instead of working all the time on the "process" side of things, you find an article on a subject that interests you and work on improving that – aside from anything else, working on articles can help you understand how hard it actually is to write on Wikipedia, and make it easier to see the difference between an article that can be improved and an article that ought to be deleted.
Edison: To take your specific examples, Aika (album) is an official release by an artist who's considered notable by Wikipedia standards (this machine translation of a Finnish-language biography shows that the album in question – translated as "Time" – reached the top 10, while at least one of his albums reached gold-disc sales). While it may make sense to merge small articles like this with the "parent" article on the artist, deletion outright is not appropriate (there's absolutely no requirement for an album to have charted to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia, anyway). Abdullah Nabeel Al Ahmad is unsourced, but if he's made professional first team appearances for Kazma Sporting Club (a Kuwaiti Premier League club) then he meets the "fully professional club at the national level" criteria. I'd urge you to check the full history here; this is not an isolated incident but part of a long term series of problems with indiscriminate deletion-tagging, equally indiscriminate removal of deletion tags, uploading of copyright violations, and creation of unsourced stub articles that has been going on for over two years. – iridescent 16:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Haven't we deleted articles about U.S. minor league baseball players who are also "professional?" Why does he get a break?Edison (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The relevant baseball notability guideline for current players is "played in a top-level national league"; the relevant part of the football guideline is "played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure" (not necessarily the top national level). In any case, as the Kuwaiti Premier League is the top-level national league, this particular example would meet either set of guidelines. – iridescent 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The baseball guideline excludes, in general, fully professional minor league players. We should not apply an easier criterion to players in others sports or from other couintries. Edison (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me?

Is it just me, or do you also feel like you're sinking in a sea of juvenile shit? Please Mr Jimbo Sir, make everything I don't like go away. Giano has it just about right; if Randy from Boise is upset then all the stops need to be pulled out to make sure that Randy's half-assed ideas are properly represented, even when the proper place for them is the bin.

Is the whole project ultimately hopeless? I'm beginning to have serious doubts. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say hopeless; the problem in the case of the userboxes is that you have two roughly equal groups (the East Coast liberals and Europeans on the one side, and the Midwest/Southern conservatives and the children on the other), who can both make a legitimate case, so there's no obvious right answer. FWIW, I'm coming round to Jimbo's view on this particular squabble – since nothing's gained by having it up, and it's potentially causing problems for people, the sensible thing to do is remove it. (There was a similar issue re User:Law's signature a few days ago, and I think his "I didn't realise it was causing problems; I'll change it" response was about right). Regarding things like the Great Pseudoscience debate, the main problem is accommodating two completely incompatiable views, not helped by the fact that so many people on both sides have accumulated so many enemies that people are opposing their positions on principle. Giano would probably strangle me for saying it, but in some circumstances we could actually do with someone – be it Jimbo or Arbcom – being more dictatorial, and on some of the controversial subjects (evolution, animal rights, cold fusion, homeopathy…) just turning round and saying "right, this position is going to be our party line". Yes, it would mean jettisoning NPOV, but sometimes NPOV breaks down. – iridescent 12:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've already said elsewhere that with respect to the recent incident I would almost certainly have compromised and altered my signature, but I'm concerned at the pressure being exerted on that editor. Persuasion fine, but not bullying, threats of blocks, protection, and all the rest of what went on. I'm sure you're right in your liberals vs conservatives analysis, but as a European liberal I'd be very worried about Jimbo, or even Arbcom, laying down the law on any of the more controversial subjects, for at least two reasons. First I've no confidence they'd get it "right", but more importantly once the principle is established it's certain to get abused down the line. Once you believe it's OK to burn, let's say, books on creationism, it's a small step to burning any other books the baying crowd doesn't like. On the other hand you're right about NPOV, and the cold dead hand of "consensus" is too often a synonym for status quo ... --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the whole "equal weight" issue taken to an extreme and there's no right answer; when NPOV mandates that all "reasonable" views are covered, it becomes a fight about what constitutes "reasonable". Situations like Bruce Castle, where you have a pet theory on one side vs every single source on the other, aren't a problem – but how do we handle something like Cold Fusion (to pick a not-at-all-random example), where Abd and his crew can produce reams of material to "prove" that every research laboratory in the world has it wrong? The moral of this story is, if anyone complains about something, particularly in userspace, change it unless you can demonstrate a reason to keep it – "I know my rights" just makes you look like an idiot. – iridescent 21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: your comments on your userpage

I'm curious, why do you consider IRC "one of the worst things ever to happen to Wikipedia."?

Great design btw. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 02:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

IRC encourages small cliques to form, who "game" discussions by bulk-voting to give a false impression of "consensus" (go on over to WP:RFA and look at how often the same block of editors will all vote the same way, simultaneously); discuss issues behind editors backs so there's no way the editor in question knows they're being discussed and no way they can reply; plan responses in advance to posting on-wiki, thus presenting Wikipedia with a fait accompli. Wikipedia should be policed from within Wikipedia; yes, I appreciate that we can't stop people talking to each other, but we shouldn't be actively encouraging it. With a few exceptions such as the RecentChanges IRC feed that powers Huggle, or the live unblock request feed, there's no legitimate use for IRC on Wikipedia that I can see; the wretched #wikipedia-en-admins connect in particular has absolutely no legitimate purpose and is used purely as a chat room and a place for Wikipedia's bullies to cook up blocks against people they don't like. – iridescent 12:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like you're blaming the convenience of IRC on other editors' cabal tendencies, if they're going to vote like that or discuss issues behind others' backs then they would probably do so anyway even without IRC, they would find other ways. Plus afaik the majority of admins don't go on IRC anyways. What do you think of WikiMeetups where a group of editors are all in the same room in front of a computer discussing ways to improve Wikipedia, do you assume good faith or suspect them of forming a cabal? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how you think "the majority of admins don't use IRC" is a defense of #wikipedia-en-admins. No, they don't, and that's all the more reason to shut it down; not only is it a "private club" channel, in clear breach of the spirit of the much-parroted WP:NBD, but it's a small clique within the admin corps organising block votes. Which is what I said originally. If the best defense anyone can make for it is "if we got rid of it they'd abuse another system instead" – which is what all the arguments in favor of it boil down to – then I'd suggest it's not worth keeping.
I think WikiMeetups are an idea which serves no useful purpose other than as a social club; if someone wants to meet people with an interest in Wikipedia, fine (although I can't see why anyone would want to); if someone has a suggestion to improve Wikipedia, then they should share it with those who will be affected with it, not cook up a deal with their drinking buddies to rally a block vote. Besides, someone who would consider this a sensible use of an afternoon is not someone I'd want to be in the same room as. In any case, Wikipedia has 10,000 editors and "geographic area" is no indication of any kind of shared interest (the people I'd consider myself most closely aligned to live in Brisbane, California, Maidstone, Manchester, Minnesota, North Carolina and Sicily). – iridescent 12:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Heheh, thanks for the link, gave me some insight. ;) -- OlEnglish (Talk) 03:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom harrison

Thank you for responding to my comment regarding the Gatekeeper known as "Tom Harrisson." I don't dare link his name as it tends to go right to the baseball player guy. You responded with a "You told" or something of that nature. Are you employed by Wiki or an affiliate? You indicated that you lurk about changing things. How did you come across my comment regarding the gatekeeper Tom harrisson, and who is that guy? His IP is in Canada, but that doesn't mean much. A better version of Wikiscanner is just about up, and will help in that realm.peterbadgely [[[User:Peterbadgely|Peterbadgely]] (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)]

  1. "Wiki" is a type of software, not a company. Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation; they have 23–27 employees (depending on how you count them), and I am definitely not one of them.
  2. I have no idea what "You indicated that you lurk about changing things" means. This is Wikipedia; everyone changes things.
  3. I came across your comment exactly the same way everyone comes across comments; I read it on his talkpage.
  4. Anything he wants you to know about him, will be on his userpage or his talkpage, or ask if you want to know more. Turning up on his talkpage posting random ranting isn't likely to get him to open up to you.
  5. I have no idea what "a better version of Wikiscanner is just about up" is supposed to mean. Wikiscanner is a tool for analysing IP edit patterns, it won't do you the slightest good in stalking a logged-on user account. If you want to find out what articles someone primarily works on, there's no need for fancy software; just click here. – iridescent 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So far it appears that anyone CAN NOT edit Wikipedia. It appears that certain individuals lurk around particular subject matter, only to delete changes, whether or not the changes improve the article. In fact many very important articles have been "blocked" from editing. Now I can not censor or block an article from being edited. Who can? Well, this Harrisson character can."peterbadgely [[Peterbadgely (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)]]

Well, let's see what your entire contribution history consists of:
And that's it. Seriously, go read the long explanation you've already been given about why you're being reverted. This isn't a, well, conspiracy; you're adding material to Conspiracy theory which should be in Conspiracy (political). – iridescent 22:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I knew this would be your route. Fair enough. However, Mr. Harrison did undo the Steven Jones link as part of his italic job. I reentered it and asked for an explanation if it was changed again. As far as the conspiracy business goes--You have not answered my question regarding blocking the editing capabilities of particular pages. That is not a capability granted to all. How does one acquire this pseudo power. By acquiring this blocking power, one can prevent perfectly sound information from entering this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is where the Reptilian Fathers of the Golden Cabal grant the powers of life and death over lesser mortals the ability to block accounts and protect pages is granted. Might I point out that (a) nobody's blocked you and (b) nobody's protected either page from editing, so I'm not entirely sure what your issue is? (No, that is not a request for an explanation.) – iridescent 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks and question

Thanks for the advice at Jimbo's page. I have another question that you should be able to answer. If I want to delete a subpage of my user or my user talk page, is there a really fast way to do it? I am not trying to delete any of my subpages yet, but I wanted to know. Thanks. Note: I'm watching this page. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't even a really slow way to do it, not unless you're a administrator. Only editors of administrator rank and above are considered worthy enough to be allowed to delete pages. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have believed for a long time that ordinary users should be able to delete pages in their own userspace, and any other page that only they had made edits to. Majorly talk 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The quickest way for a non-admin to do it is to put {{db-u1}} at the top of the page. It won't delete it instantly, but it should vanish within minutes. And Majorly, yes, I agree with you, with the sole exception of talk pages/archives (although some mechanism would have to be put in place to stop Jeremy & pals moving articles to their userspace and then deleting them). – iridescent 23:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jennatalia used in "the media"

For your reading pleasure. لennavecia 20:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The sexual tension left me exhausted. --Moni3 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)--Moni3 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Good god – Shankbone and Finkelstein arguing about each others' ethics? Like a "who was the most talented Spice Girl" contest. I'm guessing that's the three of us ruled out of his "ever-shrinking group who still take him seriously" high-score table. – iridescent 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your signature

I thought your signature looked better when it was larger. In my opinion, it does not look as good as it did because it is now smaller than the date stamp. -- IRP ☎ 23:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My signature changes with every post; the only thing that stays constant is the colors. – iridescent 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting. How do you get your signature to change with every post? Is it in your preferences or is it a user script? -- IRP ☎ 00:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
A {{subst:rand}} in the raw sig preferences, occasionally varied with cut-and-pastes from a batch of "extra" sigs to shake up the mix; the ones used in the "main" rotation are periodically switched round (when I remember) to make it look like they're being selected from a wider selection than they actually are. – ιριδίζων 00:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I Bet You They Won't Play This Song on the Radio

Hi, Iridescent. Could I ask you to please restore "I Bet You They Won't Play This Song on the Radio"? I seem to recall the article had some notability, and even if not, I'd at least like to try to salvage it. Powers T 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Be aware that in its current state it's a sitting duck for anyone who cares to come along and AFD it. – iridescent 18:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I fixed it up a bit for you. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

haven't been here in a while. just thought i'd drop in. you should change 

showSharedIPNotice              :       true,

to false. looks silly under a block, imo =) –xeno talk 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The only block I've made in the last month is 131.109.7.5 (talk), but that looks formatted correctly to me. – iridescent 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
yea, that config option will omit the line: If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings., which is silly for blocks (imo). personal preference though. –xeno talk 19:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it makes sense leaving that in – people don't always read the soup of templates at the top of pages but just scroll down to the most recent message, and (as this is a schoolblock with account creation still enabled) it tells them what they can do if they still want to make an edit. – iridescent 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
tru 'nuff. –xeno talk 19:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD Re-opened

As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

preston england temple

Thanks for trying to help. However, WP LDS movement is a child WP of WP Christianity, and a coordinator for WP Christianity has given me permission to switch all WP LDS movement templates with WP Christianity templates. The reason I put in a request at WP England was because the Preston England Temple is located in England. The question is: Should WP England cover the temple? Thanks for helping. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I say there, technically yes, as it's in an area (Lancashire) with no "area" project of its own, but realistically it will be tagged as low-importance, and it's unlikely to lead to any improvement to the article (as it will just be one of the 8551 England stub articles, and those with an interest in the subject will already be watching WP:LDS) – the London England Temple is a different case, as WP:SURREY covers quite a small geographical area so it's likely that members will live nearby and be able to contribute photographs, visit the visitor centre etc. – iridescent 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Further to the above, you're just tagging them as {{ChristianityWikiProject}} – you need to tag them {{ChristianityWikiProject|latter-day-saint-movement=yes}}, otherwise they just go into a generic "Christian themes" category. – iridescent 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiThanks
WikiThanks
Thanks for fixing the templates. I'm still learning. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For future reference. When you add a WP Christianity template to a talk page, remember to delete the class & importance parts unless you already know them. If you don't, the importance is listed as NA which means it is not an article. Thanks for helping with the templates. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_9"