User talk:Iridescent

An administrator "assuming good faith" with an editor with whom they have disagreed.

Archives [Jan 06‑Oct 07] [Nov 07‑May 08] [Jun 08] [Jul‑Aug 08] [Aug‑Sep 08] [Sep‑Nov 08] [Nov‑Dec 08] [Jan 09] [Feb‑Apr 09] [May‑Jul 09] [Jul‑Oct 09] [Oct 09‑Apr 10] [May‑Jul 10] [Aug‑Oct 10] [Nov 10‑Apr 11] [May 11‑Apr 13] [May 13‑Apr 15] [May‑Aug 15] [Sep 15‑Jan 16] [Feb‑Apr 16] [May‑Jul 16] [Aug‑Sep 16] [Oct‑Nov 16] [Dec 16‑Jan 17] [Feb‑May 17] [Jun‑Oct 17] [Nov 17‑Jan 18] [Feb‑Jul 18] [Jul‑Oct 18] [Nov‑Dec 18] [Jan 19] [Feb‑Apr 19] [May‑Jun 19] [Jul 19] [Aug‑Oct 19] [Nov 19‑Jan 20] [Feb‑Mar 20] [Apr‑Jul 20] [Aug‑Oct 20] [Nov‑Dec 20] [Jan 21] [Jan‑Mar 21] [Apr‑May 21] [Jun‑Aug 21] [Sep‑Dec 21] [Jan 22] [Feb‑Mar 22] [Apr‑Jul 22] [Aug‑Nov 22] [Dec 22‑]

Catching up on multiple

Take a few days off and the WikiWorld Keeps Turning, but catching up is hard !! Rolling everything into one:

Sandy's argument here is (or appears to me to be) that you ignore prose faults in articles by your friends, which you'd oppose for in articles by other people, and I was pointing out that I don't think that's the case.

Yes, that was my argument, and I do think that was the case (I've been reading Tony's FAC commentary for four years, and that comment was atypical, and led to that most ill-prepared FAC being carried until others rewrote and fixed the article), and it followed right on ResMar and Tony1 having a disagreement with me over the direction The Signpost has been taking lately. It would be a shame for Tony1's prose analyses at FAC to be compromised by a Signpost COI.

The Signpost in general is heading in the wrong direction in mutiple areas: feeding the reward culture, feeding the Essjay phenom, biased reporting on ArbCom, poor writing and fact checking, others I can't remember.

On the current crop of arb candidates:

Judging from the current candidate list, we're about to elect-by-default an Arbcom which will make the 2007 committee pale into insignificance ...

and

... we're currently in the very odd situation in which it's easier to pass an Arbcom election—and get every user right—than to pass RFA. (If Malleus, Wehwalt, Sandy or myself stood at RFA at present we'd be crucified; all four of us would probably scrape through an Arbcom election,

versus Tony's

Therefore, the notion that more opposed than supported a candidate should not be interpreted as an absence of confidence.

Most alarming, and a lot of this predicament is because of the short-sightedness of last year's RFC. Yes, because of the changes forced upon ArbCom by last year's RFC, we are now in a most disturbing position of possibly have an ArbCom made up of candidates who wouldn't pass RFA, and to whom at least half of us probably wouldn't entrust the kinds of sensitive, confidential info the arbs must deal with. Last year's RFC removed discretion from Jimbo to handle unforeseen circumstances such as this year's particularly bad crop. I do hope there will be a move to restore discretion to Jimbo to at minimum reduce the size of the Committee to around 12 and avoid appointing anyone who gets less than 60% approval just to fill up the Committee to 18.

On the dearth of admins like the old-style JzG; we're passing so many admins who only know vandal-whacking by tools that we can't expect them to know how to actually handle, ummmm ... things like content. They only know how to vandal whack and police civility because they've never engaged content.

And then there's the whole strange discussion above from Wehwalt, where he continues his trend of referring to Natalee Holloway as a dead horse, and worrying about the amazon.com reviews [written] under my real name. It escapes me why he's concerned about amazon.com reviews written under his real name (which was revealed on WikiReview and is easily obtained by googling his wiki name) that reveal his POV on Natalee Holloway, when a simple google search on Wehwalt Holloway reveals far worse things that he's written, that reveal his long-standing POV on those articles and far more disgusting commentary than comparing Holloway to a dead horse, like stating that her mother never left the "world's oldest profession" or wishing she would follow her daughter into the sea.

Wehwalt, you have such an entrenched pro-Aruba, anti-Twitty POV (that I have always pointed out is present on that article) and you've been active on message boards and amazon.com advocating that POV for so long that you shouldn't even be touching the topic, but troubling things about your character are revealed in some of the things you write, not only here on Wiki, but also off-Wiki. I hope your other articles don't contain the sort of POV that Holloway does-- I dare say most other editors might not see that POV if they haven't spent as much time in Aruba as I have. I can't understand why you were so proud to feature a Twitty-bashing article on Wiki's mainpage on her dead daughter's birthday; again, it seems to me you must not have children of your own, because such insensitivity astounds. Don't you think someone else should be adminning that article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding Tony, I honestly don't see a problem. Everyone has a duff FAC review in their history at some point; I enthusiastically supported Miss Moppet, and these characters—none of whom are pushovers—all need to do a bit of looking-down-at-their-shoes.
• The RFC is only binding in Wikipedia theory. There's no question that the WMF trustees have ultimate authority both in law and in practice; if Jimbo and co genuinely believe that the new Arbcom are seriously problematic, they not only have the right but have the legal obligation under company and charity law to step in.
• Regarding Natalee Holloway, quite honestly I don't know or care who's right. I'd never heard of her until this thread; since I speak neither Dutch nor Spanish, there's no reasonable way I'll have an opinion on it. I agree that the "dead horse" comment looked horribly insensitive, but I'm willing to chalk that up to an engage-mouth-before-putting-brain-in-gear attempt at a lame joke. – iridescent 19:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• The insensitivity continues, and considering his POV, I don't think Wehwalt should be adminning that article; he's written far worse things than the "dead horse" commentary, and he was all puffed up to get an anti-Twitty article on Wiki's mainpage on her dead daughter's birthday. It was my most embarassing day as a Wikipedian, and Wehwalt brags about it off-Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy is free to continue her rants. I will not revive the argument, nor will I reply to her attempt to do so. If my or her conduct becomes an issue anyplace, in that case I will reply as I see fit. End of story.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone will have to explain to me what makes this comment particularly insensitive. If the recently found bone had proven to be hers, that discovery would be enough to treat her as dead (we currently still treat her as a living person, and apply WP:BLP standards), but would not conclusively point to "murdered" (as opposed to accidental death or dead by manslaughter). SandyGeorgia's portrayal of a fairly NPOV article as "pro-Aruban" has always bothered me. The way that I decide it must be fairly neutral is that Arubans think it's too harsh on Aruba, Americans think it's too easy on Aruba, JvdS fans think it's too rough on him, and others think it leaves his guilt in too much doubt. Since it pisses everyone off, it must be fairly neutral. It's quite possible to believe that Beth Holloway capitalized on her daughter's disappearance for personal profit and still write a reasonably neutral article.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is: what you believe is not important, it is what you write in the article. Appreciate your support, Kww. --Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is now a FAC

Hi, I am the same editor who wrote Pedro II of Brazil and I've nominated another article, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, as a FAC. It is about a 19th century Brazilian statesman and is closely related to Pedro II's life. If you enjoyed the Emperor's article I believe you might enjoy this one. Thus, I'd like to see your opinion on whether you would support or oppose its nomination. The link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1 --Lecen (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Miss Moppet above, I'll try to have a look but I won't make any promises at all. The next couple of weeks are likely to be extremely busy. – iridescent 16:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have the time, don't bother. Thank you very much for answering back. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield at FAC again

I'm also begging your attention at FAC. I have renominated Albert Stanley again. Karanacs acknowledged that the last closure was probably premature, so hopefully it will attract sufficient attention this time around.

As you supported it last time, might I ask you to repeat your support this time around. --DavidCane (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks. --DavidCane (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Already did… You might want to ask some of the people who are familiar with English topics at FAC level but don't usually pay any attention to the train articles (Malleus and Parrot of Doom spring to mind) to have a look as well, to see if there's anything over-technical or not obvious to people not already familiar with UERL. – iridescent 00:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Arb

I voted for you, silly goose. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You done gone crazy. I voted for you and 2 others. Best of luck, you are quite possibly the only sane person that I've had any level of communication with on wiki. Being the lone voice of sanity in any groupthink environment may not end well, be sure to stiffen your drink ;) Keeper | 76 22:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am soooooo offended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, what I meant to say is "the only sane person running for arb", therefore making oneself crazy. Catch-22 is a good read, I recommend it. :-) Keeper | 76 03:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can probably guess, I opposed you, but I doubt it'll be me tipping the balance. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 22:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll call your oppose and raise you a support. I think that it's quite likely Iridescent will be one of the best arbitrators wikipedia ever had. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up too high. Even if I get through (I'll get a lot of supports, but I think I'll have the third-highest number of opposes, and Arbcom elections work in terms of percentages), neither me nor Giano are likely to be the man on a white horse some people seem to be treating us as. I have a limited amount of time and am not intending to spend an unhealthy proportion of it reading interminable arguments, or trying to change the unchangeable single-handed; I imagine I'll be far more Martin Bell than Tommy Sheridan. – iridescent 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was that man on the white horse, once upon a time.... The process of evolving from freshfaced newcomer to being perceived as the establishment feels, frankly, strange. Now off to read those two articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The journey from outsider to insider is a lot shorter than most people think. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. I know all the arguments against it, but I still think Arbcom should either have one-year terms, or a single two-year term after which the candidate is banned from standing, for precisely that reason. – iridescent 17:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no great hopes of anything here at wikipedia. In fact I think there's a distinct possibility that Jimbo would refuse to ratify you anyway, and especially Giano, even if you both got landslides.

He'll ratify me, I imagine; I've never been one of the Toxic Personalities, as far as I know. Regarding Giano, I doubt Jimmy Wales would refuse to ratify him (after the 2007 fiasco, where Giano and Raul 'lost' despite having the second- and third-highest support levels of all the candidates, all played out against the backdrop of one of the more embarrassing incidents in Wikipedia's history, I can't imagine he wants to go through that again). Giano, I imagine, would be a lot more diligent and fair than his opposers suspect. – iridescent 18:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Geeeez, Raul lost with 65% support, and we now have arbs appointed with 59% support-- something is really amiss in this new WP:CREEPy arb election structure. I, too, have no doubt that Giano would arbitrate fairly; it's a matter of clue, pride and principle, and he has those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I voted for you too. I expect to be repaid with gold taken straight from Fort Knox. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

British Welfare State

In an effort to put some historical context into the workhouse article, a long, long-term project, I've been reading an excellent book by Derek Fraser, The Evolution of the British Welfare State. Unfortunately I've got to return it to the library imminently, as there's a queue of reservation requests for it, but it reminded me of just how poor wikipedia's coverage is of what must be some of the most socially significant legislation ever passed. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this? I've been doing a lot of digging recently on the early Industrial Revolution and am finding the same thing; the number of redlinks (let alone stubs) on key figures and world-importance buildings is remarkable. – iridescent 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm thinking of. That article is a disgrace. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The redlinks of Childwall Hall and Childwall Abbey are my current bugbears. It's not as if the Manchester–Merseyside conurbation has so many pre-industrial historic country houses they can afford to pick-and-choose which get included. – iridescent 22:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Manchester project is but a fluttering flame, all energy spent. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, your members do insist on getting themselves blocked with startling regularity. The Manchester project is about to get larger by one extremely large article, if that's any consolation. – iridescent 14:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is that, but it's just a coincidence I'm sure. Anyway, what's the large article? Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The behemoth currently taking shape here. – iridescent 15:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's looking very nice indeed. So many firsts in there. Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Just checking the official version

Re your comment here, in the light of the current plagiarism/copyright witch hunt, is it not the case that copy-pasting into mainspace would always be deprecated because it could hide the derivative nature of an apparently original piece of work? Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe no, provided the only person to work on the sandbox version of the article is yourself. The issue with cut-and-paste moves isn't plagiarism from external sources, but attribution (that by cut-and-paste moving, you're claiming credit as far as the GFDL is concerned for the edits of everyone who ever worked on the article). Certainly I've always worked in userspace and pasted chunks into the mainspace as they're finished, and I know Giano and Moni both work the same way; since all three of us have plenty of people watching for us to trip up, I can't believe nobody would have complained if there was anything to complain about. – iridescent 23:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that those are two different issues though (claiming attribution and derivative work), but as I hardly ever work in sandboxes it's not something that affects me anyway. I was just curious. 23:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it a lot easier. That way, as well as not worrying about edit conflicts, one can throw in uncited facts that you know are true and will look up later, assorted images you think might be useful but haven't decided which to use, notes to yourself, blocks of {{lorem ipsum}} text, and so on, without having to worry about it. The history is preserved somewhere wherever you do it, so it's not like it's 'hiding' anything. Plus, it stops the history being overwhelmed with a zillion minor edits as you correct all your spelling mistakes and shuffle blocks of text about. – iridescent 00:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done both (moves and copy-paste) for draft articles in user space. I think the problem with moving is that unless someone examines the history carefully, it gives the false impression that the article existed in mainspace, being read by the world-at-large, and was written there as well (also, it gives the impression that you were editing in mainspace on such-and-such a date, when in fact you were editing in userspace). If you look at some of the atrocious formatting and spellings and content of some early drafts while in userspace, you can understand why some would not want those edits moved into mainspace. On the other hand, you might invite others to look at the article, and then they might edit it, and then you are stuck, and have to move it. Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the consistency here. On the one hand if there was ever a plagiarism/copyright violation in an article's history then that article is considered to be a derivative work, and it has to be purged back to the version before the violation, no matter what it looks like now. Whereas if the plagiarism/copyright violation takes place in userspace it's OK. Doesn't make any sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking in general terms for any userspace draft. I agree that having an editing history helps show how an article has been constructed, but valid and non-valid edits can be made in large dumps. It just makes it harder to work out what has come from where if dumped all at once. Consider articles written off-wiki and then added in one edit. Same problem, so the problem is independent of the practice of userspace drafts. Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC) For the record, I think the practice of purging revisions following a copyvio is overdone when lots of intervening edits are made to other parts of the article - losing the attribution to the subsequent alterations to the non-copyvio bits seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater (and yes, I know the whole article is considered one work, but that's not the reality of how articles are read or edited).

A bit of admin help...

Here one then I remove and now its back. I don't wanna get nasty or get my butt blocked, but really... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Although it's bending policy, since the editor in question is adding defamatory content about a living person I've put a 24 hour semiprotection on it. Hopefully that will resolve the issue. It's probably better if you (or Dana or Montanabw) do the talking to the editor, rather than me, as what I know about Quarter Horses could fit on a postage stamp so I won't necessarily know what's legitimate and what isn't. – iridescent 23:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be legit (actually probably is), but the problem is it's totally unpublished and thus it's hearsay. Someone on vandal/recent changes patrol came through and plopped something on the talk page that will hopefully point them towards the policies on sourcing and stuff. It's not that the horse info is wrong ... it's that it's unpublished and defamatory, which makes it impossible to prove. It fails WP:V, but on these little watched pages it's really hard to avoid looking like I'm claiming ownership rather than just protecting the pillars. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Brad and Wehwalt are both (presumably) still watching this talkpage. Given that it's a potential legal issue, one of them is probably better placed to advise what's appropriate. – iridescent 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this addition can be treated as a straightforward violation of the BLP policy (it contains unsourced negative information about a living person), and impermissible for that reason, without getting into any legal issues. Removal of clear BLP violations is, as you know, not subject to 3RR, nor to censure from any reasonable administrator. I've also left a note for the IP. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I find legal issues, in general, are not a good first resort, therefore I agree with Brad. Use Wikipolicies.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Medieval bishops don't generally run into BLP issues, so while I'm all for keeping unsourced BLPs out of the 'pedia ... it's not a problem area I'm familiar with. Thanks for the note, Brad, my head is pounding with a headache tonight and I find Im not in a diplomatic mood. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither am I, actually, and a read of this page would make it clear why, especially since diplomacy seems to result in further abuse. Shall we burn down the wiki? I have an aspirin here somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocks

Given some of your answers to Arbcom questions on blocks of regular contributors, perhaps you'll be interested to see how a block was administered to me earlier this evening, here. Reason: I removed a word from an AN/I thread title after it had been archived. No warning from the blocking admin prior to the block, and the admin invokes an essay as part of the reason for the block. I'm not asking for anything from you (for one thing, I'm obviously unblocked now), and I accept that there's a possibility you will conclude the block was justified despite your Arbcom answers (though I hope not) -- again, just as a matter of possible interest. regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching that unfold on Scott's talkpage all night. Although I certainly wouldn't have blocked for it, since you were posting to ANI (which is horribly clogged at the best of times) with no apparent effort to talk to the admin in question first, and reverted closure when the ANI thread was (rightly) archived, I can understand why they did. Both you and Scott seem to have a battleground mentality going on here. I'm not at all sure why you've come to my talkpage about this, though; this is a dispute in which I have no involvement at all. (19th century social engineering schemes doesn't tend to have many BLP issues.) – iridescent 00:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 30, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 30, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Brill Tramway was a six-mile (10 km) rail line in rural Buckinghamshire, England. It was privately built in 1871 by the 3rd Duke of Buckingham as a horse tram line to help transport goods between his lands around Wotton House and the national rail network. Lobbying from the nearby town of Brill led to its extension to Brill railway station and conversion to passenger use in early 1872. Although locomotives were bought, the line had been designed for horses and trains travelled at average speed of only 4 miles per hour (6.4 km/h). In the 1880s, the Duke of Buckingham planned to upgrade the route to main line standards and extend the line to Oxford, and in anticipation, the line was named the Oxford & Aylesbury Tramroad. The extension to Oxford was never built. Instead, the Brill Tramway became part of London's Metropolitan Railway. In 1933 the Metropolitan Railway became the Metropolitan Line of London Transport, and thus the Brill Tramway became part of the London Underground, despite being 40 miles (65 km) from London and not underground. In 1935 the London Transport management closed the Brill Tramway and the infrastructure was dismantled and sold. Little trace remains other than the former junction station at Quainton Road, now the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre. (more...)

License tagging for File:Norwich Market proposed 'Pod' redesign.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Norwich Market proposed 'Pod' redesign.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What was incomplete about that? If anything that FUR went well above-and-beyond in covering the rationale. – iridescent 16:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you need another template. Ucucha 16:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

…and they say we have too many arbitrary rules… – iridescent 16:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Query

They say every man has his price. If I vote for you, will you buy me a beer? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever I reply here, someone will no doubt complain that it's inappropriate. In the interests of preventing this talkpage from ballooning to the 120kb it reached a couple of weeks ago, diplomatically abstain. – iridescent 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Boris: In the interests of circumventing preventing any appearance of impropriety: if you vote for Iridescent, *I'll* buy you the beer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

December Metro

. Simply south (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)